New BP Technology Report Predicts O&G Supplies will Double by 2050
Peak Oil theorists like Art Berman won’t be happy with the latest report just published by oil giant BP. BP and other large energy companies publish annual energy outlook studies that we’ve highlighted in the past (see BP’s Annual Energy Report: Smallest Demand Increase since 1990s). For the first ever, BP has just published a report called the BP Technology Outlook (full copy below) that reveals much of their internal research on new technologies that will keep energy supplies plentiful and affordable, “enough to meet projected demand many times over” according to the study’s authors. While BP pays much lip service to so-called renewable sources of energy in this new study, here’s the part that will give Berman and other Peak Oil fanatics heartburn: “applying today’s best technologies to discover oil and gas resources could significantly increase ‘proved reserves’ from 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent to 4.8 trillion barrels – nearly double the 2.5 trillion barrels required to meet projected cumulative global demand through to 2050.” Did you catch that? New tech available today can and will double the amount of recoverable oil and gas. So much for Peak Oil and Gas! We’re awash in it and will remain so for generations…
Read More “New BP Technology Report Predicts O&G Supplies will Double by 2050”
It’s always fascinating for us to see which universities tout the research papers published by their professors and students, and which don’t. And which papers they decide to promote, and which they don’t. Publish a study that knocks fracking as somehow damaging the environment? That’s worth a full-blown press release and calls to the New York Times to see if you can get some juicy PR. Publish a paper that concludes, oh, the economic benefits of fracking actually extend out for hundreds of miles? Not a peep. In fact such a study was released by Dartmouth researchers called “Geographic Dispersion of Economic Shocks: Evidence from the Fracking Revolution” (full copy below). The report concludes: “Every million dollars of oil and gas extracted produces $66,000 in wage income, $61,000 in royalty payments, and 0.78 jobs within the county. Outside the immediate county but within the region, the economic impacts are over three times larger. Within 100 miles of the new production, one million dollars generates $243,000 in wages, $117,000 in royalties, and 2.49 jobs.” You might think such good news would be emblazoned on major newspapers across the country. Nope. Nothing. Nada. Zippo. That kind of objective research, that finds fracking benefits society, doesn’t fit the liberal bias of mainstream media. So they ignore it. If they don’t cover it, it essentially doesn’t exist. What a shame…
Hoping to get one more squeeze and a few more drops of juice out of news that’s now years old, the odious Earthworks and equally odious Food & Water Watch organized a protest rally in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday and trotted out the same old tired, lying anti-drillers from Dimock, PA, Pavillion, WY and Parker County, TX to “demand” that the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) simply dump the findings of their four-year study that concluded fracking doesn’t pollute water supplies (see 
The Centre for Policy Studies, a British think tank similar to our own Heritage Foundation (conservative), has just published a new study that says so-called fugitive methane coming from shale gas production is “seriously over-estimated.” You may recall the falling-down-laughing claim by Cornell professors Robert Howarth and Tony Ingraffea who claimed burning coal is better for the environment than burning natural gas, largely because of the fugitive methane issue (see 
Here’s a thought: Why doesn’t the Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) convert more of the gas it buys to take gas from the nearby Pennsylvania Marcellus Shale and dump buying gas from the Gulf Coast–because PA’s gas is closer and much cheaper, it will result in lower costs for PGW and lower bills for consumers. Now, where do we go to collect our $1.5 million consulting fee for that fine idea? The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission contracted with Michigan consulting firm Schumaker & Company, Inc. to perform a top to bottom audit of the PGW. While we don’t know how much the audit cost, we did find a 2008 proposal from Schumaker to New York State touting the same kind of audit, with a total price tag (back then) of $1.3 million. So we figured with a little inflation the audit just turned in by Schumaker must have run at least $1.5M. The chief, number one suggestion by Schumaker? PGW can save $6-$7 million a year by buying more of its gas (60% more) from the Marcellus Shale region, upping it from the current 33% they buy from the Marcellus now. Maybe we should get into the consulting business. Sure pays better than blogging!…
MDN has just published Volume 2 of the 
A study titled “Endocrine-Disrupting Activity of Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals and Adverse Health Outcomes After Prenatal Exposure in Male Mice” was published last week in the journal Endocrinology (abstract below). This one is fall-right-out-of-your-chair-laughing funny! The study attempts to make a link between fracking and low sperm counts in men by exposing mice (yes, mice were harmed in the making of this study!) with chemicals used in fracking. Thing is, they overdosed the mice–using far more chemicals at higher doses than are ever used in fracking fluids. That’s just one of the many problems with this new “study.” There are plenty of other problems too, including the raging conflicts of interest for the anti-driller who was the supervising “researcher” for the study…
Yesterday our favorite government agency, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), issued our favorite government report, the Drilling Productivity Report (DPR). The numbers are interesting. The first thing we notice is that shale oil production in America’s top seven shale plays is set to fall around 93,000 barrels per day over the next month–the biggest monthly drop in oil production since 2007. However, you have to put that in context. Since 2007 we’ve also seen the largest gains in production we’ve had in a generation or more. A big movement up can lead to a sizable movement back down. The fact is, we’re still producing more onshore oil than we ever have. Also of note is that natural gas production is set to drop 294 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d) over the next 30 days–which is the biggest drop in production of shale gas since the EIA started issuing the DPR, and the fifth month in a row shale gas production has decreased. While the Marcellus will once again see a big decrease in its gas production (expected to drop 215 MMcf/d, which is 73% of the total drop!), the Utica reversed. Last month’s report predicted Utica gas production would drop 4 MMcf/d. This month’s report predicts Utica gas production will increase by a whopping 57 MMcf/d…
Last week MDN reported on a new junk science study that claims to have discovered the closer you live to fracking in Pennsylvania, the more likely your baby will be born prematurely (see 
In January 2014, anti-drilling “researchers” jumped the gun at the annual meeting of the American Economic Association in Philadelphia by announcing “preliminary” results of research in which they claim they can show a connection between shale drilling and low birth weights in newborn babies in Pennsylvania (see 
The Center for Liquefied Natural Gas (CLNG) released a new report earlier this week that purportedly shows the global environmental benefits of exporting LNG. The Pace Global-authored report, titled “LNG and Coal Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions” (full copy below) found greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from coal-generated electrical power to be 92 percent to 194 percent higher than from power generated from U.S.-produced LNG in five key international markets. Yes, CLNG is targeting another fossil fuel, coal, to justify itself–which is not a healthy thing in our opinion. Everyone (except 
What is it about some anti-drillers (actually, anti-fossil fuelers) that makes them closed-minded and unreasonable? A Colorado research chemist and two technology students from Singapore set out to answer the question of whether or not shale oil should be produced. All three attended a 10-week intensive course focusing on Utah’s vast oil reserves (no, this story is not about the Marcellus/Utica per se, but it is illustrative nonetheless). Although the three had intended on submitting a research paper at the 35th Annual Oil Shale Symposium being held yesterday and today in Salt Lake City, the research paper ended up being a 116-page e-book they’re selling on Amazon, called “