fraccing

What Our Remaining Oil Supplies Should Be For

sastyk — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:21:40 +0000

What Our Remaining Oil Supplies Should Be For

It is pretty simple - if oil resources are finite, how do you gauge the value of different oil uses? Ultimately, a use of oil should meet one of two simple criteria:

1. Does it reduce long term oil usage, as required by the reality of finite-ness?

2. Does it do something that nothing but oil can do?

Robert Rapier takes President Obama's reference to using oil to get off oil and expands on it in a recent column, getting right to the point with a potentially viable compromise:

So I propose a compromise where we open up some of the more promising areas to exploration, and then earmark some or all of the royalties to funding fossil fuel alternatives. Leases on federal lands should also be structured so that governments share in any windfall if oil prices skyrocket. One of the problems with windfall profits taxes is that they discourage investment in projects with marginal economics. But oil companies don’t plan projects with an expectation of $200/barrel oil. A lease that is structured to give governments an increasing portion of revenues at much higher oil prices will be unlikely to impact project economics for an oil company because the possibility of such high prices will be heavily discounted.

With the revenues, we could fund expansion of public transportation. We could provide a tax credit of $1,000 for each person who purchases a car that gets over 45 mpg. We could use these oil revenues to fund wind and solar power, freeing up natural gas that could then be used to displace petroleum in compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles.

This should be a compromise with attractive elements for both sides. If we don’t agree to such a compromise, then what’s going to happen is that as prices continue to rise, so will the pressure to drill, and governments will eventually cave in to this pressure. But by failing to earmark the money for alternatives, it will just postpone the inevitable day of reckoning for oil supplies.

So, I endorse this suggestion from the President, as long as it is structured in the right way. It can’t be simply a new tax on oil companies that funnels money into alternatives, because that approach will have unintended consequences. By structuring it in the way I have suggested here, it has a good chance of 1). Gaining broad political support, and 2). Achieving the desired goals.

One of the reasons my blog doesn't spend huge amounts of time opposing various environmentally troublesome, high input energy extraction plans - natural gas fracking, shale oil fracking, digging in various hard to reach areas, etc... etc... is this. First, I think there are lot of people who focus on that, and I'm better off using my resources to help people NEED less energy - that the anti-fracking or anti- drill-baby-drill movements are way light on people who actually will help you how to figure out a lifestyle that isn't dependent on those things.

Second, I'm a realist - as I've always said, we would shovel live baby harp seals into our furnaces by hand, while convincing ourselves that live baby harp seals enjoy it, as long as we feel ourselves without alternatives - the moment we say BUT I NEED IT we are addicts, jonesing for a fix and we'll do anything to keep warm, keep the lights on, keep the plate full, whatever. In the great scheme of things, I think digging in ANWR and deepwater drilling, or local fracking suck, but the truth is that what is most urgently required is not to NEED them. Rapier gets right to the point.

sastyk Thu, 02/28/2013 - 13:21

Tags

fraccing

Peak Oil

I vote for WD-40

Thought your answer was going to be "Plastics!"

Which is actually better, I think. It's been a mainstay of the science fiction world for decades "my god, this planet is so primitive they BURN hydrocarbons; instead of making durable infrastructure with them..."

It may not be that obvious these days; since many plastic products are now designed to break/wear out; so you'll have to buy a new one. But in the early days of plastics; some were accidentally made well- nearly immortal and eternally useful. And yes, some of those companies did go broke, because of that. Maybe we could learn?

Remaining oil supplies should be used to 1) decommission all nuclear power plants, and 2) address and solve the nuclear waste issue. But this doesn't appear likely to happen.

Sorry. I cannot get past Reagan's "Government isn't the solution to the problem, government *is* the problem."

Every dollar in the American economy represents the energy consumption of someone, often bunches of someones. Each dollar diverted to the government retains that energy-expended burden,and acquires new burdens as government employees are employed, support families, travel from home to work, to meetings, etc. Call it carbon footprint, call it energy burden -- government expenditures can never lead to a balanced budget, nor to a sustainable energy basis. Too many industries depend on the continued *cheap energy* driven flow of government dollars to allow real change.

What I would like to see government do is to revamp zoning laws and provide tax preference to people living within 1 1/2 miles of work and shopping -- that is, a walking lifestyle. I think some changes might be in order, regarding number of people, children and adult, sharing a residence. Building codes that favor energy-neutral homes, homes that are naturally at a near-comfortable temperature most of the year -- as has been done in Europe.

@Brad K -

At some level everything is subsidized, though. And the dollars that represent energy consumption that go to large corporations also retain the same burdens you posit. The question is where those government dollars go.

Also government dollars aren't separate from the rest of the economy. That is, they get spent. Again. that's not much different from what happens anyway, but the difference is I get a vote on where they get spent. I don't get that vote from GE or Amazon or whomever.

