Spirit of Ireland - A bright spark in today's economic gloom?

antoobrien

nokia69 wrote: »

oil production has peaked, we are now in the plateau which could last for ten years or more, but after that we will start to see production declines

With all due disrespect to that statement that claim has been made every few years for as long as I can remember. In the late 80s we were supposed to be running out of oil before 2033 (the inspiration for the Mad Max films).

How much of the current "plateau" is down to the wells running dry and how much is down to controlling the output of the wells?

Lets not forget that the oil companies & nations with reserves will not produce "too much" oil, which would force prices down. OPEC regularly set limits on how much oil will be produced and what price they think it should be.

4.legs.good

US production was set to have "peaked" yet are now on course to surpass Saudi Arabia thanks to new drilling technologies.
While gas across the puddle is now 4-5x cheaper thanks to fracking and US economy shows signs of growth and jobs returning from places like China, while we here in Ireland are now what 5 years in a recession?

2012 is over and gone please stop with the end of the world crap, this thread is years old yet SOI is still on the same shelf as Steorns perpetual energy machine

Dan Jaman

I see the oil company shareholders are popping out of the woodwork.

antoobrien

Dan Jaman wrote: »

I see the oil company shareholders are popping out of the woodwork.

No - just people that don't buy into the end of the world rubbish that's being spouted by greens & wind energy shareholders.

Capt'n Midnight

valamhic wrote: »

Who says oil is drawing to a close?

no one.

What people are saying is that cheap oil is gone

Wave energy is just another form of wind energy.

and wind is another form of solar energy - what's your point ? (and it better refence the fact that much of the wind here arrives after a few thousand km of making wave power on the ocean that acts like storage because of how long it will take those waves to arrive across the ocean)


and besides we aren't using wave and no plans to do so in the short term. If we did we'd have something like 50KW/m to tap into and a lot of the cost of wave can be offset against reduced costs of costal defences

Tidal is a different kettle of fish being predictable yonks in advance and yes 300MW of it is in the pipeline for Northern Ireland.

Republic of Ireland was told to install wind farms and there would be happy days. Now we have wind capacity of 1,900 mw with average demand about 3,400 mw. Thats well over 50%. We have no savings in fuel or emission savings and the forth highest electricity prices in the world.

Renewables produced as much energy as coal according to the most recent figures.

and if you are comparing nameplate capacity to average wind generation then you don't understand the technology, or do you always drive your car over the speed limit ?


electricity costs are because of deregulation and fossil fuel costs.
before that we had the third cheapest cost of electricity in the EU and that was without having any interconnection or economies of scale. Our energy market is the size of Birmingham and no EU companies have entered it. In short our costs have gone up in order to make it attractive for private companies to fund construction (and financing at commercial rates , and paying dividends to shareholders) of new power stations.

Capt'n Midnight

antoobrien wrote: »

How much of the current "plateau" is down to the wells running dry and how much is down to controlling the output of the wells?

Lets not forget that the oil companies & nations with reserves will not produce "too much" oil, which would force prices down. OPEC regularly set limits on how much oil will be produced and what price they think it should be.

Please explain Shell and other big companies reducing their proven reserves (wiped a couple of billion off the balance sheet)

Please explain why several OPEC countries haven't changed their reserve figure despite no new discoveries and extracting 9 billion barrels from them

you have to remember that a lot of the OPEC countries have reasons to want cheap oil, for their overseas investments or look at how Dubai is diversifying like crazy.



It's like whale hunting.

One argument says that whale hunters won't kill all the whales because then be out of a job. The companies involved in whale hunting are in the business of making money, and the best return on investment would be to kill off as many whales as you can before you need to replace old ships and then use the money to fund other parts of the business.




EROEI is the name of the game and it's dropping like a stone. I can see a day when we'd use renewables to extract fossil fuel

antoobrien

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Please explain Shell and other big companies reducing their proven reserves (wiped a couple of billion off the balance sheet)

Accounting rules changes

Capt'n Midnight

antoobrien wrote: »

Accounting rules changes

fair enough if they had announced the changes when the rules changed (did they change?)

unless you are referring to the rule "don't get caught"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2004/jul/29/oilandpetrol.news

Earlier this year, the oil giant admitted it had overbooked proven reserves in its oil fields by 4.5bn barrels, around 23% of its total, wiping billions of pounds off its market value. It subsequently downgraded its reserves a further three times.

and if it's a rule change please explain this
http://www.economist.com/node/3387223

Consider Ormen Lange, a North Sea gas field shared by half a dozen oil giants. Though all have access to the same geological data, each firm has booked a different proportion of its stake as “proved”—ranging from Shell's estimate, revised, post-scandal, to about 20% (down from over 60%) to BP's at over 80%.

