Archives par mot-clé : Hydrocarbon

better to know...?, energy and fields

Ronald Stein on the Huge Advantages of Fossil Fuels Over Wind/Solar Power, Tom Nelson Podcast

by C. Rotter, Sep 20, 2022 in WUWT

Ronald Stein, P.E. is an engineer and Founder of PTS Advance, drawing upon decades of project management and business development experiences. He is an internationally published columnist, energy expert, and Pulitzer Prize nominated author who writes frequently about all aspects of energy and economics and is a Policy Advisor for The Heartland Institute.

…

More about Stein: https://www.heartland.org/about-us/wh…
Stein’s website: https://energyliteracy.net/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/PTSFounder
—
Tom Nelson’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/tan123
Substack: https://tomn.substack.com/
About Tom: https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2022/0…
Notes for climate skeptics:
https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2019/0…
ClimateGate emails:
https://tomnelson.blogspot.com/p/clim…

energy and fields

Whither US Oil Production?

by. P. Homewood, Mar 13, 2022 in NotaLotofPeopleKnowThat

This single chart from the US EIA explains just why oil prices are shooting up there:

https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/production/

…

The oil boom initiated by Trump saw crude oil output increase by a half between 2016 and 2019.

Output naturally collapsed in early 2020 as a result of the pandemic, which affected both supply and demand. But since then output has only slowly recovered, and is still 9% below 2019 levels.

It is worth pointing out that demand in 2021 was still not back to 2019 levels. Assuming it recovers this year, it is likely to put further upward pressure on prices, unless production increases as well.

To put the numbers into perspective, the US produces a sixth of the world’s crude oil. The increase US output between 2016 and 2019 was 205 million tonnes, and represents 5% of global output.

Small changes in supply have a disproportionate effect on international oil prices, because demand is so inelastic. An extra 5% on world production would have a significant impact on prices.

 

 

better to know...?, energy and fields

Total CEO sees ‘little sense’ in shareholder divestment from oil majors over climate concerns

by A. Fawthrop,  Feb 23, 2021 in NSEnergy

Divesting from major oil and gas producers on grounds of climate change makes “little sense”, says Total chief executive Patrick Pouyanné, because other companies will simply pick up the excess production.

The boss of the French energy firm urged investors and shareholders to support “big players with large balance sheets and financial capacity” because without them the low-carbon energy transition will not “become a reality”.

Stakeholder pressure on the world’s top oil companies is increasing amid heightened concerns over their contribution to climate change and demands for decisive action to reduce emissions across the energy industry.

Many oil and gas firms, including Total, have outlined recent ambitions to gradually pivot away from fossil energy in favour of electrification and alternative fuels.

But public scrutiny remains strong, with warnings of divesting if shareholders do not feel these plans are going far or fast enough, or the business risks associated with climate change are not being adequately addressed.

 

Oil and gas demand won’t disappear soon, and divesting would leave production for others to take up

Speaking at the IP Week conference today (23 February), Pouyanné called for patience from investors while making a pitch for the role companies like Total have to play in the low-carbon energy transition.

…

energy and fields

China And Iran Start Drilling In This Super Giant Gas Field

by P. Homewood, Dec 27, 2020 in NotalotofPeopleKnowThat

Drilling operations of the first well of the game-changing but highly-controversial Phase 11 of Iran’s supergiant South Pars non-associated natural gas field officially began last week. Significant gas recovery from the enormous resource will commence in the second half of the next Iranian calendar year that begins on 21 March 2021. The long-stalled Phase 11 development supposedly saw the withdrawal of all Chinese involvement in October 2019. In reality, though, China is still intimately involved in its development and is looking to further scale up its activities following the inauguration of Joe Biden as U.S. President on 20 January.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Natural-Gas/China-And-Iran-Start-Drilling-In-This-Super-Giant-Gas-Field.html

The new field is expected to eventually produce 57 million cubic metres per day (mcm/d), about a tenth of Iran’s current output.

The article goes on to describe how China got around US sanctions on Iran, after taking over Total’s 50.1% stake in the project in 2018:

…

energy and fields

Pic de la demande de pétrole : mythe ou réalité ?

by M. Cordiez, 9 Oct 2020 in ConnaissancedesEnergies

…

…

 

Et si on considérait le problème dans l’autre sens ?

