The news thread

[phart]

3 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

We export most of our fish but we also import fish. Cheese, even whisky (whiskey), I could go on, it's a big list. It's just the way global markets work. 

The fish we catch here also gets shipped to China for processing and then shipped back here. The whole global supply chain is mental.

Read a good book about it by Christopher Mims he also did this podcast

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2021/11/01/171-christopher-mims-on-our-interconnected-industrial-ecology/

[Orraloon]

20 minutes ago, phart said:

The fish we catch here also gets shipped to China for processing and then shipped back here. The whole global supply chain is mental.

Read a good book about it by Christopher Mims he also did this podcast

https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2021/11/01/171-christopher-mims-on-our-interconnected-industrial-ecology/

It is absolutely crazy. No doubt about it. 

[TDYER63]

21 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

We export most of our fish but we also import fish. Cheese, even whisky (whiskey), I could go on, it's a big list. It's just the way global markets work. 

Yeah but fish, cheese and whiskey are not really essential in the same way oil is ( well arguably whiskey is to some people 🙂 I know how global markets work but surely if there is a shortfall then we export less to ensure we have enough. I realise contracts need to be fulfilled but trade deals change. I thought in our new Global Britain we were supposed to have more control over trade……

I am struggling to see the argument for developing this site unless someone tells me there is no way other forms of energy will be available in the timeline it will take to produce the oil. And more oil is not a guarantee that prices will fall, there are numerous ways the oil sector can manipulate the cost of oil.

If the Stop Cambo link is to believed it wont even bring a huge jobs influx and the companies are getting massive tax breaks. 

I am happy to be corrected here , I am just trying to see both sides. 

[phart]

Antarctica looking bad as well with regards to dropping in a lot of glaciers into the sea from land.

I was hoping to be able to save up and go there but it's so expensive and shit not looking good in medium term.

[hampden_loon2878]

4 hours ago, TDYER63 said:

Why are we importing it if we are exporting 80% of what is produced?

And what are the answers to my timeline questions and where this extra oil will go ? 

The majority of oil goes to the Ruk although it is an international market that makes the price fluctuation so its more a case that the government would net to tax that oiland gas to then offset our energy prices, thats why a National energy company is a brilliant idea,

 

personally i think we will be extracting oil and gas from the north sea for the next century or so.  There will be around half a dozen platforms left in the north sea in say 40 years that will give us that bit of security. The only way we will manage to get net zero is if the hydrogen technologies kick on a lot and we set up carbon capture. 

[TDYER63]

18 hours ago, hampden_loon2878 said:

The majority of oil goes to the Ruk although it is an international market that makes the price fluctuation so its more a case that the government would net to tax that oiland gas to then offset our energy prices, thats why a National energy company is a brilliant idea,

 

personally i think we will be extracting oil and gas from the north sea for the next century or so.  There will be around half a dozen platforms left in the north sea in say 40 years that will give us that bit of security. The only way we will manage to get net zero is if the hydrogen technologies kick on a lot and we set up carbon capture. 

Sorry if I am being completely thick here but how can 80 % of what we produce be exported if the majority goes to RUK ? 
Will opening this cambo field delay improvements in greener energy much ??

Regarding carbon capture, how safe is this? I am not exactly comfortable with just burrowing co2 into the ground , especially if we start pumping a lot more down there than we currently do ? Surely there must be ways for it  to escape, especially if there is a build up. What  large scale studies have been done ? 
 

I know nothing at all about hydrogen technologies. A quick read suggests a lot of positives , but as usual the cost is a major factor, along with storage. Green hydrogen typically 10 times more expensive than grey hydrogen. I cant see that increasing greatly overnight , though Japan seem to be ahead of the  pack on it. 

I know a lot of folk on here will know a bit about all this but I am sure there are folk like me that need educated. 
 

 

[hampden_loon2878]

22 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Sorry if I am being completely thick here but how can 80 % of what we produce be exported if the majority goes to RUK ? 
Will opening this cambo field delay improvements in greener energy much ??

Regarding carbon capture, how safe is this? I am not exactly comfortable with just burrowing co2 into the ground , especially if we start pumping a lot more down there than we currently do ? Surely there must be ways for it  to escape, especially if there is a build up. What  large scale studies have been done ? 
 

I know nothing at all about hydrogen technologies. A quick read suggests a lot of positives , but as usual the cost is a major factor, along with storage. Green hydrogen typically 10 times more expensive than grey hydrogen. I cant see that increasing greatly overnight , though Japan seem to be ahead of the  pack on it. 

I know a lot of folk on here will know a bit about all this but I am sure there are folk like me that need educated. 
 

 

Its a case of putting the hydrocarbons back into the same wells the oil or gas came out of,, all the wells that have been decommissioned and capped, i have never heard of any that has leaked. It happens just now where producers pump sea water injection down into the wells to keep up pressure. Some re inject gas as their platorms can only process oil.

 

regarding your other questions i am not entirely sure what you are asking, i dare say you can find the answer in here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/834190/Diversity_of_supply_for_oil_and_oil_products_in_OECD_countries_in_2018.pdf

[phart]

Carbon capture is new and not developed yet. If we can get it scaled up and operational it will be useful.

