China reveals 25tn cu metres of shale gas
China announced the results of its most extensive official appraisal of shale gas reserves on Thursday, having found potentially recoverable resources of 25.1tn cubic metres – less than previous estimates.
Although the figure is lower than an earlier estimate of 31tn cubic metres, China is still believed to have some of the largest reserves of shale gas in the world and has been working to develop shale gas as a cornerstone of its energy policy. The new estimate is enough gas to meet the country’s current consumption for nearly 200 years if fully extracted.
As Richard North points out, this changes everything:
The announcement really is a game changer. The Agenda 21 pushers are now going to find it increasingly hard to run with “sustainability” and, with climate change running out of steam, we can see them struggling to create another scare which will have anything like the impact.
The US is the largest shale gas producer at the moment with about 20% of all it’s gas being the shale variety. It has turned itself around from an gas importer to an exporter in the last ten years.
For those who want more gory details on the development in Shale Gas in China, the Peak Oil site, seems to have the best wrap.
h/t Lars G.
So the Greens and GetUp types won’t have to worry about shutting down the coal industry after all. The Chinese won’t be wanting to buy it anymore!
00
Put that on top of the West African Iron Ore deposits the Chinese are developing & Swannies surplus is looking sad.
Rabbit recipies anyone?
00
There are plenty enough rabbits on my farm.. I can let you have some ‘free samples’ if you’re up to catching them…
00
All the more reason why we should be digging up as much coal as possible, as soon as possible and selling it as fast as possible whilst we can get a buck and a job out of it.
There will come a time when all that coal will be near worthless.
Instead of pi$$ing our coal income up the wall, this incompetent government should have been building up the future fund as much as possible. THINK OF THE CHILDREN INDEED.
00
Baa,
I find this hard to believe. Unless nuclear replaces all electric production coal will always be economic where it is found nearby the end consumer market. Of course that is UNLESS government tries to modify the market for the benefit of trumped up ecological reasons.
00
In the US, aided and abetted by the Obama Administration and its out-of-control EPA, enviro-fascists are doing their best to shut down shale gas mining or frakking, along with coal mining, offshore gas and oil drilling, and nuclear. Yet another reason why China will become the world’s largest economy. If the world finds it hard to deal with China now, just wait until they become energy self-sufficient.
00
The numbers in the Financial Times article actually understate the case. As is usual with any news coming out of China, it doesn’t give the full story.
The 25.1 trillion cubic metres are identified reserves. There are other areas in China, especially in the west of the country, that have been surveyed as having probable reserves. Estimates vary between 50 and 100 trillion cubic metres.
I understand that trillion in these figures is the American trillion (i.e. 1000 million), and not the British trillion (i.e 1 million million)
00
Another thought:
China is the second largest country in the world by land area. But only about 60% of it has been ground surveyed for mineral deposits The rest has been done by aerial and satellite scanning.
00
Actually, Canada is the second biggest by land area, after Russia. We have not been pursuing shale gas and oil particularly hard because of existing conventional reserves, plus the Athabaska oil sands. Also, with likely locations close to heavily populated areas (Southern Ontario and Quebec), I expect there would be massive organized opposition from the usual eco/First Nations/BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody) suspects.
00
In the US, it goes: thousand, million, billion, trillion, quadrillion . . .
So 1000 million would be a billion.
00
Yep, typing in a hurry (as always).
The Americans use the SI powers of three nomenclature, which uses a different prefix for each multiplication by 1000.
The Brits use there own powers of six nomenclature, which uses the same words as the Americans, but with a multiplier of 1,000,000.
I am surprised that the EU let Britain get away with it.
There is a detailed explanation of the differences (and problems) at: http://extrinsic.blog.com/2011/01/1098/expression-of-large-numbers/
00
Rereke,
The amount of shale gas around the world is woefully underestimated. In the US alone, there is a shale play that has recently been discovered and tested. I am privy to the geology report and the data obtained from the test wells. This shale play will probably be the biggest field ever discovered in North America and may be larger than the reserves of Saudi Arabia. It contains vast quantities of oil, gas and gas condensate.
There are shale plays all over the world that have not been explored or tested. In fact, there are so many shale plays that the ones that only contain dry gas and are tight will experience diminished drilling activity. A perfect example is the Marcellus Shale in th Appalaichan Basin. Drilling activity has greatly decreased there due to low gases prices.
You would think the Republicans would have a field day with this but that would require an energy policy. Neither party has one. It is analogous to what Mark Twain once said about the weather, “Everybody is talking about it but nobody is doing anything about it.”
The world has enough energy to end poverty, disease and starvation for all. Unfortunately, the greed, ambition and lust for power by the greens and there afilliates prevents the attainment of economic opportunity for the billions who are denied what we in the developed world take for granted, cheap and abundant energy and all the benefits which flow therefrom.
00
Ed arent you involved in the oil business?
Is it harder to get shale gas out of the ground as opposed to say oil? Would the difficulty of extracting the gas drive up the cost much?
I know the green zombies are trying to stop Brazil from building a hydro dam but what would you say would be the major hurdle obstructing a company from say going into a poor African nation (assuming they have an abundance of gas etc) digging it up and turning it into electrickery?
00
“This shale play will probably be the biggest field ever discovered in North America . . .”
Ed, I know you probably can’t share the details, but are you suggesting this new find will likely be larger than Marcellus or Utica or Barnett?
Is there changing technology that is allowing us to identify new fields or is it just a case of not having looked everywhere yet? I’m not talking about extraction technology, which has come a long way, just talking about ability to even identify the existence of fields in the first place.
Thanks,
00
Cracker, Eric,
The play is about to become public. The geologist who wrote the report said the the test wells were producing an average of 18,000,000 cubic feet of gas, 600 barrels of condensate and 800 barrels of oil a day. The size of the play is mind boggling. It goes from the Mexican border, through Texas and Louisiana and into Mississippi. It is an average of forty miles wide and 600 to 800 feet thick. The pressure is about half that generated by exploding nitroglycerin. If the geologist is correct, it will be bigger than anything ever discovered in North America and will dwarf Prudohoe Bay and the East Texas Woodbine Field combined.
Gas is normally easier to produce than oil but tight shale gas plays are expensive and have a hyperbolic decline curve. And yes, our ability to find oil and gas is getting better all the time.
00
Interesting. Wikipedia (I know, I know) reports that the UK officially switched to short scale (1000x) in 1974, which would mean that their nomenclature is the same as the US now (though obviously some old timers are probably hanging on to the old nomenclature).
Any Brits on board care to enlighten us as to what “billion” means in Britian these days? 🙂
00
You are absolutely right. Britain has been following US usage of billion, trillion etc… for decades. It just makes life easier to go with the majority.
However, we still persist with the original spelling of “tonight” and “through”. 🙂
We can be stubborn sometimes.
00
Wiki says: trillion MAY mean:
1,000,000,000,000 (one million million; 10^{12}; SI prefix: tera-) for all short scale countries,
also: short scale: one trillion; long scale: one billion)
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 (one million million million; 10^{18}; SI prefix: exa-) for all long scale countries
00
1000 million = 1 billion in US
1,000,0000 Million = 1 British Billion
Not Trillion
00
Goanna, you say:
I say: 1,000,0000 Million = 1 British Billion AND a US Trillion
00
There is a line of reasoning that goes that the AGW scare was fundamentally a response to the Club of Romes limits to growth thesis, that it was seen to be necessary to create a fictious scare of sufficient strength to get people not to use “dwindling” fossil fuel reserves and to switch to renewables and accept substantially lower standards of living (except for the elites who would continue to live like royalty).
This argument will not be able to compete with genuine, low cost, substantial, available energy.
And after shale gas, we can move to methane clathrates for another couple of centuries. Given 400 to 500 years of prosperity and technical development, we may well be able to create technical solutions for energy resourcing that will get us over any currently perceived fundamental “constraints”.
00
Ooo … Methane clathrates is a little nasty – it has a slight tendency to go boom and cause tidal waves and such. Do not try this at home.
00
Sucks to be a peak oil enthusiast…
Time for someone to come up with another catastrafarian scare.
I have one – how does this sound?
a $23/tonne tax on carbon!
Coming to bill in your home soon!
Oops, that won’t work. That is real. Oh well, I tried.
Does anyone have any other suggestions? Peak oil and ocean dealkalinisation are dead in the water. What’s next?
00
Mad Jack
I have been working on a theory in which the increase in CO2 actually slows down (or increases i have not decided yet) the spin rate of the planet. This spin rate will slightly change our orbit so that at times we will get drought and other times we will get floods and in between we will get snow and cold and every couple of orbits we may get a cyclone with the potential to cause an ice age in the next thousand or so years.
Once this scare has run its course i will release my next predic……..sorry……….projection that will also include the Moon. You see if our orbit around the sun changes then this also influences our relationship with the Moon. Possible scenarios include changes in tidal movements which WILL cause the Maldives to sink, Easter will occur in August, Mayan countdown clock will lose its relevance (re Galactic alignment)werewolves will be a bit more active. I also project that Apophis will now travel through the keyhole and could possibly hit us in 2036 so as a precaution we should build bunkers all over the world for the rich (bankers), famous and scary story tellers to scurry into (once there we can seal them up).
Just waiting on my grant application to come through, should be a no brainer as i mentioned AGW the obligatory 27 times in my executive summary.
00
Ah but Crakar24, did you add the actual words “and how they will be affected by climate change”.
If not, best do a quick amendment!
00
But ho……what th……I thoug……shit.
00
.
Above all, don’t forget to stress that it will be “worse than we first thought”.
That seems to be good for an extra million or so.
00
“Banker bunkers”?
00
wunkers bunkers!
00
The Mayans didn’t have a concept of leap years, so their calendar is actually out of tune with our modern one.
Consequently, the Mayan calendar actually ran out some time last year, and nobody noticed.
You have to feel sorry for the Mayans – all that trouble they went to, and …. nothing.
Talk about epic fail.
00
My thinking here rereke was that the counter goes from 6,000 years to day one on December 21 2012 and many people suggest this is al based on the galactic alignment of the Earth, Sun and center of the milky way. However any changes in Earths orbit would have been an unforeseen event to the Mayans so the summer solstice will no longer be the summer solstice making their counter not much of a counter anymore.
Cheers
PS Depending on what you read they had a very good concept of leap years (365 and a 1/4 days)
00
Crakar,
I would suggest you dub this the agitating washing machine greenhouse theory.
That should ensure a nice fat government grant for you. Let me know if you need some more boozers, I mean assistants, I mean spruikers.
The only thing left is to tie it to some cute furry animal somewhere and to some set of orrible diseases. It only needs to be cute when it’s a baby though. It’s allowed to grow into an alpha predator monster.
00
How about soft, cuddly baby humans?
Yes, I know they grow into smelly, unwashed, constantly grazing teenagers who raid your wallet and race off and join GetUp.
But at least they’re cute and cuddly for a little while.
00
Noooo. Not Getup!!! – couldn’t they become Jehovahs witnesses or Electricity Door to Door salesmen instead?
After all, isn’t the JW crowd where the electricity retailers got their door knocking recruits from?
00
Mad Jack,
The GBR life forms spawn on the cycles of the Moon, change them and you change the reef “oh my God the reef will dies, dies i tells ya” so we have our token sacraficial lamb….well plankton in this case.
As a backup we must also think of the wolves who only howl at a full Moon how will they be affected. Obviously the change in orbit will lead to a greater (or less wobble) therefore i proudly declare that the “Arctic will be free of summer ice in 235……..hang on just let me check that (shuffling of paper)……2035. So the cute poley bear will be a thing of the past so as you can see i have all bases covered.
And yes i am currently recruiting boozers to help me drink the profits but before i give you a job let me ask you one question and if you get it right your in.
If i CC someone in on an email will i be then required to pay a carbon tax?
00
Unfortunately they seem to be focussing on the totally nonsensical “ocean acidification”. Otherwise they can’t keep up the theme of de-industrialisation to save the earth.
00
On top of the shale gas the Chinese and the Indians are developing thorium technology so it looks like Chuck L is right about China being the largest econmy soon . Greenpeace will continue to do its best to hobble the West.
Madjak –I’ve never really understood this concept of “peak” oil. As I understand it, it only takes into account wells in production. Any known reserves not being exploited by the oil companies do not come into the equation. Correct me if I am wrong.
00
Also not counted in the “peak” oil equation are the hydrocarbon eating bacteria that simply would have cleaned it all up by now if it were a finite resource.
[links are fussy about other characters near the link. In this case the apostrophy closing the quote didn’t have a space before the http:] ED
00
Thanks ED I will try it on the preview button first next time.
00
Link attempt no 2!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827874.800-life-is-found-in-deepest-layer-of-earths-crust.html
I fear the human population may not grow fast enough to prevent our planet from becoming like Titan by consuming the hydrocarbon menace. Titan a place that seems to have no life yet is loaded with so called fossil fuels and despite having a thick atmosphere rich in methane that is supposed to be about 23 times more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 is very very cold!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD1rPrD48jU
00
Ah, but distance from the sun, atmospheric pressure, etc. doesn’t count if it makes the planet warmer, then it is all due to the “greenhouse” gasses in the atmosphere. However a planet can have an atmosphere of pure “greenhouse” gasses, an atmospheric pressure magnitudes higher than our own, higher gravity, etc. but if it’s cooler than here, it is because of how far from the sun it is and so on.
Warmer == ignore any other factors, blame “greenhouse” gasses.
Cooler == blame every other factor ignored in previous case while ignoring “greenhouse” gasses.
Eventually though they will have to accept that ignoring those other variables in their equations doesn’t make those variables, or their influence on the equation, go away.
00
.
Climate science uses equations?
I thought they just fed
garbage“homogenised” data into one end of ameat grindercomputer, attached asausage skinglobal warming scenario at the other end, and turned the handle.They use equations?
No wonder I don’t understand it.
00
MV,
Dont be such a smart arse of course they use equations, give me the answer to this question without using equations if you think you are so clever.
Little Jimmy gets 3 million dollars a year in grant money from the government and he spends:
$100,000 on beer and skittles for the office Xmas party
$150,000 on flights and accomodation for cracked crab buffets in exotic locales
$75,000 on enlisting the services of hackers to write his computer code
$200,000 on legal fees fighting to stay out of jail
$500,000 down payment on luxury beach front apartment in Malibu.
$50,000 on greasing the palms of editors
How much money does little Jimmy have left?
00
.
Smart non-equation answer # 1
If he got it from the current gubmint, it would all be “left”.
Smart non-equation answer # 2
If he got it as a grant from the gubmint – who cares?
Plenty more where that came from, and it’s not as if he’ll ever have to account for it, or pay it back.
Smart non-equation answer # 3
If it was for “climate research”, about $15 million.
Climate scientists use a different numbering system that involves “positive feedback”.
The more you spend, the more you have, until you reach a “tipping point” where you become a billionaire.
00
I stand corrected they dont use equations
00
Shale gas.
Yet another example of open ended Resourceship.
Green luddites who proclaim peak oil requiring ‘sustainability’ don’t understand that whatever will replace it is yet to be realised.
Even to claim peak oil fails to realise that the planetary processes that created the oil supplies are still underway, so, further discoveries will always be made going forward.
The time scale required has been underway for ever.
Sustainability is the golden calf of Green luddites.
And what better example of this than quasicrystals:
Unfortunately for humanity, the green luddites are in control, with their regime of sunbeams & sea breezes for energy supply and a fraudulent tax on carbon & oxygen.
00
We have only newly discovered quantum physics and the amount of energy from such sources is possibly unbelievable but thanks to the green agenda it will be hard to harness such power while we are living in caves and chewing on straw.
It amazes me that everyone knows exactly what the Dark Ages was and yet we want to go back there.
China who is now buying our coal will in a few short years say I’m sorry but we have found our own resources sell your coal to someone else and we will be back to the single tier economy that our Government and the Greens want.
We as a Country would have squandered the greatest opportunity that has ever been given to us by using our current cheap source of energy and accumulating the wealth that comes with it. Yet certain individuals with a lack of foresight want this done for the the sake of the Planet.
I don’t hold much faith in humanity from this point on.
00
We will succeed, Bob, in spite of ourselves. So, don’t be too pessimistic, even the thickest of us will be overwhelmed by humanity’s over-riding tendencies to ingenuity overcoming the nay-sayers, Luddites and Malthusians. There is an Edison lying dormant inside every one of us, just that in some it lies beneath layers of vulcanized bullshit. It’s in our genome. They cannot beat it down, because we are much smarter than those who seek to control us- grey little men and women in their grey little worlds.
00
I’m afraid that boat has long since sailed.
Waaaay back in the early Seventies Lang Hancock and Joh Bjelke Petersen had a vision of a railway line from the coking coal deposits in QLD to the iron ore deposits in the Pilbara. Their plan was to build German state-of-the-art steel refineries and produce world-class high grade steel in northern WA.
The steel would then be shipped back on the railway to QLD (around Gladstone if memory serves), for export around the world and to feed a heavy industry development (ship-building etc). The heavy industries in both Newcastle (NSW) and Great Britain were tottering at the time, so they saw the chance to bring in skilled domestic and UK migrants to supply the labour for both the steel production and the heavy industry..
The plan also envisioned using the railway to open up Northern Australia for development, with a series of Ord River-style developments right across North Australia, which, in turn, would support further skilled migration.
There was money available – Japanese companies were more than happy to see the messy steel smelting side of things moved from their small, crowded islands to the empty outback of WA. They also saw the opening up of Northern Australia for agriculture as a way guaranteeing stability in their own future food needs.
If something along these lines had been implemented in the Seventies Australia would now be a leading industrialised nation with a relatively wealthy population of 50 million or more, quite capable of supporting industries like car and truck manufacture.
Instead, the plan, and ever-diminishing versions of it, have been vetoed by successive Australian governments. First Whitlam (Labor), then Fraser (liberal), then Hawke (Labor), then Keating (Labor), and then Howard (Liberal).
It seems to me that someone, somewhere, decided long ago that Australia was to remain forever an open cut mine-pit, with sheep grazing on wheat stubble around the edges.
00
I went to a talk about the future of agriculture. The presenter mentioned a combined tomato farm/fish farm, with the tomatos grown hydroponically and the fish living in the water underneath. The productivity was amazing – 100kg of tomatos per square meter per year.
Its stuff like this that may save us in the next 50 years before population stabilises.
00
What did the fish eat?
What was the source of the energy powering the hydroponic system and lights?
00
Aquaponics has been around for some time. It works well for green leaf vegetables which love the fish nitrogen waste in the water. I have my doubts that tomatoes would be so welcoming without supplementary fertilizer in the water, which would upset the fish.
Don’t invest too much in this without checking it out.
00
I’ve seen a similar style thing with an earthworm farm.
Garbage into the top of the farm, fluid drained from the bottom of it, mixed with water as a “liquid fertiliser”, and drip fed to beds of vegetables.
00
What in God’s name are you on? “before population stabilizes?” at least now you are showing your true colors. I suspect people like you consider the movie “Soylent Green” or the book “1984” as “how to” guides.
00
1984 isn’t a how to guide???
00
Fancy hydroponics systems can work well in First World countries that have the power and manufacturing infrastructure to make it happen, but what about the Third World (where all the malnutrition is, anyway)?
Norman Borlaug (“the man who fed the world”) spent his last years developing strains of rice and wheat that could be irrigated with seawater. Seawater farming vastly expands the concept of “arable land” and, combined with the greatly increased yields given by genetics, will probably take care of most of the production problem.
The distribution problem is another thing. Most starvation occurs where authoritarian governments prevent food distribution. As long as you have tyrannies, you will have starvation. (Which makes you wonder why so many “Green” organizations are in favor of greatly expanded government powers — unless their agendas don’t have anything to do with human welfare.)
00
Well that’s good news if the peak oil scare runs out of steam. They™ will probably turn to a threat from outer space and will train their predator drone pilots how to make the UFO noise with a comb and piece of paper.
Of course they could do what they always do and just ignore reality, energy reserves, what energy reserves. Look a denialist alien sympathiser.
00
This threat from space could be a wake up call.
” this morning’s X5-class solar flare is expected to reach our planet on March 8th at 0625 UT (+/- 7 hr). Analysts at the Goddard Space Weather Lab, who prepared the CME’s forecast track, say the impact could spark a strong-to-severe geomagnetic storm.”
http://www.spaceweather.com/
And the time is:
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fullscreen.html?n=1440
00
My emphasis.
You gotta love this stuff – Analysts (just working with some numbers we prepared earlier), forecast “lets make a straight line prediction – nah lets make it logarithmic, that looks more exciting”, could (if we are really lucky), strong-to-severe (gotta make it sound scary).
They are just making this stuff up. They haven’t got a clue what is going to happen, but want to look as though they are in charge.
Any Canadians our there? How often do these events occur in the far north? “Fairly frequently”, I hear you say?
Well then, it must be time to panic … not.
00
Rereke Whakaaro correct so far. It is now being described as a fizzer! However the worlds media did for once look to the sun and space for the reason behind what may happen on earth.
00
A Canadian here… Aurouras are nothing special here, unless you live in the southernmost parts of the country or in cities where the ambient light washes out the sky at night. A significant solar flare can cause problems, on the other hand, because of its effects on thousand-km long transmission lines, which are common here. A major solar outburst 5 years ago knocked out much of Quebec’s power grid for a while.
00
I should add that other natural events are much more disruptive. in the Ice Storm of 1998, a two-day period of freezing rain in the Ottawa-Montreal region caused many transmission towers and lines to collapse under the weight of the accumulated ice. Most of Montreal’s electricty supply was cut off, and some rural areas were without power for three weeks.
Honestly, I’d like to see a repeat event, if only to watch all of the wind generators come crashing down (as long as no-one is underneath when it happens).
00
Not to worry! The Chinese are all benevolent and lovey-dovey. They are, aren’t they? Aren’t they?
00
I know o/t but … gotta love Dr S Fred Singer
(copy of a comment I put on another blog but thought you would enjoy it too
an update of US EPA endangerment cases
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/epa_endangers_human_health_and_welfare.html
00
Perhaps those super costly solar units could be converted to flood barriers to protect against the rain that we weren’t going to have anymore because of “global warming”.
00
Cue a huge increase in alarmism and frantic activism from the Greens and other eco-fascists in order to achieve what they really want!
“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we might do with it.”
– Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
– Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
– Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”
– David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
http://green-agenda.com/
00
I always thought Ehrlich, & many of his mates would approve of giving every idiot child, & everyone else, a machine gun.
Provided they turned them on each other that would surely achieve his goal, of depopulating the world, for him.
00
I know, i know another OT comment but here is just another friendly reminder that the sun plays very little role on what happens here on Earth.
“The CME that is due to hit us today at about 16:00 AEDT is from an X5 class flare so its going to be a big one”
iswa.gsfc.nasa.gov/downloads/20120307_014400_anim.tim-den.gif
00
My last fix did not make it so i will try again here is the correct link
http://iswa.gsfc.nasa.gov/downloads/20120307_014400_anim.tim-den.gif
00
the shale oil/gas boom in US (and now China maybe) certainly is a game changer in terms of peak oil. I think it is a tad harsh to say that only extreme greenies were concerned about diminishing fossil fuel resources though. Alan Kohler at business spectator had a great piece on this last week. Abundant fossil fuels certainly makes it a much harder challenge to cur GHG emissions that is for sure. Hope you guys are right!
00
The Gillard/Swan government is reverting to diversionary tactics perfected by Paul Keating. Remember that whenever Paul was in deep doo-doo he’d trot out the old “Republic” red herring?
Swan is trying to revive the out-dated class warfare bogey with his attack on “rich miners” and today we have some woman’s organisation giving Julia an A Plus for conflict resolution and other decisions and then making the ridiculous allegation that she is being picked on just because she’s a woman! Let’s revive the old “gender” war!
IMHO, Swan and Gillard are both terrified of the potentially disastrous implications of the carbon dioxide tax on the coal and many other industries and consequential massive price rises on all goods and services and if they’re not they should be! The $23 a tonne is looking increasingly ridiculous and shaky!
Both know that if China stops buying our coal Australia is in very deep financial trouble.
The China shale gas news will definitely not be welcome news so look for more diversionary tactics surfacing soon!
00
While this shale gas can be used for electrical power generation in China, some things need to be taken into account here.
The gas is used to ‘fire’ Natural Gas (NG) fired power generation. This uses a turbine, in this case similar (and note similar) to aircraft jet engines, only larger and a little more robust. This NG turbine drives the generator, and a typical large scale NG Plant can produce up to 500MW, but the average would be closer to 250/300MW. That’s one large turbine driving one generator of 500MW, so an overall Plant may have two or three ‘units’ producing more power overall.
This turbine is totally different when compared with a coal fired or nuclear power plant’s turbine, where they are more robust and much larger.
The nature of the turbine itself is that it can be run up to speed quickly, (as opposed to large scale coal fired or nuclear power) hence it is best utilised for what is called ‘Peaking Power’, those periods of time during the day when ‘top up’ power is needed.
To that end, they may only run for 4 to 6 hours a day.
Run them on a constant 24/7/365 basis and their life span is shortened considerably.
There are two types of plant OCGT (Open Cycle Gas Turbine) which is a straight through burn.
There can be an addition to this type of plant, now becoming more common, using the hot exhaust to boil steam to drive a smaller conventional generator. This is referred to as Cogeneration, and it means they can get extra power output from a plant of this nature.
A Gas fired plant still has CO2 emissions, but here those emissions are less than for coal fired power.
On an equivalent basis, those CO2 emissions when compared with the output on a watt for watt similarity basis, then a gas fired plant will only emit one third of the CO2, and that can be as high as 40%.
While we use the average multiplier for coal fired power of One ton of coal produces 2.86 tons of CO2, with respect to gas fired plants, the emissions also can be readily calculated using the formula of 122 Pounds (weight) of CO2 is produced from the burning of 1 mcf of natural gas. (where an mcf is one thousand cubic feet of NG)
So, knowing the gas consumption of a plant of this nature, we can effectively work out those CO2 emissions.
As I mentioned, there are pros and cons here.
Gas fired plants are typically the fastest to bring to the power delivery stage from the proposal to actual delivery of power.
However, run to fill a base load requirement, and the life span is shortened, possibly to half that of large scale coal fired power, and from that you can see that the CO2 emissions total is somewhat nullified if a coal fired plant has twice to three times the life span.
This huge Shale Gas find in China will mean that now they will be ramping up construction of these types of plant also, again, because they have CO2 emissions, looked upon unfavourably here in Oz.
I mean why construct something that emits CO2, when we can have an aesthetically pleasing Wind Plant or a plant that gives us free power from the Sun. (sarc Off)
These NG plants will be adding to the mix of China’s Power makeup. Now that will be considerably cheaper, having access to their own supply of Gas.
Tony.
00
What you say may be true Tony but in the UK what else have they got?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/07/wind_power_how_much/
They talk about using gas as a backup to wind so those gas plants wont last too long will they
00
Is there something fundamental to the design of a NG turbine that means 24×7 usage necessarily reduces the lifespan? Maybe it’s just the way they are currently built. Would there be no future technological development possible that could allow longer continuous run times?
BTW, does running the turbines for more than the 4 – 6 hours a day reduce the total number of service hours or just make a major overhaul happen sooner, with the same service lifetime?
00
Sorry David, wrong tab opened here. For the reply, see Comment 22 Below.
Tony.
00
Here in the U.S. gas fired boilers have been used to generate steam for conventional steam turbine driven generators. Nothing prohibits using exactly that time honored technology now or in the future.
Nothing necessitates a gas turbine for base load power generation.
00
.
Before everybody gets too panicky about shale gas replacing our coal exports, to China or anywhere else, by far the biggest slice of the coal export dollar pie is for coking coal used for steel-making, not power generation. For as long as there is a market for steel, there will be a market for our coking coal, regardless of what is being used to make electricity.
Second, by far the largest customer for our coal is Japan, not China, followed by Korea and Taiwan. Between them, these three countries alone account for two-thirds of our coal exports.
China has lots and lots of coal – they are the world’s biggest producers. In fact, while Australia may be the world’s biggest exporter of coal, we only mine about an eighth of what China does, and about half as much as the USA. Even India mines more.
00
Interesting
It’s good to get things in perspective.
In this case , reassuring.
00
.
I am genuinely more concerned about the prospect of some bright young industrial chemist coming up with a cheap, easy to produce plastic or polymer to replace steel in construction and manufacturing (ships, cars etc).
That would take out all of our iron ore exports, the lion’s share of our coal exports, probably all our nickel, and maybe zinc as well, all in one hit.
Given the current levels of public and private debt in this country, we’d go from First World, to Third World status in a matter of months.
And I believe it is only a matter of time.
00
you’d better stock up on jumpers while you still have the chance.
00
Not the bloody jumper argument again Matt
00
well I thought it was funny anyway
00
Also – if we become a third world nation then jumpers may well be the only Plan B we can afford.
00
i am not saying it wasnt funny
00
MV, it’s here.
Check out the 3d printer.
3D printer will this year be available for homes @ $1000!
Replicaters, like touch screen devices, were only the stuff of Star Trek (Next Gen.)
Like any printer, it requires a cartridge.
What the cartridge contains is only limited by our imagination.
Check the 3d printed bike, the guitar…
Awesome.
00
Henry Ford built a plastic car that couldn’t be busted with an axe – see YouTube and –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp_plastic
00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54vD_cPCQM8&feature=related
00
I think there is a greater likelihood for the collapse of our gas exports, which are really only in the costly development stage.I am wondering just how secure are the contracts for our off shore gas, in the west, & our coal seam gas developments in Qld.
I for one would not be putting any of my cash into gas right now.
00
There’s some ‘thought’ that this discovery ‘could’ lead to China achieving Energy equality, and this is completely erroneous.
Early last year or in late 2010 China finally overtook the U.S. as the largest producer of electrical power on Earth.
Now, in the Western World, that electrical power equality is basically the same. Here in Australia, our equality is almost exactly the same as for the U.S. on a per capita basis, and the same applies across the whole of that Western Developed World.
While the U.S. has 45% of its power coming from coal fired sources, here in Oz, that is at 85%. The difference is that the U.S. has Nuclear Power (22%) and a greater proportion coming from Natural Gas than here in Oz.
The U.S. consumes 4105TWH of power with a population of 310 Million (app)
China consumes 4200TWH (app) of power with a population of 1,350 Million (app) a population total greater than the U.S. by a factor of 4.35
So, for China to achieve electrical power equality, they need to increase their power generation by a factor of 4.35 greater than it is now.
In the Developed World, the mix of power is Residential 38%, Commerce 37%, and Industrial 24% and that is similar everywhere in that Developed World.
In China barely 10% of power goes to the residential sector with almost 80% going to the Industrial sector. So, from that it’s obvious that people in China have very little access if any to electrical power at that Residential level, eg, power to the homes they live in, and that figure could be close to one Billion people having little or no power in their homes.
As China vastly industrialises, one good thing from that is more and more people will gain access to a constant and reliable supply of electricity to the homes they live in.
So, if China has to have 4.35 times more power than it has now to achieve that equality with the Western World, then construction of power plants of every variety will need to continue at an unprecedented rate for literally decades to come, Decades. Many of them.
Because that mix is variable, then they will need coal, our coal, for centuries to come to feed their coal fired plants, in operation now, and to come.
This Shale NG discovery will ease imports for that power sector, but they will still need huge amounts of coal, nuclear fuel for rods in their nuclear power plants, and the list goes on.
Keep in mind here that China is not thumbing its nose at the Developed World by constructing CO2 emitting plants at a scale unheard of.
That is done because they do not have what we take for granted.
Now, those Green Morons ‘perceive’ that for the sake of the environment we need to stop China from constructing those CO2 emitting plants. Hence what those Greenies are saying is this.
We have it, and you can’t.
And then, on top of that, they want us in the Developed World to go back and join them, by closing down our CO2 emitting power plants.
This smacks of sheer and utter colonialism on behalf of those Greenies. They have absolutely no concept whatsoever of what is happening outside their own homogenous little green dream.
China will NEED our coal, and they need it quicker than we can dig it out of the ground.
Here in OZ we have the highest quality ‘burning’ coal on Earth, both steaming coal for those power plants, and coking coal for steel making purposes.
China constructs new tech coal fired power plants that burn less coal, burn it more efficiently, and emit less CO2, and generate more power.
Here in OZ, that is absolutely ‘verboten’.
Madness on a scale that is unbelievable.
China is not to blame in all of this.
They just want what we already have. Electrical power equality.
These vast new NG deposits will help them (in a small way) to begin the task of getting there.
See now how those Greenies are hypocrites on a scale that they don’t even realise.
Tony.
00
Tony,
Not sure about your 4.35 figure, the Chinese live a little different to us i would say it would probably peak around 3 at a guess but your point is still taken they need to build shit tins of coal plants.
00
The most difficult thing people find believing is how I can say that almost one billion people have little or no access to electrical power in China, and here I use the U.S. as an example because only they have detailed accurate data available, and on a two month lead time mind you, wrt electrical power consumption and generation.
In the U.S. the Demand is that 4105TWH, and of that, 38% is consumed at the residential level, or 1560TWH.
If energy consumption was the same in China, then that residential sector alone would be consuming 4.35 times that amount, or about 6800TWH, just for the residential sector alone.
TOTAL power in all of China is only 4200TWH for every sector.
Barely 10% of that goes to the residential sector, or 420TWH. Even considering that Chinese residential consumption is nowhere near what it is in the Developed World, then if the population of the U.S. at that 310 million, then that figure of one billion people in China who have access to little or no electrical power is in fact the truth.