Historiquement, le succès des compagnies pétrolières était jugé à leur capacité à renouveler, voire accroître, leurs réserves par des découvertes. Avec le temps et l’épuisement des ressources aisément accessibles, cet exercice est devenu de plus en plus complexe pour les majors privées (BP, Total, ENI…). L’essentiel des réserves conventionnelles sont aujourd’hui détenues par des compagnies nationales (Saudi Aramco, National Iranian Oil Company, Iraq National Oil Company…). Quant aux pétroles non conventionnels, il s’agit de ressources chères à exploiter, non rentables au cours actuel du baril, et sur lesquelles un positionnement reste de l’ordre du pari. Des sommes colossales ont été perdues par les fonds et entreprises qui ont investi dans le pétrole de roche mère aux États-Unis(6).

Les discours sur l’arrivée opportune d’un pic de la demande ne seraient-ils donc pas également un moyen pour les compagnies pétrolières d’offrir une narration positive face à leur incapacité à renouveler leurs réserves ? La conséquence de cette contrainte est alors présentée comme le fruit d’une stratégie : il n’est plus besoin de renouveler les réserves, vu que la demande va diminuer. Cette approche est en outre favorable en termes de communication car elle renvoie l’image de compagnies responsables vis-à-vis du climat, tout en portant un message optimiste : les émissions de gaz à effet de serre baisseront naturellement sans effort particulier, du fait d’une demande pétrolière qui diminuera d’elle-même.

Hors pandémie de Covid, nous devons garder à l’esprit que la consommation pétrolière – donc la demande – était croissante jusqu’en 2019 inclus. Elle a augmenté de 924 000 barils/jour entre 2018 et 2019, soit une augmentation de 0,9%(7). L’idée d’un pic de la demande est séduisante et rassurante, mais elle reste aujourd’hui une hypothèse prospective. D’ailleurs, plusieurs entreprises pétrolières telles que l’Américaine ConocoPhilips et la Russe Gazprom Neft prévoient une reprise de la croissance de la demande une fois la pandémie maîtrisée(8). Nous ne pouvons pas miser notre avenir sur le pari d’un déclin naturel de la demande de pétrole, qui serait poussé à temps vers la sortie par des solutions plus compétitives et déployables à large échelle.

Face aux incertitudes qui planent sur la pérennité de l’offre(9)(10) et à la nécessité impérieuse de réduire nos émissions de gaz à effet de serre pour atteindre la neutralité carbone, nous devons agir et tout mettre en œuvre pour assurer le déclin de la demande pétrolière. Répondre à cet enjeu nécessite d’aller au-delà de nos seules espérances quant au potentiel des technologies futures. Cela implique de faire évoluer notre rapport à l’énergie et à ses usages.

energy and fields

WHY ARE FOSSIL FUELS SO HARD TO QUIT?

by S. Gross, June 2020 in Brookings.Edu

We understand today that humanity’s use of fossil fuels is severely damaging our environment. Fossil fuels cause local pollution where they are produced and used, and their ongoing use is causing lasting harm to the climate of our entire planet. Nonetheless, meaningfully changing our ways has been very difficult.

But suddenly, the COVID-19 pandemic brought trade, travel, and consumer spending to a near-standstill. With billions of people recently under stay-at-home orders and economic activity plunging worldwide, the demand for and price of oil have fallen further and faster than ever before. Needless to say, oil markets have been in turmoil and producers around the world are suffering.

…

…

Note: MJ/kg = megajoules per kilogram
Sources: The Engineering Toolbox; Epec Engineered Technologies
 …
energy and fields

UPDATE 1-China to bolster energy reserve capacity, support unconventional gas exploration

by Xu M. & Daly T., May 22, 2020 in Reuters

BEIJING, May 22 (Reuters) – China said on Friday it will bolster the capacity of the country’s energy reserves and offer lower gas and electricity charges to key industries, as it looks to ensure energy supply and offset the impact of the coronavirus pandemic.

In energy announcements on the first day of the parliament, known as the National People’s Congress (NPC), authorities also pledged to boost the country’s oil and gas network and continue to support exploration for unconventional gas reserves.

The National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) said in a statement it would push forward construction of crude oil reserves.

The coronavirus pandemic has led to a slump in demand for crude oil, with insufficient storage capacity worldwide.

…

The NDRC said it would also press ahead with competitive trading of mining rights for oil- and gas-bearing zones, aiming to attract more market players into oil and gas exploration and production.

The country will also accelerate construction of oil and gas network and encourage the opening up of pipeline facilities to all eligible users, said the state planner.