It's got to start somewhere though so we'll see where it goes, need to hurry up though.

[Orraloon]

40 minutes ago, TDYER63 said:

Sorry if I am being completely thick here but how can 80 % of what we produce be exported if the majority goes to RUK ? 
Will opening this cambo field delay improvements in greener energy much ??

Regarding carbon capture, how safe is this? I am not exactly comfortable with just burrowing co2 into the ground , especially if we start pumping a lot more down there than we currently do ? Surely there must be ways for it  to escape, especially if there is a build up. What  large scale studies have been done ? 
 

I know nothing at all about hydrogen technologies. A quick read suggests a lot of positives , but as usual the cost is a major factor, along with storage. Green hydrogen typically 10 times more expensive than grey hydrogen. I cant see that increasing greatly overnight , though Japan seem to be ahead of the  pack on it. 

I know a lot of folk on here will know a bit about all this but I am sure there are folk like me that need educated. 
 

 

In principle it's a fairly basic concept but the technology required will be the complicated bit. I don't know too much about it, but it has been done and they now need to show it works when scaled up massively. 

I would say it's a massive site safer than our current plans for storing radioactive waste from nuclear power. We still have no long term solution for this problem. Something which seems to get overlooked a lot when discussing nuclear power. Even if all the CO2 escaped from a well in one go, which is unlikely, we would get a big woosh and the CO2 would gradually disperse. Wouldn't be too good for the local marine environment but neither is what we are doing now. That would also contribute to heating up the planet a wee bit, but I would rather live in a hot hot planet than a radioactive hot planet.

 

[TDYER63]

16 hours ago, phart said:

Carbon capture is new and not developed yet. If we can get it scaled up and operational it will be useful.

It's got to start somewhere though so we'll see where it goes, need to hurry up though.

 

16 hours ago, Orraloon said:

In principle it's a fairly basic concept but the technology required will be the complicated bit. I don't know too much about it, but it has been done and they now need to show it works when scaled up massively. 

I would say it's a massive site safer than our current plans for storing radioactive waste from nuclear power. We still have no long term solution for this problem. Something which seems to get overlooked a lot when discussing nuclear power. Even if all the CO2 escaped from a well in one go, which is unlikely, we would get a big woosh and the CO2 would gradually disperse. Wouldn't be too good for the local marine environment but neither is what we are doing now. That would also contribute to heating up the planet a wee bit, but I would rather live in a hot hot planet than a radioactive hot planet.

 

Thanks.

That is very true regarding the nuclear waste. I imagine carbon capture would raise the same fears but in time would just be accepted in the same way. Till something goes wrong that is. 
But I suppose the risk/reward seems beneficial as things stand. 

[thplinth]

How would folk feel if oil was not really a 'fossil' fuel? What if it was (mostly) abiotic? Apparently all the conditions exist beneath the earth for it to be created naturally without the need for fossils. 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring

Personally I suspect it (mostly) is but I realize it is not a popular theory. 

In which case it is a 'renewable' fuel and likely won't run out (for a very long time) and we will find it in lots of places we are currently not even looking.

It is madness to write off the Scottish O&G industry IMHO. (And that is before you consider the importance of maintaining your 'energy independence'.) Far better to develop the technologies to deal with the pollution than to throw this potentially renewing resource away. 

[thplinth]

Growing up in Aberdeen I can remember an American guy my folks knew at the time who was a driller. He was a very colourful character to say the least at BBQ's etc! (Was making 800 pounds day in Aberdeen in the 70's he told me many years later but that is by the by.) He had read some book (in the 70's) that said oil was not going to run out and they will keep finding more and more. I remember because anytime anyone said it would run out he would loudly argue with them and tell them they were all wrong. 

Well at least so far he has been proven totally correct. It should have run out or 'peaked' by now several times over according to all the predictions. I wish I could remember the book as he has passed away now. 

Edited April 12, 2022 by thplinth

[Orraloon]

1 hour ago, thplinth said:

How would folk feel if oil was not really a 'fossil' fuel? What if it was (mostly) abiotic? Apparently all the conditions exist beneath the earth for it to be created naturally without the need for fossils. 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring

Personally I suspect it (mostly) is but I realize it is not a popular theory. 

In which case it is a 'renewable' fuel and likely won't run out (for a very long time) and we will find it in lots of places we are currently not even looking.

It is madness to write off the Scottish O&G industry IMHO. (And that is before you consider the importance of maintaining your 'energy independence'.) Far better to develop the technologies to deal with the pollution than to throw this potentially renewing resource away. 

If we were to invest just a fraction of the time and money into CO2 capture that we have invested into nuclear, I am convinced this minor problem could be overcome. It's not rocket science, we just need to invest in the technology and make it a priority. 

[phart]

2 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

If we were to invest just a fraction of the time and money into CO2 capture that we have invested into nuclear, I am convinced this minor problem could be overcome. It's not rocket science, we just need to invest in the technology and make it a priority. 

