Bungling BBC Get It Wrong Again

Posted: May 23, 2014 by oldbrew in Energy

.
.
Britain running out of oil?

Funny – could have sworn the BBC was reporting today that oceans of oil are waiting to be tapped under southern England. The BBC eh – LOL.

The consultation comes as a new report by the British Geological Survey (BGS) estimates there are 4.4bn barrels of oil in shale rocks in southern England.

Perhaps they get a small benefit of the doubt as the oil report wasn’t available at the time of the article below, but surely the author knew something was in the, er… pipeline? (sorry)

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Dave Ward

image

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27435624

According to the BBC:

In just over five years Britain will have run out of oil, coal and gas, researchers have warned.

A report by the Global Sustainability Institute said shortages would increase dependency on Norway, Qatar and Russia.

There should be a “Europe-wide drive” towards wind, tidal, solar and other sources of renewable power, the institute’s Prof Victor Anderson said.

Professor Anderson said: “Coal, oil and gas resources in Europe are running down and we need alternatives.

“The UK urgently needs to be part of a Europe-wide drive to expand renewable energy sources such as wave, wind, tidal, and solar power.”

Apparently it takes real journalists to point out the real facts.

From the Register, Tim Worstall reports:

Comment Among the more surprising things that the BBC revealed to us last week was that the UK was going to run out of…

View original post 1,659 more words

Comments
  1. Kon Dealer says:

    Prof Victor Anderson clearly coudn’t find his own a*** with both hand, a mirror and a compass.

    British Geological Survey (BGS) estimates there are 4.4bn barrels of oil in shale rocks in southern England.

    [reply – their ‘most optimistic’ estimate is 8.6bn barrels]

  2. oldbrew says:

    Here’s the full BGS/DECC report.

    Click to access BGS_DECC_JurassicWealdShale_study_2014_MAIN_REPORT_LOW_RES.pdf

    The report notes:
    ‘Hybrid conventional/shale oil plays with low-porosity and impermeable rocks juxtaposed against mature shales may also represent a favourable exploration target in the Weald Basin; these have also proven successful in the North America (e.g. the Bakken oil system). The oil resources potentially present in these plays are not included in the in-place oil volumes in this report.’

    Anyway, as soon as their port infrastructure is ready (next year?), the US can ship as much coal and gas as the UK cares to buy. Not ‘home-grown’ but if there’s a need…

  3. Gail Combs says:

    Notice that thorium NUCLEAR, the only reasonable non-CO2 producing energy source is not even mentioned. (If I look out the window I can see a nuclear plant so I am no hypocrite.)

  4. Roger Andrews says:

    UK coal consumption in 2013 was 60.7 million tons, of which 11.3 million tons was domestic and 49.4 million tons imported (45% of it from Russia).

    In July 2011 the UK had 129 million tons of coal reserves, of which about 100 million tons is left. Another 2,215 million tons was classified as resources and at least some of this material could be upgraded to reserves with more work. But there has to be an economic incentive for someone to do this work, and right now there isn’t one.

    UK coal reserves & resources are listed on the Table towards the bottom of:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm110719/text/110719w0008.htm

  5. Roger Andrews, reserves and resources include an economical assessment. I do not know much about UK coal deposits but I believe there are considerable coal deposits which are either very deep, are in relatively thin seams (compared to US or Australia), or difficult accessible locations (eg under the sea) making them uneconomic and thus not classified as reserves or resources.
    In high cost labour areas (such as Australia) automation, remote control and robotics are being introduced, not only to overcome rising cost but to improve safety . Subsidence can be overcome by back fill.
    The oil companies want to maximise their profits by restricting competitions. The Greens have a political motive to increase poverty so they can gain power through a promise of handouts.
    There is plenty of coal around the world. Certainly enough until nuclear energy becomes cheap on a small scale in say 50 years time.

  6. p.g.sharrow says:

    Before these energy problems can be solved, the Ecoloons must be thoroughly discredited. That must be done through the internet because they and their friends control the mass media as well as the education system. As the people become cold and hungry their ire must directed at the Ecoloons and their partners. pg

  7. oldbrew says:

    It seems The Guardian also screwed up with its recent West Antarctica story, hyping up a non-existent problem.
    Not for the first or last time, we suspect.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/23/climate-alarmists-make-major-blunder-in-reporting-antarctica-ice-loss-results/

  8. Roger Andrews says:

    cementafriend:

    “There is plenty of coal around the world.”

    Others who have looked into this question in considerably more detail than me have concluded that there isn’t, such as Dave Rutledge:

    http://euanmearns.com/coal-and-the-ipcc/

    One of the article’s conclusions is that the IPCC’s RCP 8.5 “disaster” scenario burns more coal than actually exists:

    “In the IPCC’s business-as-usual scenario, Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5, coal accounts for half of future carbon-dioxide emissions through 2100, and two-thirds of the emissions through 2500. The IPCC’s coal burn is enormous, twice the world reserves by 2100, and seven times reserves by 2500. Coal so dominates that it is not an exaggeration to say that the IPCC and climate-change research programs depend on this massive coal burn for their existence.”