China set up its long-awaited national oil and gas pipeline company in December aiming at providing fair market access to infrastructure and boost investment in oil and gas production.

energy and fields

‘This Is Masochism’: Russia Wages An Oil War Against Saudi Arabia, US Amid Coronavirus Concerns

by C. Rotter, March 9, 2020 in WUWT

Oil prices dropped Monday as Saudi Arabia and Russia haggle over whether to reduce crude production amid fears that coronavirus will hamper air travel and potentially wreck the global economy.

Prices fell into the $30s as the Saudis push for a cut in output to prop up prices, while Russia went the other way, and decided to infuse the market with hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil, according to The Washington Post. Moscow is worried that the U.S. will use shale oil to take advantage if Saudi Arabia ease off production.

Basement-low oil prices could substantially impact oil companies and the global markets, which are already being hurt by fears related to coronavirus. Brent crude dropped to $35 per barrel; and the price of West Texas Intermediate crude fell to $32 from $41 per barrel, a four-year low.

“From the point of view of Russian interests, this deal [to cut production] is simply meaningless,” Mikhail Leontiev, a spokesman for the Russian oil giant Rosneft, told a Russian media outlet Sunday night.

He said the U.S. would be sure to step up shale production if production is cut.(RELATED: REPORT: Chinese Censors Jumped In To Suppress Online Messages Warning About Coronavirus Spread)

…

better to know...?, energy and fields

Russia Just Told the World, “No.”

by Tom Luongo, March 6, 2020 in GoldGoats’NGuns

There is real power in the word “No.”

In fact, I’d argue that it is the single most powerful word in any language.

In the midst of the worst market meltdown in a dozen years which has at its source problems within global dollar-funding markets, Russia found itself in the position to exercise the Power of No.

Multiple overlapping crises are happening worldwide right now and they all interlock into a fabric of chaos.

Between political instability in Europe, presidential primary shenanigans in the U.S., coronavirus creating mass hysteria and Turkey’s military adventurism in Syria, the eastern Mediterranean and Libya, markets are finally calling the bluff of central bankers who have been propping up asset prices for years.

But, at its core, the current crisis stems from the simple truth that those prices around the world are vastly overvalued.

Western government and central bank policies have used the power of the dollar to push the world to this state.

And that state is, at best, meta-stable.

But when this number of shits get this freaking real, well… meeting the fan was inevitable.

And all it took to push a correction into a full-scale panic was the Russians saying, “No.”

The reality has been evident in the commodity markets for months.  Copper and other industrial metals have all been in slumps while equity markets zoomed higher.

But it was oil that was the most confounding of all.

Most of 2019 we saw oil prices behaving oddly as events occurred with regularity to push prices higher but ultimately see them fall.

Since peaking after the killing of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani oil prices have been a one-way trade. Down.

…

better to know...?, energy and fields

Guerre du prix du pétrole : revanche de la technologie sur l’OPEP

by Samuel Furfari, 9 mars 2020 in Contrepoints

Le monde regorge de pétrole grâce au développement de la technologie. C’est elle qui est le vecteur de la marche du monde de l’énergie.

Je vous avoue que je ne suis pas le cours du pétrole tous les jours. Cela n’a d’importance que pour les traders et les spéculateurs qui engrangent des bénéfices plantureux en jouant sur quelques centimes de volumes gigantesques.

Si vous voulez comprendre la géopolitique du pétrole et donc de l’énergie , il faut observer les tendances lourdes, comme celle du week-end dernier.

Lorsque j’ai publié en mars 2014 un livre intitulé Vive les énergies fossiles qui indique qu’il n’y a aucune raison objective ou technologique pour que le prix du brut dépasse les 100 dollars le baril, on m’a pris pour un farfelu. Même si j’étais probablement le seul à oser le dire ouvertement en milieu francophone, nombreux étaient ceux qui l’affirmaient de vive voix et par écrit dans le monde. Les faits nous ont donné raison.

LA DEMANDE DE PÉTROLE EN CHUTE LIBRE

Face à la chute brusque de l’activité économique occasionnée par l’épidémie de coronavirus, la demande de pétrole est en chute libre. La consommation chinoise de pétrole a chuté de plus de 3 millions de barils par jour.

De toute évidence, cette crise sera bien plus profonde pour l’économie mondiale que celle déclenchée par les subprimes en 2008. On s’attend à un net recul de la demande en énergie primaire et singulièrement du pétrole.

