Oil and Gas Issues

[JimD]

Seems like a good topic to have as we are always talking about it and it certainly is very important  To start...

Mexico has finally ended their unusual policy of not allowing international oil/gas companies into the country.  This means that there will be a huge surge in that direction - especially from the US.  Expect a big boom in production within a couple of years that resembles the fracking boom in the US.

"No Turning Back:" Mexico's Looming Fracking and Offshore Oil and Gas Bonanza

After generations of state control, Mexico’s vast oil and gas reserves will soon open for business to the international market.

In December 2013, Mexico’s Congress voted to break up the longstanding monopoly held by the state-owned oil giant Petroleos Mexicanos — commonly called Pemex — and to open the nation’s oil and gas reserves to foreign companies.

The constitutional reforms appear likely to kickstart a historic hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) and deepwater offshore oil and gas drilling bonanza off the Gulf of Mexico.....

...Proponents for Mexico’s energy reforms envision a gold rush. They argue the constitutional amendments and accompanying secondary legislation still up for debate in the Mexican legislature could add as much as $35 billion in outside investment into the national coffers.

Pemex says $25 to $60 billion could come its way as a result of joint ventures it can now sign with international oil and gas companies,
......

If the reforms bring about the production spike hoped for by Pemex and Mexican officials, the country could be among the world’s oil-producing giants by 2025.

Mexico’s Reserves: Where and How Big?

Mexico sits on nearly 14 billion barrels of oil in proven reserves, according to Pemex. The Oil and Gas Journal pegged it at 10.2 billion barrels at the end of 2011. But that’s just what they know they have.

The country’s unexplored oil reserve potential is second only to the Arctic Circle, according to Bloomberg and others reporting on the reforms.

Pemex estimates, as reported by Bloomberg, that deep-water Gulf of Mexico prospects could be as large as 26.6 billion barrels of oil. Onshore, there are potentially 60 billion barrels yet untapped.
...

As part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Section 303), President Barack Obama signed off on U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement in December 2013, which “establishes a framework for U.S. offshore oil and gas companies and [Pemex] to jointly develop transboundary reservoirs.”

The bill lifts the floodgates for industry to tap into more than 1.6 million acres of offshore oil and gas.
...

Pemex estimates there could be more than 300 trillion cubic feet of recoverable shale gas in the Burgos. And the U.S. Congressional Research Service pointed out in a January 2014 report that Mexico may have the fifth largest tight oil reserves and fourth largest tight gas reserves in the world.

This is largely due to the portion of the Eagle Ford formation that stretches south of the border.
....

Once this gets rolling it will be almost unstoppable.  Huge investments, big rise in wealth, lots of jobs, political corruption, economic growth.....

An interesting side effect is that once it is up and running it will put downward pressure on natural gas prices and add to the adverse effect that has on nuclear and renewable power generation.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/12/no-turning-back-mexico-looming-fracking-and-offshore-oil-and-gas-bonanza

[icefest]

Lovely, add to that mix the decrease in regulatory burden and you'll have another Exxon Valdez or Deepwater Horizon again soon.

I know my fellow Pappenheims

[JimD]

It is not hard to understand why, but North America sure seems to be heading pell mell down the path of pushing fossil fuels to their max limit (in terms of maxing production I mean).  Given the combined populations of some 465 million and growing fast that is saying something about their long term effect. 

Growth in Mexican carbon emissions due to a rapidly expanding economy could overwhelm any lowering of carbon emissions from the EU all by their selves.

[JimD]

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/f7351b0e-dcf1-11e3-b73c-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz328G3gND5

As windfalls go, America’s natural gas boom verges on the biblical. Economists talk of a “game changer”. Producers foresee a US manufacturing renaissance. Greens celebrate the death of King Coal. And strategists talk about a geopolitical trump card – not least in the west’s game of poker with Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Hydraulic fracturing has opened up a supply of cheap and relatively clean gas for decades to come. At a time when the US is facing a set of otherwise bleak trends, it is as close as you get to a godsend.

That, at least, is the assumption. But what if it is wrong? According to Garten Rothkopf, an international advisory firm, the US is set to exhaust its supply of “economically recoverable” natural gas supplies by 2030. That estimate is based solely on existing projects,
...Long before 2030, however, US producers will have been pushed into the more expensive shale formations.

