Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE US Geological Survey (USGS) Thread (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: New Rules at USGS could amount to censorship

Unread postby basil_hayden » Thu 14 Dec 2006, 22:08:55

Ethics is legislated for LEPs; check out p.14: LEP regs

Obviously this doesn't cover yelling fire in a crowded theater, but it's funny how you can be on the hook for stuff you didn't release if things happen to go unpredictably during investigation and remediation. "Imminent danger" is the key phrase. Apparently developing expensive real estate on barrier islands does not fit the bill.

Let's face it - long emergencies don't fit the mold of an imminently dangerous event. Humans react to catastrophism not uniformitarianism. Take PO for example, if USGS is correct and peak is 2030, there may still be time to set up a soft landing. Instead it will be dealt with in 2035 or so...the scientists will be hung no matter how it turns out.
User avatar
basil_hayden
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Mon 08 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: CT, USA

USGS says we are no Saudi Arabia of coal...

Unread postby frankthetank » Mon 08 Jun 2009, 20:26:21

All comes down to economics, physically it is probably there, but the cost to get it out becomes very expensive at some point.

Last year, the U.S. Geological Survey completed an extensive analysis of Wyoming's Gillette coal field, the nation's largest and most productive, and determined that less than 6% of the coal in its biggest beds could be mined profitably, even at prices higher than today's.

"We really can't say we're the Saudi Arabia of coal anymore," says Brenda Pierce, head of the USGS team that conducted the study.


The Energy Information Administration, part of the Department of Energy, says it is reassessing its coal tally in light of the new Geological Survey data. It intends to create a new coal baseline from which it will begin its annual subtraction "as soon as we can," says William Watson, a member of the energy analysis team at EIA in Washington, D.C.


The agency began with the Powder River's rich Gillette coal field, an 80-mile-long strip in northeastern Wyoming that contains the nation's 10 top-producing mines. About one-third of all coal in the country is produced there. Some 1.2 million short tons leave the field daily, a river of coal filling more than 75 trains of 125 to 150 cars each.

For the Gillette study, USGS engineers, geologists and economists spent three years analyzing data from 10,200 drill holes, the most comprehensive study ever attempted of the region. The team concluded there are 201 billion short tons of coal in the Gillette field. Environmental rules and physical challenges put much of that out of reach, leaving what they figured were 77 billion short tons of recoverable coal.

Little is presently worth mining. Analyzing coal beds that contained 82% of the Gillette deposits, the team determined that with coal selling for $10.50 a ton, the prevailing price two years ago, less than 6% of the coal could be extracted profitably enough to leave mining companies an 8% rate of return.

If Powder River prices were to hit $60 a ton in current dollars, as much as 47% could be extracted. But at that price, coal would have a tough time competing with other fuels and technologies.


Some interesting stuff here, a really good read.

Still a lot of coal left in the ground...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124414770220386457.html

EDIT:Looks like the link was changed and now u can't read the whole thing... Not sure how to get around that?
Last edited by frankthetank on Mon 08 Jun 2009, 22:16:40, edited 1 time in total.
lawns should be outlawed.
User avatar
frankthetank
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Southwest WI

Re: USGS says we are no Saudi Arabia of coal...

Unread postby TheAntiDoomer » Mon 08 Jun 2009, 21:18:44

The money quote:

If Powder River prices were to hit $60 a ton in current dollars, as much as 47% could be extracted. But at that price, coal would have a tough time competing with other fuels and technologies.


In other words "you can't have your doom and eat it too!" :lol:
"The human ability to innovate out of a jam is profound.That’s why Darwin will always be right, and Malthus will always be wrong.” -K.R. Sridhar


Do I make you Corny? :)

"expect 8$ gas on 08/08/08" - Prognosticator
User avatar
TheAntiDoomer
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2008, 02:00:00

Re: USGS says we are no Saudi Arabia of coal...

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 08 Jun 2009, 23:34:22

TheAntiDoomer wrote:The money quote:

If Powder River prices were to hit $60 a ton in current dollars, as much as 47% could be extracted. But at that price, coal would have a tough time competing with other fuels and technologies.


In other words "you can't have your doom and eat it too!" :lol:
I think your needle got stuck in a track. You need to kick the phonograph.
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26543
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: USGS says we are no Saudi Arabia of coal...

Unread postby TheDude » Tue 09 Jun 2009, 01:11:15

When the paywall is blocking my way I just Google some of the text, and voila: WSJ: U.S. Foresees a Thinner Cushion of Coal - Seth's posterous

Thanks for the link, Frank.

Also worth reading: The Oil Drum | Richard Heinberg : Coal in the United States

Heinberg's working on a book on global coal supply.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia

Re: USGS figures

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 02 Dec 2017, 23:25:17

pstarr wrote:Can someone point me to a refutation of USGS's rosy assessment that peak won't occur for 20 years. I would much appreciate it. :)

pete


Nowadays, we can use just reality to discuss this concept, right pstarr?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re:

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 02 Dec 2017, 23:27:46

savethehumans wrote:USGS assessments:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Turns out the expected happened...Hubbert's intellectual descendants knew far more than peak oil "experts"! The real question now is whether or not the EIA 2037 number (already better than Colin Campbells estimate) can be broached as well!
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

US Geological Survey To Reevaluate Bakken Oil Reserves

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 12 Dec 2017, 14:59:16


Federal geologists will lead a push to reevaluate the total amount of recoverable oil near North Dakota’s Bakken formation, according to the state’s Senator John Hoeven. Hoeven requested the new analysis from the U.S. Geological Survey in an attempt to attract new investors to the shale play. The survey will now include 17 other formations in the state that could be commercially exploited using newly developed extraction technology. USGS deputy director William Werkheiser said the federal agency would work with "appropriate state and local officials and technical experts to ensure we develop the best possible product in a timely manner." Crude oil production in the Bakken shale in North Dakota has been experiencing some major challenges lately, but it is firmly on the growth path, said the state’s Department of Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms in an interview for S&P Global Platts last


US Geological Survey To Reevaluate Bakken Oil Reserves
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: US Geological Survey To Reevaluate Bakken Oil Reserves

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 12 Dec 2017, 15:00:34

They aren't going to evaluate Bakken reserves. These idiot reporters can't get anything right. Makes me wonder if they aren't peak oilers at heart, based on just the frequency with which they screw up the most basic oil field topics.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Previous

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 15 guests