Cela va de soi : les avions qui ne volent pas, les voitures qui restent au garage, les restaurants désertés, les stades fermés, les vacances annulées font dégringoler la consommation de produits pétroliers et partant, de toute l’économie. De quoi réjouir les écologistes profonds !

Vendredi dernier à Vienne, à la réunion de l’OPEP, comme d’habitude la Russie – non membre – a été conviée à participer aux travaux. L’OPEP, qui manipule le prix du brut depuis 1973 voulait réduire sa production pour maintenir le prix au niveau précédant l’arrivée sur scène du virus dévastateur. Par la même occasion Ryad aurait mis l’Iran encore plus à genoux pour le peu de pétrole que celui-ci parvient à écouler au marché noir (l’Iran ne sait plus où stocker le pétrole pompé qu’il ne peut pas vendre).

LES ORIGINES DE LA CHUTE DU PRIX DU PÉTROLE BRUT

Il est vrai que depuis trois ans, l’OPEP et la Russie se sont accordés pour ajuster leurs extractions à la demande mondiale. Il y a bien eu une tentative de faire chuter le prix de manière à restreindre le développement du pétrole de roche-mère des USA, mais en vain.

Cette fois, Moscou n’a pas voulu suivre le leader de l’OPEP – Ryad – et a refusé d’adhérer à la réduction de la production pour soutenir le prix. L’Arabie Saoudite, piquée au vif, a réagi de manière inverse et a déclaré son intention de porter sa production de brut à plus de 10 millions de barils par jour en avril, après l’expiration de l’accord actuel entre l’OPEP et la Russie fin mars – connu sous le nom d’OPEP+.

De plus, elle a réduit le prix de tous ses bruts vers toutes les destinations de 6 à 8 dollars le baril. La conséquence ne s’est pas fait attendre : le prix du brut a chuté à environ 32 dollars le baril.

Les contrats à terme sur le pétrole ont subi leur plus grosse perte quotidienne depuis 1991 lors de la guerre du Golfe. Lors de la crise asiatique de 1998, le Financial Times du 10 septembre 1998 titrait que la seule chose qui était plus basse que le cours du pétrole était le moral de l’économie. On pourrait dire la même chose aujourd’hui.

LE MONDE REGORGE DE PÉTROLE GRÂCE À LA TECHNOLOGIE

 

Continuer la lecture de Guerre du prix du pétrole : revanche de la technologie sur l’OPEP →

energy and fields

Energies du monde et perspectives d’un MIX 2050?

by E. Simon, 27 décembre 2019 in ScienceClimatEnergie

1/ Introduction

Face aux gesticulations de masses organisées contre les énergies fossiles et le CO2, dits nuisibles, nos amis logiciens examineront utilement la situation à l’échelle planétaire. Une situation où nos 500 millions d’habitants d’UE ne pèsent finalement que 1/15e de l’actuelle population mondiale !

Tâchons d’identifier des faits chiffrés, ils reflètent la vie réelle sur notre globe. Leurs ‘tendances lourdes’ y échappent à l’emprise des idéologues ! Si nos besoins capacitaires belges post-2025 provoquent déjà l’entrechoc d’avis entre la CREG (régulateur belge) et l’administration SPF (Energie, plus experts), il sera plus éclairant de raisonner dans une atmosphère sans frontières, à l’échelle planétaire. Là s’ajoutent les dimensions géopolitiques et divers facteurs de sensibilités culturelles. Les joutes de pouvoirs institutionnels y deviennent alors titanesques ! L’Union Européenne en restera-t-elle subordonnée aux thèses du GIEC et aux manoeuvres aux COP21 (… COP25) onusiennes ? Une thèse vaut ici : les 5 pays dits BRICS (ou Brésil/Russie/Inde/Chine/Afrique du Sud) et d’autres Etats ne suivront pas les dogmes prônés par l’ONU. Sa démonstration par l’absurde en est perceptible dans les faits. Explorons-la davantage ?