Next month President Barack Obama’s administration will issue a new set of emissions rules that are likely to put most existing US coal-fired power plants out of business. Coal was always the largest source of US electricity. Gas has now overtaken it.

America has likewise turned away from nuclear power.
...

Likewise, Mr Obama set great store in the scaling up of alternative energy supplies such as wind and solar. But in each case the numbers have disappointed. Just 5 per cent of US power comes from non-hydroelectric renewables. In its current mood, Congress looks unlikely to approve the renewal of alternative energy tax credits, which will further limit their potential.....

\

Under US utility regulations, suppliers have to choose the cheapest form of energy. Today that is gas. If gas prices start to rise, producers will be stuck with a single energy source.

The same applies to the petrochemicals sector and other manufacturers. Twenty and 30-year investments are being made on the assumption that US gas prices will remain a third or so of levels elsewhere in the world. Many projects will become uneconomic if that changes.

The risk of supply shocks is also underestimated....

Moreover, the US gas sector needs $300bn to upgrade its pipeline network.....

[JimD]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10839701/China-steps-up-speed-of-oil-stockpiling-as-tensions-mount-in-Asia.html

Beijing has ordered an "unprecedented" build up of oil reserves as West prepares for possible oil sanctions against Russia. ...


China is stockpiling oil for its strategic petroleum reserve at a record pace, intervening on a scale large enough to send a powerful pulse through the world crude market.


The move comes as tensions mount in the South China Sea, and the West prepares possible oil sanctions against Russia over the crisis in Eastern Ukraine. Analysts believe China is quietly building up buffers against a possible spike in oil prices or disruptions in supply.


The International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its latest monthly report that China imported 6.81m barrels a day in April, an all-time high.


Michael Lewis, head of commodities at Deutsche Bank, said Chinese officials at Beijing's Strategic Reserve Bureau are playing the oil market tactically, or “buying the dips” in trader parlance. They add to stocks whenever Brent crude prices fall to key support lines, as occurred earlier this Spring. This is currently around $105.

“It's is very similar to what they have been doing with copper. Whenever it drops below $7,000 (a tonne), they see it as a buying opportunity. They do the same with agricultural commodities,” he said.

China is putting a floor of sorts underneath the global oil market, calling into question predictions by the big oil trading banks that prices will deflate this year as more crude comes on stream from Libya, Iraq, and Iran, and as the US keeps adding supply shale.

The strategic buying could go on for a long time since China is rapidly expanding its reserve capacity from 160m barrels to 500m by 2020, with sites scattered across the country.

[Laurent]

Write-down of two-thirds of US shale oil explodes fracking myth
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/22/two-thirds-write-down-us-shale-oil-gas-explodes-fracking-myth

[JimD]

Laurent

Editing of the link is needed.

Be careful if you are not used to reading about oil & gas projections and such.  Most of what is going on with places like CA which are not yet in real production is the standard business hype used in the oil/gas industry to generate publicity and investors, who can then be fleeced for their money.

There is really nothing much new in this article to those who follow the data.  It just means that some investors who did not do their due diligence have been taken to the clears again.  Those in the oil fields are not confused about what can be accomplished in terms of production.

In other words there is not really a big change in store that was not already understood within the industry.  This type of production is bottom of the barrel stuff and has a much lower EROEI than in the past.  It is just another bump on the slow drop in numbers. There is no great surge in production to be expected.  Just enough to keep us on a plateau for now, but at a high cost.  Globally there is absolutely a LOT of shale oil and gas to be exploited - should we be stupid enough to do so..... 

But the bottom line is that there is no way out for civilization by continuing use of fossil fuels.  Just as there is way out with any form of BAU.

[TerryM]

Good news for Californians that would rather drink or grow food with whatever water is available.


Terry

[Shared Humanity]

Good news for Californians that would rather drink or grow food with whatever water is available.


Terry

In that order, I would imagine.

[Laurent]

oups editing done, thanks.

[Laurent]

Fracking: shock and awe will not win the battle of Britain
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2014/may/23/fracking-shock-and-awe-will-not-win-the-battle-of-britain

[JimD]

Russia joins global dash for shale in policy volte-face

Officials at the Kremlin are no longer dismissing shale's promise as a mirage

Russia is launching a strategic drive to unlock its shale oil wealth as crude output stagnates and reserves run low in the West Siberian fields, aiming to replicate America's technology leap in a near total reversal of policy.


