 | Saturday open thread | The Oil Drum | We Were Warned: The Spelling of the Word Has an Extra "u" That Many People Forget.. |  |
A concern about Canadian gas and the oil sands
Posted by Heading Out on March 18, 2006 - 8:48pm
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: canada, natural gas, oil sands, rig count [list all tags]
Natural gas is an important part of the way these resources are being developed, and until now that has not been much of an immediate concern. However, just as we have seen growing worries about the chances of gas being able to keep up with demand in the U.S., so now there is a warning from Ziff Energy via Dow Jones (and Schlumberger) of a growing problem with Western Canadian natural gas supply. As with many regions of the continent, current fields are running out and new ones are getting harder to find. Further the fields that are being found are smaller, so greater numbers of wells are being needed to produce them, and , as with the US, they are then running out faster.
Western Canada produces 16.6 billion cubic feet of gas a day, representing the lion's share of the nation's total output. About 75% of the region's gas is extracted from easy-to-produce conventional reserves, with the remainder coming from "unconventional" reserves - gas deposits located in formations such as coal beds - that require more expensive production techniques.To maintain current levels of production, 2.5 bcf/d of new production must be found to match current depletion. This will require both conventional and unconventional sources. Since unconventional is less productive the report suggests that either 17,000 conventional, or 25,000 unconventional wells will be needed. Contrast this with the 15,645 wells drilled in 2004 and with the 658 rigs drilling in Canada last week. The Canadian rig count is up some 329 rigs over this time last year.
As with the US production in Canada is relatively flat, despite the increased drilling activity, which is turning increasingly toward unconventional sources. There are 3,500 exploratory wells already planned for 2006, with the hope that this will increase unconventional production from 0.45 to 0.7 bcf/day by the end of the year. To put this in context, the oil sands operations are currently using around 1 bcf/day, and are seeking to treble this in the years ahead. Must be time to watch We Were Warned
The other main fuel for peaking plants is oil.
TVA has built the Raccoon Mountain Pumped Storage (a bit more than 1,700 MW) within sight of 6 nukes (i saw them from the top). The nukes run water up at night, down in the day.
Very little oil is used for electricity in the "Lower 48".
Nuke can replace NG, at least in part.
It's an economic thing, at least according to my utility company. The fuels for peaking plants are so expensive now that there's no way they're going to build baseload plants that use them.
Nope. I've not seen a single fission nuke proponent explain why such energy generation needs government libality protection for accidents if 'cost comparison' is such an important mechinism.
My point was that a nuke at idle costs about the same amount to operate as a nuke producing at capacity. It is all about spreading fixed costs over units of production. No production -- infinitely high unit costs -- production at capacity essentially the same total costs spread out over design capacity of the plant.
As to why liability relief is needed, as a libertarian, my basic belief is that that Government shouldn't be bestowing relief on one class of producers. However, the counter to that is the fact that there is simply no way to commercially insure the risk involved with a serious accident at a nuke on the open market. No responsible party will write these policies as the theory of insurance requires some predictability of occurence [or at least a basis for handicapping the odds] and the more critically the financial capability on the part of the issuer to pay off. Both are lacking in the case of nukes.
Without effective risk management to place limits on liability, a company operating nukes will be seen as [sorry -- pun intended] radioactive.
In in commercial sense, a major nuke accident represents the unthinkable. In a broader sense, the Russians had the unthinkable occur and for the most part life goes on.
It all comes down to the responsibility of the board of directors to manage risk and avoid whenever possible optional, but potentially fatal risks to the corporation. The board's duty is to the shareholders and not to the greater good -- whatever that might be.
IMO, [and from what I surmise to be Alan's perspective] the debate really is over whether we want to burn more coal; compel behavior changes --- probably at the point of a gun; simply let the SHTF as the grid collapses from overloads; go to progressively longer rolling black outs -- same end result as the other grid collapse scenario although initially the process of break down of society might be less dramatic; or build nukes.
BTW, I am positive on solar [and maybe wind] coupled with better storage technologies over the long haul, but nukes appear to be the best approach to getting through what I expect will be a nasty transition.
I don't know whether you consider the above to be an adequate explanation, but that is most of the story in few paragraphs. An even more abbreviated version might be: Generate or degenerate.
Exactly.
The majority of people who SUPPORT fission nuclear power with market arguments ignore how nuclear power is not a possibility without the government handout of support.
Not to mentiopn the limited nature of fissionable material.
The abundance of fissionable material is probably greater than the lowball estimates. OTOH, contrary to the cornucopians most granites are probably not going to ground up for the contained U235. However, though a admittedly a diffuse source, even some granite is much hotter than average and might be considered ore if it ever comes down to that.
If we are going to continue using fission reactors over the medium term [50 plus years] answer to the availability of fissionable material is the fast breeder reactor. The technology can apparently be made to work.
The issue has been the reality that plutonium is easier to enrich to weapons grade that U235. Given that in addition to the long standing nuclear powers, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Isreal, [and maybe South Africa, Brasil and some others] have the bomb, that genie is already out of the bottle.
The abundance of fissionable material is probably greater than the lowball estimates. OTOH
STILL limited. Like oil was limited in 1890 amd 'we' are now discussing this limited nature today, the use of fission is limited.
have the bomb, that genie is already out of the bottle.
But that does not address the need for long-term protection of nuclear waste. 'The Bomb' is preventable just by not using
'em, Nuclear waste is preventable only by not making it. After it is made, you have a many year protection need - longer than any human society has existed.
Everything is limited. The wind & sun energy is limited to - isn't the sun sending limited energy to the Earth? Even the whole Universe contains a limited amount of energy.
The question is can a given resource be sufficient for such an amount of time to justify the investments we make to develop it. With hundreds of years of conventional uranium reserves and many thousands of years if we start using breeders I can assure you that the answer for nuclear is YES.
Link please?
The European Nuclear Society states that with the current reserves "all 439 world-wide operated nuclear power plants can be supplied for several decades".
But if you are talking about ramping up the use of nuclear power (as half the world is saying), then that "several decades" will be shortened quite drastically.
From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
To say that "we have several decades of uranium left" is like saying "we have only 100 days of food left in the world" (which can make you want to shoot yourself if you don't give it a second thought).
We are nowhere near to reaching the geological limits because what is being included in the official reserves now is just the tip of the tip of the iceberg. This link for example gives more than 100 years of U under 130$:
http://www.inb.gov.br/english/reservasMundiais.asp
But this is again relative, because should U go to 100$ and above (from the current ~ $35), the breeders reactors will become competitive, meaning that you have to multiply these figures by a factor of 100. In addition many new discoveries will be found all around the world if we simply start looking for them. Even now enormous amounts of nuclear fuel are simply stored away as waste, because the processed nuclear fuel contains plutonium and unburnt uranium that can be used. But the prices are so low that it is not worthed the investment and overcoming the NIMBYSsm.
Regarding economics - even at $130, the price of fuel will be below 30% of the production costs, assuming (wrongfully of course) that the sales prices in 100 years will remain at current levels.
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html
Very informative, reminding you once again to question your assumptions before making projections for the future (especially far in the future).
I find the idea excellent, but I don't think we have that level of international cooperation that will make it possible in the forseeble future.
Another good thing with it is that it adds a new intrest in making sure that your neighbour runs their reactor in a sensible way. It makes people running nuclear reactors keep an eye on how other operators run their reactors.
However I have to be a little bit cautios as to how exactly we will implement it, so that the results will not be lifted on minus first extent. For example I can see the major players inventing such standards for joining the co-insurance league which will make only their designs and equipment salable, thus throwing out any competition and innovation in designs.
Therefore I think for it to work it must iclude all operators, regardless of place, design etc, much the same way the the whole younger generation is paying for the retirment and medical costs of the elderly. Of course there must be a provision some significant percentage (for example 20%) of the hypothetical costs to be carried by the individual countries/operators which will be enough motivation for them to strive for safe designs.
I think Alan got this one right. The cost of fuel for a nuke is a very minor cost of production and the figurative burn is largely fixed in any event. Accordingly, there is an almost perfect inverse relationship between total output and cost per MW. Hence if at all possible, you want to run a nuke at or near designed capacity.
No, the reason you run a nuke at all times and never shut it off is that shutting a nuke off is very dangerous. Thermal shocks to a system like a nuke make leaks. You don't even want to shut off a coal burning power plant if you can avoid it. They tried doing that and it just doesn't work. Leaks always seem to occur at the most inconvenient times. You might as well just burn straight through and throw away the power.
Well, that was back when coal was cheaper.
There are quite a few inches of procedures to be followed to stop & restart a nuke, but it is NOT unsafe.
