|To: Brumar89 who wrote (82724)||11/22/2019 6:33:49 AM|
|Putin Calls U.S. Shale “Barbaric”By Charles Kennedy - Nov 21, 2019, 7:00 PM CST|
Vladimir Putin has spent his week cozying up to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and dissing the United States’ oil industry, dismissing shale oil production as a “barbaric” process. At the same time, Putin has announced that Russian oil output has increased despite the fact that the country has also pledged to remain cooperative with OPEC’s production curbs.
On Wednesday Putin announced that “Russia and OPEC have ‘a common goal’ of keeping the oil market balanced and predictable, and Moscow will continue cooperation under the global supply curbs deal” according to reporting from Reuters. So far Russia has followed OPEC’s guidelines to a certain extent, cutting oil production from September to October, but still did not cut back production as much as the specifications of the deal called for.
“In October, Russia cut its oil output to 11.23 million barrels per day (bpd) from 11.25 million bpd in September but it was still higher than a 11.17-11.18 million bpd cap set for Moscow under the existing global deal,” said Reuters. “Putin told the forum that Russia’s oil production was growing slightly despite the supply curbs deal but Moscow was not aiming to be the world’s No. 1 crude producer. Currently, the United States is the world’s top oil producer.”
Speaking of the United States, Putin had plenty of words for them as well, accusing the U.S. of ignoring the negative environmental externalities of the nation’s mass-scale shale oil and gas production (fair enough) calling the process “barbaric” and proclaiming that Russia will never use fracking as a means of oil and gas extraction. “We will never frack,” Putin told a representative from Total SA during Moscow’s Russia Calling! conference on Wednesday. “We don’t need to develop shale oil at all. First, we don’t need to increase the supply of oil to world markets, and we have enough oil we can get from the Arctic shelf.” He added, “In spite of all of the economic benefits, we do not need it and we will never do this.”
Putin has a point. There are endless environmental impact studies backing up the fact that fracking does cause extensive environmental damage and even birth defects. As always, there’s more than one side to the story. As CNBC sums up the debate: “Advocates of fracking [...] say it vastly expands natural gas supply — a cleaner fuel than crude oil — and cuts costs for consumers. But, critics of the process have sounded the alarm over its negative environmental impacts, including air and groundwater pollution and increasing earthquake risk.”
And then there is another major wrinkle, which is that, according to Forbes, “the problem with Putin’s statement is that his biggest natural gas company doesn’t think the same way about fracking.” In other words, Putin is talking the talk, but the Russian energy sector is not walking the walk. And we’re not even talking about a divide between the public and the private sectors, we’re talking about state-owned oil companies. Gazprom Neft is one of the largest, and it’s been in the fracking game for a while now, having “completed the construction of its first horizontal drilling well three years ago in the Bazhenov Basin in Western Siberia.”
Gazprom Neft is operating approximately 30 fracking sites in Russia, overall a relatively small number in the overall energy landscape of Russia. As Forbes writes, “fracking for oil and gas is not the mainstay of Russian hydrocarbons. But it’s something Gazprom Neft is pursuing, whether Putin knows it or not (he probably does).”
In the meantime, Putin tells us that “You can rest assured that Russia shall always be a responsible actor in the global energy market.”
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: Brumar89||11/23/2019 6:47:47 PM|
|Despite all the Greenie heartburn and protesting, world coal use is surging|
A series of reports this week makes clear that, led by China, global coal use is surging, not in decline. India, Africa and much of Asia are getting ready to follow.
For years environment groups have said China was giving permits to new coal-fired power stations that would not be built. But that confidence has been dispelled in a Global Energy Monitor report, which shows that reductions in coal use in the developed world are being offset many times over by increases in China alone.
Global Energy Monitor, originally called CoalSwarm, started life as a bunch of activists and journalists wanting to put pressure on coal-plant developments in the US. It now tracks China, which it says has the power to make or break the Paris climate goals.
China has been given until 2030 to peak its emissions under the Paris Agreement but on the latest figures that is looking like a pipe dream.
Something radical urgently is needed to reshape the coal-burning trajectory of China and India for there to be any hope of even getting close to achieving the least ambitious targets of the Paris Agreement.
At a nuclear energy conference at the White House this week, US Energy Secretary Rick Perry offered a view from space. “If we look at a satellite image of the globe,” he said, “we see vast tracts of land that are shrouded in darkness. More than a billion people are completely without electricity; they are trapped in energy poverty.”
Perry said the pursuit of a “renewables only” approach to climate change and sustainable development would “lock them into that state maybe forever”.
In discussion with MIT Technology Review early this year, Microsoft founder Bill Gates said further technological evolution was essential. “If we freeze technology today you will live in a 4C warmer world in the future, guaranteed,” Gates said.
The big discussion playing out around the world gives context to the debate in domestic politics where the Greens have sought to link Australia’s bushfires directly to a lack of domestic action on climate change.
Scott Morrison says the suggestion that individual actions of Australia, accounting for 1.3 per cent of the world’s emissions, are impacting directly on specific fire events, here or anywhere else in the world, is not scientifically credible.
One response is that Australia must lead by example.
But the big picture is that China appears to have stopped reading the climate change script. According to Global Energy Monitor, for the first time since China’s coal-building boom began in the 1980s the coal fleet outside China shrank.