From this the definition of proven reserves depends on the price. Fuel that cannot be extracted at the current price is not a proven reserve. As the price goes more fuel can be extracted at the higher price. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS MORE OIL.
http://books.google.ie/books?id=6VFoLRcyt3sC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=Similarly,+producers+will+try+to+convert+their+2P+reserves+into+1P+reserves+by+virtue+of+the+certification+process,&source=bl&ots=YE8BaUKEBJ&sig=dBVmJzC0c2ZVdBufyuH83KLbsYU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vVD9UNe5FYLRhAf8soHAAw&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Similarly%2C%20producers%20will%20try%20to%20convert%20their%202P%20reserves%20into%201P%20reserves%20by%20virtue%20of%20the%20certification%20process%2C&f=false

Capt'n Midnight

back on topic

the Dogger Bank would be an interesting place to use that Belgian pumped storage thingy

antoobrien

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

fair enough if they had announced the changes when the rules changed (did they change?)

SEC changed the rules in 2009.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

and if it's a rule change please explain this
http://www.economist.com/node/3387223

Just as in science knowledge is always changing, the methods used to measure reserves are also evolving (I won't claim to say that they are right/wrong and I won't try to debunk any scepticism), so the amounts recorded change. Tbh I'd be different if the amounts didn't change as they are estimates and they have to take into account new extraction techniques that may not have been available when previous estimates were produced.

I can't comment directly on that case because I don't know anything about it but it could be something as simple as Shell & BP having access to different reservoir within the field (i.e. not one continuous reservoir) of different size.

Anyhow the perceived expansion of reserves is explained in this paper on “Reserves Growth:

Estimates of the volumes that will ultimately be produced from reservoirs and fields tend on average to increase substantially over time. Rather than the discovery of new fields, it is this phenomenon — the increase of estimates of ultimate recovery from a field or group of fields over time due to the extension of proved reservoir area(s)

nokia69

4.legs.good wrote: »

US production was set to have "peaked" yet are now on course to surpass Saudi Arabia thanks to new drilling technologies.
While gas across the puddle is now 4-5x cheaper thanks to fracking and US economy shows signs of growth and jobs returning from places like China, while we here in Ireland are now what 5 years in a recession?

2012 is over and gone please stop with the end of the world crap, this thread is years old yet SOI is still on the same shelf as Steorns perpetual energy machine

oil production in the lower 48 states of the US did peak in the early 70s, this is a simple FACT that NOBODY disagres with, in 1956 the man in the video above looked at the rate of oil production and reserve growth, it was then easy for him to figure out that the US peak would be in the early 70s, short of a major war in saudi arabia they won't surpass the saudis anytime soon

if you have access to all the data its not hard to figure out the date for the world peak, but the saudis ect keep the data secret

in the video above hubbert says the peak could happen around 2005 he won't be out by much IMO

the discovery of new oil fields peaked in 1965 so it seems lightly that we are closer to peak oil now than ever before

I never said anything about the end of the world, peak oil just means we have used half of the oil there is still over 100 years of oil production left, but the post peak oil will cost far more than the pre peak oil

D7

Being abroad at the moment I am glad to hear that SOI has become active again
The opportunities are overwhelming especially when you consider the existing natural resources that abound the island and the intellectual knowledge that is also resident ....................it just needs the trust and commitment of the Govt and financial institutions, and their promise to inwardly invest and attract additional capital, as opposed to placing funds elsewhere on the planet.
We have food remember and can feed nations, we dont want to be dependent on the energy which is the commercial asset of multinational interests.:eek:

4.legs.good

nokia69 wrote: »

oil production in the lower 48 states of the US did peak in the early 70s, this is a simple FACT that NOBODY disagres with, in 1956 the man in the video above looked at the rate of oil production and reserve growth, it was then easy for him to figure out that the US peak would be in the early 70s, short of a major war in saudi arabia they won't surpass the saudis anytime soon

if you have access to all the data its not hard to figure out the date for the world peak, but the saudis ect keep the data secret

in the video above hubbert says the peak could happen around 2005 he won't be out by much IMO

the discovery of new oil fields peaked in 1965 so it seems lightly that we are closer to peak oil now than ever before

I never said anything about the end of the world, peak oil just means we have used half of the oil there is still over 100 years of oil production left, but the post peak oil will cost far more than the pre peak oil

oil


gas


so much for being "over the peak"

Waestrel

4.legs.good wrote: »

oil


gas


so much for being "over the peak"

I think oil "production" noted above may relate to imported oil being refined in the US. I seriously doubt they have stumbled upon new multi million barrel oil fields in the last few years .

As for Shale gas, its anyone guess how sustainable that is going forward a few years.

4.legs.good

Waestrel wrote: »

I think oil "production" noted above may relate to imported oil being refined in the US. I seriously doubt they have stumbled upon new multi million barrel oil fields in the last few years .

As for Shale gas, its anyone guess how sustainable that is going forward a few years.

Nope they are quite literary pumping more out of the ground using new technologies
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578249621718888086.html

U.S. oil production grew more in 2012 than in any year in the history of the domestic industry, which began in 1859, and is set to surge even more in 2013.

Daily crude output averaged 6.4 million barrels a day last year, up a record 779,000 barrels a day from 2011 and hitting a 15-year high, according to the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group.

It is the biggest annual jump in production since Edwin Drake drilled the first commercial oil well in Titusville, Pa., two years before the Civil War began.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts 2013 will be an even bigger year, with average daily production expected to jump by 900,000 barrels a day.

If the Saudis and Russians ever make use of this technology then we get even more oil

But most important story is the amount of gas being produced and how cheap it has gotten across the pond. More importantly for enviro fascists gas burns much cleaner than coal and oil which its displacing now, mind you thats not good enough! we are all better to go back to stoneage and live in caves.

Waestrel

4.legs.good wrote: »

Nope they are quite literary pumping more out of the ground using new technologies
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323468604578249621718888086.html



If the Saudis and Russians ever make use of this technology then we get even more oil

But most important story is the amount of gas being produced and how cheap it has gotten across the pond. More importantly for enviro fascists gas burns much cleaner than coal and oil which its displacing now, mind you thats not good enough! we are all better to go back to stone age and live in caves.

Fair enough on the oil point. However, no one is advocating going back to the stoneage. There is serious environmental issues with fossil fuel consumption, and with these new unconventional sources, extraction can be even messier than ever.

Capt'n Midnight

Waestrel wrote: »

extraction can be even messier than ever.

Extraction can use more energy than ever

you can imagine a stage where the energy used to extract fossil fuel and uranium would come from renewables

at that point fossil fuel / uranium becomes "storage" for renewables




How much energy would we have saved by insisting on the new 2011 energy standards during the boom when we were awash with money and where it would only have been a fraction of the house price ?

Dan Jaman

Yep, I see another oil company shill has crawled out of the woodwork.

Heroditas

Dan Jaman wrote: »

Yep, I see another oil company shill has crawled out of the woodwork.

Ah I see the environmental version of Godwin's Law has just been invoked.

4.legs.good

Its rather childish to revert to name calling @Dan Jaman

I have walked this planet for a long time and for as long as I can remember there were people saying the end of <insert resource) is around the corner and we are all doomed doomed I tell you. Like I said 2012 is over please stop with end of the world craick.

The fact is new technologies are leading to a boom in hydrocarbon extraction, what wasnt possible before now is. Personally I think the world would be better going nuclear than continue to rely on hydrocarbons (and who knows maybe commercially viable fusion is eventually cracked before I die) but I do realise that a shift to gas is better for environment than burning oil and coal.

Anyways someone mentioned the price of crude going up (The price of petrol at pumps here is not a good benchmarch considering most of the price is taxes and taxes on taxes!). The price in $ and € is sure rising over they years

BUT thats due to paper currencies devaluating as more paper is printed and zeros are added in quantative easing etc

taking a look at this graph of price of crude measured in gold for an illustration of currencies inflating

Dan Jaman

And what's going to happen when the crude really does come to an end? All this wave of new extraction is a puff of wind, simply putting off the day of reckoning and we will have nothing in place for energy greedy population we have - not so much worldwide, but in the developed and developing nations.
That's why I'm suspicious of all the creatures who appear and scorn ideas like SoI and promote the 'new wonderful extraction' technologies.
Some of these people are, without doubt, oil-company shareholders, employees, and others with a vested interest in rubbishing new alternative technologies.
Are you?

