SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: abuelita who wrote (3239)11/23/2005 6:00:38 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Respond to of 24213
 
Is UK oil output running on empty?
By Adam Porter
In Perpignan, France


North Sea oil output is declining rapidly
How much will you pay for fuel?

This is a question people often ask themselves. How much will it cost to fill my car? How much will it cost to heat my home?

But are there more hidden costs to the British citizen other than just the cash they hand over to oil companies, gas providers and electricity generators?

British North Sea oil output has declined steadily since 1999.

This, accentuated by the sharp rise in global crude prices, is now taking a big chunk out of Gordon Brown's budget. That missing chunk has to be met by the UK taxpayer.

Gordon Brown recently called on the eleven nations of OPEC to increase their supply capacity.

However, as OPEC was quick to point out the biggest fall in production by any major producer since 1999 is not an OPEC nation. It is the UK.

Steady decline

"Maybe politicians have just come to realise the situation," says Mike Wittner, global head of energy market research at Calyon Bank.

"But markets are not really surprised. UK oil production has been declining for several years."

These declines do seem to be irreversible now

Deborah White, Societe Generale

The rate of decline has ranged from 6% to 17%, year-on-year.

Experts say this is not surprising.

"It is because the way offshore fields are developed, [which is] all in one go and produced as fast as possible, for economic reasons," says Dr Michael Smith, head of research analysts EnergyFiles.

"When they start to decline, they do so fairly rapidly. All these big fields came on stream roughly at the same time so they have all tended to reach their maximum at the same time, then combining to decline."

No turning back

The UK produced an average of 2.72 million barrels a day (mbpd) in 1999, hitting a high of 3.1 mbpd in August.

But by June 2005 this had fallen to 1.7 mbpd, a drop of 34%.

"These declines do seem to be irreversible now," says Deborah White, senior energy analyst at Societe Generale.

"In my experience, even when [oil] prices are extremely high and spending [on extraction] is extremely high, it has been virtually impossible to reduce decline rates below 3%."


Experts say higher investment can stem the rate of decline

What is also interesting about the UK's declining oil output is that it has been rather consistent.

In 2000, production was down 8.1% from its 1999 high, then falling 6.8% in 2001.

The decline slowed to 0.5% in 2002, prompting calls that an output 'rebound' was on the cards.

But 2003 saw an 8.8% decline, rising to 10% in 2004.

This year has seen a similarly startling decline. In February, year-on-year levels were down 13%, rising to 17% in March.

Discovery shortage

"The UK will eventually have to import," Mike Wittner argues.

"Declines will continue. There is only one new field of any size - the Buzzard field - set to come online. Otherwise it's just bits and pieces."

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has forecast a slight pick-up in UK output next year to 1.85 mbpd but it too sees a continuing decline to 1.66 mbpd in 2007.


The Treasury does benefit from higher oil prices

Even the UK Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA) says that declines are inevitable. Even with increased spending of about £4.3bn a year, it believes the decline will still be about 7%.

A new round of oil field licences handed out this year may also fail to stem the fall in crude production.

At least that is what the Department of Trade and Industry says.

"Eight new fields started production during the past year," it reported.

"But production from these fields was insufficient to make up the general decline in production from older established fields."

"There might be some reduction in decline [rates]," says Dr Smith.

"But there is unlikely to be any growth because the depletion in big old fields is greater than likely discoveries in the new marginal small fields found under new licences."

Economic impact

Declining oil output has a direct economic impact upon British citizens through lower tax revenues.

Average oil production fell by 940,000 barrels between 1999 and 2005.

Assuming an average oil price of $60 a barrel and using some back of the envelope calculations, that would work out at £33.82 per barrel.

In this scenario, the UK would lose an average of £31.7m a day, equivalent to £11.6bn a year.

For transport, where most of our oil is used, there isn't a viable alternative right now

Dr Michael Smith, EnergyFiles

This would translate into an annual loss per person of £193.38.

Gordon Brown is, of course, also getting vastly increased tax revenues from the major oil companies as prices have spiralled.

In 1999, oil hovered around $20 per barrel and has since trebled in price.

But the price increases can also be a double-edged sword.

Gas solution?

As Britain becomes a net importer of oil, as it first did this summer, not only does falling output cost money. So does the very expensive energy - oil, gas and liquefied gas - bought to replace it.

In this respect, government figures do not provide much hope for North Sea gas output either.


Experts say gas is not the solution to the UK's energy problems

Output fell 5.5% in the second quarter of 2005, according to DTI figures, while imports increased by 53.5%.

"Gas has replaced nearly all our power generation," says Dr Smith.

"But gas has its own problems. UK gas imports are increasing dramatically but otherwise there is no [other] significant energy source.