Cette note consacrée au MIX mondial passe en revue les points suivants :

• Où en sommes-nous (UE, monde) actuellement ?
• Vers où le reste du monde se dirige-t-il, à l’horizon planifié de 2040/2050 ?
• Trancher le noeud gordien des perspectives exige de chiffrer les + et les – !
• Combien cela coûtera-t-il à l’humanité (celle apte à le payer) ?
• En guise de conclusion, à ce stade …

…

better to know...?, energy and fields

The Fossil Fuel Dilemma

by David L. Debertin, November 9, 2019 in WUWT

California again easily could become one of the top three fossil fuel producing states in the nation, but the largely liberal state has made drilling for fossil fuels within the state very difficult if not impossible. So the drillers have wisely looked elsewhere for locations that pose less of a political burden. North Dakota and its leaders welcomed the drillers. The result is tax dollars flowing into the state treasury from a variety of oil-related taxes levied not only on the drillers, but on individuals receiving mineral royalty income. In the past dozen years or so this has meant that taxpayers outside the oil producing counties have seen state-level taxes drop and the state can pursue projects that benefit the residents in a host of different ways simply by using funds that would not have been available had the drilling not occurred.

The new revenue coming into New Mexico as a result of recent oil drilling on the New Mexico side of the Permian basin via fracked oil wells is a more recent phenomena, only about 3-years old. The dilemma is that New Mexico has long been left-leaning politically whereas North Dakota has been a right-leaning state. Left-leaning politicians when they hear about new state revenue from an unexpected source generally think about new government program benefiting certain favored groups (maybe the younger voters who tend to favor left-leaning politicians) rather than lowering other taxes (sales, income) that would benefit a broader base of residents both young and old. Hence, we have the New Mexico idea of offering free college tuition to the state’s residents using oil-related tax revenue.

…

energy and fields

Congo : la découverte des gisements d’Oyo change la donne pour le pays et le Continent

by La Tribune Afrique, 16 août 2019

Le Congo dispose de 2 milliards de barils de réserves de pétrole prouvées provenant d’une vingtaine de champs en cours d’exploitation. La récente découverte de pétrole onshore devrait redessiner le futur de l’industrie congolaise des hydrocarbures.

La récente découverte onshore faite dans le gisement du Delta de la Cuvette en République du Congo change la donne pour le Congo et l’Afrique. La découverte a été annoncée le 10 août par SARPD Oil et PEPA, un consortium congolais travaillant en tant qu’opérateurs du bloc.

Les premières projections indiqueraient que les gisements découverts pourraient produire jusqu’à 359 millions de barils de pétrole, soit 983 000 b/j. Cela pourrait quadrupler la production du Congo, qui se situe actuellement à plus de 330 000 barils/jour, selon les derniers chiffres de l’Opep. Le gouvernement lui s’est fixé comme objectif un volume de production de 400 000 barils/jour d’ici 2020.

«Il s’agit de notre première découverte onshore et elle nous laisse beaucoup d’espoir que nous ferons plus de découvertes, en particulier maintenant que nous allons attribuer plus de blocs pour l’exploration pétrolière dans le cycle de licences en cours», a expliqué Jean-Marc Thystère-Tchicaya, ministre congolais des Hydrocarbures dans une déclaration rapportée par la Chambre africaine de l’Energie.

Troisième producteur du Continent

….

energy and fields

Energy Dominance: US Crude Oil Production Tops 12 Million Barrels per Day in April!

by David Middleton, July 15, 2019 in WUWT

…

JULY 8, 2019
U.S. crude oil production surpassed 12 million barrels per day in April

U.S. crude oil production and lease condensate reached another milestone in April 2019, totaling 12.2 million barrels per day (b/d), according to EIA’s latest Petroleum Supply Monthly. April 2019 marks the first time that monthly U.S. crude oil production levels surpassed 12 million b/d, and this milestone comes less than a year after U.S. crude oil production surpassed 11 million b/d in August 2018.

Texas and the Federal Offshore Gulf of Mexico (GOM), the two largest crude oil production areas in the United States, both reached record levels of production in April at 4.97 million b/d and 1.98 million b/d, respectively. Oklahoma also reached a record production level of 617,000 b/d.

The U.S. onshore crude oil production increase is driven mainly by developing low permeability (tight) formations using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. EIA estimates that crude oil production from tight formations in April 2019 reached 7.4 million b/d, or 61% of the U.S. total.

energy and fields

Weaning US power sector off fossil fuels would cost between $4.7tn and $10tn

by Reuters News Service, June 27, 2019 in CyprusMail

Eliminating fossil fuels from the U.S. power sector, a key goal of the “Green New Deal” backed by many Democratic presidential candidates, would cost $4.7 trillion and pose massive economic and social challenges, according to a report released on Thursday by energy research firm Wood Mackenzie.