Keep in mind that while I have only been discussing China here, it is even worse than that in India, and by extrapolation the remainder of the Undeveloped World at large.
Those population figures I give are the single most questioned responses I get, because people have no comprehension of being without that access to electrical power, assuming that because they have it, then everyone must.
It just isn’t so.
Tony.
00
Tony,
I live in a 3 bedroom house, my parents live in a 3 bedroom house and so does my wifes parents and between us we have about 5 flat screen TV’s, 3 computers, and 4 cars etc. In China they have a one child policy and 6 generations all live under the one (thatched) roof and live on top of a mostly dirt floor.
You can give them all the electricity you want and they will still not arrive at the 4.35 figure, India on the other hand……………………..
00
Crakar back at the dawn of the industrial revolution it would not have been uncommon for british families to have many generations living under one roof and on dirt floors. I doubt that electricity access is the only thing that will change in China. They may not reach 4.35 but I doubt they will remain in hovels by choice for very long.
00
No of course not that is not what i am saying, if they ever get to 4.35 it will be in a very, very long time. India on the other hand will embrace this new technology very quickly.
00
Crakar,
This is like that now, but 100 years ago we lived more or less like the Chinese today. OK, minus the one-child policy. My parents grew up in homes with no central heat, no electricity and no indoors plumbing. That was just 70 short years ago.
As they get richer, the Chinese will move into larger homes with appliances, A/C and everything we take for granted. And not just them: India, Pakistan, Africa, Indonesia and much of Latin America have huge amounts of catching up to do. Add to that we keep adding some 80 million people every year.
To conclude: whoever has energy resources will have a buyer for them.
00
About 60 – 90 million Chinese are now what would be classified as “upper middle class” here in OZ, complete with multiple TV’s, computers and cars. A decade ago there were less than 10 million. A decade before that, much less than a million.
I appreciate it is still a small percentage of the overall population, but it is growing at a staggering rate.
Also, at the other end of the scale, some of my Chinese in-laws are peasant farmers, living three generations in a thatched-roof hut. However, they also have electricity, a TV a fridge, mobile phones, a computer, a couple of scooters and a tricycle motorbike.
Twenty years ago all they had was the thatch-roofed hut.
00
No one here is in disagreement.
00
This link to the ever fabulous GapMinder shows a rather curious phenomenon.
It is strange how countries can differ so much in their increase in residential electricity per person and their increase in total energy produced per person.
You can see in Australia our increase in production has been mainly in supplying residential electricity.
Whereas Italy has greatly increased electricity without changing the total energy per person by much at all.
Presumably this was due to migration from gas lighting and heating to electrically based substitutes??
00
Tony,
It is a great mistake to compare “China” in terms of population statistics with the US or Europe. The US and Europe have economies that are much more homogenised.
With China, you always need to consider three different economic areas:
The “Westernised” cities: Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, etc. that have an economic and demographic spread similar to cities in the US. And, compared to the rest of Asia, comparable standards of living. This is “the China” that most Westerners see.
Then there is the rest of the Han area of China – about the eastern one sixth of the land area – which is where most of the industrialised activity occurs, and most of the power is consumed. These areas do not figure in the tourist guide books – for good reason.
And finally the remaining five sixths of the land area, which has most of the natural resources, but is primarily engaged in crop production, with comparatively very low power consumption, but a high input in manual labour. The standard of living is second world, and is highly dependent on money being sent home from relatives working in the East. Apart from “Silk Road” tourists, Westerners are rarely seen.
So given these stark differences in economic distribution, comparative population figures should not be used to interpret China’s power usage as a whole.
00
.
Right on the money, Rereke.
00
This information shows how there are always more aspects to a subject than is initially apparent.
It also shows why knee-jerk reactions to information is always a mistake. I have learned to take nothing at face value anymore. I love the internet because it is a fount of information for those who will only take the time to look, learn and evaluate before developing a considered opinion.
There is a lot of real dross out there, but many nuggets too.
00
all i know is we should be building coal-fired power stations.
1 March: Euractiv: EU leaders eye stronger UN role to police the environment
European leaders on Friday (2 March) could throw their weight behind a plan to convert the relatively powerless UN Environment Programme (UNEP) into a world body with the muscle to oversee treaties and protect the ecology…
“We shouldn’t underestimate the opportunities that we have,” said Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy, a Dutch liberal MEP who is the panel’s vice president. “A lot of international environmental negotiations are paralysed, and this is the right moment to … really make some steps ahead and try to serious improve the international institutional framework.”…
The reforms would put the current agency on par with bodies like the World Health and World Trade organisations, although the proposal is nothing new – the UNEP was created 40 years ago as a compromise to a more far-reaching organisation.
The draft conclusions for this week’s summit of EU national leaders do not specifically refer to the UNEP, but call for a “strengthened global institutional framework for sustainable development which should include a strengthened environmental dimension.”…
One Brussels diplomat told EurActiv that Europe’s ambition at Rio was to adopt “a timetable” for setting a UN environment agency, with wider powers than the current UNEP.
The agency would watch over all existing environmental treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol, the Montreal Protocol and other international accords.
“There are 500 of them. Not all have a secretariat but there are 500 legal bases and a large number of structures,” the diplomat pointed out. “So there should be more consistency between these various agreements.”
One of the suggestions is to streamline the various bodies advising the UN on environmental matters – such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) on biodiversity…
“This would allow having a complete view of the environmental situation in each country,” the diplomat said. “It would also allow identify synergies or contradictions between different environmental objectives.”
Europeans are hoping that the rationalisation of UN bodies will appeal to countries like the United States or Canada, which are among the most sceptical when it comes to environmental issues and international organisations. In turn, the new UN agency and its scientific panel could be given more resources “precisely because it would bring savings elsewhere,” the argument goes.
This would give environmental issues more credibility and legitimacy at global level – a so-called ‘voice for the planet’…
http://www.euractiv.com/sustainability/eu-leaders-eye-stronger-un-role-police-environment-news-511197
read all as FT don’t like cut and paste…
7 March: Financial Times: Poland warns EU on climate policy
By Joshua Chaffin in Brussels and Pilita Clark in London
Coal-dependent Poland has warned fellow European Union member states against “gambling with the European economy’s future” as it seeks to thwart a campaign to deepen the bloc’s cuts in greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change.
Both sides are braced for a showdown on Friday when environment ministers gather in Brussels to determine the future course of the EU’s climate policy.
Denmark, the current holder of the EU’s rotating presidency, is leading a campaign to endorse a move to a 25 per cent cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2020 – above the 20 per cent target European leaders agreed in 2008. It has rallied support from most member states, as well as the Commission, the EU’s executive arm.
But Poland, which generates 90 per cent of its electricity from coal, one of the most polluting energy sources, has emerged as the chief obstacle to the plan…
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/4422e92c-6883-11e1-b803-00144feabdc0.html
00
Their best practice operation is as Peaking Power plants, a few hours (up to 6 or so) a day.
Here’s an image of a GE H Series Gas Turbine common for this application. This is just the turbine itself.
Link to NG Turbine image
Servicing is done on an ‘hours run’ basis, so running them constantly would be servicing more often.
Tony.
00
I see Mr Stewart Franks is having a go at our Climate Change
CommissarCommissioner:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/wet-behind-the-ears-on-climate/story-e6frgd0x-1226292581646
This is pay-walled, so simply google “Wet behind the ears on climate” and foilow the link to circumnavigate the paywall as usual.
Stewart rightly points out that Flannery made some silly prognostications in years gone by, and is as guilty of cherry-picking as others he acuses of doing the same.
00
I think this follows from a link I put in another thread http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709
This is worth looking at for the comments. I am saddened* though that doug Cotton no longer posts on this site.
*I am not saddened at all.
00
Bulldust, I thought the inclusion of Frank’s article was interesting in another way….especially in the context of the recent Finklestein report, which The Australian paper perceives as a direct threat. Could Frank’s article be seen as a ‘shot across the bow’?
Just imagine if more articles like this were published, which The Oz could say was in the interests of balance. We all know that alarmist articles vastly outnumber non-alarmist articles in the Oz. I do seem to remember an Oz editorial to this effect sometime last year when they were roundly jumped on for even publishing one article.
The routine publication of articles by sceptical scientists would seriously undermine Gillard’s tax. Such articles would certainly make it hard for her to claim that recent high rain fall and flooding are evidence of man-made CC and the rationale for the Co2 tax.
Labor and the Alarmists have relied on a compliant/complicit media. Perhaps The Oz is letting it be known they might not be willing to continue being so ‘accommodating’, if there are any efforts to regulate and curtail what they are allowed to publish.
Just a thought…..maybe wishful thinking….I know it is only one article at this stage, but I’m hoping we might see a few more like this of an educational nature….
00
I was curious what Bob Brown’s position was on the Greenpeace vexatious litigation strategy which broke in the press this week. After a quick Google I found this quote at the ABC:
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3447063.htm?site=perth
Just in case we wondered whether he was on the fence or evading this issue… here it is in all it’s glory. As far as he is concerned throwing money at vexatious legal challenges and other practices to combat the coal industry is “fine way to balance the debate” for Australia. A very, very fine line he is treading there…
00
“Mr Stewart Franks”
He’s good value.
A REAL climate scientist.
Cant find the link?
00
Try this KK
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/03/flannery-out-of-his-depth-as-flooding-rains-return/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=flannery-out-of-his-depth-as-flooding-rains-return
00
Thanks Crakar!
00
or this
http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-and-floods-flannery-is-no-expert-but-neither-are-the-experts-5709
00
The above link is the right one i think Franks even appears in the comments section
00
What does this mean and has it got anything to do with CO2?
00
There is a lot of interest in the potential for good land management practices that can stop CO2 being released from soils. Biochar is it? but you can’t jsut put emissions fro m power plants or vehicles in to the soil. Maybe our resident permaculture guru MV can have a say here?
00
He is talking about biochar, as you guessed. His thinking is never clear and logical.
Worse, this puts him on the same side as Tony Abbott. Perhaps he is trying to stay on as Climate Alarmist Publicity Officer, or whatever the correct title is.
00
Actually I think it is wires crossed as there are CO2 benefits from both zero-till land management and also biochar. I have a feeling the post confuses the potential benefits of biochar with the lesser (but arguably more sustainable) benefits of good land management practices. Bit you can’t just “no till” the land and get the reported benefits of biochar.
00
“The new estimate is enough gas to meet the country’s current consumption for nearly 200 years if fully extracted”
Having another look, that’s not really that much is it? I mean “Current consumption” in China will be dwarfed in a few years.
THe units are interesting. 25 trillion cubic metres…. but in this article on Businesspectator: “Forget declining oil, there is a new global oil rush. The US has an estimated 2 trillion barrels of shale oil reserves – about 70 per cent of the world’s total and eight times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. The gas reserves, in the US, Australia and elsewhere, are vast.”
well the US has 2 trillion barrels = 70% of global reserves = 8 times the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia…. but here is is claimed that China has 25 trillion cubic metres…. and there are 0.16 barrels per cubic metre… but So the US 2 trillion barrels <<< 25 trillion cubic metres yet somehow are 70% of global reserves… if units are out it means that China's 25 trillion is not really that much relatively speaking. Handy, but maybe not the game changer that the US reserves are.
00
oil shale doesn’t not equal shale gas.
00
sorry, double negative from multi-tasking. Should read “doesn’t equal”
00
it is still a fuel source – the comparison is still valid simply in terms of bulk energy provision. Here in Oz most of ours is the gas variety too.
00
I had the pleasure of seeing the remains of the shale processing plant at very very beautiful Glen Davis, near Lithgow, during the 70’s Energy Crisis. There were some university types there researching the old process of making fuel.
00
[…] China finds the odd 200 years worth of fuel Who isn’t finding shale gas these days? To whom shall we sell all those super-costly solar units, that we will supposedly be “world leaders” in? […]
00
Before we get all excited about shale gas being our savior:
I’m a geologist working in western Canada. Shale gas is, as noted, everywhere. But what is not discussed is the economics of getting it out OR the techncial feasibility of getting it out. What counts is not molecules in the ground, but molecules in the pipeline.
Recently the USGS (or similar group) discounted American shale gas reserves by 45%. By this they mean that the amount likely to be got out of the ground is about half of what was claimed earlier. The same has happened for gas from coals. It is not that both shale and coal don’t have gas in them, but that the fundamental properties of getting that gas to a pipe in the ground, frac-ed or not, do not exist. It is not money: the rock properties do no allow it.
Shale gas works in selected places within specific qualities of rock but always required a lot of energy, i.e. money, to get it to the wellbore for removal to the surface. A year or two ago, a writer, Berman, at World Oil, an energy publication, noted the high cost and rapid decline rates of much of Cheasapeake and Devon shale gas reserves. He said they were not economic until about $7/mcf. He was right. He was also fired for saying so, as the two companies had just announced huge “resource” amounts in shale gas, and his comments caused their stocks to decline. Such is business and such is government: it is in the interests of the US government (and others) to tell the public and foreign suppliers of energy that they have internal sources of monumental size. Regardless of it being false.
Triple your cost of energy and you can have a lot of it. Heck, you can even make solar and wind power “economic”. But what you do is redirect economic activity and VALUE from creating a quality of life for most into a quantity of life for a few: the monied and power elite. Shale gas has been known for decades to exist, and technology now allows us to get a lot of it out that we could not get at before. But at a cost, a serious cost.
When you hear of shale gas, you hear of “resource”. This is not “reserve”. Resource is a term for something you see that at some point in the future, with some technology that might be invented, may be available at some cost you may wish to pay. Reserve(s) are those that you can get at now and are worth while getting at now. Your brother-in-law, a smart guy who has an idea for an engine that runs on water, is a resource. The taxidriver waiting at your front gate is a reserve.
