Tuesday, February 28, 2012

IPCC Scientist: Oil Sands Bad, But Not THAT Bad...?

The EU was all set to vote on a measure to burden Canadian oil sands crude with higher carbon offset requirements, but it appears voting members were swayed by a new study that claims the emissions of oil sands crude is not as bad as previously thought and not as bad as some alternatives. Must be some oil-industry paid shill doing the study, right? Nope.

The new study conducted by researchers Andrew Weaver and Neil Swart and published in Nature magazine, calculates the climate impact of producing the oil sands bitumen against other fuels. Dr. Weaver is the Canada Research Chair in Climate Modeling and Analysis at the University of Victoria and a recognized Canadian climate expert who was a lead author with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
RTWT. Not that anybody is under any illusions that Obama and the environmental left is driven by "the science", this nonetheless undermines the scientific rationale for inhibiting the development of the oils sands by, say...oh...prohibiting pipelines that bring the stuff to where it is needed.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Climate Change Versus National Greatness

The world has just received a lesson in what happens when people stop consuming oil. From American drivers driving less to Chinese factories producing less goods, "demand destruction" has been the buzz phrase of the second half of 2008, and for many countries around the globe who rely heavily on the production of oil for their economic health or their very survival, the picture isn't pretty. There, of course, is Saudi Arabia that keeps its unpopular monarchical regime in place by using vast oil wealth to keep the state running, but Saudi is not near any type of inflection point, or brink. There are several other countries that are on various types of brinks. Large oil producing counties like Russia, Venezuela, and Iran (possibly even Iraq) have been brought to the brink of societal collapse, or at least of current regime collapse, by demand destruction. These countries have very little else in the way of economic strength to sustain them in the absence of oil and keep themselves propped up through oil-driven social spending. (There are small fries in this category too, like Ecuador) Other countries, like England, Norway and Mexico are on the brink of severe fiscal distress by virtue of softening oil prices. Massive social spending in these countries is funded by oil revenues. Things won't collapse but governments in these countries will be stressed to afford their generous social spending should trends continue. Lastly, there is another type of brink, but a good brink to be on - the brink of national greatness. Several countries are either new to the oil scene, like Angola, and are making enormous strides, but others are in the process of pursuing game-changing opportunities that will catapult them from also-rans into the upper tier of the oil world. In this category, you have most notably Brazil and Canada. Brazil had found boatloads of oil and is working feverishly to tap into it. The scale of the finds offer Brazil the opportunity to go from being a persistently poor country to achieving living standards among the highest in the world. Massive investments in both physical and social infrastructure like education and healthcare will be possible if Brazil capitalizes on its behemoth offshore discoveries. Canada as well, if it can scale up and drive down costs in its oil sands and arctic plays, will become a true economic power with a vast petroleum wealth spread out over a relatively small population.

Regardless of what brink you're on - collapse or national greatness - all of these countries can count on tipping over onto the wrong side of the brink if there is severe and persistent long term demand destruction of petroleum-based energy. What could achieve that? Recession obviously, but recession is usually temporary. What could do it on a more permanent basis? Pervasive climate change legislation. Each of the countries I have named, and many others that are in the same position on a smaller scale, stand to fall into disarray or be denied dreamed-of living standards at the hands of the next great global climate change initiative. Thus, it will not stand. Individual countries may do what they please to limit hydrocarbon fuels, but only a global initiative stands a chance of doing something meaningful, so the greenies tell us. Just as developing economies won't sacrifice their shot at economic opportunity in order to indulge the developed world, countries reliant on oil production won't vote to kill off global demand for the one industry on which their future rests. The lesson in demand destruction that we've just experienced has shown a large part of the world our potentially green future and I am certain they will have none of it. Angola will not throw off the shackles of Third World poverty with solar panels, Brazil won't achieve First World living standards via biofuels, and Russia won't be able to keep up with the West by virtue of wind. Barack Obama and all the Dems in Congress can dream all they want about resurgent US leadership on global warming. Global climate change consensus is all but unachievable.

UPDATE: The Poznan conference didn't go so well. Fine by me.

Tuesday, April 02, 2013

The WSJ Notices What I Noticed About Pipelines Vs. Trains

I waxed a tad conspiratorial recently over the non-developments concerning the Keystone XL pipeline.  Well, today, in no less a prominent place than the lead editorial in the WSJ, Gigot & Co. sound a little conspiratorial themselves on the matter.
What's the difference between an oil spill from a pipeline and an oil spill from a train? Answer: A lesson in political opportunism.
The media have played up Friday's discovery of an oil leak in an old Exxon Mobil pipeline near Mayflower, Arkansas. It isn't clear how much oil escaped from the 850-mile Pegasus pipeline, but Exxon says it responded with teams and equipment able to handle as much as 10,000 barrels and that by early Saturday it had stopped the flow and begun cleanup.  

The real reason for the headlines is that Pegasus was delivering heavy crude from the Canadian oil sands to Texas. This is similar to the oil the proposed Keystone XL pipeline would deliver from Canada to the Gulf Coast, and the anti-Keystone capos are using the Exxon spill to scare up political opposition to the new pipeline.
...
All of this is in marked contrast to the non-reaction last week when a Canadian Pacific Railway  train carrying crude to Chicago derailed in western Minnesota, spilling about 15,000 gallons. Much of the press also ignored the train accident, though the spill was certainly serious and also took place near a town.
The train wreck illustrates one economic reality of the U.S. shale drilling boom, which is that energy companies have turned to shipping by rail as pipeline capacity has been filled. The volume of oil transported by U.S. rail has surged to 233,811 carloads in 2012 from 9,500 as recently as 2008. This means boom times for freight rail lines, including Burlington Northern Santa Fe, which is owned by Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway.
We are living the crazy times here in early 21st century America, so this is nothing.

Wednesday, December 05, 2012

"...Potential of Several Hundred Million Barrels..."

 I repeat - look for oil, find oil...shocker!  In remote hinterlands far far away I might add...not!
Total announces a significant oil discovery at its North Platte prospect on Garden Banks Block 959 in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. The discovery well encountered several hundred feet of net oil pay in Lower Tertiary sands which included several high-quality intervals.

Total estimates this discovery can have a potential of several hundred million barrels of oil. Further appraisal will be needed to confirm its size and commerciality.
"We can't drill our way out of our problems."
A) Why not?
B) Let's Try.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

China To Spend $53 Billion Looking for Oil Offshore China

That's is, of course, in addition to the tens of billions they have lent Brazil to develop their billions of barrels, and the tens of billions they are spending to basically own all the oil in Africa, and the tens of billions spent buying up Canadian oil sands and tight gas plays. Thomas Friedman call your office.

UPDATE: Clearly the Chinese did not get the memo.

Monday, August 31, 2009

Odds Are Copenhagen Is Already a Bust

Todd Stern, US State Department Special Envoy on Climate Change, seems to think that the US and China can strike some totally awesome global warming deal in Copenhagen - the next big global confab of enviro-bureaucrats and busybodies - thereby getting the whole world on board for fighting global warming, sorry climate change. In other news, China is plunking down $1.7 billion and unknown future sums for access to one of the least enviro-acceptable hydrocarbons, Canadian tar sands. Oh, and don't forget all that drilling the Chinese are doing right at home.


Governments around the world are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on developing hydrocarbon resources, Africa wants bribes, India has said 'eat me poseurs,' and yet globo-ninnies like Stern are still trying to put a good face on Copenhagen. The world has just seen what it looks like when everyone stops consuming as much oil, and most countries don't like what they've seen. Give the Toddster points for optimism.