4.legs.good

So instead of debating once again you try to personally attack me?
Any mods here? is that the level of debate that's allowed here?


Read up on some basic economic history:

the stone age didnt end because they ran out of stones,
neither did the bronze and iron age,
or for that matter industrial revolution didnt stop in its tracks because they ran out of coal (tho they had their "omg coal is ending" people)

the hydrocarbon age wont end either because we run out of hydrocarbons, there still be coal, oil and gas being extracted (especially for fertiliser and chemical uses) hundreds of years from now

considering that at today's technological level we have enough proven reserves of Thorium and Uranium to power the world for thousands of years at current consumption rates, i am not too worried, especially with the worlds population finally peaking in few decades if current demographic trends continue.

when theres a need theres a way, hell maybe they build this Spirit of Ireland by then

Capt'n Midnight

4.legs.good wrote: »

The fact is new technologies are leading to a boom in hydrocarbon extraction, what wasn't possible before now is.

tight oil

it's not just the new technologies, it's that because of the high price of fuel they are now cost effective. Look up EROEI to see how inefficient many of these techniques are, at present they are subisidised because they don't have to pay for the carbon tax on the fuel used in extraction.

Personally I think the world would be better going nuclear than continue to rely on hydrocarbons (and who knows maybe commercially viable fusion is eventually cracked before I die) but I do realise that a shift to gas is better for environment than burning oil and coal.

Nuclear provides less than 1/7th of electricity

so if we have 70 years of cheap uranium left at current usage then we'd only have 10 years left if we tried to make all our electricity from nuclear. It takes decades to pay off the loans to build the plants. - Also those figures are skewed because for the last decade or the nuclear fuel market was flooded with recycled Russian warheads.

and we use a lot more energy for transport and heat than for electricity, at this stage nuclear is less relevant than Hydro or Wind.

Anyways someone mentioned the price of crude going up (The price of petrol at pumps here is not a good benchmarch considering most of the price is taxes and taxes on taxes!). The price in $ and € is sure rising over they years

not any more
just an aside, there are people who can legally drink who were born after the last time excised duty increased on beer

Remove the VAT - (which is on everything) and compare the excise duty to the price of fuel ..

http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/excise/duties/excise-duty-rates.html
Petrol 58.771 c/L - include carbon charge

BUT thats due to paper currencies devaluating as more paper is printed and zeros are added in quantative easing etc

taking a look at this graph of price of crude measured in gold for an illustration of currencies inflating
http://omg.wthax.org/Crude_1950.jpg

yeah...
they are two commodities that seem to track each other - both go up in when there is trouble in the middle east

compare gold to the average weekly wage or to the price of food and you'll get a very different graph.

4.legs.good

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

Some very interesting reading and plenty of figures ...

pumped storage to back renewables is a pipe dream (no pun intended)

Dan Jaman

4.legs.good wrote: »

So instead of debating once again you try to personally attack me?
Any mods here? is that the level of debate that's allowed here?

Sorry; I'm afraid your twisted knickers don't impress me.

Einhard

Dan Jaman wrote: »

Sorry; I'm afraid your twisted knickers don't impress me.

I don't think your contribution to the debate impresses anyone.

Darac

It's now been a year since SofI updated their website with the message

"All going well, watch this space, March 2012".

Anyone know if it is still 'going well'?

Capt'n Midnight

4.legs.good wrote: »

Dont forget that we had an agricultural revolution in last few decades and food is a much lower % of family expenses for everyone

Back in Nebuchadnezzar’s time food would have accounted for nearly 100% of the average person's expenditure.

It wasn't until the late middle ages when people could afford new clothes often enough for rags to be available to make paper, that and the use of eyeglasses were the preconditions for the development of printing.

I am pie

Where are we at with this? Any progress?

Capt'n Midnight

Unlikely as the cost of the interconnectors from Scotland / UK to the West of Ireland is similar to those going to Norway.

And Norway already have enough hydro that they don't need pumped storage. So construction costs are a fraction of ours.



Also we have a glut power stations for the next few years as we replace older ones with gas.


And overall it's cheaper to build extra renewables backed by gas than build pumped storage.


Where it gets interesting is when you can use excess electricity to produce hydrogen and put that in the gas mains.