That ought to save a couple of polar bears.
Actually, I stopped brushing my teeth when I saw that video of the kid in Portland peeing in the water supply.
That ought to save a couple of polar bears.
Actually, I stopped brushing my teeth when I saw that video of the kid in Portland peeing in the water supply.
4/17/2014
On March 21, 2014, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) promulgated a final rule which lists the Lesser Prairie-Chicken (LPC) as a “threatened” species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under the ESA, a species is threatened if it is likely to become endangered (and facing extinction) throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
…
Once a species is listed, the ESA prohibits the “taking” of a protected species, as well “harm” to a protected species. The FWS broadly defines “harm” to include habitat modification that kills or injures wildlife.2 Consequently, federal agencies must consult with the FWS to ensure that their actions—including permit approvals and other authorizations—do not jeopardize listed species or adversely modify their “critical habitat.” The law also authorizes federal agencies to take affirmative actions that “seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species.”
According to the agency, the LPC occupies a five-state range that includes rural portions of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. The numbers of the species have been dwindling, and it is estimated that in 2012, only 45,000 of these birds populated these areas. Later estimates further reduced that number to 18,000. The primary threats to the LPC are habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from conversion of grasslands to agricultural uses, wind energy development (with their large and loud facilities), the ongoing drought in the southern Great Plains, the presence of roads and other man-made structure, and oil and gas exploration and production activities.
A quick update on a post from a year and a half ago entitled ‘We have more oil and natural gas than anyone thought possible even 5 years ago.’
These numbers are compiled by the Energy Information Administration, the data-aggregation arm of the Department of Energy. The graphs represent the remaining proved reserves* for crude oil and for natural gas for the United States. (Note that the numbers are the most current available, Year End 2012 [YE2012].) As such, we have nearly 18 months of continued robust drilling activity since that time, in a stable-to-higher price setting, around $100 per barrel.
In summary, YE2012 crude oil reserves, at 30.5 billon barrels, were at a higher level than any time in my working career, the highest since Prudhoe Bay’s Alaskan reserves hit the books. (This number excludes natural gas condensate, gas liquids, biofuels and other liquid hydrocarbons that have reduced the country’s reliance on foreign sources.)
During the shale boom, year-over-year reserve increases have run from 2 to 4 billion barrels per year for the four previous years. I see little sign of this trend abating.
Gas is a color of another horse. Remaining Proved Reserves* of natural gas reached an all-time high of 350 trillion cubic feet (TCF) at the end of 2011. Gas reserves declined between YE2011 and YE2012 for a number of reasons. During 2012, production of 25+ TCF depleted the beginning reserve base. Gas prices remain at historic lows compared to oil, so most of the domestic drilling fleet is drilling for oil, not gas, so new discoveries are not outpacing production as is the case with oil. The low price of gas also impacts the calculation of future recovery: in a fixed cost environment, it takes higher levels of production to turn a profit. Part of the definition of “proved reserves” is that the forecasted future production must cover costs; therefore, low prices translate directly to lower reserves.
* The term “Proved Reserves” is bandied about by journalists, pundits and politicians who think they know what they’re talking about, but in actuality it is an engineering term of art with a specific, narrow meaning. Proved Reserves are those quantities that are reasonably certain to be produced from existing wells, or locations adjacent to existing wells and reasonably certain based on the best understanding of geology, and that are economic to produce with existing technology at current prices. Proved Reserves are a tiny subset of “resources”, a more theoretical total of discovered and undiscovered future supply.
In short, Proved Reserves are quantities that some resource company somewhere has “on its books”, sort of analogous to inventory on hand. At a national level, reserves are historically about 10-20 years of current production, which invariably leads those who don’t understand the number to conclude that “we’re running out of oil in 10-20 years.” No. Continued drilling always converts “resources” into “reserves”.
A [U.K.] group protesting against fracking for shale gas at Barton Moss have been left a little red-faced after making an urgent appeal – for gas.
The camp’s supply ran out Sunday morning and they tweeted from their account @BartonMoss “#bartonmoss URGENTLY needs water and gas for the cooker if anyone can help”.
Between 10 and 20 people live there at the moment, with more people attending daily protests, and they use the gas for cooking.
A concise and thoroughly understandable explanation of the greenhouse effect, and why a little methane in the mix is irrelevant.
“I am a Member of the Congress of the United States of America!”
That was on March 5. Now we know what *you* were hiding, Mr. Ranking Member.
First, a story from The Guardian:
… Amazon Web Services, which provides a cloud platform for Netflix, Tumblr and Pinterest, was singled out for being secretive about its energy use, and for siting data centres in areas that rely heavily on coal.
The company lagged “far behind its major competitors, with zero reporting of its energy or environmental footprint to any source or stakeholder”, the report said.
Twitter and Oracle were also faulted. Microsoft and Yahoo received middling grades in the report, which looked at energy use by 300 tech companies.
[Links, ironically, in the original. – Ed.]
Prompted by that, the new owners of RedState.com asked me, its erstwhile energy guru, to conduct an energy audit of the site and report to the stakeholders (i.e., the editors, the contributors, the diarist community and the Disqus trolls) what more we can do to for the planet.
The findings:
In summary, the entire RedState enterprise has a carbon footprint roughly half that of former Vice-President and Nobel Laureate Al Gore.
*Note: No baby seals were clubbed during the preparation of this report.
**However, we can’t say the same about vultures.