|
Post by eclipse on Jun 23, 2013 20:50:32 GMT 9.5
OK, I was wondering how this was all playing out. Of course peak oil has not gone away, and with the sheer volumes of oil involved the peak could only be postponed a few years by shale oil. The Guardian lists new concerns for oil supply moving beyond 2015. Another report was put out by the Energy Policy Forum, and authored by former Wall Street analyst Deborah Rogers – now an adviser to the US Department of the Interior’s Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative. Rogers warns that the interplay of geological constraints and financial exuberance are creating an unsustainable bubble. Her report shows that shale oil and gas reserves have been:
“… overestimated by a minimum of 100% and by as much as 400-500% by operators according to actual well production data filed in various states… Shale oil wells are following the same steep decline rates and poor recovery efficiency observed in shale gas wells.” www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/21/shale-gas-peak-oil-economic-crisis
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 24, 2013 9:28:53 GMT 9.5
It'd be nice if peak oil were real because then we'd have a motivation to do something about it.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Jun 24, 2013 10:12:42 GMT 9.5
I no longer consider the Guardian to be a reasonable source on energy policy thanks to its blatant rigging of matters in favour of wind and solar.
(Assuming nameplate capacity is a useful measure for comparing energy generation technologies and then claiming that a typical nuclear power plant has an output of a few hundred megawatts).
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Jun 24, 2013 13:22:49 GMT 9.5
I no longer consider the Guardian to be a reasonable source on energy policy thanks to its blatant rigging of matters in favour of wind and solar. (Assuming nameplate capacity is a useful measure for comparing energy generation technologies and then claiming that a typical nuclear power plant has an output of a few hundred megawatts). I don't think you can write off a whole paper because, quite often on these matters, the journalists are not science reporters. They should be I know. But at least the Guardian is independent and not beholden to some particular Multinational Corporation bent on a Denialist worldview. I tend to like their reporting, for the most part. It's just that wind & solar are so likable... so politically correct... so 'now'. I'd even like some Solar PV on my roof to help pay my bills and take a little demand off the afternoon peak. But, unlike many others in Australia, I have no delusions that renewables are going to supply my baseload power needs overnight.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 25, 2013 11:03:19 GMT 9.5
I don't think you can write off a whole paper because, quite often on these matters, the journalists are not science reporters. If they don't have some scientific knowledge and worldview they shouldn't be writing on such topics. They should be I know. But at least the Guardian is independent and not beholden to some particular Multinational Corporation bent on a Denialist worldview. They aren't independent of their advertisers.
|
|
peterc
Thermal Neutron
Posts: 30
|
Post by peterc on Jun 25, 2013 14:22:45 GMT 9.5
eclipse " But at least the Guardian is independent and not beholden to some particular Multinational Corporation ..........."
The Guardian gets a large amount of public sector advertising, and has a large readership of people dependent on public money. This accounts for its notorious left-wing slant.
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Jun 25, 2013 15:56:11 GMT 9.5
Shale gas is just a source of methane, just like associated gas, coal bed methane and natural gas from wells. It has taken on coal for power plants as well as vehicles fuel and is being consumed at a high rate. Full extent of availability of shale gas outside the US is still unclear. China is stated to have even more than the US. Russians are still busy with their conventional natural gas. There may be gas hydrates to follow. Nuclear power is stuck with used fuel and development of fast reactors to burn it is now required. The US and France appear to be tired out and the development continues in Russia, China and India.
