Bishop Hill Slip sliding away
Oct 9, 2013 Energy: grid Energy: oil I was going to start this morning by writing something about the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, currently taking evidence from people like Lord Deben and David Warrilow, the UK's representative on the IPCC. However, it's a bit of a waste of time, to tell the truth, with the committee so far interested in exchanging platitudes with the witnesses.
Instead, take a look at the latest from Euan Mearns' blog, where he examines oil production in the UK which, despite massive new investment, is in precipitous decline.
;)
This is the money quote:
The UK government, misguided by over zealous attachment to market dogma and by Green advocacy has neglected the interests of the UK population by allowing, indeed encouraging, the demise of indigenous primary energy production. Whilst some renewable energy most certainly has a place in the energy mix, an energy policy based on the 2008 Climate Change act with a focus on CO2 reduction strategies completely misses the big picture of providing affordable and secure energy for all and protecting the best interests of the UK economy.
Reader Comments (18)
Is UK oil production declining because of government's stupidity, or because the resource itself is declining?
Bill - probably a bit of both. But there's still plenty of oil left under the North Sea, and in the Shetland Basin.
Both.
"Peak Oil" does exist, but it is a local reality rather than a global one. There must come a point where the oil is depleted or it is too difficult to extract. This point occurred in the late 90s.
Mr Osbourne keeps on slapping windfall taxes on oil extractio, making it less and less economic to chase the hard-to-reach reserves ( or is it resources ?).
Euan's suggestions for a way forward are interesting, and worth quoting here as well:
"the UK government could ditch plans for carbon capture and storage (CCS) and provide some serious support for CO2 EOR instead before that window of opportunity closes. I’m not convinced of merits of tight oil and gas in the UK – too much resource hype, not enough realism for my liking. Expanding manufacturing helps on many fronts, but of course uses energy – the focus must be on GDP with high value/energy ratio. Electrifying transport and heat pumps are known to be highly efficient. Combined heat and power likewise. And nuclear power accrues to indigenous primary energy production. Just some ideas. I don’t think the private sector can deliver this."
Thoughts?
The real issue is "hydrocarbons". They're the cheapest, best solution for energy plus they feed the food you eat. The problem is when, if ever, the UK acknowledges the wild hare chase of fruitless renewables, half will be not only starving but freezing to death. As reported this week, the UK has turned the corner, reached the tipping point, flown over the cuckoo's nest, etc., and will not recover for at least a few years. You simply cannot frack a well, build a power plant while dreaming of wind up your pants.
Energy is life; cheap energy is prosperity. With the Left and the Greens, you'll have neither. Good Show!!
Read and weep:
http://www.cityam.com/article/1381192874/our-energy-crisis-america-s-debt-idiocy-self-inflicted
Don't know if you're covering the SciTech committee separately but I just looked in and caught the odious, smug Greg Barker pontificating. Painful to watch.
He was using the old "we must communicate better" line and slagging off the Beeb and Sunday newspapers for printing too much contrary stuff. Even David Mackay, who I though was a decent sort, had a pop at Nigel Lawson for criticising the IPCC for being political. He claimed the IPCC exclusively stick to the science and leave policy to others; we must have examples of them telling us to cut down on FF use surely?
Even Graham Stringer seems to have lost his nerve and was surprisingly toothless, surely he could have asked a few pertinent questions on AR5 when the science was being discussed.
Just glad I missed Deben, don't think I could have stomached that after reading his Tweets.
(As an aside, I checked out Barker's wiki and find he studied History and Politics and left his wife for a man! Didn't Huhne do similar?)
I note that the volume of oil is dropping, while the 'value' (profit?) is modestly climbing.
This could be interpreted as a strategy to maintain, or slightly increase, profits while retaining as much or your future reserves as possible.
I don't follow oil extraction policies in detail, but I can imagine that the production is closely matched to how much you can sell it for, and if the price drops, you probably don't want to produce as much...
Have only caught a snapshot of the whole thing but watching the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, you wonder if all governmental discussions are this facile. I could make mincemeat of the lot of them in open debate and I'm not an expert in climate or debate. You don't even get the idea they've thought about the issues and have only watched a few BBC puff documentaries before proclaiming themselves fully conversant. That includes the chosen speakers.
