The USGS, being a subset of the US Department of the Interior, has never been a go-to for climate solutions for obvious reasons. But relatively impartial analysis, usually I'd say sure. Which is exactly why the following gem just makes me want to say--seriously?
Courtesy of the experts at The Oil Drum, relying on USGS estimates is but one of the reasons this year's IEA World Energy Outlook is flawed [yet] again:
"USGS published its last major set of reserve estimates in 2000, but it is not clear that these estimates are very useful in determining how much is actually extractable at prices economies can afford to pay. There are also questions as to whether there have been major mistakes in estimates. Just last week, the USGS announced that most of the oil resources it was expecting in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska were in fact, natural gas resources. (Natural gas reserves in this location are of little economic value, because the natural gas is too far away from markets--yet another low "net energy" issue.) How do we know that other resources (for example, the supposed resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), are not as badly mis-estimated?"
No comments:
Post a Comment