Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Alberta Energy Board - Province's Natural Gas Production Peaked In 2001

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 12:44 PM
Original message
Alberta Energy Board - Province's Natural Gas Production Peaked In 2001
EDMONTON - Age is overtaking the top money earner that paid off the provincial deficit and fuelled budget surpluses as energy prices rose since 1999. After more than half a century of growth as the Canadian supply mainstay Alberta natural gas production has peaked and entered a decline that will continue no matter how much drilling is done, the province's industry watchdog agency says.

In its latest annual reserves report, the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board said it "has concluded that natural gas production in the province peaked in 2001." Despite vigorous field activity in 2005 and most of last year, "natural gas production in 2007 is expected to decline by 2.2 per cent compared with 2006."

Gas accounts for up to 75 per cent of provincial royalties and mineral rights sales. Barring surprises from the royalties inquiry now underway, the more expensive and lightly taxed oilsands are expected to remain less lucrative for the Alberta treasury. At best, the industry will only hold the gas decline down to a gradual rate, partly by expanding fledgling coalbed methane output to the extent that technical advances and environmental resistance permit, the AEUB predicted. "High levels of drilling in the past four years have prevented a sharp decline in production," the board said.

But the results of the hot activity confirmed that supply growth is out of the question, the annual reserves review indicated. Alberta production hovered last year at the same volume as 2005 output -- 4.9 trillion cubic feet, or gas equivalent to 817 million barrels of oil. The number refused to budge despite frantic drilling fuelled by North America-wide supply scares and price spikes after hurricanes damaged production in the Gulf of Mexico region, the AEUB reported.

EDIT

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/business/story.html?id=dda00b3d-baa7-4d47-8d23-056bb9cc9c52&k=13565
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. What was that sound?
No problem, it was just a domino falling over. How much damage can one little domino do? Screw it, I don't really need to heat my home.

It will be interesting to see if that 2.2% decline accelerates. I fully expect it to, due to the low viscosity of natural gas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thanks for noticing, GG. I thought this was going to roll into the corner and wither up
It's only one of the two or three most important stories I've posted so far this year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. Frankly, this one is almost too terrifying to think about
Peak Gas scares the shit out of me much more than Peak Oil. It has something to do with those long stretches of -30C weather we get in Ottawa, and the fact that we have enough local firewood to last the city maybe two weeks.

And when the crunch hits our first recourse will be to huge numbers of electric space heaters. Goodbye grid.

Coal fires, anyone?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyskye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
3. yikes
"and so it begins"

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dead_Parrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. Oops.
ELY (n.)
The first, tiniest inkling you get that something, somewhere, has gone terribly wrong.

-- (The Meaning of Liff, Douglas Adams & John Lloyd)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Delphinus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. And the United States
doesn't have any more natural gas, do we? Seems I recall hearing Professor Albert Bartlett talking about us not having any resources of our own when he was talking about Peak Oil and Exponential ?(brainfart).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. We have more - we just peaked about, oh, 30 years ago
This is going to directly affect us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. Those tar sands are not nearly so as attractive without cheap natural gas.
More like dirty sticky coal it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 03:34 PM
Response to Original message
9. Somebody please kick this onto the Greatest page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Systematic Chaos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I was rec #3 or 4.
I forgot and tried again. Couldn't. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyskye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. and I was #2 - come on; just one more...

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 05:09 PM
Response to Original message
12. So this is what's driving the push for nukes in Fort McMurray...
Edited on Wed Jun-13-07 05:15 PM by GliderGuider
"Steve" and his Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn have been pushing for nuclear power in Alberta to generate steam for the tar sands.
He calls it "clean energy" to support his newfound environmentalism, but it's really about getting gunk out of the ground to send south.

From a May 7th Maclean's article:
Harper embraces the nuclear future

The time and place Harper chose to plug Canada's nuclear industry were telling. Just three days before his July 14 London speech, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whom Harper greatly admires, had waded into a storm of controversy by formally proposing that Britain build new nuclear plants to stay on track with its plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions. President George W. Bush was way ahead, having signed an energy bill the summer before that offered billions in tax breaks and loan guarantees in a bid to jump-start the first new nuclear reactor construction in the U.S. since the 1970s. Given all that action, Harper's government casts its own embrace of nukes as part of an international wave of enthusiasm for zero-emissions reactor power. "Almost from the time we took office," says Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, "we've seen a nuclear renaissance around the globe."

...

Perhaps even more politically intriguing is the prospect of AECL carving out a new market in Alberta's oil sands -- the energy story closest to Harper's heart. The concept is driven by global warming. Separating oil from sand in the enormous development requires vast amounts of steam. Currently, the oil companies are generating it by burning natural gas, making the project a huge spewer of carbon dioxide, a serious problem as Ottawa contemplates cracking down on emissions in a new climate-change policy.

Enter Energy Alberta Corp., a Calgary company that formed a partnership with AECL last fall with the audacious aim of solving the oil-sands' emissions problem with nuclear power. Wayne Henuset, one of two veteran oil-patch executives behind the concept, said this week the company plans to file a site application with the federal Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission within 90 days for an Alberta-based generating station -- he won't say exactly where -- powered by two AECL reactors.

Regardless of your position in the nuclear debate, this surreptitious positioning of nuclear power to take the place of declining gas supplies speaks volumes about the Harper government's willingness to address critical strategic issues on the public stage. He cares not a fig for the wellbeing of Canadians, so long as the oil keeps flowing south. That bastard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
phantom power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
13. Oopsie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
14. "frantic drilling"? Yikes!
I knew there was a reason I never trusted natural gas for home heating.

My main concern used to be that the flow of gas could be disrupted by a major pipe breach.

Now I see there's an obvious finite supply and we're now officially on the down curve of production.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
freefall Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 08:17 PM
Response to Original message
15. Welcome to The Long Emergency

:kick: This is indeed important and scary information. Kuntsler scared me first back in April 2005....

"To aggravate matters, American natural-gas production is also declining, at five percent a year, despite frenetic new drilling, and with the potential of much steeper declines ahead. Because of the oil crises of the 1970s, the nuclear-plant disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and the acid-rain problem, the U.S. chose to make gas its first choice for electric-power generation. The result was that just about every power plant built after 1980 has to run on gas. Half the homes in America are heated with gas. To further complicate matters, gas isn't easy to import. Here in North America, it is distributed through a vast pipeline network. Gas imported from overseas would have to be compressed at minus-260 degrees Fahrenheit in pressurized tanker ships and unloaded (re-gasified) at special terminals, of which few exist in America. Moreover, the first attempts to site new terminals have met furious opposition because they are such ripe targets for terrorism.

Some other things about the global energy predicament are poorly understood by the public and even our leaders. This is going to be a permanent energy crisis, and these energy problems will synergize with the disruptions of climate change, epidemic disease and population overshoot to produce higher orders of trouble.

We will have to accommodate ourselves to fundamentally changed conditions."
James Howard Kuntsler

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0413-28.htm

Peace,
freefall

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Delphinus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-13-07 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
16. Here's another story that ties in (I think):
'Global Warming Turbo'
Responding To Peak Oil With Increasingly Desperate Measures
Above, Canadian Tar Sand Mining and Processing
High CO2 Intensity Oil Production From Tar Sands Is Being Expanded
As Global Conventional Oil Production Begins Its Post Peak Decline

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/EnergyMay2007.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-14-07 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
17. That should put the felis well and truly amongst the columbidae ...
Even if people in Canada and North America don't twig how gas is used
indirectly (from electricity to tar-sands), the effect of reducing
supplies for heating should be widely noticed by the time next Spring
arrives ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 03:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC