We aren't running an advertisement here for the Peak Oil crowd, but following up on the Mexico note from the other day, The Barrel believed that this item from today's news was worthy of being highlighted.
The UK government published statistics today that showed the country, its North Sea assets notwithstanding, saw its net imports of natural gas rising to 20.3 billion cubic meters in 2007, an increase of 74% on the year.
The Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said the UK produced 79.56 Bcm of gas last year, 9.5% less than in 2006. Gas exports rose 2.1% to 11.64 Bcm, but this was outweighed by a 38.5%
jump in imports to 31.95 Bcm.
"Production and exports...are falling because supplies are running out," Helen MacBain, a spokeswoman for BERR said. "We're importing more from fields that are in Norwegian territory rather than ours." The imports were boosted in part by the addition of two major new pipelines came onstream toward the end of 2006: the Norway-UK Langeled pipe and the Balgzand Bacton Line from the Netherlands, creating an extra 36 Bcm of import capacity. Both pipelines were heavily used in 2007.
Total UK gas demand was up 1.5% for the year.
We may not reach peak oil based on resource existence, but all indications are that we will reach it based on resource availability as a result of government actions - such as the US Congress inserting provisions into the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 that would prevent the US Air Force from developing coal-to-liquid fuels, and limit imports of Canadian crude oil produced from oil sands. If we could just find a way to commercialize fuel from the enormous amount of BS generated in Congress we would overcome peak oil concerns.
Not allowing the US military to develop and utilize coal to liquids is treasonous, as it is a threat to national securuty, which IS, according to the US Constitution, a valid function of the federal government. I believe that government policies and regulations that force our basic metal refining and production capability off-shore are treasonous as well for the same reason. Leaving those that do, or would, shoot at the USA as the only sources for energy and metals is just plain STUPID!!
I agree with D. B. McKennitt above. But regarding energy, if everybody would get on the right (true) side of science and technology, we wouldn't see a veto threat in Kansas for coal plants and the utility likely wouldn't be proposing what they are proposing. Many of our energy problems would simply disappear if industry would be more aggressive at conservation and cost-effective innovation. Instead, they copycat or pursue expensive solutions no regulator can rightly approve, that no smart or reasonable citizen can ever agree with, or that solve no problems whatsoever (think auto industry, which is going down the tubes along with our economy). Technology can solve many domestic problems or at least make them more tolerable, and at a low cost, it even enables us to pull back from most of our foreign bases. We simply are not doing it well (applying technology).
The Congress is not well informed on science and technology, and that is a big problem as well, which is why we see stupid legislation, inaction, and excessive earmark spending. Failing at energy solutions nationally is also why we are involved in a war over oil. It's as if the Congress relishes seeing America collapse. For example, regarding energy, how many agencies of government who use a lot of energy or are supposed to be providing solutions are functioning properly, i.e. DOE, DOD, DOT, and EPA? The point is none of the above, nor is State or Treasury. Government at all levels is failing us badly.
Indeed, we need a serious airing of science and technology issues across the board, including on global warming. Why, for example, is the comprehensive Mt. Washington jet stream weather data which shows not a blip upwards in temperature trends for any of the 4 seasons since 1970 when CO2 emissions veered upwards 80% not being discussed by the press? This is very serious, because it means CO2 is not causing global warming. These data signal global warming is due to solar energy causes just like real scientific observations show. Obviously CO2 reductions and research is not where we should be spending resources, yet globally probably $billions are involved in curbing CO2, not to mention the print and travel about it which further pollutes our planet. That's just one example, but here are many more.
If we aren't on the right side of science and technology, we won't be doing the right things, and so we will go nowhere (but down).