The Kremlin has launched an "action plan" to master fracking methods and lure investors into the Bazhenov prospective, a shale basin the size of France to the east of the Urals. Officials are no longer dismissing shale's promise as a mirage. "We are clearing away the administrative barriers to exploration. This is the urgent challenge we are now facing," said Kirill Molodtsov, the deputy energy minister.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10855891/Russia-joins-global-dash-for-shale-in-policy-volte-face.html

[ccgwebmaster]

Russia joins global dash for shale in policy volte-face

Officials at the Kremlin are no longer dismissing shale's promise as a mirage

Ironic if true, as it's increasingly obvious that depletion rates and resource impacts (water) are both painfully high. It can't be much longer before peak oil really starts to bite... having done little more than nibble so far.

[JimD]

The grinding destruction of Peak Oil continues.  Cheap supplies shrink, costs rise, prices rise, economic trouble comes.  This is part of the slow early effects of collapse. 

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/joe-costello-oil-industry-running-major-trouble.html

[Shared Humanity]

The grinding destruction of Peak Oil continues.  Cheap supplies shrink, costs rise, prices rise, economic trouble comes.  This is part of the slow early effects of collapse. 

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/joe-costello-oil-industry-running-major-trouble.html

Thank you for this link. This article addresses the fundamental nature of the behavior of capitalism with regards to any market, business or industry. Growth in oil production is driven by a simple feedback mechanism. How much of the current profit from sales needs to be reinvested for further production. As this ratio approaches (1), no further investment will be made and a particular industry will suffer irreversible decline.

There is one caveat. If demand for a particular product such as oil has very low marginal rates of substitution (this means that moving to an alternate as prices rise is difficult) then the  market will continue to demand the product even in the face of dramatic increases in price. The wild fluctuations in the price of a barrel of oil indicates  that this is the case. The world cannot quickly move away from oil to other sources of energy with regards to transportation. What this  means is that, as prices rise, new and ever more exotic sources of oil become feasible for exploitation. I suspect that this will be the case for some time.

The driving force for continued exploitation of oil is demand. If demand were to drop (significant movement away from oil in the transportation industry) oil prices would drop precipitously and shale and tar sands ( any other exotic source, actually, including deep sea drilling) could become a losing proposition, perhaps permanently.

Consumers are in the drivers seat, literally and figuratively. Stop consuming products made from oil (gas, plastics, synthetic fibres etc.) and the rationale for the Keystone Pipeline and other investments would disappear. We focus on the investment required to extract exotic sources of oil like shale but this is actually a small part of the total cost. This stuff is more expensive to transport and more expensive to refine.

This behavior of capitalism is my one major source of hope regarding AGW. With regards to "supply and demand" it is the demand that shapes our economic reality. If consumers demand something, there will always be a company that supplies it for a profit. If demand stops or drops dramatically, companies will exit these markets.

[Sigmetnow]

SH,
re not using petro-based plastics:  I was pleased to see the discussion of plastics made from air and greenhouse gasses in the Better Tomorrows thread....

And on a different topic:
The city of Vancouver wants climate change (upstream and downstream) to be considered in the decision about twinning a pipeline to move more tar sands oil.  Although the industry will fight it, I can only see this consideration becoming a part of more and more decisions.
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/trans-mountain-challenges-vancouver-bid-to-include-climate-change-discussion-in-hearings/article18861748/?service=mobile

[Laurent]

Fracking - you are not important
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2450429/fracking_you_are_not_important.html

[Shared Humanity]

SH,
re not using petro-based plastics:  I was pleased to see the discussion of plastics made from air and greenhouse gasses in the Better Tomorrows thread....

And on a different topic:
The city of Vancouver wants climate change (upstream and downstream) to be considered in the decision about twinning a pipeline to move more tar sands oil.  Although the industry will fight it, I can only see this consideration becoming a part of more and more decisions.
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/trans-mountain-challenges-vancouver-bid-to-include-climate-change-discussion-in-hearings/article18861748/?service=mobile

I certainly agree that, as more and more citizens become aware of the awful impacts of global warming and become politically active around these issues, we will see environmental impacts influence decisions such as this one. Unfortunately, absent a reduction in demand for oil based products, industry will continue to find a way to bring shale oil to market.

