This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I am a bit confused by this article on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27435624
In just over five years Britain will have run out of oil, coal and gas, researchers have warned.
Is there any truth in there?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27435624
In just over five years Britain will have run out of oil, coal and gas, researchers have warned.
Is there any truth in there?
In reply to ByEek:
What they are saying (i think) is that if we just had to rely on our own reserves with no imports, they'd last 5 years
What they are saying (i think) is that if we just had to rely on our own reserves with no imports, they'd last 5 years
In reply to ByEek:
Tis a bit strange then why they are planning another runway in the South East then, for example, and putting a lot of money into seeing where would be best.
Tis a bit strange then why they are planning another runway in the South East then, for example, and putting a lot of money into seeing where would be best.
In reply to ByEek:
Sounds like they're taking the known reserves and dividing by the annual consumption which is usefully indicative of future trade and influence. It may be the fault of a journalist but to say France will run out of oil in 1 year also makes them look like idiots as France will continue to export goods to pay for oil imports as most countries have done for decades.
Sounds like they're taking the known reserves and dividing by the annual consumption which is usefully indicative of future trade and influence. It may be the fault of a journalist but to say France will run out of oil in 1 year also makes them look like idiots as France will continue to export goods to pay for oil imports as most countries have done for decades.
Post edited at 09:42
In reply to ByEek:
We will all be Running flux Capacitors on garbage by then anyway.
Or Hydrogen cell technology anyway.
We will all be Running flux Capacitors on garbage by then anyway.
Or Hydrogen cell technology anyway.
In reply to ByEek:
As far as I can tell the report is total horse-shit, although the BBC don't seem to bothered.
UK Coal figures say that in 2012 the UK consumed 64 million tonnes of coal, and that our coal reserves were 7200 million tonnes of coal as of 2012. 7200/64 = 112.5 years.
http://www.ukcoal.com/world-coal-statistics.html
How you can square that with the report I don't know, and how anyone with even an ounce of knowledge in their brains can fail to spot the irreconcilable difference when editing the article is beyond me.
I don't know about oil or gas reserves, but if their accuracy is similar....
As it stands we get about 4x as much energy (not just electricity generation) from oil and gas combined as coal, perhaps half as much from nuclear and basically some noise from renewables. If the oil and gas run out then we may end up using our coal 5x as fast, perhaps 6x as fast if we continue to fail to build new nuclear. Then it only lasts for 112.5/6 = 18.75 years. Now that's an interesting number, because if it all ran out in 5 years we'd be properly f----d, but if it takes 18 years we still have time to build 20 odd reactors and stay in Club First World.
As far as I can tell the report is total horse-shit, although the BBC don't seem to bothered.
UK Coal figures say that in 2012 the UK consumed 64 million tonnes of coal, and that our coal reserves were 7200 million tonnes of coal as of 2012. 7200/64 = 112.5 years.
http://www.ukcoal.com/world-coal-statistics.html
How you can square that with the report I don't know, and how anyone with even an ounce of knowledge in their brains can fail to spot the irreconcilable difference when editing the article is beyond me.
I don't know about oil or gas reserves, but if their accuracy is similar....
As it stands we get about 4x as much energy (not just electricity generation) from oil and gas combined as coal, perhaps half as much from nuclear and basically some noise from renewables. If the oil and gas run out then we may end up using our coal 5x as fast, perhaps 6x as fast if we continue to fail to build new nuclear. Then it only lasts for 112.5/6 = 18.75 years. Now that's an interesting number, because if it all ran out in 5 years we'd be properly f----d, but if it takes 18 years we still have time to build 20 odd reactors and stay in Club First World.
Post edited at 10:31
In reply to ByEek:
From the BGS website
The British Geological Survey (BGS) in association with DECC has completed an estimate for the resource (gas-in-place) of shale gas in part of central Britain in an area between Wrexham and Blackpool in the west, and Nottingham and Scarborough in the east. The estimate is in the form of a range to reflect geological uncertainty. The lower limit of the range is 822 tcf* and the upper limit is 2281 tcf, but the central estimate for the resource is 1329 tcf.
* tcf = trillion cubic feet
This shale gas estimate is a resource figure (gas-in-place) and so represents the gas that we think is present, but not the gas that might be possible to extract. The proportion of gas that it may be possible to extract is unknown as it depends on the economic, geological and social factors that will prevail at each operation.
Just to put this in context UK gas usage is 3 to 3.5 tcf p.a, so a recovery factor of say 10% gives us 27 years of natural gas from Shale gas.
Whilst these numbers are pretty soft (back of a fag packet estimate) I think it suggests the BBC article probably needs some checking.