From January last year to June this year, countries outside China decreased their total coal power capacity by 8.1 gigawatts through steady retirements and an ongoing decline in the commissioning of new coal plants. But across the same period China increased its coal fleet by 42.9GW, and as a result the global coal fleet overall grew by 34.9GW.
In short, the increase in China’s coal-fired capacity across the 18-month period was equal to about eight times Australia’s total electricity capacity of 51GW.
“As more countries turn away from coal and retire their plants, China’s continued pursuit of coal is increasingly out of step with the rest of the world, and is now effectively driving the ongoing expansion of the global coal fleet,” the report says.
Today, 147.7GW of coal-fired plants are under active construction or under suspension in China and likely to be revived. This is an amount nearly equal to the existing coal-fired power capacity of the EU (150GW).
Some of China’s new coal-fired power development is to replace existing more polluting plants. However, the Global Energy Monitor report says given the amount of capacity under development, China’s central government looks ready to increase its 1100GW coal-fired power cap, as set by its 13th Five-Year Plan to 2020.
Coal and power industry groups are proposing the central government increase total coal-fired power capacity by 20 per cent to 40 per cent to between 1200GW and 1400GW as part of China’s 2035 infrastructure plan. That plan is expected to be released next year.
“The continued growth of China’s coal fleet and consideration of plans to significantly raise the nation’s coal power cap show that while the country is often hailed as a clean energy leader, the momentum of coal power expansion has yet to be halted,” the report says.
According to the report, an increase in China’s coal-fired power capacity is not compatible with the Paris climate agreement to hold warming well below 2C, and “almost certainly forecloses the possibility of China achieving greater emission reductions under the Paris Agreement — currently pegged at peaking carbon dioxide emissions by 2030”.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found keeping warming well below 2C requires a 58 per cent to 70 per cent reduction in global coal-fired power generation by 2030 below current levels, ramping up to between 85 per cent and 90 per cent by 2035. Global Energy Monitor says China needs to have phased out most of its coal-fired power capacity by 2035 to meet the IPCC scenario.
If China continues to increase total coal-fired power capacity through 2035, its coal-fired power generation alone will be more than three times as large as the global limit determined by the IPCC to keep warming well below 2C.
Global Energy Monitor concludes that China’s continued expansion of its coal fleet is not inevitable but the path that China’s central government chooses could make or break the Paris Agreement’s goals.
There is no doubt that enormous investment will continue in renewable energy sources including solar and wind with an increasing emphasis on storage. China has been held up as an exemplar in renewable energy.
But it is becoming increasingly clear globally that something is still needed for the world to replace the heavy lifting of coal.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|From: Brumar89||11/25/2019 7:51:12 AM|
|The real climate debate is not between “believers” and “deniers”.|
And not between Republicans and Democrats.
The real debate is certainly not over whether global warming, spurred by increasing greenhouse gases, is a serious problem that must be addressed. Both sides of the real climate debate agree on that.
The real rebate is between two groups:
1. A confident, non-political group that believes technology, informed investments, rational decision making, and the use of the best scientific information will lead to a solution of the global warming issue. An optimistic group that sees global warming as a technical problem with technical solutions. I will refer to these folks as the ACT group (Apolitical/Confident/Technical)
2. A group, mainly on the political left, that is highly partisan, anxious and often despairing, self-righteous, big on blame and social justice, and willing to attack those that disagree with them. They often distort the truth when it serves their interests. They also see social change as necessary for dealing with global warming, requiring the very reorganization of society. I call these folks the ASP group (Anxious, Social-Justice, Partisan).
There is no better way to see the profound difference between these two groups than to watch a video of the testimony of young activists at the recent House Hearing on Climate Change, which included Greta Thunberg, Jamie Margolin, Vic Barrett, and Benji Backer.
Jamie Margolin of Seattle talked about an apocalyptic future, with “corporations making billions” while they destroy the future of her generation. Of feeling fear and despair. Of a planet where the natural environment is undergoing collapse, where only a few years are left before we pass the point of no return, and where only a massive political shift can fix things, including the Green New Deal. Watch her testimony to see what I mean.
Compare Ms. Margolin’s testimony to that of University of Washington senior Benji Backer.
Mr. Backer, leader of the American Conservation Coalition, a conservative/moderate group of young people supporting action to protect the environment, approaches the problem in a radically different way. Instead of despair, there is optimism, recommending more scientific and technical research, a bipartisan attack on the problem, a rejection of an apocalyptic future, the building of new energy industries with potential benefits for the American economy, and a dedication to follow the science and not political expediency. His testimony is here.
Both Ms. Margolin and Mr. Backer care deeply about the environment and want effective measures to deal with global warming. Both their approaches and attitudes could not be more different.
We see the difference between the optimistic ACT group and the despairing ASP folks here in Seattle.
On one hand, there is the Clean Tech Alliance, which brings together technology companies, university researchers, and the business community to develop and apply the technologies that will produce the carbon-free future we look for. Headed by Tom Ranken, the Alliance does a lot, including a highly informative breakfast series where you can learn about fusion power, new battery technologies, the future of solid waste recycling, and much more. Non-political, optimistic, and exciting. These are clearly members of the ACT group.
In contrast, there is Seattle’s 350.org group. They are into climate strikes, staging protests (like their recent blockade of a branch of Seattle Chase Bank), trying to muzzle climate scientists they don’t like, advocating political solutions to greenhouse warming (Green New Deal), pushing divestment of energy companies, and even a Pledge of Resistance to stop energy exports by whatever means necessary. Their “science” page has all kinds of extreme (and unfounded) claims regarding global warming impacts, like a sea level rise of 10 feet in as little as 50 years. ASP group all the way.
