Perhaps April Fools should stick to the first day of the month (or even the first morning) but it seems to be leaking out and embracing the rest of the month.
This morning I heard a garbled report that claimed that 100 million barrels of oil had been found near Gatwick. Think about that - just over a day's worth of oil and it makes the news. But later (on the same programme) that figure had inflated to 150 BILLION barrels. Now that is a tidier sum ... but it's about as realistic as when people claim the skies are being sprayed with 'chemtrails' or that we are about to have the worst winter in 300 years (thanks Nathan Rao - you are a demigod!)
So how did that figure inflate, and what exactly does it mean? Well we start with that original quote, 100 million barrels. It seems that's what an exploration company (which of course has no interest in bigging this up LOL!) claims there is in one square mile underground. Mmmm. Really? Well the chances are that after a proper pore over maps and calling in experts with their 3D tech they drilled that well in precisely the area that oil was most likely to occur. And it seems they've found some. But what exactly does that mean? It may well mean that there is, in the pores of the rock underground, approximately 100 million barrels of oil. But that doesn't mean for one minute that 100 million barrels of oil will come spurting out of the ground! Much of it may be unrecoverable, it may need HUGE amounts of energy put in to get it out (leaving a much lower NEW amount available). It may need refining facilities that don't yet exist - and may well not attract investment anyway. It needs to be transported to where it can be refined even using rail (which it probably will) it will still use more energy to move it, reducing the net amount even more. Even the best sums suggest there will only be around 5 million to 10 million NET barrels available (about one and a half to three hours' worth!)
Now that best figure has been inflated on the assumption that every part of this field will be equally productive. This is extremely unlikely. An oil field isn't some great undersea lake of oil, just waiting to gush out as soon as we puncture the ground! Oil exists in pores in the bedrock and there are often fractures or blockages that can make huge differences to the amount of recoverable oil. I would probably conservatively estimate that in reality this field will have perhaps 300 million to 500 million barrels of recoverable NET oil. Not to be sniffed at, but at 4 to 6 days of worldwide oil use really a tiddler. Good for cashflow, not very good for our economy as it may well slow down investment in sustainable energy and, as always - and especially if fracking is needed at least in part - terrible for the climate.
And the consensus is that we need to leave 2/3rds to 4/5ths of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change. Even Mark Carney, the Guvnor of the Bank of England, hardly a mung munching, sandal wearing, tree hugging Greenie, has said as much. Why are we bothering with this rubbish when it's clear there's no future for fossil fuels?
But probably the biggest clincher of all will be the Daily Mail and Express reading NIMBY locals, who will fight like mad (missing the irony that they are immersed in fossil fuel consumption heaven) to stop this horrid industry on their land. Perhaps, just for once, they will be on the right side?
No comments:
Post a Comment