There are plenty of new oil fields coming on line in the North Sea as well - why did the BBC choose to focus on an oil field in California rather than somewhere nearer to home which would be of more interest to UK viewers and energy consumers?
There are plenty of new oil fields coming on line in the North Sea as well - why did the BBC choose to focus on an oil field in California rather than somewhere nearer to home which would be of more interest to UK viewers and energy consumers?
It just struck me as curious that they sent a camera crew all that way to report on American oil when the UK oil industry is a growth story - plenty of jobs will be created and tax revenue will flood into our nation's coffers over the next few years from a dozen or so new fields. Then there are the jobs in infrastructure and services etc.
had a geography teacher a few years ago that knew some big cheese at an oil company. She was said that even back then they knew of vast untapped oilfields but wouldn't release this information as it kept oil prices up and prevent any competition from piping their spots.
Thought she was talking crap but as time goes on she's slowly getting proven right.
There are new oil fields being discovered but not enough to replace the ones already emptied of useful fuel. Oil is a finite resource and we do need to accept that fact. What's worse is that our planet is a very different place when we release carbon that has been stored for thousands of years back into circulation.
I make you right loco. Sadly oil may not run out before we discover the hard way the maximum limits on CO2 and other noxious gasses that our atmosphere can sustain.
A friend of mine told me about the untapped oil fields under Siberia back in the 1980's and told me to buy shares in Russian oil companies if I got the opportunity. Did I listen to that advice? No. Is my mate minted now living in a big house in Wimbledon? Yes 0:(
Isn't that the case with the oil fields off the coast of the Falklands ?
There is only one oil field in the Falkland Islands that is commercial - Sea Lion, owned by Rockhopper. Their may yet be others but a lot of money has been spent looking for oil there.
New technologies include things like polymer flooding which should enable heavier oil fields to extricate oil in greater quantities. Then there are tar sands which were not commercial with lower oil prices and the whole subject of fracking.
Oil in the North Sea has at least 30 years worth at todays use up rate. (ExxonMobil 3 years ago) former oil fields that have "had their day" are now viable with horizontal drilling etc.
LNG is the new thing most people hadnt herd of Qatar 3 years ago it will supply aprox 20% of the Worlds LNG. Then there is Papua New Guinea (PNG) ExxonMobil will invest up to $16 billion in that country---however all the LNG is ear marked already for China.
not true .. oil IS running out but not as fast as was feared. Believe me, oil is a finite resource. Oil took millions/billions of years to evolve from the shells and geologically crushed bodies of molluscs and tiny sea creatures which inhabited the primeval oceans. We are going to have to wait a while for a new supply to come on stream. In the meantime more expensive wells and fields are being developed. Don't expect the price of a gallon of unleaded to drop any time soon.
Perhaps governments might think more about reducing the massive subsidies they give to inefficient wind farms. These are costing we consumers a fortune.
Perhaps governments might think more about reducing the massive subsidies they give to inefficient wind farms. These are costing we consumers a fortune.
Subsidies for fossil fuels are far greater - amounting to around £4bn a year at the pump as VAT is charged at a lower rate and there are many tax breaks available for oil and gas exploration. It is estimated that the oil and gas industry benefit by between £9bn and £12bn a year. Subsidies to renewables (not just wind) totals £3bn a year.
Perhaps governments might think more about reducing the massive subsidies they give to inefficient wind farms. These are costing we consumers a fortune.
Subsidies for fossil fuels are far greater - amounting to around £4bn a year at the pump as VAT is charged at a lower rate and there are many tax breaks available for oil and gas exploration. It is estimated that the oil and gas industry benefit by between £9bn and £12bn a year. Subsidies to renewables (not just wind) totals £3bn a year.
Not disputing or researching your subsidy totals. But renewables account for less than 10% of power production. So on a like-for-like basis, renewables do indeed get more subsidies. By about a multiple of three.
Not disputing or researching your subsidy totals. But renewables account for less than 10% of power production. So on a like-for-like basis, renewables do indeed get more subsidies. By about a multiple of three.
Then there are the subsidies to nuclear power which reduce the price per Gigawatt to less than half but there's so much hidden in the numbers that there is no reliable figure - things like insurance liabilities have been artificially reduced etc.
Renewables should account for 20% of the UK's energy needs by 2020 - I believe this is more or less on schedule. Therefore it makes sense to invest in a growth market now, plus the renewables sector should be a massive employment sector in time.
