Woodside illegal works at James Price Point |
The Minister for Planning John Day has circumvented a Supreme Court case to ensure the proposed gas hub project in the Kimberley remains on track.
One of Woodside Jack Up Rig in the intertidal on Sunday the 24th June 2012 |
The court case was to determine whether the company's original access to the James Price Point site was invalid.
But, late yesterday, Mr Day amended a council order covering the land.
Media ReleaseHunter v Woodside 26 June
http://www.energynewspremium.net//storyview.asp?storyid=8686060§ionsource=s0
ReplyDelete"Woodside’s brief announcement said the agreement between the two had been allowed to expire “on the agreement of both parties”.
It immediately stirred memories of the excuse invoked countless times over the years by heartbroken young men.
Of course, maybe our imaginations are just too vivid and the CPC agreement really was a case of breaking up by mutual decision.
If that is so one could make some fairly negative inferences about just how Browse is stacking up in the eyes of Woodside just now (as, in fact, stablemate Slugcatcher did on Monday)."
The story goes on to say that the industry has managed to assure itself that the US gas exports aren't as scary as people were saying,and that while Japan was restarting some nuclear plants it will still need lots of LNG.
Very tongue in cheek is this guy.
He then says.....
"There are still plenty of potential LNG party poopers out there though, few more significant than China’s own unconventional gas potential.
The prospect of China unlocking what are thought to be immense shale and coal seam gas reserves has long been known as a potential threat to LNG market dynamics.
Credit Suisse’s Singapore-based oil and gas guru David Hewitt has done some excellent work in quantifying just what it all might mean, as well as whether it is in fact achievable."
He then goes on to explain how many holes China must drill to acheive its goal of x amount of gas by 2020 etc.
He wraps up in the end with this:
"Given the uncertainties around the China situation, it is possible some very different crystal balls contributed to Woodside and CPC reaching their “mutual” decision on the Browse offtake.
Woodside may feel China will be forced to continue buying a vast amount of LNG well into the next decade as it continues to toil away at unlocking its unconventional potential, driving up LNG prices in the process.
CPC may feel China’s shale success is imminent, a scenario that could leave a lot of LNG capacity looking for a new (cheaper) home.
Breaking up is hard to do. But in the case of Woodside and CPC, it will be China deciding which comes out of the split better off."
Some scary facts on unconventional oil,or fracced oil:
ReplyDeleteBack in the days of easy to find oil a hole was drilled into a reservois and the stuff was pumped out.
This required about 1 barrel of oil to extract 100 barrels of oil.
Oil trapped in shale needs 1 barrel of oil to extract 4 barrels of oil.
To get oil out of tar sands needs 1 barrel of oil to extract 2 or 3 barrels of oil.
And it's worth remembering that our Browse gas is the dirtiest gas found anywhere,and may not be any cleaner than that most foul of fossil fuels coal.
And we must go into more and more sacred areas to find this polluting mess.
For the creatures that once lived in quiet solitude from us and all our noise,this must be like absolute hell.A painful torture that goes on and on.After the exploration comes the development,and then the production.
"Seismic survey air guns shoot explosions of compressed air that send acoustic energy through the water and into the Earth’s crust. The sound is repeated about every 10 seconds, some 360 per hour, sometimes for hours at a time. Measuring how long it takes to reflect the sound waves back provides information about subsurface rocks. Oil companies use the information to figure out where to drill.
“It essentially creates a large hammer. The ocean surface lifts up and slams down. Most people have no concept how heavy this hammer is,” Clark said.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/06/22/153929/oil-exploration-in-alaskan-arctic.html#storylink=cpy