I should note that the Seattle 350.org group and their “allies” oppose the Tacoma Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) Facility that will help replace the extraordinarily dirty “bunker fuel” used in ships traversing Puget Sound. LNG will also reduce carbon emissions. Scientists and regulators at the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency support the LNG facility. But facts and protection of the health of Puget Sound residents are not priorities for highly politicized groups like 350.org.
A good example of the differences between the ACT and ASP folks is found in Washington State’s recent carbon initiatives.
Initiative 732 was backed by Carbon Washington, a non-political group whose bi-partisan proposal would have increased the price of carbon fuels but was revenue neutral, giving all the funds collected back to the citizens of the State. Carefully designed and impactful. The work of the ACT group all the way.
But the ASP folks were unhappy. There was no money for their climate justice and political initiatives, so they opposed it, and were joined by Governor Inslee and the environmental left. Unforgivable, nasty attacks were made on Carbon Washington leadership by the ASP folks. 732 lost.
The ASP collective decided it was their turn, so they created a Frankenstein carbon initiative (1631), with a lowered (less effective) carbon fee, but one in which climate justice groups and political allies on the left would have control, and were hardwired for much of the funds. The main advertising line of the 1631 ads: catastrophe was around the corner and the big oil companies were to blame. 1631 was an election day disaster, losing by 13 points, and the ASP folks have probably killed any hope for an effective carbon tax/fee in our state.
What about the media? Which side are they on? ASP or ACT or neither?
Much of the “mainstream” media parrots the message of the ASP side. The Seattle Times is a great case in point, with headlines of massive heat related deaths (750 die per event!) and catastrophic wildfire seasons that have no basis in good science. But there are plenty of others, such as the LA Times and the NY Times. There are some major media outlets that are more balanced (such as the Wall Street Journal). A major issue for the media is the hollowing out of science reporting, with most climate stories being handled by general reporters with neither the time, background, or inclination to get beyond parroting the press releases of activist groups or evaluating the claims of speculative research papers. It has gotten so bad that a recent headline story in the Seattle Times kept on talking about the WRONG GAS (carbon monoxide instead of carbon dioxide).
A Religious Movement
In many ways, the ASP group appears to be a religious movement, not unlike the many millennialist movements of the past. As other groups in the past, they predict an apocalyptic future (including fire and brimstone!) and that one must “believe” in their viewpoint or be rejected as a “denier.” The ASP folks have a holy viewpoint that comes from authority (they claim based on the views of 97% of scientists). There is no debate allowed, the science is “settled.” Sounds like religious dogma.
The ASP movement describes a world that is teetering on the edge, with mankind’s days numbers (10 or 12 years according to several of their leading prophets) unless immediate steps are taken. They constantly repeat that the threat is existential.
They believe it is ok to distort the truth to get folks “to do the right thing.” The ASP group has well defined “enemies” that represent true evil (Trump, Republicans, Big Oil, Koch Brothers) and they support attacking and silencing those they disagree with ( my past blog gives you some documented examples of such behavior). ASP has their priests (Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann) and even young saints (Greta Thunberg). As in many such movements, members are guided to act in approved and enlightened ways, but the leadership does not need to follow the rules (e.g., many ASP “leaders” have huge carbon footprints from flying). Importantly, ASP sees their work going much further than a technical fix for technical problem, but as a “social justice” movement that will change the very organization of society.
Disturbingly, the ASP folks are against key technologies that could really make a difference, such as nuclear power, and are relatively uninterested in working on adaptation and resilience to climate change. Many do not support dealing with our forests in a rational way (e.g., restoration with thinning and prescribed burning) but would rather blame it all on global warming.
By pushing a highly political agenda the ASP movement is undermining bipartisan efforts–and nothing important will be done unless both sides of the aisle are involved. ASP folks love to say that the Republicans are unwilling to deal with climate change, a totally unfair claim. I have talked personally to leading WA Republicans, like Bill Bryant and Rob McKenna. They acknowledge the seriousness of global warming and the need to act. In my talks in highly Republican eastern Washington, growers and others accept the problem and want to work on solutions. Under a Republican U.S. Congress, funding for climate research has been protected and increased. But partisan attacks by the ASP group is seen as a way to promote group cohesion and the “evil” of the other side. Calling others names is not an effective way to secure their cooperation.
A problem for the ASP group is that their message is so dark, pessimistic and depressing that it tends to turn others off. And it has a terrible psychological effects on its adherents and those that listen. Fear, anxiety, feelings of hopelessness, despair, and rage. There are even classes on dealing with eco-anxiety and climate grief. Greta Thunberg said that the worry ruined her childhood.
And yes, there is President Trump. Much of what he says on climate change is simply nonsensical, and quite frankly he is not part of the debate. Republicans in Congress do not follow his lead. But he is a convenient foil for the ASP folks, who use him for their own purposes.
The Bottom Line
Progress on climate change is being undermined by the efforts of the highly vocal, partisan, and ineffective ASP group. They are standing in the way of bipartisan action on climate change, efforts to fix our forests, and the use of essential technologies. They are a big part of the problem, not the solution.
