Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Shale gas: 'The dotcom bubble of our times'


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,304 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 04 August 2014 - 08:56 PM

The Telegraph said:



Public opinion has been divided very starkly indeed by the government’s invitation to energy companies to apply for licences to develop shale gas across a broad swathe of the United Kingdom.


On the one hand, many environmental and conservation groups are bitterly opposed to shale development. Ranged against them are those within and beyond the energy industry who believe that the exploitation of shale gas can prove not only vital but hugely positive for the British economy.


Rather oddly, hardly anyone seems to have asked the one question which is surely fundamental: does shale development make economic sense?

Read more


A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#2    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,156 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 04 August 2014 - 10:18 PM

No it doesn't - especially in Britain.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#3    shrooma

shrooma

    doesn't have one screw fully tightened.....

  • Member
  • 3,506 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 04 August 2014 - 10:23 PM

the question you SHOULD be asking, is why the frigg Radio 1 is still on the air??!!
.
or is it just me....
.


- - - - -disclaimer- - - - -    
all posts- without exception- are humourous.
if you fail to grasp the sublety, then don't whine on like a mardy-arsed
bĦt˘h due to your lack of understanding.

#4    keithisco

keithisco

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,826 posts
  • Joined:06 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rincon de Loix, Benidorm

Posted 05 August 2014 - 07:59 AM

As an interim measure then shale gas deposits need to be developed to meet current and short - term requirements - with the proviso that additional taxes raised this way be spent on accelerating renewable energy sources (Tidal and Ocean Current being my preferred option)


#5    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 8,561 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 05 August 2014 - 09:27 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 04 August 2014 - 08:56 PM, said:


The answer is yes it makes economic sense for the UK. there is enough shale for the UK to become self sufficient for the next 50 to 70 years. this would lead to a booming economy a low energy cost economy. with contracts and deals already signed with the US and Canada the UK will no longer import oil from the middle east, and that means better energy security. it also means we will encourage foreign investment in a stable environment for business to grow, big business like nothing more than flicking a switch and the lights come on and are guaranteed to stay on, especially if that energy is competitive (cheap) globally.

Anyway by the time we reach the year 2060 we'll all be living in homes with solar panels installed, and as we look out of our windows we'll see turbines turning in the wind. by the year 2100 the UK will be the world leader in tidal energy. (if the experts map is anything to go by) so invest for your grandkids future, invest - tidal power. i'll also be investing in submarines with underwater tours of Liverpool© ®.
Posted Image

But back to topic. Lets get FRACKING. look at the USofA soon to be self sufficient in gas and oil thanks to fracking - remarkable. by 2020 the US will be the worlds biggest exporter of oil and Gas. over taking Saudi Arabia, Russia, Qatar.

The British government believes that shale gas has the potential to provide the UK with greater energy security, growth and jobs. We are encouraging safe and environmentally sound exploration to determine this potential. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a technique used in the extraction of gas from shale rock and has been extensively used over the last 60 years – it is estimated that more than 2.5 million wells have been fracked worldwide. The UK has a strong regulatory regime for exploratory activities but we want to continuously improve it. The UK has over 50 years of experience of regulating the onshore oil and gas industry nationally.

What is shale gas and oil and fracking?

Hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, is a technique used in the extraction of gas and oil from ‘shale’ rock formations by injecting water at high pressure. Shale gas is the same natural gas as is obtained from conventional gas fields, such as the North Sea.

What is the potential?

Scientists from the British Geological Survey (BGS) have estimated that the total volume of gas in the Bowland-Hodder shale in northern England is some 1300 trillion cubic feet (central estimate).

Posted Image

https://www.gov.uk/g...d-oil-in-the-uk

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God

#6    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,156 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 05 August 2014 - 10:46 AM

Did you not read the article Steve - it cannot be made economically viable when all costs are considered in the context of the UK. We are not the USA and we have very different geology and constraints on where and how we could Frack. The simple reality is that even in the USA, where everything is more favourable, most of the companies are not covering their costs. If you don't cover your costs you go to the wall, which is simple business sense.

Renewables, pumped storage and sensibly managed conventional gas reserves are the only way for the UK to progress to a sustainable energy mix.

On a more personal note - would you willingly see the trespass laws changed to allow a company to Frack under your main asset ? Would you like to have to take a Fracking company to court when your house is damaged by an earthquake because your insurance company has specifically excluded Fracking from your policy ? If Fracking comes both of these issues will become very real for millions of Britains - and this is the main reason why Fracking will be opposed by almost all of the British population and why it is unlikely to ever become a reality.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 05 August 2014 - 10:49 AM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#7    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 8,561 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 05 August 2014 - 11:48 AM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 05 August 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

Did you not read the article Steve - it cannot be made economically viable when all costs are considered in the context of the UK. We are not the USA and we have very different geology and constraints on where and how we could Frack. The simple reality is that even in the USA, where everything is more favourable, most of the companies are not covering their costs. If you don't cover your costs you go to the wall, which is simple business sense.