Bear in mind also that part of the renewable subsidies bill include things like feed-in-tariffs which operate only when energy is fed into the system. On days when the sun doesn't shine/domestic energy use is high not much energy is fed into the national grid.
The scary part is Arctic oil. Oil companies happily tell us that because of the ice melting in the Arctic they will soon be able to get there and get the oil out. Without giving a second thought to what melting arctic ice actualy means for the rest of the world. I even saw a report recently saying how ships woul dbe able to sail through the article in 30 years and that there would be another 30 years of very high profit from the route before the knock-on effect of the melted ice take effect. So for 30 years of riches we risk an uncertain future.
The scary part is Arctic oil. Oil companies happily tell us that because of the ice melting in the Arctic they will soon be able to get there and get the oil out. Without giving a second thought to what melting arctic ice actualy means for the rest of the world. I even saw a report recently saying how ships woul dbe able to sail through the article in 30 years and that there would be another 30 years of very high profit from the route before the knock-on effect of the melted ice take effect. So for 30 years of riches we risk an uncertain future.
The world will always heat up and cool down in cycles, whether we as humans are the ones that instigate the next cycle of this and if it will have any major consequences to us as a species remains to be seen, but one thing for certain is the oil IS running out, as we are using it up far quicker than it can be made by the natural world.
Really the statement should be 'oil is running out, but there are billions upon billions of gallons of it that are currently inaccessible, and technological advancements will enable us to obtain these untapped sources in the near future' but I guess that's too long winded for PR companies and news presenters to say
Perhaps governments might think more about reducing the massive subsidies they give to inefficient wind farms. These are costing we consumers a fortune.
Subsidies for fossil fuels are far greater - amounting to around £4bn a year at the pump as VAT is charged at a lower rate and there are many tax breaks available for oil and gas exploration. It is estimated that the oil and gas industry benefit by between £9bn and £12bn a year. Subsidies to renewables (not just wind) totals £3bn a year.
What a strange post. Not only is VAT charged at the full rate of 20% on petrol and diesel at the pump but a huge additional duty of 58p a litre is also charged. How this can possibly amount to a subsidy is beyond me.
By contrast renewable sources (turbines, solar panels etc) attract VAT at the reduced rate of 5% as does electricity - from whatever source including renewables and from fossil fuel. But that's a tax reduction for the consumer - not a subsidy.
Oil us running out....but not to the once thought of 2030 end. My father was an accountant for shell oil and he said they always underestimated the amount of oil in every well. ......this enabled the company to charge more on the supply and demand basis. Also I have a friend at one of the major universities in Moscow and they are now convinced there are many many decades left of oil...if not centuries. Oil is more valuable if it is scarce.
The world will always heat up and cool down in cycles, whether we as humans are the ones that instigate the next cycle of this and if it will have any major consequences to us as a species remains to be seen, but one thing for certain is the oil IS running out, as we are using it up far quicker than it can be made by the natural world.
Really the statement should be 'oil is running out, but there are billions upon billions of gallons of it that are currently inaccessible, and technological advancements will enable us to obtain these untapped sources in the near future' but I guess that's too long winded for PR companies and news presenters to say
It has always heated up and cooled down but not at the rates currently seen (as far as is known). And none of these previous cycles have seen the outer core removed. To me its seem obvious that if you remove too much of the inside layer, the outside layer will fall in.
BD on the other hand Shell was one ofthe companies in the last couple of years who got in deap shit for over estimating their oil reserves----which inflated their share price .
Exactly, and we don't know how the world will react to this, as it's unprecedented, but one thing's for sure, oil companies will continue to be very rich for decades to come. I for one hope that our impact on the natural world will have little impact on the earth as a whole. After all, we are clever enough to use the resources to our own benefit, surely we can work out how to rectify anything that goes wrong? Alas I feel the companies responsible for the drilling of oil fields will end up being the companies responsible for a natural disaster big enough to chance the course of our own earth forever, and this both saddens and scares me
The world will always heat up and cool down in cycles, whether we as humans are the ones that instigate the next cycle of this and if it will have any major consequences to us as a species remains to be seen, but one thing for certain is the oil IS running out, as we are using it up far quicker than it can be made by the natural world.