That would amount to $35,000 per household, or nearly $2,000 a year for a 20-year plan, according to the study, which called the price tag for such a project “staggering.”

The report is one of the first independent cost estimates for what has become a key issue in the 2020 presidential election, with most Democrats proposing multi-trillion-dollar plans to eliminate U.S. carbon emissions economy-wide.

Front-runner Joe Biden’s plan to get to zero emissions, for example, carries a $1.7 trillion price tag, while Beto O’Rourke’s proposal comes in at $5 trillion. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the authors of the “Green New Deal,” a non-binding Congressional resolution, put the cost of a comprehensive climate solution at around $10 trillion.

Such ideas aim to tap into a growing sense of urgency about global warming on both sides of the political divide, but have been panned by President Donald Trump and many Republicans as being unfeasible, costly, and a threat to the economy.

…

A power-generating wind turbine is seen in Saint-Laurent-Des-Eaux near Orleans, France

…

better to know...?, energy and fields

Total a commencé à exploiter le supercalculateur Pangea III à Pau

by AFP, 18 juin 2019 in ConnaissanceDesEnergies

Total a annoncé mardi qu’il avait commencé à exploiter à Pau son supercalculateur Pangea III, le plus puissant ordinateur du monde dans l’industrie avec une puissance de calcul de 25 petaflops (millions de milliards d’opérations par seconde).

Pangea III est onzième au classement toute catégories des ordinateurs, derrière des machines installées dans de grands centres de recherche aux États-Unis, en Chine, au Japon ou en Europe. Le groupe pétrolier a investi “plusieurs dizaines de millions de dollars” dans ce troisième supercalculateur, a confirmé une source proche du dossier à l’AFP.

La machine porte la puissance de calcul totale du groupe à 31,7 petaflops (soit 170 000 ordinateurs portables). Elle triple sa capacité de stockage à 76 petaoctets (près de 50 millions de films en HD).

…

climate-debate, energy and fields

Big Oil goes Big Green

by David Wojick, May 4, 2019 in WUWT

Climate alarmists often accuse skeptics, like myself and independent groups like the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Heartland Institute, of being in the pay of Big Oil. This is completely false – the Big Lie repeated so often that people eventually believe it. We do not receive even a dime from Big Oil. It’s part of the green fairy tale that skepticism exists only because the oil companies are funding it.

For the record, none of us skeptics – climate realists – doubt or deny climate change. We all recognize that Earth’s climate is in nearly constant turmoil and fluctuation, locally, regionally or globally.

What we question is assertions that emissions from fossil fuel use have somehow replaced the sun and other powerful natural forces that have driven beneficial, benign, harmful or even hugely destructive climate changes throughout Earth and human history:

Changes such as at least five glacial periods that buried much of North America, Europe and Asia under mile-high rivers of ice, warm periods in between that melted those massive glaciers, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, a Little Ice Age, the century-long Anasazi and Mayan droughts, the Dust Bowl, and countless other major and minor climate and weather changes.

The standard refrain is that ExxonMobil gave a cumulative few million dollars to various skeptical groups prior to 2007. But that was many years ago. They got scared off by alarmist pressure groups and haven’t given climate realists a dime since then. In fact, the situation today is completely the opposite.

Big Oil companies now give at least a billion dollars a year to climate alarmists, projects and lobbying, to drive the Manmade Climate Chaos narrative. Why would they do that? Two reasons come to mind.

…

better to know...?, energy and fields, press and newspapers

Legislation Would End Oil and Gas Production In Most of California

by Katy Grimes, April 22, 2019 in CaliforniaGlobe

The “Keep it In the Ground,” anti-oil and gas industry movement is going after the industry with more legislation disguised to address health and local control issues, despite that California already has the most environmentally regulated oil and gas production in the world, regulated by more than 25 agencies.

“Keep It in the Ground” is a global protest movement opposing fossil fuel development.

California was the fourth-largest producer of crude oil among the 50 states in 2017, after Texas, North Dakota, and Alaska, and, as of January 2018, third in oil refining capacity after Texas and Louisiana.

AB 345 by Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance), would increase setback distance between oil production facilities and private and public property to 2,500 feet for every well, existing or planned in the state.

