PowerSwitch

Everyone knows that proved energy reserves are the basis to start work for any energy company. But recently I've studied the shale gas euphoria and I found a lot of interesting things about that. The most shocking fact is that shale gas reserves never exceeded FOUR bcm! It's a few more than 2% of global proved gas reserves. Not enough for energy revolution, don't you think so? You ask me why then everybody speaks about that and that's a good question. The point is that energy companies involved in shale gas production are the interested party and that's why they paid shale gas surveys and purposely inflated the figures to fool you and me. They always told us about the potential reserves, not actual ones, like they got billions cubic meter of gas they can provide us with. Companies gave us hope for a brighter future where we will have cheap shale gas energy, but in fact they fooled us. In the nearest future we will continue using oil and gas because it will stay the only reliable source of energy no matter what shale gas lobbyists say.

Proven reserves of shale are small. The shale advocates are extrapolating from their Us success where new drilling method (combinations) allowed billions of barrels of oil resource to be reclassified as reserves. Oil resources are oil in the ground that is not yet extractable with current technology. Until someone demonstrates they can extract from an oil field, it is not a reserve.

The UK reserve is small, until enough drilling will be done to fully test the potential. About five years of test drilling on current plans. Only then will we know if the UK has any shale oil worth drilling for.

I would not call shale gas a myth.
It undoubtedly exists and is being exploited right now in a number of places.

Proponents of shale gas, especialy those seeking venture capital, have however almost certainly overstated the scale of the rescource, and under stated the costs of extraction.

We do not know how much exists, or how much can be economicly extracted, and at what rate.

I forecast that the rates of production and total amount produced will be less than forecast by optimists, but still significant.

adam2 wrote:especialy those seeking venture capital

Nail+head.

Last summer I suggested that the way to make money out of fracking is to get hold a petroleum exploration development licence in an area that might have gas, put a lot of effort into hyping your company's prospects and attracting investment money. I gave as an example Egdon Resources, a small oil company, that held licences in Lincolnshire. Last summer the boss, Mike Abbott had shares in the company that, at the then price of 10p, were worth about three quarters of a million. When, last month, TOTAL announced it was buying a stake the share price went up to 30p. Mr Abbott does not have to produce any gas to become a very rich man indeed, but he does have to judge the right moment to sell.

Euan Mearns has an interesting article about the UK case,


Peter.

I would be extremely wary of taking seriously anything that person says.

Blue Peter wrote:Euan Mearns has an interesting article about the UK case,


Peter.

So I commented:
Very useful information, Euan, but the elephant in the room in your 'If the UK gets lucky' scenario is that it blows our carbon emission reduction hopes. To avoid catastrophic global warming we have to stop burning fossil carbon, not look for more of the damn stuff.

Biff, you cock-eyed optimist, you.

Euan Mearns wrote:Society as a whole needs to weigh small and manageable environmental risks against the potential strategic importance of shale gas to the UK economy and national energy security.

In fairness, here he's talking about drinking water. But it depends on whose drinking water you're talking about.

I wouldn't hold out much hope for capitulation on his part.

emordnilap wrote:I would be extremely wary of taking seriously anything that person says.

I asusme that you're referring to Euan and his global warming denial. As with all things, you need to judge what is good and what is bad and what is indifferent. I suspect that on geology and oil etc., he is very sound,


Peter.

Blue Peter wrote:I suspect that on geology and oil etc., he is very sound,
Peter.

I'm sure that's true. Just because someone is right about one thing does not mean he has to be right about everything.

biffvernon wrote:

Blue Peter wrote:I suspect that on geology and oil etc., he is very sound,
Peter.

I'm sure that's true. Just because someone is right about one thing does not mean he has to be right about everything.

Indeed. Judgment of a person, as with all things,


Peter.

OK, fair enough. But someone who seeks scientific accuracy in one area but disputes just-as-accurate-science in an overlapping area? There's a term for it...

emordnilap wrote:OK, fair enough. But someone who seeks scientific accuracy in one area but disputes just-as-accurate-science in an overlapping area? There's a term for it...

"being human"?


Peter.

biffvernon wrote:

Blue Peter wrote:Euan Mearns has an interesting article about the UK case,


Peter.

So I commented:
Very useful information, Euan, but the elephant in the room in your 'If the UK gets lucky' scenario is that it blows our carbon emission reduction hopes. To avoid catastrophic global warming we have to stop burning fossil carbon, not look for more of the damn stuff.

And you got a reply!