Tuesday, June 28, 2005

North American Gas Peaks

Much of the talk these days is about Peak Oil.

And there should be a lot of talk about it.

The Nations are already fighting for the last half of it.

And even though there is a great deal of natural gas remaining

in Russia and in Iran,

There is less and less in North America.

Now, according to this story, even the majors admit it.

Exxon says N. America gas production has peaked
June 22, 2005

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - After weak prices in the 1990s due to oversupply, natural gas production in North America will probably continue to decline unless there is another big discovery, Exxon Mobil Corp.'s chief executive said on Tuesday.

"Gas production has peaked in North America," Chief Executive Lee Raymond told reporters at the Reuters Energy Summit.

Asked whether production would continue to decline even if two huge arctic gas pipeline projects were built, Raymond said, "I think that's a fair statement, unless there's some huge find that nobody has any idea where it would be."

"The facts are that gas production continues to decline, and will start to decline even more rapidly. By the time we get to that period (2010-2012), we'll need it badly."

While the number of U.S. rigs drilling for natural gas has climbed about 20 percent over the last year and prices are at record highs, producers have been struggling to raise output.

Experts said easy onshore and shallow water basins have been mostly tapped or are off limits for environmental reasons, and new technologies like horizontal drilling have been draining wells in two or three years, a much faster rate than the five years or more during the 1990s. "

In order to move natural gas from these countries to the West, large Liquified Natural Gas ports will need to be developed. Conveniently then, there is this story,

Senate Gives Feds Power to Approve LNG Terminal Sites
By Richard Simon and Miguel Bustillo,
Los Angeles Times
June 22, 2005

"WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted on Wednesday to give federal regulators authority over the location of liquefied natural gas terminals, despite objections from governors that states should be have an equal say in deciding where such projects are built.

Republican and Democratic officials from city halls to Capitol Hill have expressed concern that the terminals could become targets of terrorist attacks or pose other safety risks, and they have sought a role in siting them.

But President Bush has pushed to put Washington in charge of deciding where terminals are built, saying that a lengthy approval process could delay the building of facilities critical to providing the natural gas needed to fuel the nation's economy.

On Wednesday, a majority of the Senate agreed with him. The lawmakers voted 52-45 against adding a provision to the energy legislation that would have given governors the authority to veto or impose conditions on the terminals.

As a result, the Senate bill -- like energy legislation approved by the House -- would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the final word on where terminals are built, virtually ensuring that the provision will be included in any final bill that emerges from Congress.

The action came as the Senate headed toward approval of a sweeping overhaul of national energy policy, a Bush priority that has gained momentum as energy prices have surged.

In another action, the Senate rejected, 60-38, a proposal by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., and John McCain, R-Ariz., to establish a mandatory cap on industrial emissions of greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

The measure garnered five fewer votes than a similar version two years ago. "

That vote couples with this story which speaks to the devastation that Climate Change is now predicted to inflict on the continent of Africa.

Global Warming in Africa: The Hottest Issue of All
by Michael McCarthy and Colin Brown
The Independent
June 22, 2005

"All the rich nations' efforts to alleviate poverty in Africa will fail unless climate change can be checked, a coalition of British aid agencies and environment groups warns today.

To combat climate change, rich countries must cut their greenhouse gas emissions further, far beyond the targets laid down in the Kyoto Protocol, they say. But more than that, aid policy for Africa as a whole needs a complete rethink in climate change terms, because the continent is uniquely vulnerable to climatic shifts, with 70 per cent of its people being immediately dependent on rain-fed, small-scale agriculture.

It says the 14 African countries already subject to water stress or water scarcity will be joined by a further 11 nations in the next 25 years. Rainfall is predicted to decline in the Horn of Africa and some parts of the south by as much as 10 per cent by 2050, while the land may warm by as much as 1.6C, all of which is likely to affect the crop harvests for hundreds of millions of people.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu says in the foreword: "It is important to understand that Africa and climate change are intrinsically linked, as climate change will affect the welfare of Africans for years to come." Western countries have a moral obligation to act over global warming, he says, as these wealthy countries have emitted more than their fair share of greenhouse gases.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that Africa will suffer more than the rest of the world from global warning.

And as temperatures rise, sea levels will rise, the moisture in the soil will evaporate, and the rainfall will become more erratic - crashing to earth in downpours that wash away crops. As the lowlands dry up, farmers will be forced to move into higher areas that are now covered with forests. The ensuing deforestation will lead to soil erosion and the destruction of some of the region's most important river channels.

Tony Juniper, the executive director of Friends of the Earth, said: "Policies to end poverty in Africa are conceived as if the threat of climatic disruption did not exist." Nicola Saltman of the World Wide Fund for Nature added: "All the aid we pour into Africa will be inconsequential if we don't tackle climate change."

So let me see if I got this straight.

North America is running out of the Natural Gas

That is a major fuel for its electric utilities.

Therefore, the states will be forced to build dangerous LNG terminals

in their waters, so we can import more gas from Iran and Russia,

In the meantime, Climate Change is ignored,

in the face of the a flood of evidence and scientific study.

predicting and warning that hundreds of millions will perish

because of the developed worlds emissions into the planet's eco system.

And five less senators vote to do something about it?

Oil is trading at over 60 dollars a barrel.

And the POTUS is going to tell some more stories tonight

about the War to liberate the Middle East.

Of its Oil.

Oh Man,

this is so stupid,

it is making me dizzy.

We need an earthfamily.

Earthfamilyalpha Content

Earthfamily Principles



Blogger Charlie Loving said...

Another gloomy report. It seems that no one who might be able to do anything about these things is doing anything? There is lots and lots of wringing of hands but the Bushies are busy feathering their nests and ignoring the holes in the boat as it sinks. What will it take to make those dopes take note? Take note, if it isn't already too late?

3:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Together these stories show explicitly the stupidity and irresponsibility of this leadership - as though they and theirs will not be affected. .

How can the congress continue to ignore what is so clear?

8:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tonight, President Bush will give a speech in which, despite the chaos and car bombs and rising daily attacks by insurgents, he'll argue that everything is going well in Iraq and we should stay the course.

It's clear that the president is out of touch with reality—as Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said, "It's like they're just making it up as they go along.

The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."

8:24 AM  
Blogger oZ said...

I recall what I said in my losers post, the president and his party will lose their support if he is losing the war. He will have to shape the reality substantially while at the same time, they will try to negotiate an honorable peace... sound familiar?

10:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home