According to the Western States Petroleum Association and the California Independent Petroleum Association, this bill, if passed, would effectively end oil production in many parts of the state and threaten the future of production IN ALL PARTS OF THE STATE, for example:

  • 87% of all wells in the City of Los Angeles would be shut in

  • 66% of the well in Los Angeles County would be shut in

  • Thousands of wells in Kern County will be shut in

…

better to know...?, energy and fields

Energy Returned On Energy Invested: Real(ish)Things That Don’t Matter, Part Trois

by David Middleton, April 24, 2019 in WUWT

In Part One of this series, we looked at Peak Oil and its irrelevance to energy production and also discussed the relevance of Seinfeld. In Part Deux, we looked at “abiotic oil,” a real(ish) thing that really doesn’t matter outside of academic discussions and SyFy blogs.

Part Trois will explore perhaps the most meaningless notion to ever come out of academia: Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI or EROI depending on spelling skill). EROEI is like what Seinfeld would have been if it was written by Douglas Adams.

…

energy and fields

Abiotic Oil: Real(ish)Things That Don’t Matter, Part Deux

by David Middleton, April 16, 2019 in WUWT

In part one of this series, we looked at Peak Oil and its irrelevance to energy production. In Part Deux, we will look at “abiotic oil,” a real(ish) thing that really doesn’t matter outside of academic discussions and SyFy blogs.

A note on terminology

Some refer to this as “abiogenic oil.” This is not a useful term because all oil is abiogenic. The generally accepted theory of petroleum formation doesn’t state that it is a biogenic process. I discussed this in detail in a 2017 post. I don’t intend to restate it here.

In this post, “abiotic oil” refers to petroleum formed by processes that do not rely on biological source material. The carbon in “abiotic oil” must be inorganic.

A real example of abiotic “oil”

The Lost City Hydrothermal Field is located on the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, about 15 km (~9 mi) west of the spreading center, in water depths ranging from 750-900 m (~2,500-3,000′) (Kelley et al., 2005).

Figure 1. Lost City location map. (University of Washington)

…

energy and fields

Global Energy & CO2 Status Report

by IEA, March 2019 (.pdf)

Key Findings 2018

Global energy consumption in 2018 increased at nearly twice the average rate of growth since 2010, driven by a robust global economy and higher heating and cooling needs in some parts of the world. Demand for all fuels increased, led by natural gas, even as solar and wind posted double-digit growth. Higher electricity demand was responsible for over half of the growth in energy needs. Energy efficiency saw lacklustre improvement.

Energy-related CO2 emissions rose 1.7% to a historic high of 33.1 Gt CO2. While emissions from all fossil fuels increased, the power sector accounted for nearly two-thirds of emissions growth. Coal use in power alone surpassed 10 Gt CO2, mostly in Asia. China, India, and the United States accounted for 85% of the net increase in emissions, while emissions declined for Germany, Japan, Mexico, France and the United Kingdom.

Oil demand rose by 1.3% in 2018, led by strong growth in the United States. The start-up of large petrochemical projects drove product demand, which partially offset a slowdown in growth in gasoline demand. The United States and China showed the largest overall growth, while demand fell in Japan and Korea and was stagnant in Europe.

Natural gas consumption grew by an estimated 4.6%, its largest increase since 2010 when gas demand bounced back from the global financial crisis. This second consecutive year of strong growth, following a 3% rise in 2017, was driven by growing energy demand and substitution from coal. The switch from coal to gas accounted for over one-fifth of the rise in gas demand. The United States led the growth followed by China.

Coal demand grew for a second year, but its role in the global mix continued to decline. Last year’s 0.7% increase was significantly slower than the 4.5% annual growth rate seen in the period 2000- 10. But while the share of coal in primary energy demand and in electricity generation slowly continues to decrease, it still remains the largest source of electricity and the second-largest source of primary energy.

…

energy and fields

To Peak or Not to Peak? That is the question.

by Mike Jonas, April 8, 2019 in WUWT

A lot has been written about Peak Oil recently – perhaps more in comments than in WUWT articles themselves – and the “Not to Peak”-ers seem to be in the ascendancy. In other words, the opinions that “Peak Oil” is a fantasy and/or oil production will keep increasing for a century or more seem to be dominant.

But just how realistic are the “Not to Peak”-ers?

I had a look back at my article of 4 years ago (Peak Oil Re-visited), and I’m pretty comfortable with what I said back then. NB. I defined “Peak Oil” as When the rate of oil production reaches its maximum. With this definition, Peak Oil is not when we run out of oil, and it is not when we can’t increase the rate of oil production. If you want to use one of those other definitions then different rules apply. And I’m only talking about oil, not about oil and gas, and not about fossil fuels generally.

