Maapõuest leitakse uusi triljoneid

Maapõuest leitakse uusi triljoneid

Kristjan Kaar

11. mai 2010, 10:49

Ilmselt tuleb paljudele uudisena, et erinevate maavarade maapõuest kaevandamine on paljastanud hiigelsuured maagaasivarud kiltkivis. Toetudes sektori prognoosidele võib ainuüksi Põhja-Ameerikas leiduda ca 1,000 triljonit kuupjalga puurimisvalmis maagaasi – enam kui riigi nõudlus järgmiseks 45 aastaks. Euroopa maagaasi varudeks hinnatakse 200 triljonit kuupjalga.

Kiltkivis leiduva gaasi potentsiaalidest on investorid teadlikud juba pikemat aega. Lihtsalt välja ei olnud saadaval madalahinnalist tehnoloogiat, millega sellest kasu lõigata. Esimene teadaolev horisontaalne puurauk tehti kiltkivisse 1929. aastal Texases, kuid kasumlikuks muutus uuenduslik lahendus alles vahemikul 2005 – 2008, kui fossiilsete kütuste kibekiire hinnatõus põhjustas puurimisseadmete ülepakkumise. Tänu kaasaeglsele tehnoloogiale ning selle mõistlikule hinnale võib täna USAs paiknevast The Haynesville kiltkivist saadava kildagaasi ekstraheerimise hind ulatuda $3 ühe Btu (British thermal unit) kohta. Võrdluseks võib tuua, et 1990ndatel oli Barnetti kiltkivis leiduva gaasi puurimise kulu aga ca $5 Btu kohta. Analüütikud on aga optimistlikud ning prognoosivad, et paari aastaga võib see langeda vaid paarile dollarile Btu kohta.

Vaatamata vähenevale, praegust tehnoloogiat arvestades puuritavatele USA maagaasivarudele on IEA (International Energy Agency) veendunud, et ameeriklased on võimelised oma maagaasi tootmist kahekordistama, kui ebakonventsionaalsed (eriti kildagaasi) varud võetaks efektiivselt kasutusele. Nimelt on kildagaasi tootmine vaid paari aastaga näidanud hämmastavat kasvu ning täna räägime me sellest, kui riigi kõige olulisemast nii-öelda ebakonventsionaalsest maavarast – seda tänu kildagaasi varude suurusele kui ka hüppelise sammu teinud tehnoloogia tõttu, mis parandab ligipääsetavust kiltkivile. IEA prognoosib, et USA kildagaasi varud võivad aastaks 2030 moodustada koguni 60% tervest riigi gaasivarust ja 15% terve maailma gaasivarudest (teadaolevatest varudest moodustad kildagaas täna vaid 3%).

USA maagaasi tootmine (triljonit kuuplajga)

Allikas: Standard & Poor's

Texase A&M Ülikool avaldas 2007. aastal arvamust, et uue kildagaasi puurimistehnoloogia kasutuselevõtt ainuüksi USAs võib tõsta maailma gaasivarusid 9x ehk 16,000 triljonile kuupjalale, mis on ümardatult 450 triljonit kuupmeetrit. The U.S. Federal Regulator Comission on samuti veendumusel, et tänu kildagaasile ei vajata USAs enam ühtegi uut kivisöe ega ka tuumaelektrijaama. The U.S. Energy Deparmentil on veidi realistlikum prognoos – kildagaas võib vähemalt 20 aasta pärast rahldada pool Ameerika energianõudlusest.

Mis on ebakonventsionaalne maagaas?

Ebakonventsionaalseks maagaasiks kutsutakse sisuliselt maapõuest raskesti kättesaadavaid süsivesinikke, mida on viimastel aastatel hakatud puurima tänu uuenduslikule puurimistehnoloogiale ja kõrgele toornafta hinnale, mis pakub mõistlikku kasumimarginaali. Ebakonventsionaalse maagaasi hulka liigitatakse tahke gaas (leidub vähese läbilaskmisvõimega kivimite sees olevates nii-öelda õhuaukudes), kivisöekihi metaan (gaas, mis on peidus kivisöe pragudes) ja kildagaas (selline gaas pärineb kiltkivist, või argilliidist, mis asuvad settebasseinis).