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Jun 25, 2013 19:12:39 GMT 9.5
eclipse " But at least the Guardian is independent and not beholden to some particular Multinational Corporation ..........." The Guardian gets a large amount of public sector advertising, and has a large readership of people dependent on public money. This accounts for its notorious left-wing slant. I happen to like that left-wing slant that, say, accepts sciencey-things like climate change. Imagine that! What, they don't have enough fossil fuel funding to 'balance' their reporting? (Sometimes 'balance' is actually unbalanced because sometimes some things are just true, and no oxygen should be given to the other side of the so-called 'argument'.) Sorry, you may not be recommending certain notorious right-wing 'news' sources like Fox News, but I've had a gut-ful of denialist claptrap in the last week and actually prefer the sane and balanced reporting from the Guardian. It's nice to read a paper that actually respects climate scientists, and doesn't call their $100K a year salaries a 'gravy train' when Exxon's CEO earns $100K a DAY! (Who's got the real incentive to twist the truth? )
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Jun 25, 2013 22:12:45 GMT 9.5
And I have a left wing slant and am not dependant on significant public funding, so yeah
|
|
|
Post by trag on Jun 26, 2013 2:04:09 GMT 9.5
I happen to like that left-wing slant that, say, accepts sciencey-things like climate change. Imagine that! But do they really accept sciencey things? Or do they just happen to accept climate change? If they accept climate change, but then espouse wind and solar as the solution and ignore or disparage nuclear, then they are not sciencey. They're just some folks who happened to land on the science side of one question by accident, because it happens to accord with their dogma, not because they are applying the scientific method. Even a blind squirrel publishes a peer reviewed paper occasionally.
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Jun 26, 2013 7:56:51 GMT 9.5
I happen to like that left-wing slant that, say, accepts sciencey-things like climate change. Imagine that! But do they really accept sciencey things? Or do they just happen to accept climate change? If they accept climate change, but then espouse wind and solar as the solution and ignore or disparage nuclear, then they are not sciencey. They're just some folks who happened to land on the science side of one question by accident, because it happens to accord with their dogma, not because they are applying the scientific method. Even a blind squirrel publishes a peer reviewed paper occasionally. Being an independent paper they publish a variety of opinions, but at least have 2 of the most outspoken nuclear advocates writing for them.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Jun 26, 2013 9:31:18 GMT 9.5
They have a rabidly anti nuclear, anti GM, pro-renewable "science" editor who arranges for every pro nuclear/GM piece to be answered by half a dozen alarmist ones or with several pieces that go on and on about how Germany is a great example that should be emulated.
They also regularly report that things are carcinogenic when they have not been so recognised by any competent scientific authority.
They even attacked David Mackay for being pro nuclear. It is essentially the publishing arm of the Green Party.
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Jun 26, 2013 13:17:39 GMT 9.5
They have a rabidly anti nuclear, anti GM, pro-renewable "science" editor who arranges for every pro nuclear/GM piece to be answered by half a dozen alarmist ones or with several pieces that go on and on about how Germany is a great example that should be emulated. They also regularly report that things are carcinogenic when they have not been so recognised by any competent scientific authority. They even attacked David Mackay for being pro nuclear. It is essentially the publishing arm of the Green Party. Have you got a source that documents any of these assertions?
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Jun 26, 2013 18:51:44 GMT 9.5
Have you got a source that documents any of these assertions? The source is the Guardian website itself. Take a look at the articles posted in the environmental sections. Damian Carrington was also one of those people that scarified Mark Lynas for daring to change his position on nuclear power.
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Jun 26, 2013 21:45:59 GMT 9.5
Have you got a source that documents any of these assertions? The source is the Guardian website itself. Take a look at the articles posted in the environmental sections. Damian Carrington was also one of those people that scarified Mark Lynas for daring to change his position on nuclear power. The way you asserted a 1:6 ratio for to against nuclear power, I thought you had access to a media critic citing a statistically analysed sample of X number of years and y number of energy related articles to produce that ratio. You know, just as climate papers have been statistically sampled by Naomi Oreskes to come up with the 97% for[/b] rule. But if this is just your hunch, then say so. Some of the best, most layman accessible articles I've read on the nuclear v renewables debate have come from the Guardian. Mark and George know how to break it down for the layman: their knowledge is not hidden behind layers of arcane technobabble and algebra that some experts seem to think is self evident. Trust me as someone who has a background in the humanities: it's not. Those figures need breathing into a language that the general population can understand. I'd like to see a better paper that has known pro-nuclear advocates writing as passionately or convincingly. On the other hand, as a general rule I've observed from my own anecdotal evidence that those news outlets / papers / media giants that might be for nuclear power in the States tend to also be anti-climate. They're right wing you see, and in the Republican brain (generally speaking) the dogma of the extremely laissez-faire marketplace has far more sway than something as mundane as the laws of physics and chemistry. Show me a paper that is convinced on the science of climate change and yet still has authors passionately arguing a rethink for nuclear power, and I'll be amazed.
|
|
|
Post by quokka on Jun 26, 2013 23:13:06 GMT 9.5
eclipse,
I think it's pretty much undeniable that the environment section of the Guardian follows the Greens' political line on energy, GM and other stuff. Some of the stuff is pretty awful.