Reactionary is correct, economics (CHEAP fuel, expensive capital) make 100% load the preferred mode. Occasionally, when the power source with the cheapest fuel (hydro) has a surplus of fuel and no place to store the excess water, they will slow down WHOOPS 2 (not enough distribution lines to take all available hydro + nuke out of area). The French also throttle back a handful of their nukes as night (AFAIK).
To restart a steam NG plant from cols takes the equilavent of 30 minutes fuel at 100% load just to get it hot. Coal takes even more.
Given a choice between burning coal at 3 AM and idling an NG plant, or burning NG at night and turnign of a coal plant, idle the one with the more expensive fuel.
Base load plants have thicker turbine blades at the roots (last longer at constant load), whilst peakers have thinner blades (heat & cool easier, last longer when cycled). When the City of Astin was looking at swicthing one of their NG steam plants from base load (load with cycle between ~33% & 100%) to peaker, they planned to remachine the turbine blades at considerable expense.
Karahnjukar hydro turbines were designed for a steady load. Very different turbines would have likely been built if it were a peaking hydro plant.
So it is not the fuel, but a number of engineering decisions that are made in design. What works best for cycling use (on/part load/off) does not work best for steady 100% load use. Cycling a base load plant, regardless of fuel, is just NOT a good idea. And running a peaker at full load for 500 days straight is also not a great idea.
Other than thw whole issues of creating radioactive by-products, paying for the guarding the wastes, and running out of the fissonable material.
Buiding fission plants adds to the waste pile and attempts to keep the party going as the party has been going.
About a good a plan as running pumping stations to keep a city that should be underwater not underwater.
Given the short distances of the lift, the power requirments are minimal. (Unlike Phoenix, where 20% of electricity is used to lift water up from the Colorado)
OTOH, New Orleans was tied with NYC for fewest miles driven by residents of any major US city. Our carbon footprint is well down towards the tail in the US distribution and our oil consumption is the tip of the tail.
Superb, energy efficient rail and water transportation connections as well.
New Orleans should be preserved as a living model of what a VERY livable urban city can look like with minimal oil use (as well as it's value culturally, only NYC and SF are also worth preserving for their cultural value, all other US cities are not).
Alan - stranded in Phoenix ATM tending for my father after knee operation.
I still worry about you living behind levees that are prone to failure. By their nature, levees fail--true in California's San Joaquin delta, true everywhere I know of.
By way of contrast, the Dutch have dikes: Concrete sitting on top of rock. Also, the Dutch have a five-hundred year tradition of extreme respect for the sea and do not have the laid-back, easy-going, and sometimes corrupt attitudes and practices that a certain lovely U.S. City has been notorious for during about the past four hundred years.
Could New Orleans just be moved a few hundred miles upriver? Or what would it cost to bring in enough landfill to rebuild the city twenty feet above sea level?
BTW, I am opposed to people putting houses and office buildings on all flood plains, not just yours.
Most of the U.S. never floods. Put floodplains to good use growing food or cane for ethanol--but I fail to see the logic of putting people where every now and then they and their stuff will be under water.
One could build (and it would happen) a New Phoenix upstream ;-(, but NOT New Orleans. One has to live here to truly appreciate the unmatched genius of the 1800s Urban Planners/Developers here, the quality of the cypress framed houses (heart pine was used later when cypress ran short), the beauty and ambience of the culture that flows from it all.
The New Urbanist Movement draws VERY strongly from the living example of New Orleans, BUT they still don't quite "Get It". They need to look longer and harder at what makes New Orleans tick (I have told them some of the points that they miss in postKatrina planning meetings but they believe their textbooks more than their lying eyes) so that it can be replicated elsewhere. Losing New Orleans will also mean a loss for the future of every urban area in the US.
In addition, the population of New Orleans is uniquely motivated to improve the city that we truly love. This unique civic resource should NOT be wasted ! What works here, with the wisdom of the people*, can guide others by example postPeak Oil.
I cannot wait to leave Phoenix and go back to my disaster zone, with all the suffering that entails. But a broken New Orleans is a FAR more livable and passionate city than Phoenix/Scottsdale (I am typing close to 56th & Cactus).