Your idea about building codes is certainly a good one -- there are subsidies like that in place already in many cities, BTW, and back in the 70s there was a whole program to replace the old coal/oil-burning boilers that needed the oil truck to come by with more efficient gas units. (My own home was the beneficiary of such; as a kid I was shocked that the gas furnace was 1/8 the size of the old boiler).

And to promote public transportation (for instance) is going to require government involvement and dollars. Fact is, most places in the US have crappy public transit. It wouldn't take a lot to fix it, but it would require a reordering of priorities.

Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin recently turned down federal money to link Milwaukee and Madison with the rail system; on that alone I'd vote him out of office. (See above about getting a say). But linking those two cities with the hi-speed rail link would mean that you could ditch the use of at least one airport. (It would mean the trip from O'Hare could be cut to a couple of hours to Madison, maybe less, and less than an hour to Milwaukee. You could have the airport in Milwaukee serve Madison). Again: priorities.

And none of this requires particularly high technology, either. The rail trip from North Carolina to NYC takes longer now than it did in 1948. I'm not talking hi-speed rail, I'm talking about technology we had 50+ years ago. And the one from Chicago to NYC is the same way (look up the old timetable sometime, and compare it with the one now). That's just embarrassing to me as an American, and there's no reason for it.

Which gets to the "need less energy" bit. There is that, and there are lots of ways to do that. I don't think most people are going to want to live like the Amish, but you can reduce the energy use of a lot of what we do.

"Also government dollars aren’t separate from the rest of the economy. That is, they get spent. Again. that’s not much different from what happens anyway, but the difference is I get a vote on where they get spent"

And if it is government spending, it comes back.

The government grant is spent, accruing tax payments back to the government.

That money (less the tax) gets spent and THAT accrues tax payments back to the government.

And that money (less the tax) gets spent...

Eventually, as long as the money is spent in the country, every penny comes back to the government.

This is something neo-con pundits refuse to see and why austerity measures, despite causing triple or soon quadruple dips, is being mandated.

"Thought your answer was going to be “Plastics!”"

There are organic sources of polymers that work just as well for almost all plastics.

Shale Hype

sastyk — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:09:48 +0000

Shale Hype

Kurt Cobb has a great article at Resource Insights about why I think the best case against fraccing in my area isn't the water, it is the boom and bust cycle - with a predominance of bust. The last thing rural PA or upstate NY need is another short term boom and bust cycle that leaves them with a lot of played out gas heads and environmental consequences. Or worse, just a plain old bust.

But, in its early release of the Annual Energy Outlook for 2012, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) cut its estimate of technically recoverable resources of U.S. shale gas from 827 tcf to 482 tcf. (That says little about whether all those resources will be economically recoverable.) Much of the decline in the EIA estimate comes from a downgrading of the Marcellus Shale, by far the largest of the U.S. shale gas deposits spanning vast areas of New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia as well as sections of Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. The downgrade resulted from extensive drilling results now available as the rush to extract gas from the Marcellus Shale accelerates. The EIA cut its estimated technically recoverable resources from 410 tcf to 141 tcf. This estimate remains well in excess of last year's estimate from the U.S. Geological Survey which put those resources at 84 tcf.

Despite the revisions, the American Petroleum Institute (API), the oil and gas industry's trade lobby, finds the 100-year figure so irresistibly round that API resists reducing it to match the official estimates in its recent ad campaign (see "One Million Jobs"). Why let the facts get in the way of good ad copy?

What ought to be acutely troubling is that the history of revisions to oil and gas resources has heretofore been one of increases. For the first time, we are now seeing not just downward revisions in estimated natural gas resources, but drastic downward revisions. That should tell us that the era of unlimited horizons for fossil fuels has come to a close. All the advanced technology that was supposed to bring unending plenty in the form of fossil fuels is now giving us better estimates of what will be available, namely, not nearly so much as we thought.

Cobb goes on to mention the recent failed attempts at finding profitable shale gas in Poland and Hungary. Just as we wildly overstate the potential of most oil fields at discovery, we do the same with natural gas, and that leaves us in a precarious place. As we've seen recently our public officials read the same news stories the rest of us do - and no one ever publishes the headline - "Radical downgrade in extractable resources anticipated" - even when it is entirely true.

We have systematically misled just about everyone who doesn't read the raw data carefully to expect a future of abundant fossil fuels. The mismatch of expectation and reality, however, is likely to be enormously painful.

Sharon

sastyk Mon, 02/06/2012 - 05:09

Categories

Technology

This: We have systematically misled just about everyone who doesn't read the raw data carefully to expect a future of abundant fossil fuels.