  9. Roger A, This web site http://www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-is-coal-found/ states there are 112 years of reserves at present production. These reserves are very conservative as there are resources in many countries which could be classified as reserves (especially in Africa and countries such as Pakistan with only a small change in security and government attitudes. Then one has to consider small changes in prices or technology to turn known resources into reserves. Australia for example has huge known deposits in central and western Queensland identified from oil and gas drilling. More recently coal seam gas is being extracted from uneconomical coal deposits (ie not reserves) in central Queensland.
    Also, in many countries the “Greens” have prohibited mining in national parks. In New South Wales there are coal deposits under the dividing range and to the east from Sydney to north of Newcastle which could be reserves larger than all the present NSW coal reserves. These deposits stretch out into the ocean. There once was a mine (Balmain Coal mine) in Sydney under the harbour. It was 900m down. It would of course be uneconomical today even if allowed to operate.
    It is well known that there are coal deposits above the Arctic circle. Norway not long ago closed a mine on Spitzbergen Island. (it became uneconomic when Norway found lots of natural gas in the North sea and could import coking coal from elsewhere). It is also well known that there is coal, oil and gas in Antarctica.

  10. Berényi Péter says:

    @Roger Andrews

    UK coal consumption in 2013 was 60.7 million tons, of which 11.3 million tons was domestic and 49.4 million tons imported (45% of it from Russia).

    In July 2011 the UK had 129 million tons of coal reserves, of which about 100 million tons is left. Another 2,215 million tons was classified as resources and at least some of this material could be upgraded to reserves with more work.

    My, my. In 1952 UK coal reserves used to be 45,742,824,233 tons. In the meantime about 7,000 million tons were mined. The amount left is still some twenty times more than you suggest.

    Therefore it is nothing more than a number game. It may well be true that currently there is no economic incentive to retrieve it, simply because it is available on the market at a lower price, but that’s very different from “running out” of the stuff.

    Also, if I were you I’d look for an alternative to Russian coal fast, otherwise it can turn out to be something like a British wartime economy during WWII based on German coal. Putin’s Russia is going berserk, not a bit better than Hitler’s Germany after Munich.

  11. Berényi Péter says:

    @oldbrew
    Your Tywysog Cymru is not a particularly bright guy, but this time he was accurate.

    Compared to this Cameron’s response is that of a pathetic coward.

    “I am not going to comment someone’s private conversation, least of all Prince Charles.”

    People definitely see it that way. The only acceptable response from the Prime Minister is “Why, he was right.”

  12. Roger Andrews says:

    Peter B and cementafriend:

    Just to clarify, the 129 million tons isn’t my number, it’s the UK government number, or at least that fraction of it that qualifies as “reserves”.

    I also don’t need to look for an alternative to Russian coal because as far as I know we don’t import any here in Mexico 😉

    And Dave Rutledge’s paper on coal reserves really is worth a read:

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166516210002144

  13. Berényi Péter says:

    What I can see is that coal reserve estimates &. production are politically driven.

    However, we do not have to be preoccupied with coal. One ton of ordinary granite contains as much energy in fissile elements, mainly Thorium &. Uranium as 50 tons of coal. World reserves are equivalent to several billion gigatons of coal.

    Therefore we have plenty of energy for the next several hundred million years. In the meantime plate tectonics brings more to the surface.

    Next question?

  14. Berényi Péter says:

    One more thing. With the advent of molecular nanotechnology &. programmable nanobots, fractal mineshafts with micron sized tunnels at the end will become feasible. With that we can harvest orders of magnitude more reduced carbon from the crust than any estimated coal or hydrocarbon reserve.

    However, most of it will be used as the default construction material for molecular machines.

    With a technological background like that finally solar power may make economic sense as well. We only need two kinds of micron sized module, one for capturing energy of sunlight and storing it in some energy rich, non toxic, non flammable substance (like sugar) and a fuel cell, that produces electricity on demand using said fuel.

    With self replicating molecular machinery cost of mass production is roughly proportional to the logarithm of quantity, while rate of economic growth can be as high as 40% daily. So no, it is not likely we’d run out of stuff any time soon.

    Provided of course we can build a political framework that allows technology to march ahead unimpeded, while maintaining a reasonable level of democratic control.

  15. oldbrew says:

    The Register joins the scorn-fest.

    ‘Among the more surprising things that the BBC revealed to us last week was that the UK was going to run out of coal within the next five years. Given that the island is pretty much built on a bed of coal, this is something of a puzzler.’
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/05/22/energy_economics_coal/

  16. Brian H says:

    The British Bunglecasting Corporation?