If we are to make real progress in our efforts to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, it is market considerations that will drive these results. Certainly, our political institutions can shape these markets but this will be more in the areas of capital investment, funds for research into alternatives for transportation and energy generation, raising the costs for fossil  fuels in the form of very high carbon taxes, providing accelerated capital depreciation for new investment. Each of these, the last two in particular, will alter the the profits and costs of continued investments and tilt the markets to favor renewables. Efforts to do this are ongoing but because industries whose future depends on business as usual will fight these, progress will be slow.

The most powerful and immediate results can only come from the demand side. If consumers continue to demand products, the source of which is fossil fuels,  industry will continue to supply them.

[Laurent]

Wastewater from energy extraction 'triggers US quake surge'
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28128772

[Laurent]

U.S. Seen as Biggest Oil Producer After Overtaking Saudi Arabia
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-04/u-s-seen-as-biggest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html

[Lynn Shwadchuck]

Add gasification of coal to the mix, huge growth of this in China:

"Gasifying coal to produce chemicals emits less carbon dioxide than does burning coal as fuel, but the process still ejects more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than using natural gas would produce, says Eric Larson, a research engineer at the Princeton Environmental Institute."

"Some of the Western companies planning to jump into the sector in China, including Dow Chemical, are considering ways to offset or store the global-warming emissions their projects will generate. One possibility -- a process that would inject carbon dioxide deep underground for storage -- is a largely untested technology that is likely to be very expensive. In the meantime, gasification projects are getting speedily green-lighted in China without concern over emissions."

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB119906071914658457

[Laurent]

Federal Government Still Spending Billions To Subsidize Fossil Fuels
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/09/fossil-fuel-subsidies_n_5572346.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

[Laurent]

Fracking: Vivienne Westwood on shale gas mining fears
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-28317069

[Laurent]

Finally! A Candid Exposé of Chevron's Dirty Tricks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-paz-y-mino/finally-a-candid-expose-o_b_5737142.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

[Bob Wallace]

The grinding destruction of Peak Oil continues.  Cheap supplies shrink, costs rise, prices rise, economic trouble comes.  This is part of the slow early effects of collapse. 

I'm late to this one and perhaps someone covered it down thread but just in case...

You do realize that if firm signs of peak oil (OMG! We're about to run out of oil! type PO) did appear we could cut our personal use of oil extremely rapidly, don't you?

In three years or less, if really needed and required, car companies could produce nothing but EVs and PHEVs.  In five  years we would have cut personal transportation oil use by close to 50%.  (Half of all miles driven are with cars five years old or newer.)

That would almost certainly stretch our remaining supplies enough longer to convert most of the vehicles on the road to EVs and PHEV.  Some aggressive 'gas guzzler' buy back programs could speed things along.

[Laurent]

Oil Is Back! (in US)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/oil-is-back_b_5765234.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

BP's Recklessness Caused Gulf Oil Spill, U.S. Judge Rules
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/04/bp-oil-spill_n_5765802.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

[icefest]

In three years or less, if really needed and required, car companies could produce nothing but EVs and PHEVs.  In five  years we would have cut personal transportation oil use by close to 50%.  (Half of all miles driven are with cars five years old or newer.)

I doubt it.

Considering tesla gigafactory will take 3 years to build (and that's not including the extra mining required to supply materials) and even that, while doubling world  battery production, will not produce anywhere near enough batteries to supply all new cars.

Ten years is a more reasonable estimate.

[Bob Wallace]

GM designed and started working on the PHEV Volt in 2006.  They started selling the Volt in 2008.

Now most companies have a PHEV or EV (or both) on the market or in development.  It takes only a few weeks to change over an assembly line to produce a new model.  Ford set up its three Focus assembly lines so that they could switch between diesel, hybrid or EV in a few days as demand required.

There's no doubt that within a couple of  years, if they were required to, manufacturers could make EVs and PHEVs.

Batteries.  Battery factories are built and brought into operation in two years.  Nissan did it in Tennessee.

The difficulty might be the material supply chain for batteries, but with 2-3 years lead time it should be possible to start refining a lot of lithium.

Consider that we would have many companies doing this in parallel.  Not sequentially.

[JimD]

And then a dose of reality drops in.     