In contrast to the ASP folks, the ACT group generally tries to stay out of the public eye, quietly completing the work needed to develop the technologies and infrastructure that will allow us to mitigate and adapt to climate change. In the end, they will save us. That is, if the ASP folks don’t get in their way.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|To: Brumar89 who wrote (82726)||11/25/2019 1:24:01 PM|
|From: Alastair McIntosh|
Despite all the Greenie heartburn and protesting, world coal use is surging or
Global electricity production from coal is on track to fall by around 3% in 2019, the largest drop on record.
This would amount to a reduction of around 300 terawatt hours (TWh), more than the combined total output from coal in Germany, Spain and the UK last year.
The analysis is based on monthly electricity sector data from around the world for the first seven to 10 months of the year, depending on data availability in each country.
The projected record is due to…
Record falls in developed countries, including Germany, the EU overall and South Korea, which are not being matched by increases elsewhere. The largest reduction is taking place in the US, as several large coal-fired power plants close.A sharp turnaround in India, where coal power output is on track to fall for the first time in at least three decades.A flattening of generation growth in China.The main counteracting force is from continuing increases in coal generation in south-east Asia, but demand from these countries is still small relative to the global total.
The global decline means an economic hit for coal plants due to reduced average running hours, which are set to reach an all-time low.
The record drop also raises the prospect of slowing global CO2 emissions growth in 2019. Nevertheless, global coal use and emissions remain far higher than the level required to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Record declineAfter decades of near-uninterrupted growth (blue line in the chart, below), our analysis suggests global electricity production from coal is on track for a record fall in 2019 (red bar, lower panel).
Generation for the year is projected to come in 3% below the level in 2018, a reduction of some 300TWh.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: Brumar89 who wrote (82729)||11/26/2019 7:47:02 AM|
|Montney Python’s Frac’ing Circus|
David Middleton November 26, 2019
Guest geology by David Middleton
In a recent post of mine ( ExxonMobil & Chevron Eviscerate Democrat Frac’ing Ban Fantasies) I made this passing comment:
There is no evidence whatsoever that frac’ing has ever polluted groundwater or triggered palpable earthquakes.
Regarding my earthquake comment, I was referring to specific attribution, not generalized correlations. One very polite commentator from British Columbia was quite insistent that the BC government had proven that frac’ing is causing palpable earthquakes in BC… So insistent that he forwarded me a copy of a BC Oil & Gas Commission report (hat tip to PeterT). The report goes into great detail correlating the timing of frac’ing operations to the timing and epicenters of 2.5 to 4.4 ML earthquakes within up to 5 km of the frac’ing operations. Despite the fact that such tremors were associated with “only 0.15 per cent of wellbore stage completions during the investigation period”, they still determined that 193 tremors must have been caused by frac’ing. 99.85% of specific frac’ing operations were not even correlated with such tremors.
The Full Montney: Canada’s MarcellusMontney tight natural gas production has literally exploded from nothing in 2006 to more than 30% of Canada’s natural gas production today.
Figure 1. Canada’s Energy Future: Figure 3.16: Natural Gas Production by Type, Reference CaseIt is currently projected that the Montney will account for nearly half of Canada’s natural gas production by 2040, with most of the growth occurring in the British Columbia portion of the play.
Is it physically possible for frac’ing to cause palpable earthquakes?Yes it is possible.
Large-volume disposal of produced brine (Keranen et al. 2014; Schultz et al. 2014; Weingarten et al. 2015) or hydraulic fracturing (Schultz et al. 2015a, 2017;Atkinson et al. 2016; Bao&Eaton2016; Lei et al. 2017) can induce earthquakes by increasing pore pressure or stress on faults (Ellsworth 2013; Segall & Lu 2015). Necessary conditions for the occurrence of injection-induced seismicity include a source of elevated pore pressure, a proximal, critically stressed fault and a pathway for fluid pressure to propagate from the injection site to the fault (Ellsworth 2013; Eaton 2018). Extraction of hydrocarbons from unconventional low-permeability reservoirs, such as organic-rich shale, makes extensive use of hydraulic fracturing to increase reservoir permeability. Earthquakes have been observed in association with a small fraction of well completions (Atkinson et al. 2016), yet pre-development assessment is hindered by a paucity of validated predictive models to forecast site-specific seismic hazard. Of particular importance is the need to achieve a better understanding of specific geological factors that impact the likelihood of induced seismicity (Schultz et al. 2016; Ghofrani & Atkinson 2016; Pawley et al. 2018).
Eaton & Schultz, 2018One of the objectives in unconventional resource development is to avoid “proximal” faults of all varieties. Frac’ing into a fault is is a fast track to a junked & abandoned (J&A) wellbore. However, some faults are effectively impossible to resolve on reflection seismic data. You can’t avoid a fault, if you can’t see it.
That said, a lot of other factors can lead to induced seismicity.
In past decades, reported cases of induced seismicity in the WCSB (Western Canada Sedimentary Basin) have been attributed to stress changes from hydrocarbon production (Baranova et al., 1999), enhanced oil recovery (Horner et al., 1994), and wastewater disposal (Schultz et al., 2014).
Atkinson et al., 2016Atkinson et. al., 2016 established a statistical correlation between frac’ing and induced seismicity in the WCSB… And it might be valid… However…
However, validated predictive models are not yet available to assess the likelihood, rates, or magnitudes of induced events from specific operations (National Research Council, 2013).
The causative details of the correlation between hydraulic fracturing and seismicity, in terms of how it works on the level of specific wells, formations, and tectonic regimes are beyond our current scope, but can be explored in future case studies.
