15 replies to this topic

[still learning]

Over in the In the blog part of this altenergyshift site is a piece on a new report from BP on the world energy outlook for the year 2030.  http://www.altenergy...-for-2030-r1254

One of the things of particular interest in the written report is:
"Carbon emissions will continue to grow, increasing by 26% between 2011 and 2030 (1.2% p.a.).  We assume continued tightening in policies to address climate change, yet emissions remain well above the required path to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gasses at the level recommended by scientists (450 ppm)." (at page 79 of the following): http://www.bp.com/li...ooklet_2013.pdf

Worth looking at that report, I think.  That report could be wrong in any particular detail, or even all details, but worth looking at anyway.

[Phil]

Personally I think it's spot on.  China and India will control our climate, not us.  We cannot kill oil to foster renewable growth.  We are continuing to head in the right direction, lowering our footprint.  Competition and innovation are the keys to cheap energy which is the key to economic growth.

[Dustoffer]

So the annual rate of CO2 increase will go from 3% to 1.2%, according to an oil company I'm sure we can trust (yeah, right).  Does it matter when it must totally reverse within less than a decade to stop passing tipping points that will lead to extinction?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Instead of bp they should be LD-lies and distortions. I'm with Dustoffer on this one. How can we trust anything they say?

[Phil]

They are saying it will not reverse, that we will pass the tipping point.  The first world is doing a good job of reversing the trend but we are being totally negated by the third world.  Does anyone think those facts are lies and distortions?  I don't.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 12 February 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

They are saying it will not reverse, that we will pass the tipping point.  The first world is doing a good job of reversing the trend but we are being totally negated by the third world.  Does anyone think those facts are lies and distortions?  I don't.

My bad-didn't read it. bp is off my trust list.

[Phil]

You really should read it, there is a lot of info there.  It is not an environmental report but an energy report.  I didn't see anything out of line from what I've been hearing from other sources.  At the end they also compare their results with other's predictions and explain the differences.

I think it was rather well done myself.

[Phil]

Here's a link to a related article from the financial section:

http://www.nbcnews.c...gests-1C8344034

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Ok, finally read it.
Couple of things-
What's a billion toe? Brent? Basket? Tight oil? (They should have included notes about those words that many
of us don't know about in the legend somewhere. Industry speak.)

They're waving the renewables banner (good news) but put nukes at #1. With the issues and cost; I just don't see it.
Maybe I'm wrong.

Their wording of "unlock resources" is bothersome-more drilling, more fracking. But their acknowledgement
of energy efficiencies is a welcome statement.
They know, so we should be seeing turbines with the bp logo on them soonish?

[still learning]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 13 February 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

What's a billion toe? Brent? Basket? Tight oil? (

Jargon, acronyms, abbreviations, can't get away from 'em.

toe.... tonnes of oil equivalent  (tonne is metric ton)
Brent...a kind of crude oil, sort of, North Sea stuff   http://en.wikipedia....iki/Brent_Crude
Basket... a sort of congomeration or average
Tight oil....fracked oil  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tight_Oil

Can google back, get to a link to the full length report here:   http://www.bp.com/ex...ntentId=7082549
which refers to an earlier report that includes an appendix with some explanation   http://www.bp.com/as...report_2012.pdf

[Phil]

With 3+% unemployment in Texas and N Dakota you can count on more drilling and fracking.  

Note the industry is getting around the pipeline issue by rail.  Personally I'd rather have the pipeline, too many derailments.

[Dustoffer]

Phil, on 12 February 2013 - 04:08 PM, said:

They are saying it will not reverse, that we will pass the tipping point.  The first world is doing a good job of reversing the trend but we are being totally negated by the third world.  Does anyone think those facts are lies and distortions?  I don't.

Not exactly.  The "first world" is NOT doing a "good" job of reversing emissions, it is still too slow by far.  It is being over come by increases in so-called 3rd world countries, or second world countries or even some so-called first world countries.  If they are saying emissions will not reverse and tipping points reached in 2009 will be crossed, then they are probably right---if they keep selling oil, which they must plan on doing.  Like other oil and coal companies who put near term profit ahead of long term consequences.
Reversal is still theoretically possible, but with more effort and expense, and less chance every year, until some point around the early 2020s when it will be too late, and nature will take the biosphere into thermageddon with positive feedback loops humans can't stop.  There is a possibility that these points have already been crossed or will be with momentum already in the system.  I would rather not give up hope.  Katla could erupt in time to change things.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

still learning, on 13 February 2013 - 08:58 PM, said:

Jargon, acronyms, abbreviations, can't get away from 'em.

toe.... tonnes of oil equivalent  (tonne is metric ton)
Brent...a kind of crude oil, sort of, North Sea stuff   http://en.wikipedia....iki/Brent_Crude
Basket... a sort of congomeration or average
Tight oil....fracked oil  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tight_Oil

Can google back, get to a link to the full length report here:   http://www.bp.com/ex...ntentId=7082549
which refers to an earlier report that includes an appendix with some explanation   http://www.bp.com/as...report_2012.pdf

Thanks.