Kudos to Graham Stringer for bringing up the 'what's the definition of climate change' question but I hoped for more follow up. He could easily have used hurricanes as an example of how something climate related changes, gets labelled as 'climate change' meaning man made and then drops off and suddenly the 'change' was just natural variation until a clear signal does emerge (which could be a decrease). 'Climate change' as a phrase has now has been reduced to the same level as crying 'witch!'. It means whatever the accuser wants it too, proof is not necessary and the repercussions are always bad.
I'm hoping that he's got a cunning plan to summarise the pathetic responses of how each individual has reacted to the question.
Most interestingly they seem to have no idea of the anti AGW sentiment bubbling away in the public. They just want to keep plugging away at the same stuff that has failed in the past.
I just posted about Barking Mad's proposals to carpet the country with solar panels. Heaven help us and get rid of these idiots.
Another issue is the importance they place on the credibility of scientists. We might, as a throw away comment, say we trust scientists more than industry but when was the last time we bought any science? An ultimate act of trust is to hand over our hard earned cash (by choice and not taxes) for something someone else produces. If we got to choose how much and what science we fund from our taxes, we’d soon find how little trust or interest people place on their work. The soft sciences would disappear over night.
It doesn’t matter a damn what people say or even think. It’s what they do that is a real measure of truth.
For anyone pushing the Green Deal I’d ask ‘so what energy reduction schemes have you got?’ and when they inevitably umm and ahh and mention time and cost I’d ask why they haven’t used the Green Deal to make their own homes perfect.
SimonW
Along with railing against the injustice of the Lightbulb Ban, Greg Barker is another of my personal hobby-horses ( not sure that quite came out right).
Greg Barker not only left his wife for a man, BUT ex-Mrs Barker is heiress to Charles Wells Brewery who make Bombardier and recently merged with Youngs Brewery of Wandsworth. The man is obviously therefore not to be trusted.
I bet he drinks wine.
The UK and the US need to invest in clean, safe 4th generation Molten Salt Reactors. Sun cycle 24 and the predicted sun cycle 25 portend a rapidly cooling planet. The planet needs low cost abundant energy. energyfromthorium.com
The North sea 'windfall' tax hikes Osbourne announced in his 2011 budget won't have helped oil production:
"Centrica has decided to leave idle the UK's biggest gas field, South Morecambe, because the tax rise means extraction is simply not worth its while...When other energy taxes are taken into account, the Budget increase lifted the total tax rate for the South Morecambe field from 75 per cent to 81 per cent" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/8553452/A-taxing-problem-in-the-North-Sea.html
"Statoil said it had halted investment in two new oil and gas fields worth £10Bn"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12905225
SimonW:
And he left his principles for a bloke as well: Abromovich (to name but one)
Notice that modern government policy is to tax real energy sources like Offshore oil and gas out of existance while subsidizing unworkable energy sources like wind and solar. And avoiding real solutions, like nuclear energy, as if they were some sort of taboo black magic.
The age of climate obsession madness will not end well.
The comparison between UK energy folly and USA fiscal folly is well taken; sad but true. I can only stand by appalled as we see a break down in our Constitutional system. The question left is this: is it easier to fix a broken economy than a broken Constiution? We seem unprepared for a Chief Executive who confuses his role with that of a strong Monarch.
Oct 9, 2013 at 11:48 AM | Dodgy Geezer
This is basically peak oil. A combination of physical and economic parameters as well described by Hubbert in 1966 I believe.
Hello Bishophill, good comments, I agree with most. The big irony in the UK is that the serious problem of North Sea Oil and Gas decline came along at the same time as Green ascendency. The two issues have therefore become hopelessly intertwined. However, Greenthinking is not really able to address the serious issue of plummeting indigenous UK primary energy production. Next week I'll be looking at the electricity generating mix and this will show how hopelessly futile Greenthinking has been to date - and at significant cost. Confronted with the problem of declining primary energy production, more renewable energy appears to make sense. However, there are I believe only two strategies with the potential muscle to address the problem. One is nuclear and the other is enhanced oil recovery using CO2-EOR. There are also a raft of energy efficiency measures that many folk actually need financial assistance to implement.