Atkinson et al., 2016They have a model and they have a statistical correlation… Sound familiar?
Has there been an increase in seismic activity in the vicinity of the Montney play?It depends on location and time frameAll of the increased assumed induced seismicity has occurred in the seismically active over-pressured portion of the play.
Fluid-injection processes such as disposal of saltwater or hydraulic fracturing can induce earthquakes by increasing pore pressure and/or shear stress on faults. Natural processes, including transformation of organic material (kerogen) into hydrocarbon and cracking to produce gas, can similarly cause fluid overpressure. Here we document two examples from the Western Canada Sedimentary Basin where earthquakes induced by hydraulic fracturing are strongly clustered within areas characterized by pore-pressure gradient in excess of 15 kPa/m. Despite extensive hydraulic-fracturing activity associated with resource development, induced earthquakes are virtually absent in the Montney and Duvernay Formations elsewhere.
Eaton & Schultz, 2018Figure 2. Montney pressure gradient, locations of frac’ed Montney wells (black) and earthquakes assumed to have been frac-induced (purple). (Eaton & Schultz, 2018)Natural Resources Canada has a searchable earthquake database ( Earthquakes Canada). I downloaded the data for three time periods for the Lat-Lon range of the map in Figure 2. The database only includes 80 earthquakes from 1985-2019, far less than the 200+ induced quakes asserted by the BCOGC. The additional quakes were of too low magnitude to register in the national database.
As a result of recommendations from the investigation (Appendix 2), eight new seismograph stations (funded by the Commission, Geoscience BC, and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers) were added to
the existing two Canadian National
Seismograph Network (CNSN) stations to provide more accurate detection and location capabilities. Six went online in August 2013, and two in November 2014. With the new stations the CNSN began recording many more lower magnitude events than previously recorded, enhancing the Commission’s ability to track seismicity. This report’s primary focus is on the investigation into events recorded between August 2013 and October 2014 in the Montney.
The investigation found that during this period 231 seismic events in the Montney were attributed to oil and gas operations – 38 induced by wastewater disposal and 193 by hydraulic fracturing operations. None of the recorded events resulted in any injuries, property damage or loss of wellbore containment.
BCOGCThere is no “before” in this data set from which to draw a baseline. Does this sound familiar? Directly comparing a recent high-resolution data set to the pre-existing low resolution data and declaring an anthropogenic anomaly… Very Mannian,
The BCOGC “found” 231 seismic events, attributed to oil & gas operations in the Montney between August 2013 and October 2014 . The Earthquakes Canada database only tabulates five (5) seismic events, of all causes, within the Montney over that time period. The Earthquakes Canada database appears to have a consistent resolution over its record length. There is no trend of detecting lower magnitude quakes over time. It is a reasonable “before and after” tool.
Prior to 2005, there was very little Montney production (“Pre-Montney”). The “Montney” time period is from January 1, 2005 to today. “Full Montney” is the period over which Montney production has boomed. I’m hard-pressed to see a statistically meaningful increase in seismic activity from Pre-Montney to Montney.
Here are maps of the three time periods:
|Numbers of Quakes|
|Pre-Montney||Feb 2, 1990 to Dec 31, 2004||27||20||4||1||0|
|Montney||Jan 1, 2005 to November 25, 2019||8||11||5||0||0|
|Full Montney||Jan 1, 2013 to November 25, 2020||6||3||5||0||0|
|Quakes per Year|
|Pre-Montney||Feb 2, 1990 to Dec 31, 2004||1.81||1.34||0.27||0.07||0.00|
|Montney||Jan 1, 2005 to November 25, 2019||0.54||0.74||0.34||0.00||0.00|
|Full Montney||Jan 1, 2013 to November 25, 2020||0.87||0.43||0.72||0.00||0.00|
Figure 3. Pre-Montney ( Earthquakes Canada) .Figure 5. Montney ( Earthquakes Canada) .Figure 6. Full-Montney ( Earthquakes Canada) .I suppose a case could be made that the geographical distribution of earthquakes has shifted… if you want to grasp at straws. However, there hasn’t even been statistically meaningful change in the depths of earthquake epicenters. A shift from regional tectonic causes to anthropogenic causes, generally results in the epicenters becoming more shallow.
Figure 7. Earthquake epicenter depths (km). The green and red rectangles represent the depth range of Montney gas production. Data from Earthquakes Canada.Can natural earthquakes be distinguished from frac-induced quakes?Eaton et al., 2013 documented the detailed seismic monitoring of two frac’ing operations.
A research project was undertaken in August 2011 for continuous passive monitoring of a multistage hydraulic fracture stimulation of a Montney gas reservoir near Dawson Creek, B.C., with the main objective of investigating low-frequency characteristics of microseismic events. This work was motivated by a recently discovered class of long-period long-duration (LPLD) events, interpreted to represent slow slip along pre-existing fractures. The field deployment included a 6-level downhole toolstring with low-frequency (4.5 Hz) geophones and a set of 21 portable broadband seismograph systems. Time-frequency analysis of extracted high- and low-frequency microseismic events made use of the short-time Fourier transform. Observed low-frequency microseismic signals included tremor phenomena at various time scales, from a few seconds to the entire duration of high-pressure fluid injection, in addition to inferred regional earthquakes located ~150 km from the monitoring site. Relative to previously documented LPLD events from the Barnett, differences in low-frequency response for this Montney stimulation are interpreted to reflect a lower degree of complexity of preexisting and induced fracture networks. Analysis of low frequency microseismic signals shows promise for improving geomechanical understanding of fracture processes.
