An astonishing revolution - by Richard... Monday, May 09, 2011

An astonishing revolution - by Richard... Monday, May 09, 2011

A report on shale gas by Matt Ridley for the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) had Booker romping into the field yesterday with a brief review, having promised to write about the subject a couple of years back, when it was still fresh and the GWPF hadn't yet invented it.

The report joins a comprehensive overview produced by DECC and is joined today by another, more comprehensive study produced by the European Centre of Energy Resource Security (EUCERS). Each report has merits and, between them, probably provide as much information as any non-expert could reasonably want (or be able to deal with), on this exciting issue.

Booker puts it fairly and squarely as "an astonishing revolution" which could solve all of the UK's and the world's energy problems for centuries to come, the "incredible technical breakthroughs of recent years that allow almost unlimited amounts of cheap gas to be extracted from the world’s vast reserves of shale, our commonest sedimentary rock".

That, as you might expect, is an oversimplification, necessary for Booker to cram the detail into the shrinking space he is allotted at the fag-end of the paper. He refers only to shale gas but there are several types of what are known as "unconventional hydrocarbons", which include so-called "tight gas" from low-permeability rock, and coal-bed methane (CBM).

At back end, there are the methane hydrates, with extraction techniques being tested by the Japanese amongst others. Total deposits are estimated at around three million tcf which, with total annual energy consumption approximating 500 tcf gas equivalent, gives us potentially a supply lasting 600,000 years, which should see me out.

What is not an oversimplification, therefore, or even the mildest of exaggerations is the "astonishing revolution" claim. Even with existing technology, we are indeed looking down the nose of an energy revolution which promises to bring cheap supplies of gas to the world, for the foreseeable future and beyond.

In terms of potential supplies in Europe, three major potential shale gas Paleozoic plays have been identified: the Cambrain-Ordovician (which stretches from Denmark through to Sweden), the Silurian (Poland) and the Carboniferous (which runs from the UK through to Poland).

The relatively cautious EU Commission and the International Energy Agency (IEA) believe these and others basins could yield between 33 to 38 trillion cubic metres (tcm), of which 12 tcm are tight gas, 15 tcm shale gas, and 8 tcm coal bed methane. In comparison, total conventional gas reserves in EU member states currently amount just to 2.42 tcm.

As we have noted on this blog, such sizeable resources have the potential to reshape radically the European gas supply picture. EUCERS argues that shale gas could play a vital balancing role for regional gas markets. Therefore, in theory, they might be able to cover European gas demand for another 60 years.

A new EIA study, however, now estimates the technically recoverable resource in Europe at 624 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in comparison with 862 trillion cubic feet in the US, 1,069 tcf in Canada and Mexico, 1,225 tcf in South America and 1,275 tcf in China, although such figures are subject to wide variation.

Ridley, for instance, cites a study which has total in-place resources of 25,300 tcf, not counting large parts of the globe that were not surveyed, which include Russia. These numbers, he lucidly explains, "could prove either too optimistic or too pessimistic".

What is unquestionable is that, as far as energy crises go, there isn't a crisis. Gas supplies, world-wide are in surplus and international wholesale prices are tumbling. New ships, such as the Bu Samra, are coming into service, and the whole energy picture has become transformed.

Unfortunately, writes Booker, we here in Britain and the EU are run by people so much under the sway of such dogmas that they may be disposed to resist to the last the thought of our joining in this revolution (although large reserves of potentially suitable shale are buried below much of eastern England).

The problem, however, is more domestic than EU, as our continental cousins, under the shadow of the Bear with its malign grip on Europe's gas supplies, have a better grasp of the realities than do our gilded policy-makers. Thus do we see, even today, a frankly insane report from the House of Commons Committee on Climate Change highlighted in The Daily Mail.

This tells us that offshore wind farm plans "are a costly mistake" – which we knew already - we've been writing that much on this blog for ages. But it goes on then to call for "hundreds more wind turbines to be built onshore at a lower cost over the next eight years".

The type of insanity that confronts us here demonstrates that we have a different sort of crisis – a policy crisis, where our politicians and the green lobby have so far lost touch with reality that they no longer inhabit anything approaching the real world. The wind "bubble" has already burst, and in but a few years, as more plentiful and cheap gas supplies become available, the dead wind farm sited at South Point (Ka Lae) in Hawaii is going to symbolise a failed revolution (pictured above). The land will be littered with broken windmills.

It is my guess that sense will actually prevail on mainland Europe first, but as Booker concludes, here we are having to resist "unscientific eco-lunacy which has those who rule us in its grip". When people finally wake up to what is going on, and that they are being totally stitched up on their energy costs to pay for the lunacy, we might just start getting some political traction out of the anti-green movement.

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

Mission Accomplished - by Richard...

They are coming in fast and furious, but a notable addition to the torrent of writing calling for the evacuation of Afghanistan comes from Leslie Gelb in the Wall Street Journal.

Gelb is no ordinary Joe. He is author of "Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy" president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former official at the State and Defense departments (amazing how a nation as proud and capable as the US cannot spell "defence).

And, with the precision of a Swiss watch on steroids, up pops the little man from the CFR – the organisation which really runs US foreign policy – and tells Obama that al Qaeda is no longer based in Afghanistan "and the Taliban must be beaten by Afghans themselves" - or not ... no one really gives a shit any more.

"Afghanistan is no longer a war about vital American security interests", says Gelb. It is about the failure of America's political elites to face two plain facts: The al Qaeda terrorist threat is no longer centred in that ancient battleground, and the battle against the Taliban is mainly for Afghans themselves.

Thus doth the Great Gelb declare, with Osama bin Laden now swimming with the fishes, the US has but one sensible path: to draw down US forces to 15,000-25,000 by the end of 2013, try cutting a deal with the Taliban, and refocus American power in the region on containment, deterrence and diplomacy.

So it is that, whatever the proud words about nation-building, and helping Afghanistan rejoin the community of nations, and all the rest of the guff, the new narrative is "out". The Americans can go home now and have their parades, until they get bored and their budgets are squeezed. Then they can find another war to keep the military happy and the defence (with a "c", dummy) contractors well fed.

I wonder if we can persuade them to bomb France? Or perhaps they will do themselves a favour (with a "u", dummy), and invade California. They could also do the world a favour (also with a "u", dummy), and put Michael Mann in Gitmo. Now that Bin Laden is "dead", surely Mann has to be top of the "most (not) wanted" list?

COMMENT THREAD

4Share

Print ready

From one to another - by Richard...

While the pantywaist wuzzies of the coalition are tormenting themselves over whether to fly their masters' flag from public buildings (for the brief period left, when they still have a choice), 66 years ago, real men and real women had been celebrating the end of the war in Europe – with still the Japs to beat.

Officially, the war ended at one minute past midnight, making this the proper VE day, even if the tradition in England is to celebrate the day before – hence the newspapers headlines. But this day has now been sequestered by the "colleagues" as their "Europe Day", celebrating the myth ofRobert Schuman presenting "his" proposal on 9 May 1950 for the creation of the Iron and Steel Community and the start of what was to become the European Union.

It wasn't his proposal, of course. It had been devised and written up by Jean Monnet, who in classic style had used someone to front it. In this case, Schuman served his purpose, and was rescued from what otherwise would have been total obscurity. Thus, like most things to do with the EU, even its founding day celebrations are based on a lie. And, in choosing 9 May, the "colleagues" simply mark the transition from one form of tyranny to another.

Yet, instead of working to get us out, all the pantywaists can do is concern themselves with whether to fly the flag of subjugation. That says rather a lot about them. The cowards will roll over and do their masters' bidding, but don't have the guts to admit where their true loyalties lie.

But it was only going to be a matter of time before some fool hack decided that not daring to show the ring of stars was "eurosceptic". It really is true ... these people haven't got any brains.

COMMENT THREAD

Share

Print ready

Death wish - by Richard... Sunday, May 08, 2011

Over the 2012 budget period, the EU is planning to spend £225 million on its publicity operation, including paying an "army of 1,000 spin doctors" to sell the EU to a hostile public. This is according to the Bruno Waterfield, who cannot be held responsible for the stupid Failygraph headline. One of these days, the babies might realise that "Europe" and the "EU" are not the same thing – but don't count on it.

Almost half the cost, £115million, will be spent on administration and the 1,078 staff who work in the commission's directorate general for communications. Another £84million is earmarked for "informing about European policy and better connecting with citizens" and £7million will used on events, including a "Year for Citizens 2013". Publicity promoting "Europe for citizens" will cost £25million.

The EU's publicity spend is now a serious amount of our money. By comparison, the giant conglomerate Unilever spends less than £4 million on its international promotional budget, and even domestically, the Asda spend is only in the order of £80 million. In terms, therefore, the EU is now getting major brand treatment. This now compares with our own government, which spends £180 million or so for advertising, £40 million on PR and a total close to £270 million.

However, there is no very great practical need for the EU to communicate with the people it claims are its "citizens". It is supposed to act through member states, which implement its laws and policies. Barring a basic information capability, therefore, this spend is entirely on propaganda – and that is very obviously the case.

Yet throughout the EU, people are hurting and they are going to be hurting more. The "project" was always at its most successful when it was near-invisible and to see a flood of propaganda from the "colleagues" is not going to go down well. They are really stupid if they think this is going to improve the EU image – either that or they have a death wish.