Just again today, I was in a regional Maine forum trying to explain a bit of the basics of Peak Oil to a person that thinks that the only reason Maine people are out in the cold is because we are being held hostage to the "environazis", etc. on drilling.

The NYT ran an article a few days back on how Maine is suffering so greatly due to its cold climate and undo reliance on heating oil. Over 75% of Maine homes heat with oil, but the percentage is dropping fairly rapidly as one might imagine. The story was a rather sad one detailing a retired couple that was begging for heating oil while trying to make do on $1200 per month.

Here's the link: "http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/maine-resident-struggles-to-heat-h…", though including it usually means my comment is doomed to moderation.

"We have systematically misled just about everyone who doesn't read the raw data carefully to expect a future of abundant fossil fuels."

True - but this is coupled with those who continually repeat the lie that more drilling in the US and elsewhere will cure all problems forever, and that disagreeing brands one as - well, name any of the common oogie-boogie groups used by denialists to label others.

Good to see some honesty from the Luddites. The desperate attempts to portray opposition to progress as "environmental" & find some possible environmental argument against shale are over. It is now simply that shale gas is getting America out of recession, despite the best efforts of its President, and that that simply must be prevented in case people like being better off.

Good to seed neil is still not letting facts get in the way of dogma. some things never change.

This comment is going to make Neil's day, but I think that there really is something to be said for Ludditism.

Several months ago I was reading a book The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future by a guy named Martin Ford. While I can't really say the book was terribly well written, I do recommend it as a very important read nevertheless. In it, Martin Ford goes on exploring what our society and economy might look like as we continue automating and mechanizing so many occupations. He goes well beyond the obvious things such as manufacturing and farming - onto automating even things such as lawyer work like writing legal briefings and filing court papers - most easily done by advanced computer software now. His work, in conjunction with some of the data Stuart Staniford has put forth on his blog, demonstrate that the percentage of people employed, full time, especially adult men, has been drifting ever downward for some time as we automate so many things. The thing is, there is no reason for automation and mechanization to stop any time soon. Indeed, a great many people will find their occupations obsoleted out from underneath them. Of course, it's always been assumed that the economy would have an endless supply of new, more rewarding, and better paying jobs to replace the ones automation and mechanization took away, but what if that's not the case?

Not that this has anything to do with your comment above Neil, the latter of course being nothing but off the mark demagoguery. I see no proof that shale gas is getting America out of recession as I see no improving economy around me at all to begin with. Nor do I think it useful to simply say that the president and others wish nothing more than to make people worse off. I think *many* unflattering things about this president, but thinking that he wishes to simply block progress for the hell of it, wouldn't be one of those them.

"Nor do I think it useful to simply say that the president and others wish nothing more than to make people worse off. I think *many* unflattering things about this president, but thinking that he wishes to simply block progress for the hell of it, wouldn't be one of them."

Hardly make my day but it is refereshing to see some members of the Luddite movement being honest enough not to hide under other colours.

I disagree with you about the merits of make-work projects. I note, however, that having written of the nobility of preventing progress you take umbrage at the suggestion that the President might do as you wish. The contradiction should be obvious.

Whether you have noticed there is no factual doubt that the US economy is now back into growth, albeit very slow growth compared to the world average.This position - that facts don't matter if you choose not to notice them, sometimes known as "triumph of the will" - is a necessary fou8ndation for the entire anti-technology movement.

I am pleased that, though Sharon regularly shows signs of it she still has enough liberal principle to keep it under control. Unlike all the other "scienceblogs" sites, which are opposed to all the principles freedom depends on.

Neil,

You and I may agree or disagree, but of one thing you can be sure, I would never try to hide my views.

This position - that facts don't matter if you choose not to notice them, sometimes known as "triumph of the will" - is a necessary fou8ndation for the entire anti-technology movement.

I note, however, that having written of the nobility of preventing progress you take umbrage at the suggestion that the President might do as you wish.

Talisman Terry the Fracosaurus will Help You Get Used to that Gas Well!

sastyk — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 10:46:24 +0000

Talisman Terry the Fracosaurus will Help You Get Used to that Gas Well!

Apparently Talisman Energy is taking the case for fraccing to kids in an adorable coloring book. As World Oil News reports:

Following Talisman Terry, children are simplistically introduced to the complex issues of unconventional drilling, pipeline
construction and land reclamation. Presented in before, during and after drilling images, the gas drilling process is introduced as
a gentle engagement with a natural environment. Post-drilling, a fountain-like rainbow appears in the distance and an eagle
soars over an innocuous-looking wellhead.

Of course it does! And the well goes on producing for a thousand years, too! Gotta get the kids some of these coloring books!

Oh, and there's an awesome Colbert bit here! Hat tip to T for pointing this out!

Sharon

sastyk Wed, 07/20/2011 - 06:46