Considering all the talk about global warming, peak oil, carbon divestment, and renewable energy, you’d think that oil consumption in the United States would be on a downward path.  By now, we should certainly be witnessing real progress toward a post-petroleum economy.  As it happens, the opposite is occurring.  U.S. oil consumption is on an upward trajectory, climbing by 400,000 barrels per day in 2013 alone — and, if current trends persist, it should rise again both this year and next.

In other words, oil is back.  Big time.  Signs of its resurgence abound.  Despite what you may think, Americans, on average, are driving more miles every day, not fewer, filling ever more fuel tanks with ever more gasoline, and evidently feeling ever less bad about it.  The stigma of buying new gas-guzzling SUVs, for instance, seems to have vanished; according to CNN Money, nearly one out of three vehicles sold today is an SUV.  As a result of all this, America’s demand for oil grew more than China’s in 2013, the first time that’s happened since 1999.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/09/oil-back-global-warming-president-presides-drill-baby-drill-america.html#comment-2302871

The reality on the ground is that electric vehicle production is not yet consequential and the rate of change is wholly insufficient to make a difference in the trend and coming impacts of climate change.  And there was never any prospect that converting the vehicle fleet to electric would make such a difference.  It is like putting a bandaid on a severed artery.

": Bob Wallace  August 29, 2014, 10:40:44 PM

In three years or less, if really needed and required, car companies could produce nothing but EVs and PHEVs.  In five  years we would have cut personal transportation oil use by close to 50%.  (Half of all miles driven are with cars five years old or newer.)"

I doubt it.

Considering tesla gigafactory will take 3 years to build (and that's not including the extra mining required to supply materials) and even that, while doubling world  battery production, will not produce anywhere near enough batteries to supply all new cars.

Ten years is a more reasonable estimate.

A very diplomatic response to an utterly impossible claim.  Ten years would potentially be possible perhaps, but the real point is that such a decision to attempt such a conversion will not be made.  Wishing on highly unlikely possibilities does none of us any good. It makes it much harder to solve the problems not easier.

Oil supplies (and gas and coal supplies) are easily sufficient to allow a version of our BAU economic growth strategies to be executed for at least a decade yet.  Maybe 20 years before the severe impacts of climate change really start kicking in and force us to change away from the BAU/Green BAU approaches.  If it is already too late now by then it wont matter much will it.

Before anyone spends a bunch of time trying to find and post snippits of data on incremental progress (though you are of course free to do so) consider for a moment all the text in this blog going back to its beginning and all its predecessors going back 5 years or so.  It is not an exaggeration that we were essentially out of time then and are more so now.  I mention this to point out that our GLOBAL trajectory has not changed in the slightest over that time.  Carbon emissions are still rising.  Specific emissions in various locals go up and down depending on local conditions, but it is the global aggregate that counts as climate change is a global phenomenon.

Oh well, I am sure I am wasting my time.  Back to retirement.

[Bob Wallace]

Jim, let's dig a little deeper into your oil claims.  US oil consumption is up 2% after several years of decline. 




If you go one level deeper than your "Watt's up" link you'll find "According to the IEA, much of that growth has been in the petrochemical industry, which has taken advantage of burgeoning domestic oil supply."

And "don’t expect the U.S. to go all the way back to its gas guzzling days. There are other reasons besides a declining economy that explain why U.S. oil demand fell so much over the past several years. Cars are now more fuel-efficient than ever, thanks to tougher fuel economy standards and growing consumer preferences for lighter, smaller cars and hybrids. But we’re also driving less."

http://time.com/1387/us-oil-demand-grows-faster-than-china/

-----

Now, the "an utterly impossible claim".  Please note that I said "if really needed and required". 

This was in response to the doomer-esque phony fear of suddenly running out of oil.  If is was suddenly revealed that most of the world's oil suppliers have been lying and they're actually running out of oil very soon then we'd almost certainly kick in a WWII effort.  We'd ration and we'd switch from ICEVs to EVs and PHEVs.  The car companies would show no resistance because it would be apparent that no one was going to purchase their ICEVs if they couldn't get fuel.

Now, are we likely to abruptly run out of oil?  No.  The chance is zero.  Did Peak Oil theory say that?  No, Peak Oil was talking about hitting a point at which supply would stop increasing and start dropping.  The idea of an Oil Cliff was something dreamed up by the Tinfoil Hat Club.