[Phil]

"Good job" is in the eye of the beholder I guess.  You can always do more, but I score wind and solar doubling year over year and the introduction of BEV's and soon FCV's as a good job.  You cannot destroy the economy to try to "fix" the environment because you will quickly run out of money to fix anything, let alone green energy.  Compared to the third world we are doing an outstanding job.

It is BP's job to drill for oil.  That is being responsible. Don't blame them if you own a car, they couldn't sell oil if we didn't buy it.

Oil companies are not a socialist experiment.  They answer to stock holders and should make a profit.  IRA's 401K's, Roths, union pensions, etc., and individual investors like me depend on that.  GM is what happens when you don't make a profit.  The oil spill was not greed, it was stupidity.  If they were truly greedy they wouldn't have endangered their profitiablity with such a bone headed move.

Again, it doesn't matter how much we spend on green energy, the third world will take us over the cliff whether we like it or not.  It is too late for us because we are not the ones that are out of control.  It is not too late for China, India, etc. but they will not change.  They blew off Bush, they blew off Obama, they'll likely blow off the next president.  That's why I say the only way to fix this is to make green energy cost competitive.  Only then will the third world change direction.  Money talks, BS walks.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 14 February 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

It is BP's job to drill for oil.  That is being responsible.

I understand that.
But-
with technology racing ahead at break neck speed in so many area's, after all these decades, they're still
using over-sized kotex and rubber bouys to contain the oil or soak it up?
Please.
They had no plan worth a plug nickel for the Gulf spill or for any other.
I do not believe there isn't a better way to clean up oil; they just don't want to invest in it.

And yes, I'm a hypocrite because I still drive a car. But that doesn't mean I can't demand a better
response for oil spills from a billion dollar company.

Back in the day when I was still eating meat, I expected it to be free of toxins that would kill or hospitalize
me.
What is wrong with wanting to be protected from "them"?

[Phil]

You are right about the spill, nobody including government had a plan.  Apparently the technology was decades old.  The good news is that challenge spurred a lot of innovation and they now have much better technology.

Everyone, including government is reactive, not proactive.  Even the military is always "fighting the last war".  NYC had a plan for events like Sandy written decades ago.  Did they follow it?   No, they wrote it then completely forgot about it.

As I said, the whole bunch were boneheads, if you study the Challenger disaster, those in charge were also boneheads.  Too bad you can't make bonehead-ism illegal!

All that being said.oil companies will continue to drill and frack as long as we have gas and diesel vehicles.  If you follow the economy, every time gas hits $4/gal it triggers a recession.   Our current anemic economy can be traced in part to $3.50/gal oil. When you are spending all that dough filling up the tank, you can't buy the discretionary goodies that spur the economy.  That's why trying to kill oil will kill the green movement.

In the end, we can do nothing about China and India, nor Brazil or even Canada.  The most we can do is buy solar panels and BEV's or FCV's.  That will make us feel better about ourselves, but that won't stop the third world from doing it's thing.  I think the report accurately reflected that.

P.S.  Just because the rig operators were idiots, doesn't mean the report writers were!   I actually think it was well done.  My trust goes way up when is see them quoting other surveys for comparison.  Actually I've been stating the same conclusions for years now, when you follow investments it's easy to see which way the wind is blowing.

Three examples, years ago it was reported in the financials that China was firing up two coal plants a week and would do so for three decades.  More recently they announced the opening of 500 new coal mines.  Very recently they suggested the solution to pollution in Beijing was not to close down plants but to move them farther out in the country.  Given those three data points alone, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict where that is going!   Add to that the fact that they blew off Bush and Obama and it's game over for tipping points.

Finally, I personally believe that since pollution is global, I'd rather drill and refine here than in China.  That might raise local pollution somewhat but dramatically lower world pollution.