Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Howard,Bhoddhisatva,penym,Anonymous,Rhyd6, for Donating to support the site

Shale matters

FabianBjornseth
Lemon Pip
Posts: 58
Joined: July 6th, 2018, 10:41 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 67 times

Re: Shale matters

#232421

Postby FabianBjornseth » June 27th, 2019, 10:09 pm

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/early-shale-optimist-sees-another-decade-of-u-s-supply-growth-1.1278549

Output from shale including crude oil, condensate and natural gas liquids could climb to as high as 25 million barrels a day...

...Rystad’s optimism is also based on a recent study he’s done on the so-called parent-child interference issue, a concern that drilling a new well too close to an older one will reduce pressure in the original and cut output. While the results were mixed, overall the study showed that companies can stack wells more densely, creating enough drilling locations to support 10 to 15 more years of output growth, he said.


Seems Rystad is sticking to their previous assessment, that any growth in oil demand in the next decade will be matched by an increased supply from US shale oil. The majors appear to have similar forecasts based on the moves they've made over the last 12 months. The numbers are almost unbelievable, but then what we have today seemed unbelievable just a few years ago.

FabianBjornseth
Lemon Pip
Posts: 58
Joined: July 6th, 2018, 10:41 pm
Has thanked: 68 times
Been thanked: 67 times

Re: Shale matters

#241590

Postby FabianBjornseth » August 4th, 2019, 9:53 am

https://www.rystadenergy.com/newsevents ... d-heights/

Some market participants argue that the average well performance in the Permian is already declining, based on speculations of depletion of core inventory, as well as a growing share of child wells and well spacing challenges.

“After careful analysis, we do not find sufficient evidence in the data to support these speculations. We conclude that the average new production per well in the basin matches the all-time highs seen in early 2019, despite depletion concerns,” says Artem Abramov, head of shale research at Rystad Energy.


To me, this analysis seems to lack some fundamental parameters. Yes, average initial productivity may be at an all time high, not correcting for tighter frac spacing or high-grading of targets. That tells you nothing of how the wells will decline over 12 months, or how these big infill producers are affecting the existing wellstock. This does nothing to ease my concerns for the most bullish shale oil predictions into the 2020's.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4800
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3942 times
Been thanked: 1301 times

Re: Shale matters

#241806

Postby dspp » August 5th, 2019, 10:58 am

I have been noting falling rig counts for a while now. Checking Berman:

June 12 deck : http://www.artberman.com/wp-content/upl ... 2-2019.pdf

June 26 deck : http://www.artberman.com/wp-content/upl ... 6-2019.pdf

July deck : http://www.artberman.com/wp-content/upl ... 4-2019.pdf


In the July slide 9 my recollection of rig counts was in fact correct. However June slide 7 indicates gas supply rising. Something odd is going on, most likely either individual wells becoming more productive, or well preferentially targetting gas vs oil (which seems unlikely). Looking at your link Rystad say horizontal section length is increasing for the better wells, drilled by the more savvy & well-funded players (who presumably are keen to show their newly purchased assets were a good move). But as you say decline rates may also be higher

July slide 3 is the regular slide, and it shows pricing in the sweet spot in the middle. Trump is on a roll trying to find his sweet spot between pandering to redneck 'bash China' voters and not tipping US into a recession, and keeping oil prices low. Every time he bullies the Fed into easing monetary policy he then ups the ante on China tariffs. You'd think the Fed would have learnt by now ! A lot of global macro indicators are edging towards bad times being ahead, and industrial contraction (or decelleration) depresses oil price which in turn depresses shale activity.

June 26 slide 11 shows DUC stock flattening. And slide 12 shows about half the shale boys were cash flow positive. Since cash is king and interest rates are now falling that implies more shale wells will be coming for a while.

My instincts are that Berman's dumbass call in July slide 10 is more right than the US EIA. But if money is at 0% and if the political environment favours shale under a second term Trump then maybe the US EIA are correct.

Are we at - or near - peak US shale ?

Spasmodicus put up some relevant points in his [#225706 Postby spasmodicus » May 31st, 2019, 9:02 am].

hmmmm......

- dspp

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4800
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3942 times
Been thanked: 1301 times

Re: Shale matters

#245863

Postby dspp » August 20th, 2019, 9:58 pm

"The UK’s underground shale gas reserves may deliver only a fraction of the gas promised by fracking firms and government ministers, according to a study.

Research by the University of Nottingham found that early estimates may have exaggerated the UK’s shale reserves up to sixfold."


https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... imed-study

Now there's a surprise. And that's before they get real about accessibility & cost issues in a UK context.

- dspp

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4800
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3942 times
Been thanked: 1301 times

Re: Shale matters

#247098

Postby dspp » August 26th, 2019, 4:13 pm

"The 2.9-magnitude quake, recorded near Cuadrilla’s site near Blackpool on Monday morning, is believed to be the biggest fracking-related tremor seen in Britain."

"Yet the 2.9-magnitude tremor, which startled residents at 8.30am on Monday, is by far the largest recorded at the site and is bigger than the 2.3-magnitude quake that brought fracking to a halt in 2011."

"A resident of Lytham St Annes said there was a “very loud rumbling” and the “whole house shook, picture fell off a shelf” and that it was “quite scary”.

Another person posted on social media: “I heard a loud rumble then the house literally shook. Scary stuff”."


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -blackpool

Given this sort of evidence, it seems unlikely shale fracking in the UK is going to proceed in a large scale manner.

regards, dspp

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4800
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3942 times
Been thanked: 1301 times

Re: Shale matters

#251008

Postby dspp » September 11th, 2019, 12:13 pm

DUNC analysis bt US IEA

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41253

"Ultimately, the amount of time that a well remains drilled but uncompleted has little effect on its initial production, according to analysis"

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4800
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3942 times
Been thanked: 1301 times

Re: Shale matters

#251303

Postby dspp » September 12th, 2019, 9:36 am

U.S. oil and gas employment has started to fall as producers and service companies respond to the sharp decline in prices since the fourth quarter of 2018.
.....
as the inventory of drilled but uncompleted wells falls, it is likely completions will also turn down in the second half of 2019 and into 2020.

Fewer well completions should translate into decelerating growth in oil production, marking the end of the second frenzied U.S. shale oil boom.

The first shale oil boom lasted from 2012 until the middle of 2014. The second boom began in late 2016 or early 2017 and lasted through 2018.

Experience suggests it takes around 3-4 months for a fall in oil prices to translate into a lower rig count and around 9-12 months to turn into lower production.

The downturn in oil prices since October 2018 should start to translate into much slower, or even negative, growth in oil production in the third or fourth quarter of 2019 and beyond into 2020......


https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-s ... KKCN1VW239

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4800
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3942 times
Been thanked: 1301 times

Re: Shale matters

#261639

Postby dspp » November 2nd, 2019, 12:04 pm

"The [UK] government has banned fracking with immediate effect ..............Ministers also warned shale gas companies it would not support future fracking projects,"

The decision was taken after a new scientific study warned it was not possible to rule out “unacceptable” consequences for those living near fracking sites.

The report, undertaken by the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA), also warned it was not possible to predict the magnitude of earthquakes fracking might trigger.

"The government ended its support for the struggling industry less than a week after a damning report from Whitehall’s spending watchdog found its plans to establish fracking across the UK was dragging years behind schedule and had cost the taxpayer at least £32m so far without producing any energy in return."


https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... jor-u-turn

- dspp

ReallyVeryFoolish
Lemon Slice
Posts: 270
Joined: October 5th, 2019, 12:06 pm
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Shale matters

#261653

Postby ReallyVeryFoolish » November 2nd, 2019, 12:59 pm

Whilst I am extremely disappointed to see this outcome to what I believe was likely to have been a major new source of energy independence for the UK - In an island as overcrowded as the UK where there is almost no green larger than a postage stamp in and around major population centres, it was never going to happen. What adds to the disappointment for me though is that due to the exceptionally well marshalled and highly influential nimby campaigns, the industry wasn't even allowed to determine if a UK shale gs industry was even viable or possible. But when the world's policy seems to be shaped by 16 year olds who bunk off school rather than learn about things, what can we expect?

colin
Lemon Slice
Posts: 662
Joined: December 10th, 2016, 7:16 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 96 times

Re: Shale matters

#261712

Postby colin » November 2nd, 2019, 5:10 pm

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:Whilst I am extremely disappointed to see this outcome to what I believe was likely to have been a major new source of energy independence for the UK - In an island as overcrowded as the UK where there is almost no green larger than a postage stamp in and around major population centres, it was never going to happen. What adds to the disappointment for me though is that due to the exceptionally well marshalled and highly influential nimby campaigns, the industry wasn't even allowed to determine if a UK shale gs industry was even viable or possible. But when the world's policy seems to be shaped by 16 year olds who bunk off school rather than learn about things, what can we expect?

You live up to your name then.

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2669
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Shale matters

#261723

Postby Nimrod103 » November 2nd, 2019, 6:15 pm

ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:Whilst I am extremely disappointed to see this outcome to what I believe was likely to have been a major new source of energy independence for the UK - In an island as overcrowded as the UK where there is almost no green larger than a postage stamp in and around major population centres, it was never going to happen. What adds to the disappointment for me though is that due to the exceptionally well marshalled and highly influential nimby campaigns, the industry wasn't even allowed to determine if a UK shale gs industry was even viable or possible. But when the world's policy seems to be shaped by 16 year olds who bunk off school rather than learn about things, what can we expect?


Absolutely the truth. The Telegraph article about shale gas a couple of days ago described people being 'rocked' by earthquakes of magnitude 2.9 on Richter, when the definition of 2.9 is 'no damage and only a few people will feel some slight vibration'. Much bigger tremors occur in the UK caused by collapsing coal mines, and passing heavy lorries. The World has gone mad and scientists have lost credibility. Politicians would much rather be ignorant.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4800
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3942 times
Been thanked: 1301 times

Re: Shale matters

#261727

Postby dspp » November 2nd, 2019, 6:53 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:
ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:Whilst I am extremely disappointed to see this outcome to what I believe was likely to have been a major new source of energy independence for the UK - In an island as overcrowded as the UK where there is almost no green larger than a postage stamp in and around major population centres, it was never going to happen. What adds to the disappointment for me though is that due to the exceptionally well marshalled and highly influential nimby campaigns, the industry wasn't even allowed to determine if a UK shale gs industry was even viable or possible. But when the world's policy seems to be shaped by 16 year olds who bunk off school rather than learn about things, what can we expect?


Absolutely the truth. The Telegraph article about shale gas a couple of days ago described people being 'rocked' by earthquakes of magnitude 2.9 on Richter, when the definition of 2.9 is 'no damage and only a few people will feel some slight vibration'. Much bigger tremors occur in the UK caused by collapsing coal mines, and passing heavy lorries. The World has gone mad and scientists have lost credibility. Politicians would much rather be ignorant.



There has never been a credible technical / economic case made for fracced shale in the UK imho. As the article points out the £32m spent so far has mostly been taxpayer money. I have no problem with fraccing per se, but it has to be done where there is a serious reservoir that could reasonably be developed commercially. I simply don't see those conditions holding true in the UK.

Personally if INEOS, Cuadrilla, et al want to do unsubsidised UK exploration for fracced, and to bear ALL the costs themselves, then they can go for it.

Equally I would not want to be so dismissive of the anti-fraccers. Many of the more clued up ones I have spoken to over the years have a pretty sophisticated understanding of the many different issues.

regards, dspp

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2669
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Shale matters

#261747

Postby Nimrod103 » November 2nd, 2019, 9:38 pm

dspp wrote:
Nimrod103 wrote:
ReallyVeryFoolish wrote:Whilst I am extremely disappointed to see this outcome to what I believe was likely to have been a major new source of energy independence for the UK - In an island as overcrowded as the UK where there is almost no green larger than a postage stamp in and around major population centres, it was never going to happen. What adds to the disappointment for me though is that due to the exceptionally well marshalled and highly influential nimby campaigns, the industry wasn't even allowed to determine if a UK shale gs industry was even viable or possible. But when the world's policy seems to be shaped by 16 year olds who bunk off school rather than learn about things, what can we expect?


Absolutely the truth. The Telegraph article about shale gas a couple of days ago described people being 'rocked' by earthquakes of magnitude 2.9 on Richter, when the definition of 2.9 is 'no damage and only a few people will feel some slight vibration'. Much bigger tremors occur in the UK caused by collapsing coal mines, and passing heavy lorries. The World has gone mad and scientists have lost credibility. Politicians would much rather be ignorant.