For transport, where most of our oil is used, there isn't a viable alternative right now nor will there be one in the next five to ten years."

The UK is facing a sea-change in attitudes towards oil.

Whilst high prices may ease the pain right now by providing extra tax for the chancellor, our own supplies are dwindling.

"I am forecasting that the UK will be a net importer of oil around 2007," says Dr Smith. "By 2015 the UK will need to import between 600-700,000 bpd."

How much those imports will cost you and your family is an open-ended question.

But unlike North Sea oil, it is one that will not simply fade away.


news.bbc.co.uk



To: abuelita who wrote (3239)11/23/2005 6:07:21 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 24213
 
Corporate Canada's Change of Heart on Global Warming

Now it's the PM's turn.
By Mitch Anderson
Published: November 22, 2005

TheTyee.ca
Better late than never. As if they've seen the light on the road to Damascus, Canada's business leaders last week demanded tough action from the federal government on dealing with climate change.

"The world must act urgently to stabilize the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and minimize the global impacts of climate change", proclaimed a letter to Prime Minister Martin from such Canadian corporate giants as Alcan, Bombardier, Falconbridge and Power Corp.

This conspicuous corporate flip-flop in advance of the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal is a welcome change from previous foot dragging from the business community.

Just three years ago, the "Canadian Council for Responsible Environmental Solutions", including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and 40 other business groups began an on-line petition to the prime minister opposing the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

Wake up, government

The corporate epiphany last week may simply be a realpolitik admission that action on climate change is inevitable and it is more seemly to catch up to the bandwagon before it gets too far down the road.

However, it might also be a genuine recognition that climate change menaces the entire world, including the business community, their families and their children.

Whatever the reason, this latest development now only leaves one significant interest group that needs to demonstrate their commitment to dealing with climate change: the federal government.

Canada has the ignoble distinction on ranking dead last in the G8 in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That shoddy record may be difficult for Paul Martin to gloss over as he hosts the United Nations in Montreal, where our filthy linen will be on display for the entire world to see.

Canada has pledged to reduce greenhouse emissions by 6 percent below 1990-levels by 2012. They have, instead, risen by 24 percent. Ottawa spent over $3 billion of taxpayer's dollars on various voluntary compliance programs to achieve this negative result.

One reason for our lack of progress, is that the Canadian government is both sucking and blowing on fossil fuel consumption.

While publicly proclaiming the urgent need to reduce emissions, Ottawa shovels $1.4 billion of your tax dollars annually to the oil and gas industry. This is much more than current government support for sustainable energy technologies that will, no doubt, become the cornerstone of our future economy.

It is impossible for the Canadian economy to move in a progressive direction when Ottawa intervenes in the marketplace with such antiquated, expensive and perverse subsidies.

Meanwhile, other governments around the world are seeing Kyoto as an opportunity to become global leaders in emerging energy technologies. The UK, for instance, has already managed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent below 1990-levels, while their economy grew by 36 percent.

Blowing it?

Germany has become a world leader in wind-power generation - a rapidly growing sector now worth over $28 billion worldwide. Like other renewable energy sources, it produces no pollutants to cause smog and diseases, such as childhood asthma. In Europe alone, the wind power industry employs more than 80,000 people.

Here in BC, the World Energy Council has estimated that our province has the greatest potential for wind power in the world, yet we lack one single commercial wind turbine. Country-wide, Canada currently produces less than 0.1 percent of its electricity from wind power compared with 20 percent in Denmark.

The sad irony is that climate change actually presents a fine opportunity to improve our economy and our quality of life. A recent study by the David Suzuki Foundation showed that investing in clean, renewable energy could actually contribute $9 billion to Ontario's economy by 2010, while creating 25,000 new jobs.

With this new-found support from the business community, the Canadian government should now join the global movement towards sustainability. Improved emission standards for vehicles, clear and enforceable caps for industry, progressive tax reforms that encourage innovation and investment in emerging energy technologies are just some of the policy tools that are already working elsewhere in the world.

Why buy from Europe?

Canada risks being left behind in this shifting world economy. A recent example is the wind turbine prominently installed on Toronto's waterfront. There are currently no Canadian companies producing such technology and the city, instead, had to cut a cheque for $1.6 million to a Danish company that is, no doubt, doing a brisk business around the world.

What is driving this global transformation is a remarkable consensus that climate change is real, it is happening now and it is very dangerous. It is not just another political hot potato to be "managed"; it is a global emergency that will define this century.

The Canadian business community should be applauded for its recent change of heart regarding climate change. Now that the captains of industry have seen the light on the road to Damascus, there is a serious challenge for Mr. Martin. He no longer has any excuse for inaction.

Mitchell Anderson is a freelance writer living in Vancouver.
thetyee.ca