From the BGS website
The British Geological Survey (BGS) in association with DECC has completed an estimate for the resource (gas-in-place) of shale gas in part of central Britain in an area between Wrexham and Blackpool in the west, and Nottingham and Scarborough in the east. The estimate is in the form of a range to reflect geological uncertainty. The lower limit of the range is 822 tcf* and the upper limit is 2281 tcf, but the central estimate for the resource is 1329 tcf.
* tcf = trillion cubic feet
This shale gas estimate is a resource figure (gas-in-place) and so represents the gas that we think is present, but not the gas that might be possible to extract. The proportion of gas that it may be possible to extract is unknown as it depends on the economic, geological and social factors that will prevail at each operation.
Just to put this in context UK gas usage is 3 to 3.5 tcf p.a, so a recovery factor of say 10% gives us 27 years of natural gas from Shale gas.
Whilst these numbers are pretty soft (back of a fag packet estimate) I think it suggests the BBC article probably needs some checking.
In reply to wintertree:
Well now that I sort of understand where the report is coming from, it makes a bit more sense. I guess the report looks at existing production rather than how much stuff is in the ground that could be exploited.
> How you can square that with the report I don't know
Well now that I sort of understand where the report is coming from, it makes a bit more sense. I guess the report looks at existing production rather than how much stuff is in the ground that could be exploited.
In reply to ByEek:
So it's just a case of the usual, appallingly bad, reporting from the BBC then? To quote them By contrast, Britain has just 5.2 years of oil, 4.5 years of coal and three years of its own gas remaining.
Existing production is surely not compatible with discussing how long we have remaining... It's pretty hard to even argue that it's hard to mine some of the unworked coal given the fact there's a decade of the stuff in proved surface mines just waiting to be literally dug up out of the fields.
> Well now that I sort of understand where the report is coming from, it makes a bit more sense. I guess the report looks at existing production rather than how much stuff is in the ground that could be exploited.
So it's just a case of the usual, appallingly bad, reporting from the BBC then? To quote them By contrast, Britain has just 5.2 years of oil, 4.5 years of coal and three years of its own gas remaining.
Existing production is surely not compatible with discussing how long we have remaining... It's pretty hard to even argue that it's hard to mine some of the unworked coal given the fact there's a decade of the stuff in proved surface mines just waiting to be literally dug up out of the fields.
Post edited at 11:21
In reply to drunken monkey:
At the peak of the shale gas boom in the USA there were 1600 rigs working.
Numerous wells were drilled.
As a result of their success the gas price plummeted.
Sounds a good idea.
Now answer the following questions:
How many land rigs are there in the UK?
How many fraccing trucks are there in the UK?
What is the maximum number of onshore wells that could be drilled in a year in the UK?
What could the productive capacity of each of these wells be?
(Fallon announced 30-40 wells could be drilled in the next four years for shale gas).
How many wells will get planning permission each year in the UK (an EIA is required now for every well)?
How much gas does the UK use every day?
What impact will shale gas development have on gas prices in the UK?
You know the answer if you can answer the previous questions, and the answer is obvious.
Business is all about bums on seats.
DC
> What about Shale gas.....
At the peak of the shale gas boom in the USA there were 1600 rigs working.
Numerous wells were drilled.
As a result of their success the gas price plummeted.
Sounds a good idea.
Now answer the following questions:
How many land rigs are there in the UK?
How many fraccing trucks are there in the UK?
What is the maximum number of onshore wells that could be drilled in a year in the UK?
What could the productive capacity of each of these wells be?
(Fallon announced 30-40 wells could be drilled in the next four years for shale gas).
How many wells will get planning permission each year in the UK (an EIA is required now for every well)?
How much gas does the UK use every day?
What impact will shale gas development have on gas prices in the UK?
You know the answer if you can answer the previous questions, and the answer is obvious.
Business is all about bums on seats.
DC
In reply to wintertree:
I guess many people want to believe this. I was taught similar twaddle in school in the 70s and reading soon made it obvious it was wrong. The real issue is how much damage is done to the environment getting it out and burning it.
I guess many people want to believe this. I was taught similar twaddle in school in the 70s and reading soon made it obvious it was wrong. The real issue is how much damage is done to the environment getting it out and burning it.
In reply to ByEek:
I'd wager rising prices will make this viable:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/28/uk-ireland-fire-ice-gas-...
Also, I thought we had loads of coal left. I don't understand that bit.
I'd wager rising prices will make this viable:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/28/uk-ireland-fire-ice-gas-...
Also, I thought we had loads of coal left. I don't understand that bit.
In reply to wintertree:
Any issue of "when are we running out of .. .. .." can only be discussed if price is brought into the equation.
In actual fact we never run out of anything unless it becomes too expensive to use.
At the moment oil is so cheap that wood chip for "sustainable green" heating systems is being shipped from Kentucky to the UK by boat because fuel oil is so cheap - how mad and hypocritical is that? A bit like flying mange tout, asparagus or cherries from South America.
Fuel price is controlled by taxation at the moment, not supply and demand.
This argument came up on this forum before and someone said we have already run out of charcoal and herring. I can buy both those in ten minutes in town.
You never actually run out of anything.
Oil is way too cheap, it should be $500 a barrel then it would not be wasted on cheap flights and the examples given above.
It is too precious.
DC
> So it's just a case of the usual, appallingly bad, reporting from the BBC then? To quote them By contrast, Britain has just 5.2 years of oil, 4.5 years of coal and three years of its own gas remaining.
Any issue of "when are we running out of .. .. .." can only be discussed if price is brought into the equation.
In actual fact we never run out of anything unless it becomes too expensive to use.
At the moment oil is so cheap that wood chip for "sustainable green" heating systems is being shipped from Kentucky to the UK by boat because fuel oil is so cheap - how mad and hypocritical is that? A bit like flying mange tout, asparagus or cherries from South America.
Fuel price is controlled by taxation at the moment, not supply and demand.
This argument came up on this forum before and someone said we have already run out of charcoal and herring. I can buy both those in ten minutes in town.
You never actually run out of anything.
Oil is way too cheap, it should be $500 a barrel then it would not be wasted on cheap flights and the examples given above.
It is too precious.
DC
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
That is of ironic interest to me ...
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=60587
> (Fallon announced 30-40 wells could be drilled in the next four years for shale gas).
That is of ironic interest to me ...
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=60587
In reply to ByEek:
It's bollocks. Just for coal alone there were (before all the pit closures) well over 100 years of reserves at 1980s usage levels (higher then than now) *known to be extractable*....plus additional reserves not confirmed to be economically recoverable....possibly over 200 years reserves at 1980s usage levels.
They're not taking the *known reserves* as their baseline, but current extraction rates for existing wells and mines, and the projected total remaining economical (at today's prices) reserves in those particular seams and reservoirs, and dividing those by annual consumption.
There are significant oil and gas reserves in and around the UK that have not yet been developed, or are in process of being developed but are not yet on-stream.
And re-working areas considered "uneconomical" by one company can result in increased reserves in producing fields. eg when BP sold the Forties field to Apache around 10 years ago, their production rates had declined dramatically and BP's estimate of total economically recoverable reserves was bumped up by about 25% when Apache re-evaluated the geophysical information. Apache soon had the field producing considersbly higher levels than it had declined to under BP, and extended the estimated lifetime of the field by 20 years.
BBC's usual poor science journalism and distortion of data to fit an agenda, I reckon.
> I am a bit confused by this article on the BBC
> In just over five years Britain will have run out of oil, coal and gas, researchers have warned.
It's bollocks. Just for coal alone there were (before all the pit closures) well over 100 years of reserves at 1980s usage levels (higher then than now) *known to be extractable*....plus additional reserves not confirmed to be economically recoverable....possibly over 200 years reserves at 1980s usage levels.
They're not taking the *known reserves* as their baseline, but current extraction rates for existing wells and mines, and the projected total remaining economical (at today's prices) reserves in those particular seams and reservoirs, and dividing those by annual consumption.
There are significant oil and gas reserves in and around the UK that have not yet been developed, or are in process of being developed but are not yet on-stream.
And re-working areas considered "uneconomical" by one company can result in increased reserves in producing fields. eg when BP sold the Forties field to Apache around 10 years ago, their production rates had declined dramatically and BP's estimate of total economically recoverable reserves was bumped up by about 25% when Apache re-evaluated the geophysical information. Apache soon had the field producing considersbly higher levels than it had declined to under BP, and extended the estimated lifetime of the field by 20 years.
BBC's usual poor science journalism and distortion of data to fit an agenda, I reckon.
Post edited at 11:55
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
Not as mad as the suggestions that the yanks are cutting down mature, wild forest (and not replanting them?) to supply those wood chips. The footage of acre after acre of what had been ancient forest covered in wood chipping was incredibly disheartening.
> At the moment oil is so cheap that wood chip for "sustainable green" heating systems is being shipped from Kentucky to the UK by boat because fuel oil is so cheap - how mad and hypocritical is that?
Not as mad as the suggestions that the yanks are cutting down mature, wild forest (and not replanting them?) to supply those wood chips. The footage of acre after acre of what had been ancient forest covered in wood chipping was incredibly disheartening.
In reply to skog:
yes, but it is uneconomical to extract it and of a poor quality (low energy yield and 'dirty'), hence why we shut all the coal mines in the 80's. it is far cheaper to import it half way round the world than dig up whats left of our own, plus ours is increasingly hard to get at without levelling whole hillsides or digging massive open cast pits across our countryside.
> Also, I thought we had loads of coal left. I don't understand that bit.
yes, but it is uneconomical to extract it and of a poor quality (low energy yield and 'dirty'), hence why we shut all the coal mines in the 80's. it is far cheaper to import it half way round the world than dig up whats left of our own, plus ours is increasingly hard to get at without levelling whole hillsides or digging massive open cast pits across our countryside.
In reply to Webster:
Actually, quite a lot of it isn't poor quality at all. Still a lot dirtier than gas, for sure, but some of the stuff we're importing currently is a lot dirtier than a lot of what could be extracted here.
Actually, quite a lot of it isn't poor quality at all. Still a lot dirtier than gas, for sure, but some of the stuff we're importing currently is a lot dirtier than a lot of what could be extracted here.
In reply to Rob Naylor:
Agreed. But if we stopped importing coal tomorrow, most of that 100 years worth of coal would not be obtainable immediately. In fact, haven't they just shut one of the two remaining mines in the UK down?
> It's bollocks. Just for coal alone there were (before all the pit closures) well over 100 years of reserves at 1980s usage levels (higher then than now) *known to be extractable*....plus additional reserves not confirmed to be economically recoverable....possibly over 200 years reserves at 1980s usage levels.
Agreed. But if we stopped importing coal tomorrow, most of that 100 years worth of coal would not be obtainable immediately. In fact, haven't they just shut one of the two remaining mines in the UK down?
In reply to ByEek:
True....there'd be a whole infrastructure to re-build....and Arthur to take his pickaxe back down off the wall!
Its still the BBC giving a very disingenuous impression though.
> Agreed. But if we stopped importing coal tomorrow, most of that 100 years worth of coal would not be obtainable immediately.
True....there'd be a whole infrastructure to re-build....and Arthur to take his pickaxe back down off the wall!
Its still the BBC giving a very disingenuous impression though.
In reply to ByEek:
Nor would it need to be - we only need 1 year per year - rising to perhaps 5x that much as our train wreck of a nation energy "policy" unfolds over the next decade. Mean time, about 10 years worth is classed as "surface". If that's anything like the fields around here you just removed 10cm to 1m of top soil and it's there, so I imagine that could be extracted at the necessary rate starting in a time scale of weeks with existing resources - given suitable motivation to trample over impact assessments and land owners.... How much infrastructure would be needed to convert/clean/crush it to boiler firing standards, compared to that currently available, I don't know.
The nimbys might complain with the opening or dozens of open cast mines. One proposal near here is causing quite a fuss.
> Agreed. But if we stopped importing coal tomorrow, most of that 100 years worth of coal would not be obtainable immediately.
Nor would it need to be - we only need 1 year per year - rising to perhaps 5x that much as our train wreck of a nation energy "policy" unfolds over the next decade. Mean time, about 10 years worth is classed as "surface". If that's anything like the fields around here you just removed 10cm to 1m of top soil and it's there, so I imagine that could be extracted at the necessary rate starting in a time scale of weeks with existing resources - given suitable motivation to trample over impact assessments and land owners.... How much infrastructure would be needed to convert/clean/crush it to boiler firing standards, compared to that currently available, I don't know.
The nimbys might complain with the opening or dozens of open cast mines. One proposal near here is causing quite a fuss.
Post edited at 14:39
In reply to skog:
Economists who think in £/$/€/¥ think that price alone is enough to make mining/drilling for fuel economic.
If the resources become so exhausted and worked out that it takes 1 J of energy to extract 1 J of fuel then you'll sell your 1 J of energy at a high price and leave the 1 J of fuel in the ground.
> It's only uneconomical until prices rise enough to change that!
Economists who think in £/$/€/¥ think that price alone is enough to make mining/drilling for fuel economic.
If the resources become so exhausted and worked out that it takes 1 J of energy to extract 1 J of fuel then you'll sell your 1 J of energy at a high price and leave the 1 J of fuel in the ground.
Post edited at 15:06
In reply to skog:
Yes, but the stupidity of economists annoys me!
Yes, but the stupidity of economists annoys me!
In reply to elsewhere:
True. But the optimistic view is that whilst the energy companies are waiting for prices to go up which makes difficult to extract sources more viable, the technologists and inventors are coming up with more efficient processes, products and ways of doing things.
> Yes, but the stupidity of economists annoys me!
True. But the optimistic view is that whilst the energy companies are waiting for prices to go up which makes difficult to extract sources more viable, the technologists and inventors are coming up with more efficient processes, products and ways of doing things.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...