Really the statement should be 'oil is running out, but there are billions upon billions of gallons of it that are currently inaccessible, and technological advancements will enable us to obtain these untapped sources in the near future' but I guess that's too long winded for PR companies and news presenters to say
It has always heated up and cooled down but not at the rates currently seen (as far as is known).
So not in the last couple of hundred years records have been kept.
What about the previous couple of billion years?
We're astill in the process of coming out of the last ice age.
The world will always heat up and cool down in cycles, whether we as humans are the ones that instigate the next cycle of this and if it will have any major consequences to us as a species remains to be seen, but one thing for certain is the oil IS running out, as we are using it up far quicker than it can be made by the natural world.
Really the statement should be 'oil is running out, but there are billions upon billions of gallons of it that are currently inaccessible, and technological advancements will enable us to obtain these untapped sources in the near future' but I guess that's too long winded for PR companies and news presenters to say
It has always heated up and cooled down but not at the rates currently seen (as far as is known).
So not in the last couple of hundred years records have been kept.
What about the previous couple of billion years?
We're astill in the process of coming out of the last ice age.
We know we have been coming out of the last ice age for for a few thousand years and can therefore predict that these cycles take many thousands of years. However, if they went at the speed of the current changes there would only be a couple of thousand years between them and the earth would be full of several eras of wiped out animals.
Perhaps governments might think more about reducing the massive subsidies they give to inefficient wind farms. These are costing we consumers a fortune.
Subsidies for fossil fuels are far greater - amounting to around £4bn a year at the pump as VAT is charged at a lower rate and there are many tax breaks available for oil and gas exploration. It is estimated that the oil and gas industry benefit by between £9bn and £12bn a year. Subsidies to renewables (not just wind) totals £3bn a year.
What a strange post. Not only is VAT charged at the full rate of 20% on petrol and diesel at the pump but a huge additional duty of 58p a litre is also charged. How this can possibly amount to a subsidy is beyond me.
Have to say, I'm interested in BFR's response to this. Would love to know where he gets his 5% petrol from.
Comments
Thought she was talking crap but as time goes on she's slowly getting proven right.
There is only one oil field in the Falkland Islands that is commercial - Sea Lion, owned by Rockhopper. Their may yet be others but a lot of money has been spent looking for oil there.
New technologies include things like polymer flooding which should enable heavier oil fields to extricate oil in greater quantities. Then there are tar sands which were not commercial with lower oil prices and the whole subject of fracking.
LNG is the new thing most people hadnt herd of Qatar 3 years ago it will supply aprox 20% of the Worlds LNG. Then there is Papua New Guinea (PNG) ExxonMobil will invest up to $16 billion in that country---however all the LNG is ear marked already for China.
Oil took millions/billions of years to evolve from the shells and geologically crushed bodies of molluscs and tiny sea creatures which inhabited the primeval oceans. We are going to have to wait a while for a new supply to come on stream. In the meantime more expensive wells and fields are being developed. Don't expect the price of a gallon of unleaded to drop any time soon.
The real problem!!
Then there are the subsidies to nuclear power which reduce the price per Gigawatt to less than half but there's so much hidden in the numbers that there is no reliable figure - things like insurance liabilities have been artificially reduced etc.
Renewables should account for 20% of the UK's energy needs by 2020 - I believe this is more or less on schedule. Therefore it makes sense to invest in a growth market now, plus the renewables sector should be a massive employment sector in time.
Bear in mind also that part of the renewable subsidies bill include things like feed-in-tariffs which operate only when energy is fed into the system. On days when the sun doesn't shine/domestic energy use is high not much energy is fed into the national grid.
I even saw a report recently saying how ships woul dbe able to sail through the article in 30 years and that there would be another 30 years of very high profit from the route before the knock-on effect of the melted ice take effect. So for 30 years of riches we risk an uncertain future.
Really the statement should be 'oil is running out, but there are billions upon billions of gallons of it that are currently inaccessible, and technological advancements will enable us to obtain these untapped sources in the near future' but I guess that's too long winded for PR companies and news presenters to say
By contrast renewable sources (turbines, solar panels etc) attract VAT at the reduced rate of 5% as does electricity - from whatever source including renewables and from fossil fuel. But that's a tax reduction for the consumer - not a subsidy.
To me its seem obvious that if you remove too much of the inside layer, the outside layer will fall in.
What about the previous couple of billion years?
We're astill in the process of coming out of the last ice age.
Neverland is my guess.