However whether that makes it "left wing" is another matter, as I consider that to be something of a mis-characterization of at least some of the Greens. Nothing left wing about Amory Lovins, for example. You can see it in the narrative of distributed generation - the notion that some ensemble of small shop keepers of electricity generation will deliver us from climate change and many other evils as well. Importantly, that infrastructure is privately owned and not everybody gets to play at being shop keeper.
A socialist perspective would assert that reliable electricity is a human right and the infrastructure should be collectively owned. In practice that means publicly owned. Some old school conservatives may also take such as view.
These really are radically different perspectives. The "water melons" may not be nearly as ripe inside as some would have us believe.
Having said my bit on this, I think it much better to just stay away from all this left-right stuff. Focus on the verifiable facts and policy that must flow from them.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 30, 2013 7:56:32 GMT 9.5
As I understand it, shale gas wells deplete more than 80% (ie less than 20% of initial production) in 5-10 years or so. Such decline rates are universal. That makes shale gas not just another bubble, but a dangerous hole we're digging into. As time goes by, more and more wells have to be drilled, it's fighting a fight that we'll lose exponentially. It's like having a credit card debt and getting more and more credit cards just to pay the interest. Downward spiral of misery.
With these depletion rates, shale gas isn't transitional. Imagine if you build a 1000 MWe nuclear powerplant and after 5 years it's only producing 200 MWe. Pretty devastating case against such an energy source.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Jun 30, 2013 8:33:32 GMT 9.5
How fast the well declines is not really that important I think.
Its more about how much gas you extract from the wells in that time, if you have a continuous well drilling programme then you can keep production stable, without requiring "exponential" increases in drilling.
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Jun 30, 2013 9:43:28 GMT 9.5
How fast the well declines is not really that important I think. Its more about how much gas you extract from the wells in that time, if you have a continuous well drilling programme then you can keep production stable, without requiring "exponential" increases in drilling. Then their whole country is ultimately doomed to polluted waterways, flaming taps, drilling infrastructure everywhere and they'll still be facing an energy cliff soon. Quite a bullish article on shale oil ultimately raises alarm bells about that fine line between a Resource (stuff that's there) and a Reserve (stuff that's easy and cheap to produce). Trouble is, as these sweet spots are developed the companies have to move down the continuum of sweetness, and profitability. That costs more. Analysts at Bernstein Research wrote last month that “cost inflation continues to rise, and as commodity prices are ‘capped’ by rising supply, net income margins in the sector are now at their lowest in a decade. This is not sustainable. Either prices must rise or costs must fall.” And this is from that 'greenie think tank' Forbes magazine! www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/06/13/why-americas-shale-oil-boom-could-end-sooner-than-you-think/
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 30, 2013 23:49:42 GMT 9.5
How fast the well declines is not really that important I think. Its more about how much gas you extract from the wells in that time, if you have a continuous well drilling programme then you can keep production stable, without requiring "exponential" increases in drilling. If the wells decline fast, then the reservoir as a whole will also decline fast. Reservoirs are finite in size, and the amount of gas per liter of reservoir for shale gas is actually quite small. It's nothing compared to oil (not to mention nuclear fuels, even ordinary dirt has orders of magnitudes more energy value per liter of dirt than shale formations have gas).
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 16, 2019 15:56:10 GMT 9.5
Chevron and Exxon Say They Can Turn Around the Failed Finances of Fracking Industry Justin Makulka 2019 Apr 18 DeSmog
This opinion piece doubts that. I am to gather that the fracking industry, both oil and gas, is going to continue to consume capital with a negative return on investment.
|
|