Eaton et al., 2013They found that microseismic events occurred throughout the operations.
Figure 8. High frequency microseismic events during frac’ing operations. ( Eaton et al., 2013)Yes… The tremors had negative moment magnitudes.
How can an earthquake have a negative magnitude?
Magnitude calculations are based on a logarithmic scale, so a ten-fold drop in amplitude decreases the magnitude by 1.
If an amplitude of 20 millimetres as measured on a seismic signal corresponds to a magnitude 2 earthquake, then:
–10 times less (2 millimetres) corresponds to a magnitude of 1;
–100 times less (0.2 millimetres) corresponds to magnitude 0;
–1000 times less (0.02 millimetres) corresponds to magnitude -1.
An earthquake of negative magnitude is a very small earthquake that is not felt by humans.
USGSThey did observe another phenomena which could be related to palpable earthquakes: “long-period long-duration (LPLD) events, interpreted to represent slow slip along pre-existing fractures. ” Unfortunately, they also recorded two natural earthquakes that had the same signature.
It is important to distinguish between potential LPLD events associated to the hydraulic fracturing treatment and local earthquakes. For example, Fig 12 shows a number of recorded signals that are interpreted here as regional earthquakes that are unrelated to this hydraulic fracture treatment.
Eaton et al., 2013Figure 9. (Left) BCOGC map of frac-induced earthquake clusters (green circles). (Right) “earthquake events in the Canadian national earthquake catalog from 2000/01/01 to 2013/02/04” (blue circles), natural earthquakes with LPLP signatures (brown oval) and BCOGC green circles super-imposed. The location of the Rolla Microseismic Experiment (RME) is denoted by the 4-pointed star southeast of Fort St. John.ConclusionsIt is effectively impossible to specifically attribute earthquakes to specific frac’ing operations. This 2011 Oklahoma Geological Survey report is the closest thing I have seen to constituting evidence of a specific frac’ing operation triggering a specific earthquake:
Determining whether or not earthquakes have been induced in most portions of the stable continent is problematic, because of our poor knowledge of historical earthquakes, earthquake processes and the long recurrence intervals for earthquakes in the stable continent. In addition understanding fluid flow and pressure diffusion in the unique geology and structures of an area poses real and significant challenges. The strong spatial and temporal correlations to the hydraulic--fracturing in Picket Unit B Well 4--18 certainly suggest that the earthquakes observed in the Eola Field could have possibly been triggered by this activity. Simply because the earthquakes fit a simple pore pressure diffusion model does not indicate that this is the physical process that caused these earthquakes.
The number of historical earthquakes in the area and uncertainties in hypocenter locations make it impossible to determine with a high degree of certainty whether or not hydraulic--fracturing induced these earthquakes.
Whether or not the earthquakes in the Eola Field were triggered by hydraulic-- fracturing these were small earthquakes with only one local resident having reported feeling them. While the societal impact of understanding whether or not small earthquakes may have been caused by hydraulic--fracturing may be small, it could potentially help us learn more about subsurface properties such as stresses at depth, strength of faults, fluid flow, pressure diffusion, and long term fault and earthquake behaviors of the stable continent. It may also be possible to identify what criteria may affect the likelihood of anthropogenically induced earthquakes and provide oil and gas operators the ability to minimize any adverse affects as suggested by Shapiro et al. (2007).
Holland et al., 2011Wastewater injection wells very likely have triggered induced seismicity, including some damaging quakes. It’s also likely that oil & gas formation, extraction and enhanced recovery processes can also induce seismicity. While it’s possible that frac’ing operations could directly trigger very minor earthquakes, there just isn’t any direct evidence for it… just models and statistical correlations.
ReferencesAtkinson, G.M. et al., 2016. “Hydraulic fracturing and seismicity in the
Western Canada Sedimentary Basin”, Seismol. Res. Lett., 87, 631–647.
B.C. Oil and Gas Commission (2014). “Investigation of Observed Seismicity
in the Montney Trend”, bcogc.ca
Eaton, David, et al. “Broadband Microseismic Observations from a Montney Hydraulic Fracture Treatment, Northeastern B.C.” CSEG RECORDER Magazine, 1 Mar. 2013, csegrecorder.com/articles/view/broadband-microseismic-observations-from-a-montney-hydraulic-fracture.
Eaton, David & Ryan Schultz. (2018). “Increased likelihood of induced seismicity in highly overpressured shale formations”. Geophysical Journal International. 214. 751-757. 10.1093/gji/ggy167.
Holland, A. “Examination of Possibly Induced Seismicity from Hydraulic Fracturing in the Eola Field, Garvin County, Oklahoma”. Oklahoma Geological Survey Open-File Report OF1-2011. August 2011.
“Montney Formation Play Atlas NEBC.” BC Oil and Gas Commission, 16 Jan. 2013, www.bcogc.ca/montney-formation-play-atlas-nebc.
National Energy Board. “Canada’s Energy Future 2018: Energy Supply and Demand Projections to 2040.” NEB, 28 Aug. 2019, www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/ftr/2018/index-eng.html.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|
|To: Brumar89 who wrote (82730)||11/26/2019 7:48:13 AM|
|FT: Chinese Nationalists Turn on Climate Messiah Greta Thunberg|
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to the Financial Times, the deteriorating relationship between the USA and China has triggered a collapse in renewable investment, a resurgence in coal, and has turned Greta Thunberg into a Chinese Nationalist hate figure.
