Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on May 16, 2014
UK’s oil, coal and gas ‘gone in five years’
In just over five years Britain will have run out of oil, coal and gas, researchers have warned.
A report by the Global Sustainability Institute said shortages would increase dependency on Norway, Qatar and Russia.
There should be a “Europe-wide drive” towards wind, tidal, solar and other sources of renewable power, the institute’s Prof Victor Anderson said.
The government says complete energy independence is unnecessary, says BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin.
The report says Russia has more than 50 years of oil, more than 100 years of gas and more than 500 years of coal left, on current consumption.
‘Decisive action’
By contrast, Britain has just 5.2 years of oil, 4.5 years of coal and three years of its own gas remaining.
France fares even worse, according to the report, with less than year to go before it runs out of all three fossil fuels.
“Start Quote
Coal, oil and gas resources in Europe are running down and we need alternatives”
Prof Victor Anderson Global Sustainibility Institute
Dr Aled Jones, director of the institute, which is based at Anglia Ruskin University, said “heavily indebted” countries were becoming increasingly vulnerable to rising energy prices.
“The EU is becoming ever more reliant on our resource-rich neighbours such as Russia and Norway, and this trend will only continue unless decisive action is taken,” he added.
The report painted a varied picture across Europe, with Bulgaria having 34 years of coal left.
Germany, it was claimed, has 250 years of coal remaining but less than a year of oil.
Professor Anderson said: “Coal, oil and gas resources in Europe are running down and we need alternatives.
“The UK urgently needs to be part of a Europe-wide drive to expand renewable energy sources such as wave, wind, tidal, and solar power.”
However, Jim Skea, Research Councils fellow in UK Energy Strategy. cast doubt on the findings of the report.
He told BBC News: “This sounds very unlikely. What’s more, it’s irrelevant – the UK has a stable supply of imported energy, even if it is a good idea to increase out own supplies.”
The government recently announced it was cutting subsidies for large-scale solar energy and the Conservatives have said there will be no funding for new onshore wind farms if they win the next election.
Ministers are hoping that enough shale gas – extracted by fracking – will be obtained to make a difference, the BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin says.
They are also offering incentives for more oil research in the North Sea – and trying to persuade the USA to export more gas, he added.
The Global Sustainability Institute’s research covers environmental, societal and economic challenges facing the world.
20 Comments on "UK’s oil, coal and gas ‘gone in five years’"
TIKIMAN on Fri, 16th May 2014 6:26 am
This is nothing new. Old news.
Cantarell is going into depletion and once that happens the US will lose a pretty big oil source.
dsula on Fri, 16th May 2014 6:59 am
What happens if they dig a little faster, a little deeper and frak a little harder?
…. tada….. lots of more oil and gas and coal
Kenz300 on Fri, 16th May 2014 7:17 am
Quote — “There should be a “Europe-wide drive” towards wind, tidal, solar and other sources of renewable power, the institute’s Prof Victor Anderson said.”
———————-
Every country needs to develop a plan to become more energy independent and economically independent.
It is time to diversify away from fossil fuels and transition to safer, cleaner and cheaper alternative energy sources.
The Time for Wind and Solar Energy Is Now
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2014/05/the-time-for-wind-and-solar-energy-is-now
rockman on Fri, 16th May 2014 7:33 am
Dsula – No country will “run out” of oil/NG. They have a valid point but hurt their pitch by using such foolish language IMHO. The UK is in bad shape when it comes to fossil fuels and it will certainly get worse. As you say there are more reserves to be developed just as higher oil prices have given the US the shale boom. But it doesn’t change the end game…just slows down depletion but at the expense of higher energy bills.
And Ken’s point is a valid as ever: fossil fuels are depleting. Unfortunately that conversion won’t be cheap and probably not seriously pursued until the situation becomes much more critical.
Dave Thompson on Fri, 16th May 2014 9:08 am
There can be no long term solution through use of wind, hydro, wave, or solar without fossil fuel inputs. Unless some magic new next “thing” comes along, like the new water powered motor that has been in the works for the past 100 years. Or the new hydrogen economy that takes more energy then it produces. Game over.
Plantagenet on Fri, 16th May 2014 10:31 am
This study is bogus. It disregards new oil and gas that will come from fracking shales in the UK.
mack on Fri, 16th May 2014 11:28 am
Well, Planty there are some serious problems with fracking in the U.K. first their system of mineral rights means that the minerals in the ground are owned by the government not by individual property owners. Meaning property owners have no vested interest in having a smelly, noisy fracked well next door pumping millions of gallons of toxic chemicals into the earth.. The U.K. is very densely populated and with no financial incentive there will be fierce resistance to fracking the tens of thousands of wells that would be required. That’s why the North Sea fields were so sweet. Out of sight, out of mind everyone got the wealth and the fuel with out all that stinky messiness. I won’t even get into the rapid decline rates. If you would Heinbergs book “Snake oil” you might be a bit better informed. Sorry to pop your fracking balloon.
Northwest Resident on Fri, 16th May 2014 12:10 pm
mack — Everything I read on the subject convinces me that you are spot-on correct. Fracking in the UK is a bone-headed idea. It will never pay off. From what I read, they don’t even have the infrastructure, equipment or skilled drillers/frackers in-country to get any viable amount of shale oil/NG out of the ground. Unlike in America, where the relative “success” of fracking has been greatly dependent on the wide-open and sparsely populated areas where they are doing the fracking.