What I said in 2015 was:

  • The reason for oil production reaching its maximum is not specified.
  • Peak Oil is not necessarily a disaster, it could even be a positive.
  • One idea which surely is not open to argument is the fact that oil production will peak.
  • Predicting Peak Oil has always been an unrewarding exercise. People have predicted Peak Oil for over a century and have been wrong every time.
  • The principal factors affecting oil supply are: Geology, Politics, Demand, Price, Technology.
  • In spite of economic booms and busts, oil demand has been relatively inelastic.
  • Although Peak Oil may occur after say 2040, it could well be much earlier.

The third bullet above (oil production will peak) was justified by this graph, which looked at past and likely future oil production on a scale of thousands of years:

 

The shale revolution (as BP calls it) has made a difference, but it still can’t dramatically alter the shape of the graph in Figure 1. Basically, it can push the peak up, and it can elongate the tail, but it can’t move the peak very far to the right.

Figure 1. World Total Fossil Fuel Consumption, past and predicted – the long view.

better to know...?, energy and fields

What would life be like without fossil fuels such as gas and oil?

by Anthony Watts, April 6, 2019 in WUWT

Leftists like Bill McKibben of 350.org suffer from irrational fantasies that lead them to believe that we can move society forward without all the benefits that petroleum brings to our modern society.

They’re dead wrong of course, and this short humorous video illustrates just what life might be like without the many products and energy sources that are derived from petroleum. My favorite is ink, which if we didn’t get from petroleum, we wouldn’t have to see print editions of NYT, WaPo, and the Lost Angeles Times, to name a few.

You also wouldn’t be able to read this article, because the very keyboard I am typing this on is made from plastic, which you guessed it, is derived from petroleum.

…

According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), this is a list of petroleum products and their share of total US petroleum consumption in 2013.

  • Gasoline 46%

  • Heating Oil / Diesel Fuel 20%

  • Jet Fuel ( kerosene) 8%

  • Propane / Propylene 7%

  • NGL / LRG 6%

  • Still Gas 4%

  • Petrochemical Feedstocks 2%

  • Petroleum Coke 2%

  • Residual / Heavy Fuel Oil 2%

  • Asphalt / Road Oil 2%

  • Lubricants 1%

  • Miscellaneous Products / Special Naphthas 0.4%

  • Other Liquids 1%

  • Aviation Gasoline 0.1%

  • Waxes 0.04%

  • Kerosene 0.02%

…

energy and fields

U.S. Arctic Oil & Gas Exploration: A Sense of Urgency

by D. Middleton, April 3, 2019 in WUWT

I ran across a very lucid and informative article on Real Clear Energy today. The author is Robert Dillon, “a senior adviser on energy security at the American Council for Capital Formation and the former communications director of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.” The article includes numerous links to supporting information, particularly the National Petroleum Council’s (NPC) 2015 report on U.S. Arctic oil & gas resource potential.

The key findings of the 2015 NPC report were:

  1. Arctic oil and gas resources are large and can contribute significantly to meeting future U.S. and global energy needs.
  2. The arctic environment poses some different challenges relative to other oil and gas production areas, but is generally well understood.
  3. The oil and gas industry has a long history of successful operations in arctic conditions enabled by continuing technology and operational advances.
  4. Most of the U.S. Arctic offshore conventional oil and gas potential can be developed using existing field-proven technology.
  5. The economic viability of U.S. Arctic development is challenged by operating conditions and the need for updated regulations that reflect arctic conditions.
  6. Realizing the promise of Arctic oil and gas requires securing public confidence.
  7. There have been substantial recent technology and regulatory advancements to reduce the potential for and consequences of a spill.

Figure 1-1. Arctic exploration wells by country and time period. (NPC)

…

better to know...?, energy and fields, renewable energy

REPORT: GREEN ENERGY ECONOMY IS SIMPLY ‘IMPOSSIBLE’

by Mark P. Mills, March 23, 2019 in GWPF

Hydrocarbons—oil, natural gas, and coal—are the world’s principal energy resource today and will continue to be so in the foreseeable future. Wind turbines, solar arrays, and batteries, meanwhile, constitute a small source of energy, and physics dictates that they will remain so. Meanwhile, there is simply no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.”

…

see the .pdf