Renewables, pumped storage and sensibly managed conventional gas reserves are the only way for the UK to progress to a sustainable energy mix.

On a more personal note - would you willingly see the trespass laws changed to allow a company to Frack under your main asset ? Would you like to have to take a Fracking company to court when your house is damaged by an earthquake because your insurance company has specifically excluded Fracking from your policy ? If Fracking comes both of these issues will become very real for millions of Britains - and this is the main reason why Fracking will be opposed by almost all of the British population and why it is unlikely to ever become a reality.

Br Cornelius

It cannot be economically viable says who, Tim Morgan. he's all doom and gloom. the British government and their experts have carried out research and say different, they say its financially viable to extract and as such onshore Fracking should receive government support through subsidies, just like offshore fracking did, - with Fracking being worth £3.8Billion annually. there is money to be made. The article tries to make the point about it not being economically viable by pointing to fracking companies going out of business. what the article doesnt point out is the fact licences are up for grabs and you'll get small companies trying to jump on the band wagon, like in the days of the gold rush anyone with a pan would have ago but as the market adjusts separating the wheat from the chaff. all you are left with is the market leaders, the ones who have the ability to make it financially viable and with £3.8Billion annually up for grabs you can bet Fracking is here to stay and is financially viable, now lets push aside all the scaremongering the same process as been used in the UK since the 1940's. its nothing new. lets expand our onshore production and get on with the job of securing our energy future. like anything considered new by the ill informed they start looking for witches to burn. if the expansion of onshore gas production needs land laws re-written then lets move with the times and adjust them laws.

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God

#8    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,156 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 05 August 2014 - 11:55 AM

So Steve - only viable with subsidies - like your much hated alternatives.

You just lost your argument there.

And its hardly scare mongering to state that the only real modern frack carried out on the British mainland caused an earthquake.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 05 August 2014 - 12:01 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#9    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 8,561 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 05 August 2014 - 01:11 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 05 August 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:

So Steve - only viable with subsidies - like your much hated alternatives.

You just lost your argument there.

And its hardly scare mongering to state that the only real modern frack carried out on the British mainland caused an earthquake.

Br Cornelius

North Sea oil was subsidised and like any budding industry government helps by offering tax breaks etc.. and they continue to do so, and that goes for existing industries right across the board not just energy. As for me hating alternatives - renewables, I welcome all forms of renewable technology but not to the detriment of the day - the only problem is im not a fanatic and would rather take the slowly slowly catchy monkey approach. example, a wind turbine built in five years time will be more efficient than one built today. i'd rather we built a few today advance the technology and then expand as the technology advances. if we went down a path you subscribe to of i want them now and want thousands of current day turbines at the currently high cost associated with that like any new industry, in five years they'd all need replacing with like for like turbines but more energy efficient ones. costing us billions and this goes for all renewables. so slowly slowly catchy monkey.

Edited by stevewinn, 05 August 2014 - 01:13 PM.

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God

#10    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,156 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 05 August 2014 - 02:06 PM

Wind turbines are cost competitive with gas over their lifetime - there is no reason to not invest in them now since they represent a good investment at current efficiencies. Its a bogus argument you peddle.
Shale gas has a production cycle measured in just a few years with production falling off rapidly over the first five years. this means that they need to be refracked at regular intervals - each time costing many millions to perform. Total life cycle is less than 30years per well and they have constant high costs over that life cycle. They are in no way comparable to renewables which have a falling cost base over their lifetime.

it is the economic arguments which will see renewables win out over Fracked gas. Fracking is the death throes of an industry which is so heavily embedded within the "system" that they can easily queer the pitch to make them look like they are a sound business model. Its Fraud.

Cameron and his cronies are advocates because they hold massive shares in Fracking companies - nothing more.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 05 August 2014 - 02:10 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#11    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,156 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 05 August 2014 - 02:22 PM

The reality of this article has been known about for at least 5years at this stage and stock market analysts in America have openly declared it a giant "ponzy" scheme for soaking up investor capitol. The smart money has warned to avoid getting burnt, but as in the nature of all bubbles there is a sever temptation to pile your money in in the hope that you can pull it quickly when the bubble bursts - pure crony capitalism at its best.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#12    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 8,561 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 05 August 2014 - 02:55 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 05 August 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

Wind turbines are cost competitive with gas over their lifetime - there is no reason to not invest in them now since they represent a good investment at current efficiencies. Its a bogus argument you peddle.
Shale gas has a production cycle measured in just a few years with production falling off rapidly over the first five years. this means that they need to be refracked at regular intervals - each time costing many millions to perform. Total life cycle is less than 30years per well and they have constant high costs over that life cycle. They are in no way comparable to renewables which have a falling cost base over their lifetime.

it is the economic arguments which will see renewables win out over Fracked gas. Fracking is the death throes of an industry which is so heavily embedded within the "system" that they can easily queer the pitch to make them look like they are a sound business model. Its Fraud.

Cameron and his cronies are advocates because they hold massive shares in Fracking companies - nothing more.

Br Cornelius

Currently British wind farms run at 40%, with age degradation that will fall even lower. as it stands wind turbines are not a reliable source of power and quantity cannot be guaranteed. you for example cannot run the national grid with wind turbines making up a percentage higher than 18%. because this leaves gaps in the national grid capacity. which would need back filling by conventional power stations. so that's one sticking point.

So like i said before you'd rather have current wind turbines running at 40% average efficiency and degrading over time. so by 2020 you left with less efficient, obsolete and costing you more in maintenance wind turbines. this in the long run will cost billions - But excellent move by yourself and that's why i cannot and have not taken you seriously when it comes to renewable energy. you don't even understand the fundamentals.

simple facts

Wind Turbines produce electricity for only 70% to 80% of the time. the rest of the time the wind is not strong enough.

A modern onshore wind turbine over the course of a year will typically generate around 26% of its theoretical maximum output, depending on location. For an offshore wind turbine, it is 33%. known as it load factor - In the UK, the average load factor for nuclear, coal and gas was 53%.

i havent got the time now but in short from the government study, -
The rate of decline in performance is greatest for offshore installations in Denmark, with a fall
from load factors of over 40% at ages 0 and 1 to less than 15% by at ages 9 and 10. Onshore
installations in the UK show a more rapid rate of decline – 0.9 percentage points per year over
the first 10 years of operation – than is the case for Denmark, though the normalised Danish
performance curve lies below the UK curve for the first four years. For the UK the normalised
load factor falls to just over 15% at age 10 and to 11% at age 15. With such low load factors it
seems likely that many wind farms will be re-powered – i.e. the turbines will be replaced
– once they reach the age of 10 or 15 at most.

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God

#13    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,156 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 05 August 2014 - 05:30 PM

Unfortunately that doesn't even come close to Justifying Fracking which has even worse performance over time.

If you are so confident Steve, I suggest you sink all of your money into Cadrilla and wait a few years to see how it does. I'll see you in the poor house. Even better steve I hear on the grapevine that the exploration company "Tamboran" is going out of business soon :tu:

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 05 August 2014 - 05:58 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#14    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,156 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 05 August 2014 - 07:24 PM

https://www.youtube....d&v=7KJTNmBNINQ

Pay attention to the €110 billion losses across the industry.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#15    stevewinn

stevewinn

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 8,561 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, England

  • Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival

Posted 05 August 2014 - 07:27 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 05 August 2014 - 05:30 PM, said:

Unfortunately that doesn't even come close to Justifying Fracking which has even worse performance over time.

If you are so confident Steve, I suggest you sink all of your money into Cadrilla and wait a few years to see how it does. I'll see you in the poor house. Even better steve I hear on the grapevine that the exploration company "Tamboran" is going out of business soon :tu:

Br Cornelius

im not trying to justify fracking. because it doesn't need me to, fracking is just another way of extracting the fossil fuels, its nothing new we've been doing it for decades. as for shale today gone tomorrow the British geological survey stated there is enough shale gas of which only 10% needs extracting to supply our gas needs for the next 50 years. the trouble with Fracking is the need for many wells. - its worth noting the continuation of new north sea oil/gas fields being opened.

my vision is simple we go the conventional route, but with a decreasing trend over the next century, Nuclear, Gas, Oil, and we invest in renewables but buying/installing renewables in batches, so we always have the right balance between the latest technology and costs. like i pointed out earlier. no use having 100,000 batch 1 turbines. when that could be split - you could have over a number of years 10,000 batch1 turbines, followed by 10,000 batch2 turbines, followed by 10,000 batch3's and so on. because with each batch the technology improves allows for research and design, development and investment. by the time you've reached batch 10 you've developed a product at least ten times as better as the first batch, and the added bonus is your at the forefront of the technology right where you need to be in any market. makes absolute sense and especially when sites/land is limited, because as each batch becomes more efficient less turbines are needed, which means less land area is required etc... please tell me you can see the logic.

If you want to talk about investments i would invest with centrica/British Gas. who bought a 25% stake in the licence area up here in the North west. (fracking) other investments would be Royal Dutch shell, BP, Royal Mail. Lloyds banking group - TSB, British-American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco. Anglo-Australian BHP Billiton mining. you wont lose money on a fifteen year investment on any of that - throw a few bob into government bonds and your onto a winner. i dont know about seeing me in the poor house, i'd invite you around to the west wing one day. were we can survey the manor. :w00t: Falklands Oil company. a risk at the moment but once they hit the black gold boom. we'll call you Hector Riva

what's that load of rubbish you just posted on youtube RT channel. are the two presenters sane? they look like two extras out of Ghostbusters.

Edited by stevewinn, 05 August 2014 - 07:29 PM.

Posted Image

British by Birth - English by the Grace of God




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users