Insight and inspiration in turbulent times.
You may say you want a revolution, but generally you don’t. Predictably, fracking—the high-pressure injection of massive amounts of water, sand, and toxic chemicals a mile underground, a technology first developed to unlock Rockies tight gas—has sparked controversy.
In an excellent short essay, “What Hath Fracking Wrought,” Randy Udall discusses the environmental and social consequences of the application of hydraulic fracturing technology to the production of oil and natural gas.
This article was inspired by the disjuncture between a UK government document which reveals the stunning decline in UK oil production, as opposed to British media inattention to this worrisome development.
-Study: ‘Fracking’ may increase air pollution health risks
-So, Is Dimock’s Water Really Safe to Drink?
-Poland Says Shale Reserves May Be 85% Below U.S. Estimate
-Shale gas is no alternative to renewables
Brent oil prices flirted with $125/barrel again this week before dropping back on news of weaker than anticipated European and Chinese industrial activity. The political and economic pressure of surging prices prompted Saudi oil minister Ali Al Naimi to claim the kingdom can raise production by 25% (2.5 mb/d) immediately if necessary. But that was in flat contradiction to his recent admission that 700mb/d of Saudi’s claimed 2.5 mb/d spare capacity could not be brought on stream in under 90 days – three times longer than the standard definition.
Rising geopolitical tensions and high oil prices are continuing to help renewable energy find favour amongst investors and politicians. Yet how much faith should we place in renewables to make up the shortfall in fossil fuels? Can science really solve our energy problems, and which sectors offers the best hope for our energy future? To help us get to the bottom of this we spoke with energy specialist Dr. Tom Murphy, an associate professor of physics at the University of California. Tom runs the popular energy blog Do the Math which takes an astrophysicist’s-eye view of societal issues relating to energy production, climate change, and economic growth.
I thought I’d do a thought experiment. Suppose tomorrow morning a hypothetical university—let’s call it T.I.M.—sends out their weekly press release claiming a “revolutionary breakthrough” that will change the way we think about energy. Unlike every other time in the past decade they’ve made this claim, though, suppose this time it’s actually true: they’ve discovered a way of producing extremely cheap energy—as near to “free energy” as can be imagined.
A weekly roundup of peak oil news, including:
-Oil and the global economy
-The Iranian confrontration
-Gasoline prices and the SPR
-Bunker Fuel
-Quote of the week
-Briefs
In this post, I provide…charts showing long-term changes in energy supply, together with some observations regarding implications. One such implication is how economists can be misled by past patterns, if they do not realize that past patterns reflect very different energy growth patterns than we will likely see in the future.
Finally, a plausible explanation for the Obama-Cameron political orgy — ‘love-in’ doesn’t quite do it — in Washington this week. For Cameron the benefit of this floorshow was obvious — like Blair with Bush, revelling in the reflected glory of US power — but Obama’s motive remained a mystery. What could possibly justify gifting all that folderol and face time with the world’s most powerful man? Yesterday we got the answer: international cover for a politically motivated release from strategic petroleum reserves, that’s what.
-EPA’s Proposed Fracking Rules Seen Cutting Gas Drilling
-As NY Turns to Fracking, Farmers Cash In
-Sierra Club Spurns $30 Million Gift as Fracking Turns Toxic