Climate change: how China moved from leader to laggard
Beijing’s U-turn on renewables is triggering alarm ahead of UN meeting
Leslie Hook in Baoding
The smoggy city of Baoding is known for two things: donkey burgers, and solar panels. An industrial centre just south of Beijing — 45 minutes via high-speed rail — the city’s high-tech zone styles itself as “Power Valley” because it is home to so many solar manufacturers.
But for Vincent Yu, deputy general manager at Yingli Solar, one of the first renewables companies to set up in the city, business has been difficult lately. “These last two years, there has been a lot of pressure. The subsidies for solar projects have fallen,” Mr Yu says. New solar installations in China — running at 53 gigawatts in 2017 when demand peaked — will be about 40 per cent lower this year, he estimates.
The company is the highest profile casualty of a change in policy that is being felt across the renewable energy sector in a country once celebrated as the world’s clean energy champion. Chinese investment in clean energy is plummeting — down from $76bn during the first half of 2017, to $29bn during the first half of this year.
Mr Li says deteriorating relations between the US and China — along with the unrest in Hong Kong — have helped fuel a growing nationalist sentiment and a broader anger at the west.
One of the targets of this nationalist ire has been Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenage activist who is revered as a climate hero in some parts of the world. “Many netizens see [Greta] as representing the general liberal western agenda,” says Mr Li. “There is this larger perspective that the west is ganging up against China.”
At the same time, coal appears to be again in the ascendant with Li Keqiang, China’s premier, last month identifying it as a priority area. China remains the world’s biggest producer. Many see this as part of a growing focus on energy security in Beijing, a result of Chinese leaders being spooked by deteriorating relations with the west. “Energy security anxiety is a blessing for the coal [sector] in China,” says Mr Tu.
Read more: ft.comYou can see where this is heading – when next week’s COP25 climate talks inevitably collapse, this time everyone will claim the failure is President Trump’s fault for upsetting China.
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: russet||11/26/2019 3:48:46 PM|
|NOVEMBER 26, 2019 U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions rose in 2018 for the first year since 2014|
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review
Total U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2018 rose to 5.27 billion metric tons, 2.7% more than its 2017 level. The primary reasons for the increase were higher natural gas-related emissions resulting from more extreme summer and winter weather and growth in transportation-related petroleum emissions, linked to a strong economy. U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions declined in 6 of the past 10 years and were 12% lower in 2018 than in 2005, according to a data series published in the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Monthly Energy Review.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review
Coal-related CO2 emissions declined by 4% in 2018, making coal the only fossil fuel with lower CO2 emissions in 2018 compared with 2017. Total U.S. emissions from natural gas first surpassed emissions from coal in 2015. Natural gas consumption has increasingly displaced coal consumption in the electric power sector in recent years.
Natural gas consumption and emissions increased in 2018 largely because of colder winter and hotter summer weather. Natural gas is both the most prevalent home heating fuel and the most prevalent fuel used to generate electricity. Because both heating and cooling demand were higher in 2018, total natural gas emissions increased by 10%.
U.S. petroleum consumption also increased in 2018, contributing to a 1.9% increase in energy-related CO2 emissions from petroleum. Relatively strong economic growth spurred growth in diesel consumption, which resulted in a 6% increase in related CO2 emissions.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review
Total U.S. electricity generation increased by 3.6% in 2018, but electric power sector CO2 emissions only increased by 1.1%. In recent years, the U.S. electricity generation mix has shifted away from coal and toward natural gas and renewables. The shift from coal to natural gas lowers the CO2 emissions' intensity because natural gas produces lower emissions per unit of energy used than coal and because natural gas-fired generators typically use less energy than coal plants to generate each kilowatthour of electricity.
Electricity generation from renewable energy technologies has also increased, and most renewables do not directly emit CO2 as part of their electricity generation. In EIA’s emissions data series, emissions from biomass combustion, which do produce energy-related CO2, are excluded from reported energy-related emissions according to international convention.
The increase in residential and commercial sector CO2 emissions was largely caused by weather. Warmer summers increase electricity consumption for cooling, and colder winters increase electricity consumption for heating (as well as heating-related consumption of natural gas and petroleum). Residential CO2 emissions increased 7.4% and commercial sector CO2 emissions increased 2.8%.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review
From 2005 to 2018, the U.S. economy grew by 25% while U.S. energy consumption grew by 1%. Energy-related CO2 emissions as of 2018 were 12% lower than their 2005 levels. The economic growth that occurred in 2018 was 29% less carbon-intensive than it was in 2005, and the overall energy consumption in the United States was 13% less carbon-intensive.
Additional analysis on energy-related CO2 emissions by sector and source is available in EIA’s 2018 U.S Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions report.
Principal contributor: Perry Lindstrom
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read|
|From: Brumar89||11/27/2019 6:28:39 AM|
|Redundancies, Bankruptcies, Unrealistic Power Contracts: The Wind Industry Crisis Deepens|
NOVEMBER 26, 2019
By Paul Homewood
One of the great delusions of Labour’s green policy is that it will create a million new “well paid, unionised” jobs.