Shale gas is a popular throwaway idea for the cheerleaders of our nation. But wait before you settle in and smile in the comfort of your security. You might have to sell all your bonds to get it, and it might not be here for you when the winter comes.
00
What all this discussion here does is further emphasise just how important coal fired power really is.
Without it, electricity generation becomes more expensive, and keeps on getting more expensive.
I don’t care what people say, coal fired power is here for a long long time.
It is the only way to get constant large scale power into those still developing Countries, so much so, that even The World Bank is funding large scale coal fired plants in those Developing Countries.
It’s an embarrassing little secret they don’t like to advertise very much.
Tony.
00
Nothing like some real perspective from someone on the spot.
Thanks
00
You people should listen to this man. He speaks the truth. Listen to Doug.
Sure, I’m not a petroleum engineer, but I can read the writing on the wall as well as anybody.
Here is the bottom line for any energy reserve used for transportation:
( Energy Returned / Energy Invested >= 7:1 ) ==> Win.
If it isn’t, well you know what other word is implied.
Oil and gas in 1890 = 100:1 ==> Epic Win.
Oil and gas in 1970 = 30:1 ==> Big Win.
Oil and gas in 2005 = 14:1 ==> Win fading.
Shale Oil in 2005 = 5:1 ==> Loser from the beginning.
Coal EROEI in 2005 = 80:1 ==> Huge Win.
Natural gas 1992 (delivery included) = 50:1 ==> Huge Win.
Natural gas 2007 (delivery included) = less than 5:1 ==> Rapidly declined to become a loser, only oil and coal energy are keeping the LNG supply process going.
Shale gas today = an unknown number undoubtedly lower than for conventional Natural gas ==> Loser from the beginning.
If Murphy and Hall’s “actual point of use” estimate of the Energy Invested for delivering natural gas is accurate then this logically implies that, far from being an energy source, the entire shale gas industry today functions only as a complete waste of coal and oil.
Unless shale gas production and delivery can increase their total efficiency by at least 50% then what the Chinese actually discovered is a 200 year drain hole for flushing energy down the gurgler.
You don’t have to believe this, but if anyone finds more encouraging numbers and facts, please share them.
Erm… CTL anybody?
00
Again Thanks Andrew
Nothing like some real perspective from someone who knows the stuff.
🙂
00
All well and good, but as a practising unconventionals geologist, I think Doug Proctor has touched on reality. Sure the numbers are great in some countries, but you have to factor in a few variables, e.g. distance to markets (and how do you get it there and at what economic cost), availability of water for fraking (and drilling, although propane fracs may be good), suitability of terrain for economic maximisation of development (not good if its under those iconic karst mountains as common in China, in national parks or under vast city sprawl), how much tectonism (i.e. how broken up are your shales), how cooked up or under cooked are your shales (etc), economic depth for drilling, availability of suitable drilling rigs and fraking equipment (only in North America are these plentiful, and even there they are stretched) and last but not least myriad government regulation (unfriendly in nearly all areas outside of parts of North America).
John
00
As this thread is about China to some extent.
East vs West:
In China the Govt owns the banks.
In the USA the banks own the Govt.
00
Both Messrs Gorter and Procter are on the mail. I have had many trips to Chinaover the last 7 years often on CBM issues. Firstly, the PRC has made eery effort to develop their significant resources both in coal and in the shales. They have been at if for 25 years and have invested something likeb $2.5 billion into the industry both from government and public areas. Unfortunately, the road thus far is littered with casualties with production being quiet difficult to engender. The main inhibiting issues is the poor permeability even though the contained gas is very high indeed on a per tonne basis. While their industry is behind that of Australia and USA they are catching up rapidly. The majors have been in and retreated. They were followed by the juniors with very limited success. Now the majors are moving back in again armed now with success from both USA and Australia. PRC has created a reasonable operating regime and is doing everything possible to facilitate CBM and shale gas production. Time and investment will tell.
00
I am glad that they have found these massive reserves. Let’s hope that they start to dig up their own land for this gas and we can stop the craziness of destroying our own agricultural land. For those of us who live on farms and are not city dwellers the impact of CSG extraction on our lives and our land is a worry.
I am a farmer, I am not a “greenie”, I am not against mining, I am not against coal or gas, but I am against it being mixed into the areas where people are living, where it can impact our precious aquifers and where our food is produced.
You don’t have to be “green” to realise that this CSG extraction is a bad deal for the farmers and land holders. We don’t want the token money that comes with this industry, we want to continue to farm our lands and produce the food required to feed our own growing population.
If you haven’t done the research into the damage that this industry is already doing around the world and here in Aus then don’t come back at me with claims that it is safe. Those claims contain the same empty lies that those who support AGW spout. I have been living the fight against this CSG expansion for the past 18 months up here in the northern rivers of NSW, I have been in direct contact with the mining companies and the local communities and it is not welcomed. There is no social license and we will see a large community backlash if this industry continues to push its way onto farming land.
The very fact that these mining companies refuse to do any baseline water testing of the surrounding bores and water sources before drilling and fracking should be enough writing on the wall to show that they know it will poison our water. It is already happening.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I will be happy to support anyone who speaks out about this industry in Australia, be it Katter’s Australian Party or the Greens. The so called major parties have left us hanging out to dry whilst they scrabble to fill their own pockets. The number of ex-pollies filling mining company pay rolls as lobbiests or in token roles is beyond a joke.
So before anyone wants to jump up and try to smack me down…stop and think. What have you done about fighting the lies of AGW or anything for that matter? I was involved in helping to bring Monckton out the first time a few years ago, I interviewed him, Plimer and Carter and produced a DVD that we sold at cost. I helped to arrange the debate and the meeting in the Irish Club in Brisbane. Now my fight has had to change to stopping CSG from ruining my land, community and countryside. I have had to become educated in mining techniques, geological terms, chemical compounds and deciphering fallacious arguments from both government departments and mining companies. I have had to take time out from my life and work to speak out at rallies, actions and meetings and represent those farmers and land holders who don’t have the ability to speak up.
Yet when we speak out against this the old labels of “greenie”, “ferals”, “hippies” etc get dragged up. The majority of people standing up against this in the country are farmers and landholders. Yes there are the greens, ferals, hippies and others speaking out as well and having all these disparate groups standing side by side is quite refreshing and is rebuilding communities that had fractured.
Wake up people. Your water and food is at risk. Not from rising tides, etc but from the greed of a few mining companies that have government approval to do what they please on our prime agricultural land.
So come on…give me your arguments about Coal Shale Gas v Coal Seam Gas, of how the chemicals are just stuff you find under any kitchen sink or any of the other strawman arguments that the mining companies like to try out. Or you could just use ad hominem attacks against me.
00