Kildagaasi ekstraheerimine kiltkivist on aga keerukas protsess, mis sisaldab endas hüdraulilist purustamist ja maasügavustes horisontaalset puurumist. Nii-öelda purustamine näeb välja selliselt, et kiltkivisse pumbatakse kõrgsurve vett, liiva, ja erinevaid kemikaale. Nii purustatakse kiltkivi, mille tagajärjel eraldub maagaas. Kiltkivi leidub maapõues nii-öelda ribadena ning horisontaalne puurimine võimaldab tekitada üle 3 kilomeetri pikkuse puuraugu, mis tõstab aga oluliselt kaevude tootmisvõimet.

Kildagaas on tekitanud huvi ka USA riigiisade seas. Riigi kildagaasi varud moodustavad 75% terve maailam kildagaasi varudest, mistõttu ei ole ka ime, miks Barack Obama poolt juhitav valitsus otsustas riigile kuuluvad maalapid kildagaasi varude uurimiseks ja uue tehnoloogia arendamiseks taas välja rentida. Tänu seadusemuudatustele ja soodsale energiahindade keskkonnale moodustab täna kildagaasi tootmine 10% tervest USA maagaasi tootmisest. Veel 2000. aastal oli numbriks vaid 1%. Seega on USAs praegust tarbimisintensiivsust arvestades 100 aasta jagu maagaasi varusid. Standard & Poor’s on oma klientidele andnud selgelt mõista, et eriti OECD väliste riikide üha kasvav energianõudlus ja üha suurenev maagaasi pakkumine võib pakkuda suurepärast investeerimisvõimalust just kildagaasi tootjatesse. Eriti peetakse silmas aga USA ettevõtteid, kuna kohalike energiatootjate tehnoloogilised lahendused on läbinud kiire arenguprotsessi ning riigi käsutuses on maailma suurimad seni avastatud kildagaasi varud. Investeerimisteesi toetamiseks võime tuua ka lihtsa näite: 2009. aastal omandas Exxon Mobil uudset tehnoloogiat kasutava ebakonventsionaalse maagaasi tootja XTO Energy.

Millised on väljavaated rahvusvahelistel turgudel?

Tõepoolest, eelpool mainitut lugedes võib jääda mulje, et gaasi on lademetes ja maavara jätkub igaveseks. Paraku vaatamata rikkalikule varubaasile on IEA tõdenud, et toetudes 600 gaasivälja põhjalikule tootmisvõime ning ammendamise (eelmainitud gaasiväljad moodustavad 55% praegusest maagaasi tootmisest) analüüsile on pooled praegustest maagaasiväljadest vaja 2030. aastaks väja vahetada, et rahuldada maailmanõudlust.

Selge on see, et kildagaas on kogumas hoogsasti populaarsust vähemasti Ameerikas. Mujal maailmas on olukord aga kardinaalselt teine ning ainuke Euroopa riik, mis on suutnud piltlikult öeldes USA jalajälgedesse astuda on Norra, kus kildagaasi tootmine on riigi oluline sissetulekuallikas ja tootmismahud on kasvanud igal aastal. Kohalike sõnul võib Norras kildagaasi tootmine ajavahemikul 2015 – 2025 kasvada koguni 8% aastas. Hoopis teistsugune näeb olukord välja Suurbritannias, kus maagaasi tootmise väheneb 2015. aastaks 40% võrra ning 2030. aastaks koguni 55% võrra. Teise juhtiva Euroopa maagaasitootja Hollandi tootmismahud vähenevad 2030. aastaks 49% võrra.

Riskid keskkonnale

Kildagaasi ekstraheerimiseks on maapõue vaja pumbata miljonite liitrite kaupa benseeniga leotatud liiva, mis segatakse hüdrokloriidhappega ja toksiliste kemikaalidega. Selline protseduur ohustab selgelt põhjavett. Näiteks 2009. aasta lõpul peatas The Department of Environmental Protection Pennsylvania osariigis sealse ettevõtte Cabot Oil & Gas tegevuse, kuna põhjavette lekkis ca 4,000 liitri jagu reostatud vett.

http://www.lhv.ee/news/index.cfm?id=1212570

David Deutsch on our place in the cosmos - lõpetab Global Warminguga

A Must See!

