OT – Energy policy. Norway as the example.

[briansd1]

temeculaguy, so assuming that you are correct, why should we not economize just in case you are wrong?

The risk of being wrong and being left high and dry are much greater.

It’s like saving for retirement and for future generations, I believe.

Wasteful spending of oil, a finite resource (how finite is debatable, but finite for sure) is much worse than overspending of money.

Money is a concept and we can always make more. As long as money circulates efficiently and facilitates economic activity, then we are all good.

With a little effort, and without lowering our standards of living, we can make oil last a lot longer. So why blow the oil we have?

Plus there is the issue of climate change. And even if you don’t believe in climate change there’s the problem of the pollution that we breathe in.

[Arraya]

You really can’t count shale as oil. It’s a mining expedition that takes a lot of energy. There is a huge difference between the virgin oil fields of old that you would get back 100 barrels of oil for on barrel of energy expended to todays shale where a lot of it is at like 2 or 3 to 1 barrel. Some places it just takes to much energy and is not feasible. So that is a different world right there.

The other thing is it’s all about FLOW RATE. It doesn’t really matter how much is theoretically and tantalizingly in the ground. It’s a what rates you can produce it at. The world won’t ever produce more oil than it is producing now. The declines in old giant fields are too big. Some of the new shale plays will slow the overall decline but does not change the big picture that much.

Regarding the natural gas plays

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/2011/07/july-8-2011-get-ready-for-north.html

We have been witnessing just such a dynamic playing out in the North American natural gas market in recent years, with a particular focus on the shale gas that is touted as being the key to energy independence. The hype over a supposed 100 year supply of cheap, clean energy has been pervasive. Vast sums of money have been committed as a result, despite very little critical evaluation of the real world prospects, at least in the public domain.

Thankfully there have been a few sober voices in the wilderness who were prepared to challenge the received wisdom, most notably Arthur Berman (whose superb work can be found at The Oil Drum) and Canadian gas expert David Hughes.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Arraya: You make a good, but incomplete point, in that you left out the part about the rapidly evolving and developing technology, specifically for the extraction of shale. I know for a fact that BP Whiting (in Indiana) is spending $5Bn on what amounts to a brand new refinery on site.

EMRE (ExxonMobil Research & Engineering) has been instrumental in pushing new extraction engineering techniques and systems into place as well.

I’m not a rah-rah oil guy, but I do work with a lot of their engineers (on blast mitigation) and I can tell you that they’re serious about the engineering and the technology. There is huge money here, as TG pointed out, and that will drive the innovation.

[Anonymous]

I remember my uncle did research for Gulf Oil back in the 1970s. There was a big push in research to do oil extraction from shale back then. He eventually got laid off as interest waned (I was a kid but I remember this because of my mom worrying about my uncle – she does that.)

There are a few potential big jackpots in fossil fuels out there: shale, coal sands, natural gas (“hydrofracking”), etc. – and we’ve known about them for a long time.

The challenge is to extract the stuff without using more energy than it yields.

It’s hard to know how close we are; we’ve been trying for decades without much luck, but then again it only takes one big breakthrough.

It is also hard to know how big the potential is. There is a huge incentive to exaggerate the benefits in order to get access to investment capital, government grants, subsidies, etc.

Of course there is similar potential for some “green” energy also, especially solar. It wouldn’t take much improvement in a just few solar technologies to have a huge payoff. But we’ve been working on that for decades as well.

So if we keep trying we’ll make progress, but it is incredibly hard to predict how much and when. And, of course, there’s lots of debate about where we should focus our investment and efforts.

But we can’t really develop an energy policy around hope, even if it is a hope founded in some reality. For now we will have to assume that any of these breakthroughs are very distant.

But one thing is for sure: We will NEVER meet our energy needs by simply “drilling” more at home.

[Arraya]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Arraya: You make a good, but incomplete point, in that you left out the part about the rapidly evolving and developing technology, specifically for the extraction of shale. I know for a fact that BP Whiting (in Indiana) is spending $5Bn on what amounts to a brand new refinery on site.

