This is a ‘copycat posting’. h/t to R. de Haan for pointing to the original at:
I encourage everyone to hit that link and read the text there. It isn’t long and does set the tone well.
The bulk of the content is two videos, and I’m putting youtube links to them here. They are a bit long, but well worth the time.
The first is 38 minutes. It has the MC, Dr. Philip Stott, doing a lead-in introduction, then two speakers.
Dr. Ian Plimer sets a great perspective with a discussion of CO2, global climate change, and sea level from a geologic perspective (which is similar to the presentation he gave in Chicago a while back where I had the pleasure of sitting next to him in one session. A great fellow.)
The second is Donna Laframboise (about 20 minutes in) who gives an overview of her book that looks at the IPCC from a rather unique perspective. She basically asks “Are they telling the truth when they claim to be the worlds best scientists and unbiased?” and finds they are not very well credentialed, do some shoddy things, and have astounding levels of bias in their associations. I’ve now got two books for my Christmas shopping list…
The Second video is about 41 minutes long with two speakers as well.
Dr. Ruth Lea gives a financial overview of the impact of renewables legislation and carbon goals legislation (largely decarbonizing) will have on energy costs (short form: 25% to 50% higher, some forms even more, and industry looking for the door. Industrial subsidy to just put the costs on the same taxpayers who can’t pay their own higher energy bills.)
At various times the captions call her Ruth Lee or Ruth Ridley, neither of which looks to be correct. I found a profile of her here:
Ruth Lea is currently Director of Global Vision and Non-Executive Director and Economic Adviser to Arbuthnot Banking Group. She is the author of many papers on economic matters and writes regularly for the press. Ruth was Director of the Centre for Policy Studies from 2004-2007. She was also Head of the Policy Unit at the Institute of Directors (IoD) between 1995 and 2003, before which she was the Economics Editor at ITN, Chief Economist at Mitsubishi Bank and Chief UK Economist at Lehman Brothers. She also spent 16 years in the Civil Service in the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Central Statistical Office. She has served on the Council of the Royal Economic Society, the National Consumer Council, the Nurses’ Pay Review Body, the ONS Statistics Advisory Committee, the ESRC Research Priorities Board and the Retail Prices Advisory Committee.
The photo looks like the same person to me, and I’ve got to think they have the name spelled right.
Again at about 20 minutes in we change speakers, to Dr. Matt Ridley, who gives a very refreshing look at the impact of the shale gas revolution on the world. I thought I knew about shale gas (and I do know a lot about it) but I had not thought of several of the points he made. The huge geographic distribution. The impact of the sheer massive size of it all. That the energy content of the shale gas from Pennsylvania alone is larger than the oil fields of Saudi Arabia… I think “this matters”…
IMHO he does go for the more optimistic end of things. The Marcellus shale has widely ranging estimates of content and he uses one nearer the higher end than the lower end. You can read a lot about that shale here:
On the other hand, he did not mention the Utica shale that lies just below the Marcellus and is not even being exploited yet as you need to drill through the Marcellus to get to it and at that point you might as well stop and pick up a massive load of gas and save the extra drilling costs…
The Utica Shale Below the Marcellus
Although the Marcellus Shale is the current unconventional shale drilling target in Pennsylvania. Another rock unit with enormous potential is a few thousand feet below the Marcellus. The Utica Shale is thicker than the Marcellus, more geographically extensive and has already shown that it can be of commercial value. A generalized cross-section showing the relative positions of the Marcellus Shale and the Utica Shale is shown in the right column.
When the yield of Marcellus Shale wells start to decline, new wells might be drilled down to the Utica to continue a stream of natural gas production. Drilling for the Utica will be more expensive because of the greater depth, however, the infrastructure of drill pads, right-of-ways, pipelines, permit data and other investments will reduce development costs for Utica Shale wells.
The companion article on the Barnett shale is also worth a read. It discusses several other potential plays as well:
So overall, I have to think the optimism is justified. For every “well, the field might not be that big” there is another “but there are so many we haven’t bothered to even look at yet”…
I think it worth mention that this was discussion was made possible by Sammy Wilson MP.
There is also a note at the bottom of the SeaBlogger page that says they picked up the video from another site, so I’m including that link here as well:
Yes, it’s a long video. It is WELL worth it. There is something in the flow and context that makes it ‘click’ for me. Seeing some folks give straight forward presentations that move from context, through considerations of the providers of the political movement, to the economic impacts, and ending with “This Way To The Energy Exit”; all in a meeting room sponsored by an MP. Well, it gives me some hope for Great Britain yet…
Frankly, just the ‘context setting’ from the presentation on the scope of shale gas changes your view of things. How can you find a few Saudi Arabias of fuel more or less evenly distributed over the planet, with cost to produce that have driven the price from $12 / unit down to $4 / unit in the USA (where the $12 was more or less an oil equivalent price) and that can be used to make electricity as well as power cars; and not get a paradigm shift?
The formula for ‘fracking fluid’ was described ( Almost entirely water and sand with a bit of detergent and some acid in it) and that gives the lie to the notion that it is some horrible chemical stew. That, too, gives a bit of a ‘mind flip’. As we watch the histrionics that will inevitably come about ‘fraking pollution’, it makes it clear they are driven by a political agenda, not a real environmental risk.
So please, brew a cup, sit back, and soak in a bit of fresh air…