Bill Gates @ TED: We Need An Energy Miracle

By Katie Fehrenbacher

5 comments

Tweet This (38)

Posted February 12th, 2010 at 1:22 pm in Automotive, clean power

I love Twitter. As Bill Gates started his talk at TED, the exclusive tech conference, Twitter (#TED) exploded with amazing quotes and tidbits from a talk Bill Gates just gave on climate change and energy innovation. “Wanted: Energy Miracles,” read the screen that Gates presented on the screen at one point behind him (via twitterpics), as he said the world needs thousands of companies delivering innovation on clean power including solar thermal, solar PV, batteries and nuclear.
Unlike with information technology, there is a deadline for the innovation in clean power, and “We must innovate our way to zero CO2 emissions,” said Gates, (via @CNN). Greentech entrepreneur Bill Gross, who tweeted from TED, and whom Gates gave a shoutout to during his speech, said: “Bill Gates believes we have 20 years to invent and 20 years to deploy – that’s sort of the deadline we have to solve this crisis.” “If I only had 1 wish for the next 50 years, it’d be to invent the thing that halves the cost of CO2,” said Gates (via @CNN).
Gates addressed a few technologies specifically. He said we need more battery innovation: “All the batteries we make now store less than 10 min of all the energy (in world) ..we need a big breakthrough,” (via @CNN). He also gave a nod to nuclear power, and mentioned TerraPower, a nuclear reactor design that can use depleted uranium. He also said he is working on a nuclear company with Nathan Myhrvold.
While Gates speech was a very high-level overview of the climate change problem and energy innovation, clearly the members of the audience who were tweeting his quotes were inspired. “I’d rather see cheaper, clean energy developed than pick the next presidents or come up with a miracle vaccine,” said Gates at one point (via @CNN). “Bill Gates is the next Al Gore?” tweeted one audience member. At the end of the talk Gates received a standing ovation.

Allikas: http://earth2tech.com/2010/02/12/bill-gates-ted-we-need-an-energy-miracle/?utm_source=gigaom&utm_medium=recent-posts

Global Warming: the Collapse of a Grand Narrative

Sellise loo otsa sattusin: http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2010/1/30_Global_Warming%3A_the_Collapse_of_a_Grand_Narrative.html

:)

Laurent Wolf - Wash My World!

Juu-tuubisin mingeid lugusid netis ja sattusin sellise peale...


..ja pani kohe kukalt kratsima... et millist sõnumit siin edasi antakse? Ja kas äkki muusika on võimsam (noorema generatsiooni) mõjutusvahend kui mingid IPCC paneelid?

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

Mida C-allikad kostavad alltoodud uudisloo peale?

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Loe edasi

The inconvenient truth about malaria

Al Gore has made bold claims that climate change is aiding the spread of insect-borne diseases. The science does not support him, says Paul Reiter

Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth, was a masterpiece. Like an elder brother to all humanity, he patiently explained the familiar litany of disasters — droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level rise and the rest — spiced with heartrending personal stories: his baby son’s near-fatal accident, the agony of losing a sister to lung cancer. It was a science lecture crafted by Hollywood.

In his book — the version for adults, not the one for schoolchildren — he even included a colour photograph of a corpse, a young man, floating face downward, drowned by Hurricane Katrina. I wonder whether the dead boy’s family were consulted.

I am a scientist, not a climatologist, so I don’t dabble in climatology. My speciality is the epidemiology of mosquito-borne diseases. As the film began, I knew Mr Gore would get to mosquitoes: they’re a favourite with climate-change activists. When he got to them, it was all I feared.

In his serious voice, Mr Gore presented a nifty animation, a band of little mosquitoes fluttering their way up the slopes of a snow-capped mountain, and he repeated the old line: Nairobi used to be ‘above the mosquito line, the limit at which mosquitoes can survive, but now…’ Those little mosquitoes kept climbing.

The truth? Nairobi means ‘the place of cool waters’ in the Masai language. The town grew up around a camp, set up in 1899 during the construction of a railway, the famous ‘Lunatic Express’. There certainly was water there — and mosquitoes. From the start, the place was plagued with malaria, so much so that a few years later doctors tried to have the whole town moved to a healthier place. By 1927, the disease had become such a plague in the ‘White Highlands’ that £40,000 (equivalent to about £350,000 today) was earmarked for malaria control. The authorities understood the root of the problem: forest clearance had created the perfect breeding places for mosquitoes. The disease was present as high as 2,500m above sea level; the mosquitoes were observed at 3,000m. And Nairobi? 1,680m.