On another note. Article quotes:
“Germany, it was claimed, has 250 years of coal remaining but less than a year of oil.”
But, the fact that they have less than a year of oil remaining means that they also have less than a year of coal remaining, regardless of how much coal is actually in the ground. This is because without oil/fuel they can’t get that coal out of the ground. Of course they can import their oil/fuel to get that coal, but nobody with a brain is claiming that the world has a 250-year supply of oil to burn, so that 250-year supply of coal estimate isn’t worth a damn.
mack on Fri, 16th May 2014 2:29 pm
I came across a graph showing German coal production and it’s a near perfect Hubberts curve with the peak of production in about 1960 followed by steep decline and exhaustion by about 2030.
I have been following the energy problems in the U.k. pretty closely because Britain was the first country to effectively exploit coal to create the industrial revolution and now may be the first industrial country to deal with the effects of peak fossil fuels. What happens in Britain may tell us a lot about the future.
rockman on Fri, 16th May 2014 3:36 pm
NW – The entire BS about Country X having only Y years of whatever is meaningless. None of these countries has had enough of all their fossil fuel requirements produced domestically for decades…if they ever did. They all import a significant amount of much of their ff. For instance France has never produced a significant amount of ff…especially NG.
Consider the US: if imports stopped tomorrow how long would our oil/NG production last? But that’s a trick question…what does “last” mean? How long could the US still produce ff domestically? For many, many decades. In fact, theoretically forever. Or does “last” mean how long could the US meet its requirements if it only had its domestic production? Easy answer: not one hour.
Plantagenet on Fri, 16th May 2014 6:29 pm
Pretending our Brit cousins lack the smarts to frack is silly. They have more than enough talent and infrastructure to be capable of fracking, and they can hire expertise and equipment from Halliburton and others to get them started.
People who don’t think countries outside the US are going to frack their shales, just like the US is fracking its shales, are just deluding themselves.
GregT on Fri, 16th May 2014 6:32 pm
“This is because without oil/fuel they can’t get that coal out of the ground.”
They could always dig it out of the ground like dsula suggested. Of course it would take a lot of people, with a lot of shovels, to dig enough coal to do anything more than heat their homes in the winter. It could be a good source of employment though, for all of the people currently out of work.
rockman on Fri, 16th May 2014 8:40 pm
Plant – True. I laugh when folks talk about the expertise of American oil companies when it comes to frac’ng. As you know it’s the expertise of the service companies. Halliburton doesn’t care if they get paid in dollars or pounds. Everything is for sale (or rent)… including the Rockman. LOL.
But they do have a potential problem with equipment. All of western Europe has about 120 capable rig. Or about 7% of the US rig count. And that’s all of the EU…not jut England. Couldn’t find a stat for frac trusts but I’m sure it’s worse then the rig situation. This can be fixed, of course. But it will require $billions to be invested by the service companies. And will have to do so in a rather uncertain political environment.
Northwest Resident on Fri, 16th May 2014 9:33 pm
rockman — I get the joke — Halliburton and other service companies perhaps being the capitalists that they are might gladly bail out of American operations and relocate to Britain or other places if the price was right. But that would leave America a less capable of continuing to enjoy the “shale oil glut”, wouldn’t it? American energy investors would not be happy, not one little bit.
Northwest Resident on Fri, 16th May 2014 10:47 pm
GregT — I suppose they could dig it out of the ground. But consider that all the “easy to get” coal is long gone. The coal they get now requires heavy machinery. An army of diggers could probably get some of the coal that remains, but enough to make it worthwhile? An army of diggers would require truckloads of food and water. Maybe by that time coal will be worth so much that it will be worth it — who knows? One thing I do know is that I don’t want to be one of the diggers!!
GregT on Sat, 17th May 2014 2:20 am
NWR,
The next generation needs to do something to pay their cell phone bills, and their social networking costs. They can still be fully ‘connected’ while carrying buckets of coal from holes thousands of feet below ground. It is only a matter of priorities.
Don’t get me wrong, I really don’t believe that it is their fault.
baldwincng on Sat, 17th May 2014 6:56 am
Good to see more support for shale gas from UK
Makati1 on Sat, 17th May 2014 8:09 am
“… The report says Russia has more than 50 years of oil, more than 100 years of gas and more than 500 years of coal left, on current consumption. …”
Could that be why the current ‘bad guy’ is Putin? The banksters want those resources without paying for them. After all, we are in the beginning of resource wars aren’t we?
Davey on Sat, 17th May 2014 9:02 am
Mak, get a grip friend. How much is economic and how much will be used as PO and BAU decent enter their terminal phase. LITTLE!!
rockman on Sat, 17th May 2014 9:10 am
NR – Service companies don’t relocate. Except on paper sometimes: I suspect few here realize how much of the oil patch has relocated their corporate offices outside of the US for tax reasons. There’s a small Swiss town attracting many of them.
Nope…they set up local support centers and mobilize equipment there. But that’s going to be a problem for the Brits: shipping that gear around the globe and can only be one with long term contracts in place. Hands can be shipped also but they aren’t going over cheap. So they source lower tech workers locally…takes time to train.
So unless a few major players strike it big in one area and commit hundreds of $millions the Halliburton et al aren’t going to make a big shift. So the proverbial chicken/egg problem: not a lot of drilling…no infrastructure build up. And no infrastructure build up no big drilling surge.