BTW, about $15 billion to $18 billion would rebuild the levees AND, more importantly, restore the wetlands destroyed by the US Army & the oil industry. A proper wetlands will be a "speed bump" for any hurricane with MANY other values and we value restored wetlands more than Cat 5 levees (isn't that odd, a widespread acceptance of a long term natural solution rather than a "Bigger & Higher" fix ?)
One rebuilds the wetlands by diverting some of the Mississippi from it's channel and spreading alluvial deposits back over natural areas.
* I would take the Urban Planning choices of a waiter, barber, school teacher and taxicab driver who live & work here over that of the out-of-town New Urbanists who parachuted in. We know better because we live and interact with our city in ways that few other cities do.
The Old River structure was at risk over a decade ago, but now appears to be properly built & maintained (the addition of the hydroelectric plant helped, the scouring power of the water going west is now much less since that energy is now in wires :-)
I will accept a thousand year delay before nature takes it's course.
But I wouldn't bet on it.
I don't think the Atchafalaya is going to stay a hydroelectric dam forever. It's going to let the Mississippi go back to Texas sooner or later. Just like the Nile is going back to the Red Sea sooner or later, instead of the Mediterranean.
Is that true that the Dutch dikes are built on rock? I thought the Dutch were built on an outwash plain from the Alps, sediments all the way down. I don't know, so did you read that in a geology book someplace?
By way of contrast, the earthen levies of New Orleans, as I understand it, are built on gooey clay, and almost inevitably they will be undermined in extreme flooding situations.
In Calif. levees, rodents burrow deep into levees to undermine them, and it would not surprise me if this also happens on the lower Mississippi.
To me, it is just incomprehensible why people build or live where they are almost certain to be flooded out. In other words, the risks New Orleans faces are uninsurable. The risks the Dutch face are (I believe) insurable and fully insured at reasonable rates.
To have done so would have cost ~1/4 the fed funds (not to mention private losses) of what has been spent postKatrina. About what was spent on saving the Everglades and Chesepeake Bay.
Concrete coat the levees (raise them ~2 m) and use decent quality clay fill in the center. Rebuild the wetlands (something locals had been trying to get fed funding for decades to do to repair earlier fed damage) by diverting water from the Mississippi onto old floodplains.
Build a block to the entrance of Lake Pontchartrain (combined with either a railroad bridge or I-10). Close MR GO (an atrocity from the US Army that locals have opposed for decades). And consider an inflatable dam accross Mississippi as a final topping.
Not particularly difficult engineering, but beyond the scope of "military intelligence".
That is your argument? America has FAR more land as a precentage that won't be underwater if the pumps are turned off and the dikes are not built.
Using the Dutch as an exammple ignores the lack of overall land aviable to the Dutch. The land situation for the Dutch != the US Land situation.
Given the short distances of the lift, the power requirments are minimal.
Right, having motors that you need to nitify the electric company when they are turned on sure sounds 'minimal'.
New Orleans should be preserved as a living model
Then it doesn't need a single dime of federal money. Should that not be the way if one is going to agure econmomics? But your position here is 'take actions to preserve' - normally one takes actions to 'preserve' only things that are not otherwise able to be saved under market forces.
Our carbon footprint is well down towards the tail in the US distribution and our oil consumption is the tip of the tail.
Love to see this data and HOW this claim is generated. I bet when normallized for income the 'tail' argument goes away due to the collection of poor. But right now it is just a claim.
Just give us the Offshore Oil & Gas Royalties. Alaska gets so much that they have almost zero taxes and give chacks back most years. Half of Wyomings budget, but we get zero today.
Our disaster is the direct result of incompetence and malfeasance by the US Army. A man made disaster, not a natural one. Just compensation for our losses would give us FAR more than we need.
> Love to see this data
I was surprised to see how low it was from postKatrina planning documents that were handed out.
You seem to know the price of everything and the value of nothing. I will leave it at that.
So ya got no actual data to back up your claim. That's fine.
I'm just happy to be able to call ya out on your claim.
I think that my credability here is quite good and I resent your attitude.
Per 2000 census, from memory, 28% of New Orleans households did not have a car. And not all were the poor.
If one lived there you would understald. I had five places to buy food from within a 6 block radius of my home preKatrina, as well as my tailor, bank, insurance agent and coudl take the streetcar to the CBD, French Qtr. or Uptown.
Per August board meeting of RTA, 24% of baordings were on streetcars and, per financial head Mr. Majors, a fare increase would have been required if the Canal Streetcar Line had not opened due to high diesel prices.