There has never been a credible technical / economic case made for fracced shale in the UK imho. As the article points out the £32m spent so far has mostly been taxpayer money. I have no problem with fraccing per se, but it has to be done where there is a serious reservoir that could reasonably be developed commercially. I simply don't see those conditions holding true in the UK.

Personally if INEOS, Cuadrilla, et al want to do unsubsidised UK exploration for fracced, and to bear ALL the costs themselves, then they can go for it.

Equally I would not want to be so dismissive of the anti-fraccers. Many of the more clued up ones I have spoken to over the years have a pretty sophisticated understanding of the many different issues.

regards, dspp


The fraccing industry in the UK is still at the R&D stage, so the data is just not there yet to show whether there is a technical and economic case to be made. I have to say I am doubtful because the productive US shales are a bit different from those in the UK, but to be honest we cannot say anything yet with confidence. And because of this ban, we never will.

I am not clear what the subsidies provided by the Govt are. £32 MM sounds a ludicrously small amount amount of money, which AFAICS probably covers civil service administration costs, and policing against environmental terrorists.

The anti-fraccers do not understand science, engineering or risks. To them the sky is falling, and nothing we say will persuade them otherwise. They would be better employed demonstating against nuclear waste storage, anti-biotic mis-use, the effects of vegan diets on developing brains, overpopulation or a whole host of other genuine risks to humanity.

ReallyVeryFoolish
Lemon Slice
Posts: 270
Joined: October 5th, 2019, 12:06 pm
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 120 times

Re: Shale matters

#261765

Postby ReallyVeryFoolish » November 3rd, 2019, 12:53 am

Well said N103, have a rec.

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2145
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 372 times
Been thanked: 677 times

Re: Shale matters

#261838

Postby vrdiver » November 3rd, 2019, 2:07 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:The anti-fraccers do not understand science, engineering or risks. To them the sky is falling, and nothing we say will persuade them otherwise.

Hmm.
I have a degree in chemistry, worked in a lab, developed computer models and taught mathematics courses from time to time as part of my day job for quite a few years. I consider myself to have a basic understanding of (some) science, as well as engineering and risks, or more aptly, risk mitigation.

Fracking risks include, as an example, contamination of the water table, which whilst a low probability, would have a huge impact if it occurred. Further, there is little evidence of the long term impacts of the effects of fracking. Given that we only have one planet, I find it difficult to agree that the risks fall into the "acceptable" category.

The UK has signed up to the Paris accord. Developing a cheap hydrocarbon source would delay any serious attempt to reduce our fossil fuel consumption. Whilst there is a very good economic argument in favour of a potential fracking industry, it is outweighed by the risks and the issues associated with global warming.

Of course, if you think global warming isn't really happening or being accelerated by human activity then that argument won't be persuasive, but that takes us back to the moot point about understanding science etc.

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2669
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Shale matters

#261855

Postby Nimrod103 » November 3rd, 2019, 3:26 pm

vrdiver wrote:
Nimrod103 wrote:The anti-fraccers do not understand science, engineering or risks. To them the sky is falling, and nothing we say will persuade them otherwise.

Hmm.
I have a degree in chemistry, worked in a lab, developed computer models and taught mathematics courses from time to time as part of my day job for quite a few years. I consider myself to have a basic understanding of (some) science, as well as engineering and risks, or more aptly, risk mitigation.

Fracking risks include, as an example, contamination of the water table, which whilst a low probability, would have a huge impact if it occurred. Further, there is little evidence of the long term impacts of the effects of fracking. Given that we only have one planet, I find it difficult to agree that the risks fall into the "acceptable" category.

The UK has signed up to the Paris accord. Developing a cheap hydrocarbon source would delay any serious attempt to reduce our fossil fuel consumption. Whilst there is a very good economic argument in favour of a potential fracking industry, it is outweighed by the risks and the issues associated with global warming.

Of course, if you think global warming isn't really happening or being accelerated by human activity then that argument won't be persuasive, but that takes us back to the moot point about understanding science etc.