These details are not science. They require no study. They are history. But for activists, they are an inconvenient truth, so they ignore them. Even if Mr Gore is innocent, his advisers are not. They have been spouting the same nonsense for more than a decade. As scientists, we have repeatedly challenged them in the scientific press, at meetings and in news articles, and we have been ignored.

In 2004, nine of us published an appeal in the Lancet: ‘Malaria and climate change: a call for accuracy’. Clearly, Mr Gore didn’t read it. In 2000, I protested when Scientific American published a major article loaded with the usual misrepresentations. And when I watched his animated mosquitoes, his snow-capped mountain was oddly familiar. It took a few moments to click: the images were virtually identical to those in the magazine. The author of the article, Dr Paul Epstein, features high in Gore’s credits.

Dr Epstein is a member of a small band dedicated to a cause. And their work gains legitimacy, not by scholarship, but by repetition. While they publish their work in highly regarded journals, they don’t write research papers but opinion pieces and reviews, with little or no reference to the mainstream of science. The same claims, the same names; only the order of authors change. I have counted 48 separate pieces by just eight activists. They are myth-makers. And all have been lead authors and/or contributory authors of the prestigious IPCC assessment reports.

Take their contention, for example, that as a result of climate change, tropical diseases will move to temperate regions and malaria will come to Britain. If they bothered to learn about the subject, they would know that in a period climatologists call the Little Ice Age, when Charles II held ice parties on the Thames, malaria — ‘the ague’ — was rampant in the Essex marshes, on a par even with regions in Africa today. In the 18th century, the great systematist Linnaeus wrote his doctorate on malaria in central Sweden. In 1922-23 a massive epidemic swept the Soviet Union as far north as Archangel, on the Arctic circle, killing an estimated 600,000 people. And malaria was only eliminated from the Soviet Union and large areas of Europe in the 1950s, after the advent of DDT. So it’s hardly a tropical disease. And yet when we put this information under the noses of the activists it is ignored: ours is the inconvenient truth.

The activists also claim that malaria is already increasing in sub-Saharan Africa because of climate change, and that the people who are attacked by our climatic transgressions are those least able to defend themselves.

Science has a different angle. In the first place, malaria in most of sub-Saharan Africa is ‘stable’: everyone gets bitten by infective mosquitoes every year, sometimes as many as 300 times. So it is absurd to claim that climate change will increase the rate of infection; you cannot add water to a glass that’s already full.

On the other hand, in regions where malaria is newly arrived, or has emerged after a period of remission, a plethora of interacting factors are at play, including forest clearance, irrigation, the mobility of people, urbanisation, resistance to insecticides and antimalarial drugs, the Aids epidemic, population increase, the degradation of public health infrastructures, and war and civil strife. Most of all: poverty. Poverty and malaria go hand in hand. There is no evidence or need to implicate temperature.

When the Bush government nominated me as a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), I knew I hadn’t a snowball’s chance of being accepted. The IPCC, supposedly formed of thousands of the world’s top scientists, is an ‘Intergovernmental’ panel. Governments nominate the authors, governments make their selections from those nominations, and governments must approve of all reports, line by line, before they are published. Moreover, the IPCC is a UN organisation, so its ‘top scientists’ are drawn from the 192 member countries of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Each chapter must include two authors from developing countries and at least one from an emerging economy. Clearly, the people of the Maldives are not going to nominate a scientist like me, but if they did, I doubt the project would get very far: the IPCC Working Group II, based in Exeter, somehow happened to lose my nomination from their database.

At the end of his movie, Al Gore ridicules global warming ‘sceptics’ as a tiny and dwindling band of flat-earthers, people who believe the moon landings were staged, and accuses us of being richly rewarded by the oil industry. According to him, ‘the science is in’. End of discussion.

In truth, the science is never in. We’re not pollsters or policy-makers. We proceed by question, observation, hypothesis, and testing by experiment. We are still re-testing Einstein’s theory of relativity! So I’m happy to be a sceptic. That is how science works.