We have working technology just not at scale. We need to get our skates on.

I do like the yield potential of nuclear though and the science to stabilise the waste is interesting as well, we could invest in that and get it going too. There's solutions to most things if we can just direct our efforts properly.

[thplinth]

7 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

If we were to invest just a fraction of the time and money into CO2 capture that we have invested into nuclear, I am convinced this minor problem could be overcome. It's not rocket science, we just need to invest in the technology and make it a priority. 

I read something years ago now that said instead of using Uranium as fuel initially we could have instead of used Thorium (I think it was). The big advantage would have been that Thorium apparently does not produce nearly so many deadly by products as Uranium does. Making it much safer I think it said and relatively clean. But the reason they went for Uranium is that they wanted the deadly by-products for making nuclear weapons. I don't know if it is true but if it is it sums up how fucked up we are that we could have had clean and safe nuclear power all along.

[phart]

North sea oil production peaked in 1999. 128 million tonnes , it's about 40% of that atm.

In fact looking at the data for peak oil production rates most countries had their highest oil production years over a decade ago and many decades ago for some of them, bar 4 middle eastern countries.

[Orraloon]

4 minutes ago, thplinth said:

I read something years ago now that said instead of using Uranium as fuel initially we could have instead of used Thorium (I think it was). The big advantage would have been that Thorium apparently does not produce nearly so many deadly by products as Uranium does. Making it much safer I think it said and relatively clean. But the reason they went for Uranium is that they wanted the deadly by-products for making nuclear weapons. I don't know if it is true but if it is it sums up how fucked up we are that we could have had clean and safe nuclear power all along.

It's similar to the reason why we went for fission instead of fusion. If we had invested as much in fusion, instead of fission, decades ago we would probably have had working fusion reactors a long time ago. Instead the first big experimental fusion reactor is only now due to start up in 2025. There are loads of problems with fusion as well, but it's much "cleaner" than fission. But again fusion doesn't provide the material required for making nuclear bombs.

[phart]

8 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

It's similar to the reason why we went for fission instead of fusion. If we had invested as much in fusion, instead of fission, decades ago we would probably have had working fusion reactors a long time ago. Instead the first big experimental fusion reactor is only now due to start up in 2025. There are loads of problems with fusion as well, but it's much "cleaner" than fission. But again fusion doesn't provide the material required for making nuclear bombs.

Hmmm? You think on the fusion side? They just got it working in a lab for the first time ever. Fission was a lot easier than fusion.

You need to turn Thorium into uranium 233 for it to work in a reactor by neutron bombardment anyway.

[Orraloon]

42 minutes ago, phart said:

Hmmm? You think on the fusion side? They just got it working in a lab for the first time ever. Fission was a lot easier than fusion.

You need to turn Thorium into uranium 233 for it to work in a reactor by neutron bombardment anyway.

They had it working 25 years ago. It just took them 25 years to double their own record. 😂

They still haven't managed to get more energy out than they had to put in though. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00391-1

 

I'd prefer no nuclear reactors at all, of any kind.

We just need to make better use of the giant nuclear reactor 93 million miles away. That's plenty close enough for my liking.

 

[Orraloon]

1 hour ago, phart said:

 

You need to turn Thorium into uranium 233 for it to work in a reactor by neutron bombardment anyway.

I'm assuming that bit is aimed at thplinth's comment.

[phart]

56 minutes ago, Orraloon said:

They had it working 25 years ago. It just took them 25 years to double their own record. 😂

They still haven't managed to get more energy out than they had to put in though. 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00391-1

 

I'd prefer no nuclear reactors at all, of any kind.

We just need to make better use of the giant nuclear reactor 93 million miles away. That's plenty close enough for my liking.

 

The running joke is we're always 25 years away from cold fusion.

Yeah the sun works pretty well I agree.

Yeah just explaining the process for using Thorium it's a fertile element not a fissle one.

[Och Aye]

It's like a day oot with Brian Cox on here sometimes.

[Orraloon]

9 minutes ago, Och Aye said:

It's like a day oot with Brian Cox on here sometimes.

That guy from Lochee?

[Orraloon]

44 minutes ago, phart said:

The running joke is we're always 25 years away from cold fusion.

Yeah the sun works pretty well I agree.

Yeah just explaining the process for using Thorium it's a fertile element not a fissle one.

😂

We are probably at least 25 years away from any significant amount of energy being produced from man made "hot fusion", never mind "cold fusion".  

 

[phart]

23 minutes ago, Och Aye said:

It's like a day oot with Brian Cox on here sometimes.

Better not mention only yesterday i was doing plane polarised and cross polarised microposy of C-chondrite class meteorites which are sometimes used as evidence for the abiogenic oil hypothesis.

Although I was just measuring the size of the deposits and metal composition. Stuff that's already been done decades before but they're probably making sure I don't make a cunt of the easy stuff. Before I get allowed to do anything important.

Sounds grand but it's basically shining a type of light through a really thin bit of rock and counting the round things, then turning on the big light and seeing how much of it goes shiny.