Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 (edited) NRW, which was once the heart of the German coal industry, could have the second largest reserves in Europe with 2.1 trillion cubic metres (74.2 cubic feet) of natural gas... Exxon investing hundreds of millions of Euros to get it. Well I never knew that. Edited January 23, 2011 by gruffydd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherSTR Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 NRW, which was once the heart of the German coal industry, could have the second largest reserves in Europe with 2.1 trillion cubic metres (74.2 cubic feet) of natural gas... Exxon investing hundreds of millions of Euros to get it. Well I never knew that. Reserves mentioned in Germany, Poland and Hungary below. http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article201486.ece Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pole Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Reserves mentioned in Germany, Poland and Hungary below. http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article201486.ece Emerging International Shale Gas : Poland and China Lead (link) he shale natural gas industry continues to commit talent and technology to multiple emerging shale plays beyond the now traditional domains of the US, Canada and Australia. Shale gas resources are so globally dispersed and potentially so large that a majority of the world's nations are candidates for study and eventual development. In Europe, Poland has the clear lead and in Asia it is China. Eastern Europe and Turkey are ahead of Western Europe and India is about 3 to 5 years behind China. In Latin America, Argentina has decided to be the exploration leader( Exxon-Mobil has been granted 2 blocks in the Neuquen basin, which has substantial shale and tight sands natural gas potential according to Repsol YPF , the Argentine company) , while in Africa South Africa( via Sasol), Morocco and Tunisia have evinced the greatest interest. Russia, Brazil and the Middle East very likely has tremendous shale gas resources but the conventional gas opportunities there are so vast that there is no pressing strategic reason to explore for, much less develop shale gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbonic Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 NRW, which was once the heart of the German coal industry, could have the second largest reserves in Europe with 2.1 trillion cubic metres (74.2 cubic feet) of natural gas... Exxon investing hundreds of millions of Euros to get it. Well I never knew that. I was driving into work last Monday listening to R4 and there was a brief mention of some objections to the extraction of methane from shale nr Blackpoool in, Lancs. The objectors main issue was the contamination of ground water with 'gas coming from the taps' from US examples of shale gas extraction. I opened a copy of Monday's (17/1) Metro that was picked up on a train between Leeds and Sheffield. This paper must be read by millions of commuters and is basically the same story that was run by Radio 4. In the Business and Finance section there was the big heading "Shale gas drilling must stop, demands co-op"! The article said "Campaigners are calling for a ban on the extraction of shale gas in Britain until potential health risks from it are looked at." It mentions burning water from taps in the US and that "The Tyndall Centre for the Co-op says information about the chemicals used is not publicly available but data on what is stored in the US indicates harmful chemicals are used. 'It's like tar sands in your backyard in terms of local pollution and carbon emissions are concerned' said Paul Monaghan of the Co-op." Let's hope for an informed discussion that doesn't tip into hysteria ('burning water' 'tar sands in your backyard' etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Lorne Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 I was driving into work last Monday listening to R4 and there was a brief mention of some objections to the extraction of methane from shale nr Blackpoool in, Lancs. The objectors main issue was the contamination of ground water with 'gas coming from the taps' from US examples of shale gas extraction. I opened a copy of Monday's (17/1) Metro that was picked up on a train between Leeds and Sheffield. This paper must be read by millions of commuters and is basically the same story that was run by Radio 4. In the Business and Finance section there was the big heading "Shale gas drilling must stop, demands co-op"! The article said "Campaigners are calling for a ban on the extraction of shale gas in Britain until potential health risks from it are looked at." It mentions burning water from taps in the US and that "The Tyndall Centre for the Co-op says information about the chemicals used is not publicly available but data on what is stored in the US indicates harmful chemicals are used. 'It's like tar sands in your backyard in terms of local pollution and carbon emissions are concerned' said Paul Monaghan of the Co-op." Let's hope for an informed discussion that doesn't tip into hysteria ('burning water' 'tar sands in your backyard' etc.) ...sounds like Hokey Pokey for the masses....if there are natural resources we need them developed..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 The reason I asked this is because in the previous post to yours it explained that that guy that had methane in his water line had it before the extraction started and some of the biggest fans of the movie "Gasland" tend to have dreadlocks. In my view the proponents of peak oil/gas fall into two disctinct types. The first is the idealogical point of view. For them it is a religion. It doesn't matter even if we discover 1000 years of the purest energy source known man will still be raping the planet for his own evil purposes etc. The second is the guns and beans fantasist. These people get off on the thought of an apocalypse, not least because the years of stockpiling gold, beans and guns won't have been in vain and will give them what they are waiting for and enable them to act out their post apocalyptic fantasy. For them anything that puts off the date must be a bad thing. The great thing with peak oil/peak gas is that no-one actually knows when its going to happen, so you can argue about it for ages. I believe in peak oil/gas as I believe the supplies are finite. I don't believe that peak energy will occur any time in my lifetime, or in the 50 years after it, so stockpiling beans and guns now is pointless. Shale gas is great news. Plenty of supply for years to come. I'm sure as well it will be converted to LPG for car use. As for pollution, the claims that it is as polluting as tar sands is ridiculous. The level of pollution caused by tar sands is far greater. Shale gas extraction is in its infancy. In the future techinques will be developed to make it safer and more efficient. Sounds like good news to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swissy_fit Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Any significant reserves of shale gas in the UK? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gigantic Purple Slug Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Any significant reserves of shale gas in the UK? Just starting to drill. Also coal seam gas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbonic Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Just starting to drill. Also coal seam gas. The UK also intercepts some of the methane that's leaking from abandoned coal mines (coal mine methane or CMM) to burn it for leccy on site. This is like coal bed methane extractioon except that the mining has already 'fracked' the seams (it probably also removed most of the coal). This is one such site above the old Whitwell pit in north Notts. The pipe to the right is sucking methane from the old mineshaft... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swissy_fit Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Just starting to drill. Also coal seam gas. So no way of guessing if this stuff is going to save the UK's bacon the way it looks as though it will save the US's bacon. To me, it looks as though the effects of Peak Oil will be hugely mitigated by this for the countries that have large deposits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skomer Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 Any significant reserves of shale gas in the UK? There is quite a bit in the Weald basin (Sussex - cretaceous/jurassic ) and The Wirral/ Morecambe Bay areas has been mentioned too. Plus there are significant amounts in the North Sea basins, still an awful lot of untapped coal there too presumably the source rock for a lot of this stuff. The US has huge amounts running down the Appalachians and Poland/Eastern Germany has an awful lot too - enough to reduce their dependancy on Russia. Its probably enough globally to have a big impact on gas prices for 15/20 years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 I wonder what the Peak Gas mob will dream up to counter this now. It's an interesting development. The key will be how much of the stuff is actually viable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 So no way of guessing if this stuff is going to save the UK's bacon the way it looks as though it will save the US's bacon. To me, it looks as though the effects of Peak Oil will be hugely mitigated by this for the countries that have large deposits. The uk is one of the most energy independent rich countries in the world. France, Germany, Japan, south Korea, Spain, Italy, for example are all much worse off having to import much more than the uk As for shale gas, it doesn’t have to happen in the UK to help the UK. For example America was an importer and was going to be a big importer however with shale it doesn’t need to import and may become an exporter, even if it doesn’t export it means now we don’t need to bid against them so prices are therefore lower than they would otherwise have been even though no shale exists in the UK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cells Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It's an interesting development. The key will be how much of the stuff is actually viable. Every little helps esp as price is set on the margin. Apparently some shale plays are profitable even if gas prices go to zero because they make their money from the liquids they produce along with the gas. Also same tech is moving on to produce oils. Last time I checked Americas oil production was up 1m barrels a day than the previous year and consumption was down by 2m due to the recession and likely efficiency gains in autos. That’s 3m barrels a day of oil more available to the rest of the world. That isn’t small change Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) The uk is one of the most energy independent rich countries in the world. France, Germany, Japan, south Korea, Spain, Italy, for example are all much worse off having to import much more than the uk As for shale gas, it doesn’t have to happen in the UK to help the UK. For example America was an importer and was going to be a big importer however with shale it doesn’t need to import and may become an exporter, even if it doesn’t export it means now we don’t need to bid against them so prices are therefore lower than they would otherwise have been even though no shale exists in the UK Er - have you seen the Uk's current energy deficit (net imports) and what direction that is heading in? Three of the first 4 countries you mention have big balance of trade surpluses and France's deficit is manageable which means they can afford to import long term providing energy producers want to buy their produce. In contrast the UK is running a long term severe structural deficit. Edited January 24, 2011 by Kurt Barlow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 (edited) Every little helps esp as price is set on the margin. Apparently some shale plays are profitable even if gas prices go to zero because they make their money from the liquids they produce along with the gas. Also same tech is moving on to produce oils. Last time I checked Americas oil production was up 1m barrels a day than the previous year and consumption was down by 2m due to the recession and likely efficiency gains in autos. That’s 3m barrels a day of oil more available to the rest of the world. That isn’t small change That is mostly 'rebound' rather than new production capacity. This is mostly existing production capacity shut in during the 2009 oil price slump being restarted as prices rose in 2010. Edited January 24, 2011 by Kurt Barlow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 It's okay - we've got a couple of hundred years worth of coal. Are you being sarcastic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chirpy999 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 To Kurt Barlow hes not being sarcastic, any one who worked for the NCB / BRITISH COAL would know hes talking realistic . Theres plenty of coal in this country it may be economic one day to try and recover it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swissy_fit Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 You have got to believe me when I tell you that UCG is the big one. Hmm, I don't doubt you know more about this than most, however as you're the person that claimed that solar water-heaters don't make financial sense in the Australian climate (even though they do in the cooler UK or Swiss climates) I'll continue to read your posts with healthy scepticism. UCG does sound interesting though, albeit polluting underground water in a country like Oz would seem a fairly serious drawback. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 To Kurt Barlow hes not being sarcastic, any one who worked for the NCB / BRITISH COAL would know hes talking realistic . Theres plenty of coal in this country it may be economic one day to try and recover it. Without a doubt there are commercial reserves of coal in individual locations that are worth extracting. I am am sure there are seams of anthracite in south wales worthy of exploitation -( hell we buy anthracite to use in the GOSP's & refinery here - yes you can export coal to Saudi Arabia ). I am sure with coal seam methane extraction and underground gasification the bituminous coal seams in the east midlands North Sea can be exploited. I am sure if you slow down rate of extraction enough we could have 10,000 years of supply Will this make a blind bit of difference to the UK's strategic energy situation - no chance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I think you are being fairly narrow minded in your overall understanding that solar which may be the only renewable that might turn out to have some potential in the future be unchallenged. There are many people in oz lost money installing solar, surely you know that, they aint convinced solar offers any advantage either. What is the business case to install it ? We know that it doesn't reduce carbon emissions if that is your thing, so why bother ? With respect to UCG polluting ground water with benzenes anywhere in the world I was pointing out that this was being worked on, its not a drawback its a hurdle that will be jumped, thats all. I accept that the economics may be marginal due to low fuel prices in Australia but the claim they don't reduce carbon emissions (assuming your source of fuel is fossil) is absurd - unless of course you are making some absurd claim the embodied energy in the panels & equipment exceeds life time production???? 2x20 47mm vacuum tubes will deliver approximately 4500 kwh of heat per annum. The circulating pump using about 100 kwh annually. This would be a typical installation on a large residential house. Assuming the pump uses coal generated electricity then Co2 production is about 90kg Against gas the 4500kwh of heat offset about 5300kwh of gas or 1000kg co2 (net saving of 900kg) Against electricity with a typical mix similar to the UK the Co2 saving is approx 1900kg co2 (net saving of 1800kg) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 To Kurt Barlow hes not being sarcastic, any one who worked for the NCB / BRITISH COAL would know hes talking realistic . Theres plenty of coal in this country it may be economic one day to try and recover it. The UK's primary energy consumption is approximately 2500TWH. If you convert this to the typical calorific value of UK coal you would need to mine 360 million tonnes per annum How much do we currently mine - 7-8 million tonnes. Get the picture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swissy_fit Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I think you are being fairly narrow minded in your overall understanding that solar which may be the only renewable that might turn out to have some potential in the future be unchallenged. There are many people in oz lost money installing solar, surely you know that, they aint convinced solar offers any advantage either. What is the business case to install it ? We know that it doesn't reduce carbon emissions if that is your thing, so why bother ? With respect to UCG polluting ground water with benzenes anywhere in the world I was pointing out that this was being worked on, its not a drawback its a hurdle that will be jumped, thats all. There you go again, making bold statements which are either completely false or misleading. I wish you wouldn't do it, because otherwise I find a lot of your posts interesting or amusing. Solar thermal for domestic hot water is both a money and carbon saver(not that I'm convinced about carbon) in a climate like that in Oz unless you put up one of the ugly things that make your house look crap in which case you could possibly lose money on the value at resale time. Maybe people in Oz have lost money this way as you say, if it was with recent installaions then they must have made very stupid mistakes or been ripped off by the installer. I personally helped my brother install his in wet, cool, windy Wales at a cost of 800 GBP plus our labour, payback there is about 2 years, so you can understand my disbelief that it doesn't make sense in sunny Oz . Maybe there's something better, but your credibility on that subject is gone for me. Anyway I'd rather drop that irritant, the UCG thing is much more interesting for now. I can imagine the reaction in Oz if one of the precious aquifers is polluted by this new tech, they'd better go careful there. Looks like good tech apart from that, though I'd be interested to know how they're going to get around it, if they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newbonic Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The UK's primary energy consumption is approximately 2500TWH. If you convert this to the typical calorific value of UK coal you would need to mine 360 million tonnes per annum How much do we currently mine - 7-8 million tonnes. Get the picture It's more like 18MT pa (not that it changes your main point by much). Consumption is circa 60MT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt Barlow Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I thought chirpys point was that it was commercially viable to produce more coal in the UK than was currently mined. I didn't read it that he was saying that this extra coal production would meet all of the UK's energy input needs. His response was to my response when someone said - dont worry we have 200 years of coal (the classic chestnut that gets thrown about on all these threads) I have never suggested that there are not some commercially viable coal seams in the UK. The point i keep making is they will make bugger all difference to the UK's over all energy situation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.