Paul Reiter

"Kliima on nagu börs" - vahepalaks OzBoti heietus

Mis siis tähendab see "Kliima on nagu börs"? Järgneb OzBoti erakordselt asjatundmatu, ent sellest hoolimata pretensioonikas sõnavõtt - nii nagu OzBotile kohane:
1. Nii kliima kui börs on mittelineaarsed dünaamilised süsteemid. See tähendab, et diferentsiaalvõrrandite tasemel nende protsesside modelleerimine ei anna kuigi sisukaid tulemusi. Vaja on kaoseteooria läbimurdeid. Vaja on uut põlvkonda teadlasi, kes võtavad aluseks erineva paradigma ning vaja on kriitilist massi teise paradigma alusel toimetavaid teadlasi, et saavutada tulemusi (loe uut hingamist) andmetöötluses. Hetkel ma pole veendunud, et see "uus" või "teine paradigma" ülepeale üldse formuleerunud on. On avastatud mittelineaarsed dünaamilised süsteemid ning neid modelleeritakse edukalt nt. hüdrodünaamika (fluid dynamics), jne. Ent katsed muudes eluvaldkondades on väga lapsekingades ja võibolla jäävadki utoopiaks. Samas, ega enne teada ei saa kui pole läbi proovitud.

Selles mõttes kui väga utreeritult väljenduda, siis nii tehniline analüüs (TA) kui ilma ennustamine (üle teatud täpsus- või tõenäosustaseme) on sama hea kui astroloogia, pendel või kohvipaks ja mõni mustlane.

2. Tehniline analüüs börsil - graafikutele joonte vedamine ja selle põhjal tuleviku ennustamine on nagu kliimausklike mantra - kujutlusvõime tulemusena luuakse mingid nägemused missugune on maailm kui temperatuur on +1, +2, +3, +4, +5, +6 jne kraadi üle praeguse ja võetakse (teaduslikule meetodile au andes) arvesse tõepoolest kõik mida suudetakse oma pisikeses arus ette näha ja minevikuandmetel põhinevatel loogilistel konstruktsioonidel tuletada, ent mis on selle tulemusel saadud ennustuste korrelatsioon tegelikkusega? Kas on sellisel meetodil saadud tulemused tõepoolest reprodutseeritavad (seega kontrollitavad), või käib ikka mingi häma "uutest faktoritest" mida ei võetud arvesse ja valedest eeldustest mis viisid valede järeldusteni? Mina kaldun arvama, et tegu on pigem hookus-pookusega ja selles mõttes on kliimateadus nagu börs või majandusprognoosid.

3. Vastuväide: "Aga suures plaanis on ju trendid näha ja üsna suure tõenäosusega ennustatavad?"
Võibolla on, aga võibolla ei ole. Ma siiski olen seisukohal, et kui maailma kliimateadlaste konsensus väidab, et 90% tõenäosusega on inimene praeguse globaalse soojenemise põhjustaja, siis...see on fakt ja sellega ma vaidlema ei hakka. Kas aga tegelikult on globaalne soojenemine inimtekkelise põhjusega, selles ma nii kindel ei ole.

Näide 1
OMX Tallinn börsiindeks vs S&P okt keskelt kuni praeguseni

Korrelatsioon suht väike.. samas, muutke ajavahemikku ja on leitav väga suure korrelatsiooniga perioode.

Kui inimkond oleks nagu üks indiviid, siis praegune kliimatemaatika diagnoositaks psühholoogide poolt neurootiliseks käitumiseks. Jah, see käitumine on vastutustundlik. Jah, see käitumine on ettevaatav, tuleviku pärast mures. Kindlasti on see käitumine kasulik eeldusel, et on AGW (Antropogenic Global Warming).


Samas tundub see neurootiline käitumine mulle siiski stiilis: eesmärk pühitseb abinõu. Eesmärk siinjuures on minu meelest tarbija väärtuste muutmine, nn. globaalse teadlikkuse tõstmine teemal ressursid on piiratud. Abinõuks on valitud väga kaalukas argument: inimese tegevus on põhjustanud globaalse soojenemise. Nimeta mulle tänapäeva maailmas mõni muu meetod nii keeruka ülesande (kui inimkonna väärtuste muutmise lühema perioodi kui 1-2 põlvkonna jooksul - sest nõndaviisi toimub see loomulikul teel) lahendamiseks kui poliitika (sanktsioonid maksude ja tasude näol) ning teadus kui poliitika tööriist, mis peab pakkuma tõestuse, et nii on?

Teretulemast KLIIMA6HTU protestiblogisse!

Freeman Dyson:

All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming, including the two books under review, miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.

Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists—most of whom are not scientists—holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.

Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.