The reality in Germany is a bit different, as GWPF report:
Eddie O’Connor, the founder of Airtricity and Mainstream Renewable Power, is one of the most notable entrepreneurs in the wind industry and is consequently regarded with awe. His personal success speaks for itself, and if he chances to add anything further, obiter dicta, people pay attention. Speaking at a Reuters conference, Offshore and Floating Wind Europe 2019, which was held in London on the 11th and 12th of November this year, Mr O’Connor seems to have dropped a bombshell. Reports claim that he shocked his audience by describing the wind sector as “on its knees” and in a state of “failure”, because “cut-throat” competition has driven contracted power prices to levels so low that wind is no longer “profitable”.
No objective observer will disagree that the wind industry overall appears to be struggling. Enercon, the Mercedes Benz of turbine makers, has just announced 3,000 redundancies in its home town of Magdeburg, and admitted to a $220m loss in 2018, with worse to come in 2019 ( “Thousands to lose jobs as German wind crisis hits Enercon” 11.11.2019).
Indeed, in a measure quite incredible for a flagship German firm, Enercon has explained that it can no longer afford to make wind turbine blades in Germany, and will perforce attempt to preserve its viability by manufacturing overseas, presumably in locations where lower energy costs mean that labour is much cheaper.
Senvion, another troubled German manufacturer of wind turbines, entered into self-administered bankruptcy/liquidation in April, but has subsequently struggled to deliver reassuring news to the markets. On the 1st of November, and in the light of the fact that Senvion had not provided financial reports since beginning of the year, Moodys withdrew all its ratings from both Senvion S.A. and its subsidiary Senvion Holding GmbH, adding that it “continues to expect a meaningful loss to the current noteholders”.
It is clear that the problems summarised in an earlier Energy Comment post for this blog, “Is the Long Renewables Honeymoon Over” (11.05.19), are very far from diminishing and indeed seem to be growing still more serious.
Cutting through this miscellany of industry difficulties Mr O’Connor went straight to the heart of the matter, profitability, with his emphasis on contracted power prices. As is notorious, there has been a strong tendency in recent years for the wind sector in general to justify earlier and generous subsidies on the grounds that costs had, as a result now fallen. Offshore wind projects, for example, are claiming dramatic (and implausible) capital cost reductions, backing up such claims by signing contracts to supply electricity at surprisingly low prices, even at so-called Zero-Subsidy levels. In the UK the latest instance of this is the Round 3 Allocation of Contracts for Difference, which announced strike prices of £40/MWh for about 4.5 GW of capacity at five gigantic projects. This appears to be below the likely wholesale price, let alone below the fundamental price needed to deliver a return on investment for the wind farms themselves.
Mr O’Connor clearly has a point, and though he did not add that Hughes, Aris, and Constable were right in their study for GWPF in 2017, Offshore Wind Strike Prices: Behind the Headlines, his remarks are consistent with the view that those authors took, namely that the CfDs issued in that year were at unrealistically low levels and could only be understood either as mistakes, which seems unlikely, or more probably as complicated options and high risk gambling, a view that Professor Hughes has developed in a subsequent paper for GWPF ( Who’s the Patsy? Offshore wind’s high-stakes poker game).
Nevertheless, the logic of the wind industry’s public relations agenda forces it to maintain its position and indeed to go beyond it. Bizarre though it may seem, analysts close to the industry such as DNV GL are now suggesting that future contract bids will be negative, in other words that wind power developers will actually be willing to pay for contracts in order to secure the option for development ( When Will European Offshore Wind See Negative Bids?).
But such tactics are clearly hazardous. Andrei Utkin of IHS Markit is quoted in the same source as sounding a warning note:
In a way, when we compare the French and U.K. winning bid levels with forward prices, we already see negative bids: forward baseload prices for year-ahead delivery are above those levels. […] More and more renewables coming onto the grid will result in more curtailment and lower wholesale power prices. […] As a result, the price that renewables will be able to capture in the market will decrease as well, going below their levelized cost of energy and potentially triggering the need for government support.”
Quite. But can the industry survive the transition period to renewed subsidy and will that subsidy actually be forthcoming? Mr O’Connor’s instincts, and he must have excellent instincts for such things, are that the industry’s position is perilous. Wind power may well be in desperate need, on its knees in fact, but sympathy is likely to be in short supply:
Eight times emerging from the flood
She mewed to every watery god,
Some speedy aid to send
No Dolphin came, no Nereid stirred;
Nor cruel Tom, nor Susan heard.
A Favourite has no friend!
Dr John Constable: GWPF Energy Editor.
Of course, Labour may simply nationalise all of the UK firms taking part in their grand green revolution. If so we can look forward to having an extremely inefficient and costly energy system!
Ian Magness PERMALINK
November 26, 2019 2:49 pm
In a very recent conversation, a director (whose name I must withhold) of a major international operator of windmills told me not only that no offshore wind farms could ever be profitable without significant subsidies but also that everyone in the industry understands this and has always understood it. I have heard similar second hand from another such senior executive in an energy company. The whole corporate game is to target the most gullible, virtue-signalling politicians (no shortage of these types in Britain that’s for sure) and lobby for the farms to be built regardless. Oh, and that’s uneconomic even without bringing the decommissioning £billions into account when obsolescence is reached. Add that thought to all of the other serious environmental and CO2-emitting issues with the production, fitting, operation and maintenance of offshore windmills, and you really struggle to see how any have ever been approved.
How stupid are we as a nation?
Roger Cole PERMALINK
November 26, 2019 8:26 pm
Remember Warren Buffet’s famous remark about wind. “”I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire’s tax rate,” Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. “For example, on wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit.”
|RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)|