UK aquifers are generally about 1-200m deep. Anything deeper is likely to carry significant dissolved minerals, and probably be undrinkable. Most fraccing is 2000m plus, so the only way way fracced fluids are likely to mix with aquifer water is from the drill pipe in the shallow zone, where any fluid will be behind at least 2 steel casings. So what is frac fluid, well Google says:
Hydraulic fracturing fluid. Hydraulic fracturing fluid is typically comprised of approximately 98 to 99.5 percent water and sand and 0.5 to 2 percent chemical additives. Most of the chemical constituents that make up fracturing fluid additives can be found in common household items or in the food and drinks we consume. So even if there is leakage, which is very unlikey anyway, the composition of the fluid is not dangerous in any way.

By the way, I doubt UK fracced gas would ever be 'cheap'.

The UK may have signed up to the Paris accord, but as I see it, countries like the UK have no way of ever decarbonizing their economies without accepting draconian changes to lifestyle and the destruction of GDP. The electorate will not accept this - they haven't even been presented with what would be needed. Global warming may or may not be occurring. In the last 2000 years there is excellent archaeological evidence for periods significantly warmer and colder than present - evidence which climate scientists have deviously been at pains to massage from their data, affecting their total credibility.

It is frequently claimed as established fact that sea levels are rising, and currently rising very rapidly. Yet data from the UK coastal records of North Shields and Newlyn, probably the best there is in the World, shows a small steady rise in sea level, continuous for the last 100 years at least, which can be attributed to the warming of the World since the Little Ice Age. The is no evidence of it speeding up. As I see it, climate scientists are twisting their data and theories in increasingly tortuous knots to explain away these facts. The World has entered a period of pseudo-science and climate religion replacing rational thought and analysis.

tjh290633
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4263
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:20 am
Has thanked: 303 times
Been thanked: 1545 times

Re: Shale matters

#261859

Postby tjh290633 » November 3rd, 2019, 3:30 pm

I understand that the BP. field on the Isle of Purbeck has used fracking for many years. What adverse effects have been observed?

TJH

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2669
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Shale matters

#261875

Postby Nimrod103 » November 3rd, 2019, 4:36 pm

tjh290633 wrote:I understand that the BP. field on the Isle of Purbeck has used fracking for many years. What adverse effects have been observed?

TJH


AIUI Wytch Farm field has been water flooded but none of the reservoirs have been fracced in the accepted oil industry meaning.

I believe about 200 wells have been fracced onshore England over several years, and nobody has noticed.

dspp
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4800
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:53 am
Has thanked: 3942 times
Been thanked: 1301 times

Re: Shale matters

#261905

Postby dspp » November 3rd, 2019, 8:06 pm

Nimrod103 wrote:
UK aquifers are generally about 1-200m deep. Anything deeper is likely to carry significant dissolved minerals, and probably be undrinkable. Most fraccing is 2000m plus, so the only way way fracced fluids are likely to mix with aquifer water is from the drill pipe in the shallow zone, where any fluid will be behind at least 2 steel casings. So what is frac fluid, well Google says:
Hydraulic fracturing fluid. Hydraulic fracturing fluid is typically comprised of approximately 98 to 99.5 percent water and sand and 0.5 to 2 percent chemical additives. Most of the chemical constituents that make up fracturing fluid additives can be found in common household items or in the food and drinks we consume. So even if there is leakage, which is very unlikey anyway, the composition of the fluid is not dangerous in any way.

By the way, I doubt UK fracced gas would ever be 'cheap'.

.


Nimrod,
From a technical perspective, one minor quibble aside, I would fully agree with you that fracced wells are perfectly safe. And that would especially be so in the UK because of the regulatory regime we have.

The minor quibble has to do with the increased seismic activity which does occur. Whilst it often would be at the imperceptible and/or perceptible but safe levels, there are areas where the sheer amount of fracking combined with pre-existing prediliction for seismic activity would make a unhappy combination. However I don't think that is at all likely in the UK context.

Nimrod103 wrote:
By the way, I doubt UK fracced gas would ever be 'cheap'.

.


Eyewateringly expensive more like.