[Bob Wallace]

Let's take a look at total US miles driven.  "Despite what you may think, Americans, on average, are driving more miles every day, not fewer"

Is there any truth to that?



Looking at the graph within the graph what I see is a chance that there's a small upward trend off the bottom in late 2012.  But there was another trough and peak in 2010/2011.  That leaves one questioning whether there is a real upturn or whether it's just noise.

I also notice the all time peak was November 2007.  Signs of the oncoming recession started appearing about then, but that would be only something economists would have noticed and I don't think any were predicting a historically deep recession.  The Great Recession and Financial Panic didn't hit the public 2008.

And let's take it back to oil use for personal transportation.  Average US vehicle efficiency increased 1.7% from 2007 to 2012.  (We don't seem to have 2013 numbers yet.) 

So oil use is up, short term, 2% with most of the increased consumption going to industry feedstock.  And use of oil in personal vehicles, which might be driving slightly more, has improved more than 1.7%.

[jbg]

Seems like a good topic to have as we are always talking about it and it certainly is very important  To start...

Mexico has finally ended their unusual policy of not allowing international oil/gas companies into the country.  This means that there will be a huge surge in that direction - especially from the US.  Expect a big boom in production within a couple of years that resembles the fracking boom in the US.

Overall this seems to be a positive development. I find dubious economic benefits in importing Arab or Venezuelan oil.  Especially when, during war, they set fire to each other's oil fields, which I am sure has some baleful environmental consequences.  Also the oil wealth in the Middle East is a major contributor to global jihad and such unconstructive groups as ISIS and Hamas.

Once this gets rolling it will be almost unstoppable.  Huge investments, big rise in wealth, lots of jobs, political corruption, economic growth.....

An interesting side effect is that once it is up and running it will put downward pressure on natural gas prices and add to the adverse effect that has on nuclear and renewable power generation.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/05/12/no-turning-back-mexico-looming-fracking-and-offshore-oil-and-gas-bonanza

I didn't realize that many here favor unrestrained nuclear power development.  Life contains its surprises.

[Bob Wallace]

Oil is going to be drilled as long as there is a demand for oil.  People will not give up their cars for the betterment of the planet.  (A few would, but not enough to make a difference.)

We stop oil by giving people acceptable substitutes.

(And nuclear is a dead man walking.  Just like coal.  There will be a few twitches and lurches forward as they stumble to their graves.)

[Sigmetnow]

UK:

A fracking firm's plans to explore for shale oil in the South Downs National Park have been thrown out by the park authority, raising doubts about the future of the industry in southern England.
...
More than 5,000 people had lodged objections... with just 11 in favour.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/fracking/11089361/Fracking-firms-South-Downs-drilling-plans-rejected.html

[Sigmetnow]

"On Friday, the United States and the European Union imposed a new round of sanctions on Russia in response to Moscow’s intervention in eastern Ukraine and following its annexation of the Crimean peninsula in March. The goal is to clamp down further on the Russian economy but it will significantly affect the drilling plans of western oil giants ExxonMobil and BP."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/09/13/3567216/new-sanctions-loophole-exxonmobil-russia-arctic/

[Bob Wallace]

I suspect the problems with Russia are going to drive renewable installations faster. 

It looks like Putin intends to be "President for Life" and will continue to be a PITA.  The best way to minimize him is to reduce the need to purchase fossil fuels from Russia.  Starve the bear.

[Shared Humanity]

I suspect the problems with Russia are going to drive renewable installations faster. 

It looks like Putin intends to be "President for Life" and will continue to be a PITA.  The best way to minimize him is to reduce the need to purchase fossil fuels from Russia.  Starve the bear.

Europe is playing a very dangerous game if it tries to starve the bear. Europe imports 40% of its natural gas from Russia. Shipments of natural gas to the Ukraine ceased in June. If they ratchet  up the pressure, do not be surprised if Russia suspends or dramatically raises the price for natural gas. Meanwhile, the first pipeline to deliver natural gas to China will be completed in 2017.

[Bob Wallace]

You're supporting my suspicion that Europe is likely to increase renewable installation rates.  Best way to deal with Russia is to be independent of Russia.

[Sigmetnow]

I wish I could find the article where -- I think it was former Secretary of State George Shultz -- says the best news for renewables would be if Russia cuts off its natural gas supply.

[Csnavywx]

Let's take a look at total US miles driven.  "Despite what you may think, Americans, on average, are driving more miles every day, not fewer"

Is there any truth to that?



Looking at the graph within the graph what I see is a chance that there's a small upward trend off the bottom in late 2012.  But there was another trough and peak in 2010/2011.  That leaves one questioning whether there is a real upturn or whether it's just noise.

I also notice the all time peak was November 2007.  Signs of the oncoming recession started appearing about then, but that would be only something economists would have noticed and I don't think any were predicting a historically deep recession.  The Great Recession and Financial Panic didn't hit the public 2008.

And let's take it back to oil use for personal transportation.  Average US vehicle efficiency increased 1.7% from 2007 to 2012.  (We don't seem to have 2013 numbers yet.) 

So oil use is up, short term, 2% with most of the increased consumption going to industry feedstock.  And use of oil in personal vehicles, which might be driving slightly more, has improved more than 1.7%.

I also wouldn't overlook the precipitous drop in the Labor Force Participation Rate since the peak in '07. The drop was pre-conditioned by demographics, but triggered by the recession. It has continued to drop since then and I think this has exerted significant downward pressure on total miles driven and oil consumed.

[Bob Wallace]

I found some 2013 numbers...

The number of miles driven in the United States continues to stagnate, even amidst economic recovery, according to just-released figures from the Federal Highway Administration.

According to the agency’s December 2013 Traffic Volume Trends report, the number of vehicle-miles traveled on U.S. highways increased last year by approximately 0.6 percent – a rate of increase a tick slower than the 0.7 percent rate of population growth in the United States during 2013.

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/02/24/2013-another-year-of-falling-per-capita-driving-in-u-s/

[Sigmetnow]

Major irony alert:  businesses debate solar vs. conventional energy -- to power the enhanced drilling of old oil wells!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101995330

[morganism]

Another major methane leak looms. Canadian play for mega project

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/montney-oil-and-gas-could-soon-be-one.html#more

[Sigmetnow]

Statoil calls off Canadian oil sand development, for economic reasons.

http://af.reuters.com/article/commoditiesNews/idAFO9N0MH01720140925

[Laurent]

Despite the UN climate summit, fossil fuel firms are still in for the long-term
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/despite-the-un-climate-summit-fossil-fuel-firms-are-still-in-for-the-long-term

For that to happen, fossil fuel investors would have to accept that their future profits are limited, too. There was no sign of that in New York.

There is no way we will reduce our carbon foot print if we ask them kindly...It has to be a strong regulation, a strong enforcement, we are (should be) at war...

[Laurent]

Naomi Klein: UK fracking trespass law flouts democratic rights
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/07/naomi-klein-uk-fracking-trespass-law-flouts-democratic-rights

[TerryM]

Canadian tar sands finds it's way to the sea.


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-08/keystone-be-darned-canada-finds-oil-route-around-obama.html


Obama is attempting to damage Putin by lowering oil prices and the lower prices are now the only obstacle to full tar sands development. Reagan broke the Soviet Union by tanking oil prices but I don't think a replay is in the cards. Canada and other producers won't throw their own economies under the bus just to punish Russia & the Saudis may not be willing, or able to flood the market for too long.
If the tar sands are fully exploited it's game over.
Terry

[Laurent]

Former oil mogul confirmed as EU climate and energy commissioner
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/former-oil-mogul-confirmed-as-eu-climate-and-energy-commissioner

Absolutely no hope of any radical changes in the next years.
Amoung things Goldman Sacks control the European central bank and now this...

[Sigmetnow]

This strikes me as... odd.  Lego breaks ties with Shell Oil for environmental public relations reasons. 
But, Legos (plastic pieces) are made from oil! 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/lego-ends-shell-partnership-following-greenpeace-campaign

[Laurent]

'I Got It From the Beginning': What Five Years of Vicious Retaliatory Litigation Gets Chevron
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-marr-page/chevron-ecuador-litigation_b_5956484.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

The idea that U.S. judicial authority can be deployed so neatly in service of a single private interest, even (or especially) one of the country's most powerful corporations, is a bit hard to swallow, at least for me. Others, it seems, got it from the beginning.