EMRE (ExxonMobil Research & Engineering) has been instrumental in pushing new extraction engineering techniques and systems into place as well.

I’m not a rah-rah oil guy, but I do work with a lot of their engineers (on blast mitigation) and I can tell you that they’re serious about the engineering and the technology. There is huge money here, as TG pointed out, and that will drive the innovation.[/quote]

I suggest the oildrum for all things energy. They have a staff of over 20, half industry insiders and the other half academia. Also two very knowledgeable posters that will answer questions are westtexas and Rockman – both petroleum geologists with 20+ years experience.

I actually thought they were using new technology as well. More of an upgraded version of an old technology.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7499

1. Is this really a new drilling technique?

No., this is not really a new drilling technique. According to Wikipedia, hydraulic fracturing was first used in the United States for stimulating oil and gas wells in 1947. It was first used commercially in 1949. Directional drilling, including horizontal drilling is almost as old, but it was not widely used until down-hole motors and semicontinuous surveying became possible. The techniques have gradually been refined, as oil and gas companies have used them more and supporting technologies have been better developed.

A major reason we are using these techniques is because much of the easy-to-extract oil has already been extracted. Horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are more expensive, but can be used to get out oil that would be inaccessible otherwise. The hope is that oil prices will be high enough to make these techniques profitable.

[davelj]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]The Norwegian rain joke
“An American visits Oslo on business. After two weeks, he stops a small boy in the streets and asks: ‘Hey sonny, does it ever stop raining here?’The boy looks at him and replies, ‘I don’t know, sir. I’m only 11.'”
But seriously, I wonder if they would take me back, it’s only been three generations.[/quote]

I think the businessman in that joke is probably visiting Bergen as opposed to Oslo… but the point remains similar.

Another popular Norwegian joke (or saying): “Spring was on a Thursday last year.”

[CA renter]

[quote=svelte][quote=pri_dk]
The United States does not have enough oil.

“Drill Baby Drill” is based upon a mathematical fallacy.
[/quote]

Drill Baby Drill seems awfully short-sighted for another reason to me.

Eventually, we are going to run out of oil on earth. Though we argue over when that’ll happen, everyone agrees that it will happen. The country with that last bit of oil will have a huge advantage over other countries that have consumpition needs but no more oil reserves.

Why wouldn’t we want to help them deplete their reserves right now, while oil is still relatively cheap, and hold onto ours until the bitter end when the price goes through the roof? If it turns out that is during a wartime, well that’s even more reason to be the last one sitting on oil.[/quote]

Yes! That’s how I see it as well.

Seems like a rather good idea, actually.

[briansd1]

I’ve never been to Norway. But the Norwegians and the Norwegians-Americans I’ve met look young and healthy for their age.

[Ren]

At least oil production won’t fall off a cliff. In fact, I’m convinced that alternative energy technology will rise at a faster rate than oil will decline. In 100 years, maybe much sooner, the vast majority of vehicles won’t use gasoline, most oil will be synthetic, and I believe the transition to that will be very smooth – oil production will gradually drop (shale extraction will slow the drop), while alternative energy tech will gradually rise to take its place. As oil prices go up, more people will buy alternative energy vehicles, and the more people buy alternative energy vehicles, the more auto manufacturers will spend developing and building them. Every new model will be more efficient than the last.

Of course I’m also an optimist.

The biggest shakeup will be in those countries whose main export is oil. They will evolve into other areas, or they will become… Mexico.

More predictions – humvees will be electric, tanks will be nuclear, troops will be robotic or wear bitchin’ iron man suits, and gearheads like me will pay $50/gallon for the old-fashioned juice.

[temeculaguy]

Someone sent me this, so I take everything back that I said about Norway. I’m also modifying my future travel plans significantly. I had no idea of the extent of Norway’s natural resources.

http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?reportId=5285

[Author]

Posts