Nimrod103 wrote:
The UK may have signed up to the Paris accord, but as I see it, countries like the UK have no way of ever decarbonizing their economies without accepting draconian changes to lifestyle and the destruction of GDP. The electorate will not accept this - they haven't even been presented with what would be needed. Global warming may or may not be occurring. In the last 2000 years there is excellent archaeological evidence for periods significantly warmer and colder than present - evidence which climate scientists have deviously been at pains to massage from their data, affecting their total credibility.

It is frequently claimed as established fact that sea levels are rising, and currently rising very rapidly. Yet data from the UK coastal records of North Shields and Newlyn, probably the best there is in the World, shows a small steady rise in sea level, continuous for the last 100 years at least, which can be attributed to the warming of the World since the Little Ice Age. The is no evidence of it speeding up. As I see it, climate scientists are twisting their data and theories in increasingly tortuous knots to explain away these facts. The World has entered a period of pseudo-science and climate religion replacing rational thought and analysis.


Fully disagree re the science aspects, you are being highly selective in your presentation of the known data.

Re the economic/lifestyle aspects draconian changes will happen in any case, these are just another package to lay on the pile.

regards, dspp

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2669
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Shale matters

#261913

Postby Nimrod103 » November 3rd, 2019, 9:11 pm

dspp wrote:Nimrod,
From a technical perspective, one minor quibble aside, I would fully agree with you that fracced wells are perfectly safe. And that would especially be so in the UK because of the regulatory regime we have.

The minor quibble has to do with the increased seismic activity which does occur. Whilst it often would be at the imperceptible and/or perceptible but safe levels, there are areas where the sheer amount of fracking combined with pre-existing prediliction for seismic activity would make a unhappy combination. However I don't think that is at all likely in the UK context.

AIUI the issue is not that the fraccing produces the seismic event, so much as the induced fracture releases stresses present in the nearby rocks, but at comparatively shallow depths. The whole of the UK is stressed by the collision of Africa with the European plate, acting against the opposing forces from the mid Atlantic spreading ridge. These stresses mainly died away 10-15 MM yrs ago in the mid Miocene, but there are occasional earthquakes caused by the tail end of these stresses. These tremors have an origin in deep seated faults (c.10 to 15 km) completely unaffected by shallow drilling activity. The most recent significant natural event was the Market Rasen earthquake in 2008, which was 5.2 on the Richter scale, i.e. over 2 orders of magnitude greater than the 2.9 recorded from fraccing. The effects were felt widely across the UK, and caused damage of £30 million, mainly to church steeples and chimney stacks.

Nimrod103 wrote:
The UK may have signed up to the Paris accord, but as I see it, countries like the UK have no way of ever decarbonizing their economies without accepting draconian changes to lifestyle and the destruction of GDP. The electorate will not accept this - they haven't even been presented with what would be needed. Global warming may or may not be occurring. In the last 2000 years there is excellent archaeological evidence for periods significantly warmer and colder than present - evidence which climate scientists have deviously been at pains to massage from their data, affecting their total credibility.

It is frequently claimed as established fact that sea levels are rising, and currently rising very rapidly. Yet data from the UK coastal records of North Shields and Newlyn, probably the best there is in the World, shows a small steady rise in sea level, continuous for the last 100 years at least, which can be attributed to the warming of the World since the Little Ice Age. The is no evidence of it speeding up. As I see it, climate scientists are twisting their data and theories in increasingly tortuous knots to explain away these facts. The World has entered a period of pseudo-science and climate religion replacing rational thought and analysis.


dspp wrote:Fully disagree re the science aspects, you are being highly selective in your presentation of the known data.

Re the economic/lifestyle aspects draconian changes will happen in any case, these are just another package to lay on the pile.

regards, dspp


Theories should explain phenomena, and not leave loose ends. Smaller than expected sea level rises, and warm/cold periods in the last 2000 years are loose ends which need to be explained. AIUI climate scientists have been reluctant to discuss these phenomena.

Eventually it is just conceivable that we could generate all our present needs of electricity from renewables (mainly wind), if there is suitable storage. Eyeballing the Gridwatch graphs for the last 2 years suggests that we would need 10x the current levels of renewable generation. Then there is transport fuels to replace, and space heating (both mainly fossil fuels presently). Perhaps an immediate ban on central heating might focus the public's mind on the sacrifices which will need to be made in future.


Return to “Oil & Gas & Energy (Sector & Companies)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests