Military Review

Can the "Shale Revolution" damage Russia's defense capability?

59
Could the "Shale Revolution" damage Russia's defenses?

World reserves of shale gas.


Introduction:
Russia is the largest state in the world with an area of ​​17 098 246 square. km, which is 11,46% (~ 1 / 9 part) of the total land area of ​​the Earth, or 12,65% (~ 1 / 8 part) of the land inhabited by humanity. This is almost double that of Canada’s second-largest.
Russia ranked first among countries whose resources are estimated at tens of trillions of dollars. Rating compiled by the Internet portal 24 / 7 Wall St.
The total value of the natural resources of the Russian Federation exceeds $ 75,5 trillion The following experts in the ranking identified the US with reserves in $ 45 trillionand saudi arabia with almost $ 34,5 trillion In the Top-10 hit: Canada, Iran, China, Brazil, Australia, Iraq and Venezuela.

Russia ranks 1 in the world in proven natural gas reserves. At 2011 year, they are estimated at 44800 billion cubic meters. Iran - 29610; Qatar - 25370; Saudi Arabia - 7807; United States - 7616; Turkmeistan - 7504; UAE - 6453; Nigeria - 5292; Venezuela - 5065; Algeria - 4502.
NUMBERS:
RF budget for 2012 year:
Revenues - 9 503 469 245, 0 thousand rubles.
Costs - 11 237 919 245,0 thousand rubles.
including 1 655 700 000, 0 thousand rubles of the budget for defense of Russia

DYNAMICS OF EXPENDITURE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION IN DEFENSE IN LAST YEARS

Expected budget deficit over 1 731 450 000,00 thousand rubles (about 1,73 trillion
High oil prices (at the rate of $ 100 / barrel) and gas will not help close the budget deficit.


The Ministry of Finance has made preliminary proposals for replenishing the treasury due to the rapid growth of excise taxes on strong alcohol, tobacco, and increase the rate of severance tax on gas.


The revenue part of the budget of the Russian Federation: More than 40% of the revenue part of the Russian budget is formed at the expense of oil and gas revenues / V.Putin.
A few days earlier and. Finance Minister Anton Siluanov said that the price of oil at $ 117 per barrel. provide Russia a deficit-free budget. "The balance of our budget is achieved at the price of oil $ 117 per barrel.", - he said.
PROBLEM ON "HORIZON":
"Shale nightmare for Russia", "GREAT Shale Revolution", "Shale gas - Gazprom's nightmare", "Silent Revolution", "Shale gas in Russia"


Briefly about technology:
Oil shale belong to the group of alternative energy sources.
Explored reserves of organic carbon are: in oil - 10 to the extent (11) t, in coal - 10 to the extent (13) t, in combustible shales - 10 to the extent (17) so.



The United States is the homeland of shale gas. Here in 1821. William Hart drilled the first commercial gas well in shale formations. The new type of fuel owes its revolutionary development to the perseverance of one person, George Mitchell, who has drilled reservoirs in the Barnett field for 18 years, until it was possible to obtain it in 1999. first commercial gas inflow. The discovery turned out to be so breakthrough that already in 2001. he profitably sold his company Mitchell Energy & Development for $ 3,5 billion to the American Devon Energy.

In short, the essence of the new American method of extracting gas from shale rock is that they have learned how to effectively apply horizontal drilling in combination with creating a water hammer effect by pumping water, sand and certain chemicals. This is exactly what makes it possible to “collect” gas enveloping shale formations without drilling a lot of expensive wells.
The basis for the industrial development of gas production from shale layers was given by the scientific work of the German energy economics expert Hans-Holger. He suggested that shale gas reserves in the world more than the traditional.The scientist evaluated them at 456 trillion cubic meters. m

The rapid growth of shale gas production in the United States in the second half of the 2000-s allowed the Americans to achieve self-sufficiency in gas. As a result, America has grown from the world's largest fuel importer into an exporter.
In 2009, the United States overtook Russia in gas production, and has since retained leadership in this market.
The global "shale revolution" looms on the horizon, which is about to sweep away the existing energy market and build a new one on its ruins "

It should be added that the USA has the world's largest fleet of drilling equipment - about 2 thousand. For comparison: in Europe there are only about 50. At the same time, a significant part of American installations is idle without work.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the US special envoy for energy issues in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, recently visited Bulgaria to, among other things, force local authorities to revise national gas shale policy (the republic imposed a shale gas moratorium).

In April, 2012. The price of gas in the United States has already dropped to 70 dollars per 1 thousand cubic meters. m
The sudden increase in shale gas production in the United States, as well as the fall in gas demand due to the global financial crisis, which led to lower prices on the American spot market, raised doubts among the project participants, Gazprom, Total and Statoil, about the need to quickly launch Stockman. which was supposed to be supplied to a single gas supply system, and the rest was sent to the American and European markets in the form of liquefied natural gas (LNG).
As a result, the start of gas production at Shtokman was postponed, and the question of the need for LNG production was generally questioned. “The implementation of the project with the involvement of LNG production facilities does not yet allow achieving the indicators required by shareholders,” said Yuri Komarov, head of Shtokman Development AG. He explained that now the price of LNG is two or more times lower than the price of contracts for pipeline gas in Europe.
A source at Gazprom explained to OGE that Gazprom is considering the possibility of acquiring a company producing shale gas in the United States in order to study the technology of its extraction and apply it in other territories.
The impact of the shale revolution is already being felt. As a result of the American shale gas fever, the States have already abandoned liquefied Qatari gas. Discouraged Arabs immediately redirected their wealth to Europe, undermining the global gas pricing policy. As a result, the price of "blue fuel" in the spot market fell by half, strongly "hooking" at the same time and the interests of the Russian "Gazprom"

However, there are significant problems of an environmental nature:
- the impossibility of 100% to ensure high-quality cleaning of all volumes of water used for this technology and, as a consequence, contamination of groundwater;
together with gas benzene, arsenic and radioactive materials can rise to the surface;
earthquakes
and technological nature:
horizontal drilling
- rapid depletion of a "shale" well
as well as the cost price:
- shale wells are significantly more expensive. The difference in prices is compensated by a higher flow rate of shale wells. But in order to maintain production at a constant level, it is necessary to drill more and more new wells. The output of shale wells at the initial stage is up to 500 thousand m3 of gas per day, throughout the year, they are down by 70%, and then slowly fall to 9-15%, and the life cycle of a well worth $ 3-10 million is 8-12 years.

Leaders of European (and not only) countries tirelessly repeat that it is vital for them to get rid of their "dependence" on the import of Russian gas. And in this struggle, the countries of the West do not miss a single chance to get off the Russian gas needle.

"Poland was called an advance gas future for the whole of Europe. EIA estimated Polish reserves of shale gas in 5,3 trillion cubic meters. For a long time, the Polish leadership strongly emphasized the future shale grandeur of their state and promised to start production if not today or tomorrow. Time passed. Geological exploration began And then there were unpleasant surprises. For example, ExxonMobil announced that it would be possible to carry out commercial production of oil shale in Europe in at least 5 years, and rather in Germany, not in Poland, thus hinting that there is practically no prospect for Poland.
But the fact remains:
With the current structure of the Russian economy, and in the event of a successful march of the "shale revolution" around the planet, the likelihood of Russia's over-deficit budget is very high, which will automatically lead to a decrease in defense spending, disruption of many state defense orders, and as a result: a significant decrease in our state’s defense .

What this situation will mean for Russia is probably no need to explain even to a schoolboy.
Too many people around 2 who want to flush the rote on someone else's spine. "

Some "responsible" statesmen "of our partners" have already openly declared:
“There can be no talk of any world justice, as long as one country owns such a territory as Siberia. If it were another country, then it would be another matter!” / Former US Secretary of State Ms. Albright.

Information sources:
"Chemistry and Life" №3 1981
http://mosenergoinform.ru
http://www.oilcapital.ru/
http://www.rosbalt.ru
http://top.rbc.ru/
Author:
59 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. aspirin02
    aspirin02 7 June 2012 08: 56 New
    +7
    We already have contracts with America .. they will mine oil shale .... such as a lesser dependence on Russia for gas .....
    1. Igarr
      Igarr 7 June 2012 09: 13 New
      +7
      Dmitry, do not play preference?
      And then there is such a thing - American help.

      Just give these guys help someone.
      You get tired later - dig graves ... paved.
      1. aspirin02
        aspirin02 7 June 2012 09: 41 New
        +4
        You know, I don’t want to argue ....... This policy was pulled up ..... But what’s the truth about shale ....... gas is not forever ......
      2. DEMENTIY
        DEMENTIY 7 June 2012 18: 42 New
        +4
        Or something like that.
      3. Cadet787
        Cadet787 8 June 2012 01: 22 New
        +1
        Igarr.
        Dear Igor. I give an SOS signal, I was attacked by Azerbaijani trolls, they skated through all my comments and stupidly missed them. For curing their animal nature and bloodthirstiness towards the Armenian people and not wanting to resolve the issue peacefully, I see in the actions of the Azerbaijani diaspora on the website, a conspiracy, they somehow removed 30 units from me in 6000 minutes. rating. And here are the names of the most ardent advocates of the human-hating policy: Yarbay, Ataturk and other persons of this nationality. These are obvious provocateurs on this site. So they will soon declare jihad to us. I ask for help. Please read the comments to the article "There will be no Libyan option. A big war is next." This is some kind of Azerbaijani Sabbath on the site. Sincerely.
        And how to understand this?
        Yarbay
        "Lobster!!
        This inshalah is the beginning of the end of the Armenian fascists!
        Allah Akbar!
        1. Ataturk
          Ataturk 8 June 2012 01: 34 New
          -4
          Dear friends, colleagues and guests of our forum.
          I want to put an end to user hysteria Cadet787

          Quote: Cadet787
          Alexander Romanov, Sergh, Alexey 67, Yary. Good night everybody. SOS signal, attacked by Azerbaijani trolls



          Have you ever tried to talk manly? You look like a little child whose candy was taken away. By God, it’s funny. I thought you were a serious adult. Do you always run away from talking and call your friends? Are you not ashamed of a man? Now let's talk about trolls.

          Dear friends, see who the Troll really is. And so let's go.

          Please look at the time and topic. laughing Stamps messages for the sake of rating!



          and now still



          more



          and more



          and more and more



          here's another



          and more



          Now let's talk about his other posts.







          So who is the troll? Me or you? It seems to be an adult, but what you write smacks of Nazism. Belarus with a Russian passport. Interesting.

          What makes you so shocked that Azerbaijan is trying to show everyone the truth at the same time, Russian sources show?

          Or did you see the Azerbaijanis tell everyone, listen to Vasya or Petya stand on my side? Unlike you, I tell everyone we don’t hold our position, only hold a position of justice. If I'm lying, let me be corrected. So what are you provocateur deceiving aaa? Why are you lying to people? You called us 3 times in one post and ask for something you yourself don’t give, respect? What words and facts are not enough to talk? Do you immediately ask for hysteria and help? Are you the same in life? Is it weak to decide everything? Are you looking for help from others? You write that we are animals and so on, how am I a beast and are you a different person? Are you smart? Education, morality, what? WHAT are you better at?

          Do you know the difference between you and me? I do not consider myself above anyone, but I do not consider others above myself. And you, as the last fascist, write here. I didn’t minus you. I don’t give marks to strangers at all. Rarely do you and your friends. Take it easy. If there is a word, let's talk, discuss what and how and where. Although after all that you wrote, I no longer have the desire to communicate with you.

          В


          And the fact that Yarbai wrote, inshallah we will return the earth - it means GIVE GOD THE RETURN OF THE EARTH. And Allah Agbar - God is great and will help us in the struggle for justice. It is a sin? What did he write to kill the infidels? No. So shut up for the clever get off. Do not make people laugh.
          I always said, I am ready to listen to everyone and everything. True people like you listen to zapadlo. You protect them, well, show your friend, I’ll tell you who you are !!! Everything is clear with you. I hope I don’t stumble with you anymore !!!

          1. DavidLynch
            DavidLynch 8 June 2012 01: 36 New
            0
            Dear friends, colleagues and guests of our forum

            And what has this forum already become yours?
            1. Ataturk
              Ataturk 8 June 2012 01: 39 New
              -1
              Quote: DavidLynch
              And what has this forum already become yours?

              Once here, then I am part of this forum. But who are you an interesting question.
              Are you jealous? Do not be afraid, I'm not going to take your place in Russian politics)))))))))))

              And with what kind of person are you sitting here this question is interesting, although that I am surprised. Well, somewhere else he scolded the Russians?
              1. Cadet787
                Cadet787 8 June 2012 01: 52 New
                0
                Suitcase, train station, Baku.
    2. Yan005
      Yan005 7 June 2012 10: 06 New
      +4
      Quote: aspirin02
      We already have contracts with America ..

      After conducting geological studies, the data were not confirmed.
      Everything is "shifting" towards Germany.
      1. Aleksey67
        Aleksey67 7 June 2012 10: 21 New
        +8
        Shale gas production with modern technologies is an ecological disaster and politicians of European countries understand this. Contamination of groundwater will quickly put many countries on the brink of extinction. In France, hydraulic fracturing is a criminal offense. Injection of chemicals and large amounts of water into the bowels will not go unnoticed. Chernobyl will seem like a "child's toy".
        1. 755962
          755962 7 June 2012 11: 01 New
          +5
          So-called "Positive experience of the USA" for the production of shale gas, in fact - "Advertising picture". However, there is some experience, but by no means not positive. Modern shale gas development technologies are serious threat environment. That’s why, the US states have met the demands of environmental non-governmental organizations and canned most shale gas development projects, by the way, have reserves of 14 trillion. m3. http://www.newsland.ru/news/detail/id/846136/
        2. Heinrich ruppert
          Heinrich ruppert 7 June 2012 11: 03 New
          +6
          Quote: Aleksey67
          Chernobyl will seem like a "child's toy".

          Yes, Alexey. Not far from the town of Steinfeld, where one of the test wells was drilled, the drinking water in home taps almost burns when I bring a lighter. People are selling houses and moving away from the area. And the ads of ExxonMobil stopped. People started to get sick. Information for consideration.
          1. Aleksey67
            Aleksey67 7 June 2012 12: 25 New
            +4
            Amer has inflated another "bubble".

            By 2010, shale gas production in the USA (on paper) reached 51 billion cubic meters per year. And although this, in general, is a rather ridiculous figure - not even up to 8% of Gazprom's production - the fanfare in the media played to its fullest, and the world's largest companies have spent about 21 billion dollars on assets associated with such promising shale gas production.

            And then what happened is that what always happens in the USA, which has been isolated through and through. Another stock bubble burst. It turned out that US gas companies attributed production volumes, proven gas reserves, and underestimated production costs - to raise the quotes of their shares on the stock exchange. Ministry of Energy The United States had to admit this, and it was announced that retrospective production figures would be adjusted downward.

            You got it, huh? Gas companies poured $ 21 billion of "shale" assets into the suckers, along the way, the US state threw foreign gas suppliers to lower prices - and now retroactively it's all bluffed.

            The truth is very simple. Shale gas production is economically meaningless. And there are a whole bunch of reasons for this.

            This bubble, of course, really turned out to be possible to inflate only in the States - thanks to the extremely liberal legislation on the subsoil and the large number of territories that were once developed but now abandoned. Well, thanks to the excess of unnecessary drilling equipment.

            In Europe, this topic will not work. There are no free areas to drill more and more "disposable" wells. It is not so easy to inflate paper mining volumes there. Yes, there just greens will eat everyone with shit if massive drilling begins - and gas production from shale only assumes such drilling.

            In addition, even in the United States, shale gas is not cheap. According to experts, the real costs of producing shale gas amount to 212–283 US dollars per 1 cubic meters — for comparison, the same kilo-cube costs Gazprom $ 19.

            And the largest independent gas company in the United States, Chesapeake Energy, is the one that grew so merrily on "shale gas" and doubled its capitalization last year - now it is all in debt and, in fact, is already bankrupt
            1. chukapabra
              chukapabra 8 June 2012 01: 43 New
              +1
              Quote: Aleksey67
              According to experts, the real costs of producing shale gas amount to 212–283 US dollars per 1 cubic meters — for comparison, the same kilo-cube costs Gazprom $ 19.

              Then explain the glove compartment with prices? In the US, gas is sold at 70 bucks, and GAZPROM at 300 or more (including the Ukrainians brothers). Who is sponsoring the shale gas price difference in the US? Is it Gazprom?
              In my opinion, someone drives a poppycock here wassat
          2. postman
            11 June 2012 12: 48 New
            0
            Quote: Heinrich Ruppert
            Near the town of Steinfeld

            What kind of Steinfeld are we talking about?
            Steinfeld, Bayern,
            Steinfeld, Niedersachsen,
            Steinfeld, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern,
            Steinfeld, Schleswig-Holstein,
            Steinfeld rheinland-pfalz
            ??
            but the fact is that none of them had anything like that.
            nobody rolled up anywhere.
            or is there other data?
        3. Darn
          Darn 7 June 2012 12: 28 New
          +1
          . The injection into the bowels of chemicals and a large amount of water will not pass without a trace.

          So that's where the drinking water war comes from.
          1. Aleksey67
            Aleksey67 7 June 2012 12: 33 New
            +3
            Quote: Here Damn
            So that's where the drinking water war comes from.


            See for yourself and be terrified. Forecast on the example of Ukraine

            Regarding the possibility of producing in Ukraine about ten billion cubic meters of shale gas, then Gennady Ryabtsev gives the following calculations: 10 billion cubic meters of shale gas - this is 3000 wells, each of them must pass from 3 to 10 hydraulic fractures (local earthquakes of magnitude two to three points) each year. A simple calculation gives the figure of 30 (!) Earthquakes per year. In addition, 10 billion cubic meters of gas is 80 million cubic meters of water, there is no such amount of free water either in the Carpathians or in the Dnieper-Donets depression in the Donetsk region. It is also 5 million cubic meters of chemicals that have nowhere and nothing to dispose of, which means that there is a high risk that all this will get into the environment or into artesian water.

            Ryabtsev also recalled: during the production of shale gas, methane also appears among other chemicals, and it pollutes water (for this reason, the production of shale gas was banned in the US state of New York). The fact that shale gas production is harmful to the environment is also proved by the fact that in France this is a criminal offense and criminal liability has been introduced for fracking.

            Also, 10 billion cubic meters of gas per year is 3 million “walkers” of vehicles, large freight vehicles that will drive water, sand, and chemicals there. What does this mean for dirt and freight roads? Nobody had yet expected what would happen in the Carpathians after so many walks of large trucks. Another important point: for the production of 10 billion cubic meters of gas, infrastructure should be built, from the 3000 fields mentioned, branches to main gas pipelines should be built. But, alas, this infrastructure does not exist; moreover, it will not appear tomorrow or in a year..
            1. Darn
              Darn 7 June 2012 13: 03 New
              0
              Yes, the paragraph is scary. But I have one question.
              methane, and it pollutes water

              I heard that methane gas does not dissolve in water. It is so interesting how it pollutes water? I will look for information, but can someone know?
              1. Fox 070
                Fox 070 7 June 2012 13: 11 New
                0
                Quote: Here Damn
                maybe someone knows?

                Benjamin, the fact is that Gennady Ryabtsev made a slip of the tongue. Methane itself is a natural combustible gas and it does not pollute the water, but the huge amount of arsenic that accompanies these deposits.
                1. Darn
                  Darn 7 June 2012 13: 38 New
                  0
                  Thank you Felix explained. And when I read about bioreactors, I read that
                  put a fire cutter with water so that the bioreactor does not get fire from the burner. And there it was said that methane passes through the water quietly, and this phrase surprised me. From your post, I realized that if methane gas is pumped out of the ground, then this is natural gas, and if from a bioreactor, it’s biogas, but the basis of both methane.
                  1. Fox 070
                    Fox 070 7 June 2012 14: 04 New
                    0
                    Quote: Here Damn
                    base of both methane

                    Absolutely.
                    1. Darn
                      Darn 7 June 2012 14: 16 New
                      0
                      So maybe it makes sense to assemble a bioreactor, than to be engaged in the extraction of shale gas. Moreover, methane gas is collected at landfills in the USA, it is interesting to logically call it "garbage gas"
                      based on methane. There is a desire to assemble a small bioreactor for a summer residence, but I'm afraid that this whole structure will explode and there will be no summer residence.
                      1. Fox 070
                        Fox 070 7 June 2012 14: 35 New
                        0
                        Quote: Here Damn
                        There is a desire to assemble a small bioreactor for giving

                        You can try it. In general, bioreactors work even on pig shit, because there is more gas output.
                      2. Darn
                        Darn 7 June 2012 14: 46 New
                        +1
                        I searched in my city and found an ad where they would give the manure, just pick it up, and sell the price. They don’t bring a big bag somewhere. They’ll bring a bag for general experience. Enough for general experience. I’m even more interested in the fertilizer that remains after fermentation. It’s fertilizer It doesn’t have any pleasant smell. And the yield increases by 120%.
                    2. postman
                      11 June 2012 12: 59 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Here Damn
                      There is a desire to collect a small bioreactor for giving

                      Benjamin, there is no point in "collecting". Americans sell for Mexico, a complex, generating gas from ALL organic household waste. And it's not very expensive ($ 17000)
                      But the problem is:
                      for our latitude (what you have, what we have):
                      -no so many organic waste (corn does not grow with us, the summer is short)
                      -temperature factor.
                      visit Trondheim Kommune (even online): the largest waste recycling company NW Europe: garbage is burned (heating for houses, energy, foodball field is green all year round), the volume of solid waste is reduced to 10-8%, "Ashes of the ancestors" (ash) are deposited. Wells were drilled in them (dumps), there are gas tanks, on the residual fermentation-gas reaction, on gas heating the nearest village
              2. Heinrich ruppert
                Heinrich ruppert 7 June 2012 13: 41 New
                +2
                And there are many other chemicals that technology needs to be pumped with water underground to produce this gas
      2. postman
        11 June 2012 12: 17 New
        +1
        Quote: Aleksey67
        it's an environmental disaster

        What about coal mining?
        Visit Kemerovo and the district for the sake of interest.
        I recommend taking a Geiger counter with you along with the camera.
  2. xzWhiteWolf
    xzWhiteWolf 7 June 2012 13: 36 New
    +2
    It is very unfortunate that in Ukraine the leadership as a prostitute is either one way or another. But if it had not been for prostitution, then gas would have been cheap.
    And it is very sad that in many cities there is an anti-Russian mood. But we, in fact, are one people. Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians are the same as Muscovites, Kievans and Minskers. The cities are different - the people are one. And together we went through history and made it. If we were already torn and sold to pieces, then at least let's not let the enemies incite hostility between us. We are all brothers.
    And about shale gas, very big environmental problems will be with its development right up to earthquakes. And who needs them?
    1. Splin
      Splin 7 June 2012 15: 13 New
      +3
      Friendship, friendship and the tobacco is apart. All these are the tales of Grandma Arina about domestic prices if we join the Customs Union. Russia supplies gas to its western borders at $ 130, while 165 are pushed through the border of Belarus. The Lipetsk tractor costs less than the Minsk tractor. And when you consider that the whole pipe is now at Gazprom, a hopeless picture comes out. No matter how simple people say beautiful things, Müller and the same team will weld everyone, including their citizens.
      1. teves
        teves 7 June 2012 18: 10 New
        0
        Well, friends, the legs of the chair with the name: "Russian gas blackmail" are quietly knocking out ?! laughing
        In fact, the United States has shown to the world its will and opportunities on the gas issue - this is really an impressive example for most of Russia's gas partners. Everyone needs energy independence and no one will tolerate the embroiling of the inadequate policies of the Russian security officers in the development of civilized countries. They pre-blackmailed to their own head .. Soon you will buy gas in the States yourself, unless they sell it to you ...
        And for reference: the price of Russian gas for its own people is growing slowly
        1. sesame
          sesame 7 June 2012 21: 55 New
          +1
          Let America sniff its gas, and we’ll somehow manage with our own.
        2. Che
          Che 8 June 2012 16: 33 New
          0
          teves,
          Full mess Amer. Die from poisoning like a rat. I think not so stupid to commit mass suicide. laughing
  3. DEMENTIY
    DEMENTIY 7 June 2012 18: 36 New
    +5
    aspirin02
    Better not invented.
  4. postman
    11 June 2012 12: 15 New
    0
    In order to receive gas at $ 250 per thousand cubic meters, Naftogaz is ready to buy 33 billion cubic meters, as Russia requires, and also offers to allow Gazprom to develop shale deposits in Ukraine

    This was announced by a high-ranking official from Naftogaz / Komersant Ukraine
  • Brother Sarych
    Brother Sarych 7 June 2012 09: 05 New
    +5
    Yes, let them get rid of it, it won’t work out right away anyway, but you need to prepare for it - to arrange gas processing on your own and in the interests of your country, and not be tormented by the satisfaction of someone’s needs that are deeply hostile to Russia ...
  • Igarr
    Igarr 7 June 2012 09: 10 New
    +4
    So these ... significant flaws ... shown in the article -
    put a ha-ha-ros cross
    on the aspirations of Poland.
    America so far only has fun with the shale, they have nowhere to go. Therefore, at a loss and work themselves.

    And as for world justice - well, when they say ours - there can be no question of any world justice - as long as the Panama Canal in America. He should be in Russia, as well as Suez.
    Then comes - world justice.
  • Middle-brother
    Middle-brother 7 June 2012 09: 13 New
    +6
    "A global 'shale revolution' looms on the horizon, which is about to sweep away the existing energy market and build a new one on its ruins"
    Too loud statement.
    "The leaders of European (and not only) countries tirelessly repeat that it is vital for them to get rid of their 'dependence' on Russian gas imports. And in this struggle, Western countries do not miss a single chance to get off the Russian gas needle."
    If things go well, then these very countries will first be hooked on another gas needle, beckoning with lower prices, and then there will be "any whim for your money", you will have to beat off the production cost.
  • vel77
    vel77 7 June 2012 09: 13 New
    0
    Still, shale oil would be found everywhere, so that people would start working in Russia and not rest on the laurels of oil and gas revenues ...
    1. Eraser
      Eraser 7 June 2012 10: 34 New
      0
      It is not necessary to look for it, in bulk, but the technology for economically viable production, the United States and Canada are already running in. A couple of years, production will go on.
      1. Fox 070
        Fox 070 7 June 2012 10: 42 New
        +2
        Quote: Eraser
        . A couple of years, production will also go.

        So, production has been going on for several years in the USA and the technologies have already been worked out, but the problem is that it is a very low-calorie gas, it is economically unprofitable to transport through pipes and it can be used with profit only in power generation. As much as you would like, the next 50 years he will not become a competitor.
        1. Eraser
          Eraser 7 June 2012 10: 45 New
          0
          That talk about oil.
          1. Fox 070
            Fox 070 7 June 2012 10: 58 New
            +1
            Quote: Eraser
            That talk about oil.

            What kind of oil is shale ?????? Are you out of your mind? After such a statement, I am seriously questioned by your adequacy and my desire to discuss something with YOU has disappeared altogether! Goodbye fool fool fool wassat
            1. Eraser
              Eraser 7 June 2012 11: 25 New
              +2
              "The parent company of PetroChina's largest oil producer, China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC), has announced ongoing negotiations between PetroChina Co Ltd, Royal Dutch Shell and Hess Corp regarding a joint participation in oil shale oil production in the Santanghu Basin in northwestern Xinjiang.
              "The main goal of the cooperation is the use of advanced technology, production and management methods in the exploration and production of oil and gas from unconventional sources, as well as the acquisition of technology and experience," the CNPC said. "Goodbye. crying
            2. Aeneas
              Aeneas 7 June 2012 11: 42 New
              +2
              shale oil has long been extracted. It is also called oil sands.
              1. Fox 070
                Fox 070 7 June 2012 12: 24 New
                +1
                Quote: Aeneas
                shale oil has long been extracted

                The fact that there is such oil, I know no worse than you, but the cost of such production is 90-05 dollars per barrel with all the ensuing consequences.
                Read

                http://www.warandpeace.ru/ru/commentaries/view/53222/
                1. Aeneas
                  Aeneas 7 June 2012 13: 34 New
                  0
                  it happens in different ways ... In Canada, it is cheap enough, it does not lie deeply, it is mined in an open (career) way. They load onto dump trucks, and voila, to clean (oil from sand).
            3. postman
              11 June 2012 12: 28 New
              +1
              Quote: Fox 070
              What kind of oil is shale ?????? Are you out of your mind?

              he is right.
              OJSC Leningradslanets

              One of these areas is energy, where shale is used as fuel for heat and electricity. The easiest way is to directly burn oil shale at a CHP plant. A much more efficient area is the deep processing of oil shale and the production of shale oil (synthetic oil). For this reason, the main goal is the resumption of pre-existing production cooperation for the extraction and processing of oil shale at the enterprises of OJSC Leningradslanets and OJSC Factory Slantsy.

              Threat.
              The quality of the pictures is not very .....
  • Fox 070
    Fox 070 7 June 2012 09: 26 New
    +1
    Shale gas is another duck. He can never be an alternative and should not be inflated from a molehill. The author of the article is disingenuous, calling the United States the world leader in reserves and production of this gas. In general, the article is kind of rotten.
    Anyone interested is offering a link.

    http://badnews.org.ru/news/malenkaja_lozh_pro_slancevyj_gaz/2010-11-10-4618
    1. Eraser
      Eraser 7 June 2012 10: 09 New
      +5
      The article was written 1,5 years ago and it can be concluded that the predictor from the author turned out to be lousy. lol
      1. Fox 070
        Fox 070 7 June 2012 10: 12 New
        +2
        Quote: Eraser
        the predictor from the author turned out lousy.

        Yes? And what, if not a secret?
        1. Eraser
          Eraser 7 June 2012 10: 42 New
          +1
          And why did the United States stop producing shale gas, or did Chesapeake Energy go bankrupt?
          1. Fox 070
            Fox 070 7 June 2012 10: 49 New
            -1
            Quote: Eraser
            And that the United States stopped producing shale gas

            It did not replace ordinary natural gas because very low methane content and high carbon dioxide content, it is very expensive to transport it through pipes, heat transfer is low, it is not suitable for the chemical industry ... Yes, what I tell you common truths, take an interest yourself and do not make people laugh with my incompetence. fool
            1. Eraser
              Eraser 7 June 2012 11: 21 New
              +2
              Oh my God, who said that it will replace traditional gas? Oh, and about your competence, which in your opinion means a very low methane content, tell me in percent wink Oh, why is it very expensive to transport it through pipes?
          2. Curculum
            Curculum 7 June 2012 10: 51 New
            +2
            Eraser, dear, listen to the specialist better at the link Oleg0705 Today, 09:27.
            Are you not a shareholder of MMM?
            1. Eraser
              Eraser 7 June 2012 11: 33 New
              +3
              Kurkul, now read http://zn.ua/ECONOMICS/otsel_grozit_nachnem_gazpromu-103128.html, even if our minister sees, probably, everything in a rainbow light, but still.
              It remains to wait a year and a half and everything will be clear. This is for Russia, everything that encroaches on Gazprom is evil, lies, tryndezh and provocation, but for Ukraine it is an opportunity to seriously improve the economic situation, is it only a joke that the trade balance is in our favor to improve by 12 billion . $ .We wait and see everything.
              1. Curculum
                Curculum 7 June 2012 12: 16 New
                +3
                Eraser, read, so what? For you, your Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources is an authority; for me, you are a civil servant who supports the policies of the Prime Minister and the President. And the PR leadership and their candidate, as you know, said a lot of things before the elections, and how much they did - everyone sees it.
                Therefore, I am very cautious of such statements and listen more to the opinions of less politically engaged experts.
                1. Eraser
                  Eraser 7 June 2012 12: 46 New
                  -1
                  “Let our minister see, probably, everything in a rosy light, but still.
                  It remains to wait a year or a year and a half and everything will be clear. "In my opinion, I indicated my attitude to his words. Well, Chevron and Shell are not just one-day offices. Well, about" less politically engaged specialists " heart, tell me, did you notice that Vladimir Fedorov, the author of the article to which FOX 070 referred, is politically biased?
                2. Fox 070
                  Fox 070 7 June 2012 12: 53 New
                  -2
                  Quote: Kurkul
                  Curculum

                  Vitaly, my friend, you throw this gum. He has blinders on his eyes and he will drag forward without paying attention to numbers and arguments.
                  1. Curculum
                    Curculum 7 June 2012 14: 13 New
                    0
                    Fox 070, I agree - threw it.
                  2. Eraser
                    Eraser 7 June 2012 18: 31 New
                    0
                    Hmm, I still didn't get it, shale gas production in the United States is growing "regardless of the numbers and arguments." , from the great expert Vladimir Fedorov. Unfortunately, in the United States, such an Internet expert does not know, so gas production companies are working at a loss, simultaneously poisoning the earth. Meanwhile, in Siberia, oil producers leave rainbows behind them, yes winked . Well, at least you have learned about shale oil and you have lived for a good reason yes
                    1. Curculum
                      Curculum 8 June 2012 00: 23 New
                      -1
                      Quote: Eraser
                      Unfortunately, in the USA such an Internet expert does not know

                      Moreover, in the USA and Mavrodi they don’t know; there they’re worse suckers. And their Mavro-like pencils sharpen.
        2. chukapabra
          chukapabra 8 June 2012 01: 58 New
          +2
          Quote: Fox 070
          Yes? And what, if not a secret?

          The fact that the predictor is lousy.
          Take an interest in how much the US has increased shale gas production in 1.5 years.
          By 2010, shale gas production in the United States reached 51 billion cubic meters per year.
          East European Gas Analysis predicts that shale gas production in the US by 2015 will be more than 180 billion cubic meters per year.
          The price of natural gas during trading on the New York Stock Exchange on April 12 fell below $ 2 per thousand cubic feet ($ 70,3 per thousand cubic meters), amounting to $ 1,991 per thousand cubic feet. It is reported by the Associated Press. This is the lowest price in more than 10 years.
      2. postman
        7 June 2012 14: 43 New
        +1
        Eraser,
        "written 1,5 years ago" - I did not write 1,5 years ago, links are given, there are also 80s.
        SO WHAT? Rather than rattle in vain, WOULD WRITE A "TOPICAL" ARTICLE.
        "from the author ... the fortuneteller ... CRAZY"
        Thank you for passing by their slops.
        But I did NOT PREDICT ANYTHING.
        YOU have beguiled.
        1. Eraser
          Eraser 7 June 2012 16: 55 New
          +1
          Oh, are you the author of this article? I have nothing against it. You do not understand what I mean. My words "The article was written 1,5 years ago and we can conclude that the predictor from the author turned out to be lousy." Refer to the article, link to which was given by FOX 070 http://badnews.org.ru/news/malenkaja_lozh_pro_slancevyj_gaz/2010-11-10-4618, it is dated 2010.
          1. postman
            7 June 2012 20: 04 New
            +1
            Quote: Eraser
            Oh, are you the author of this article?

            Well, it happened ....
            Quote: Eraser
            badnews.org.r

            yes, I did, but I used "fresh" sources.
            For interest (if any) read: "Chemistry and Life" №3 1981
            Everything is basically described there.
            And unfortunately (for the Russian Federation) it seems that it is coming true after the "shale revolution".
            They will mine, they will succeed, technology. (problems: water, groundwater, earthquakes) seem to be sanded.
            Those who say that "it is not profitable" is not feasible, and so on - this is the opposition camp (Gazprom), BUT:
            1. It is enough to see the graphs of the cost of production (in the article) of oil production
            2. Shales (combustible) - this is not only gas, but also combustible shales - fossils of solid caustobiolites, giving during dry distillation a significant amount of resin (similar in composition to oil). Shales mainly formed 450 million years ago at the bottom of the sea from plant and animal debris.

            3. There are a lot of them (shales), very, in reserves of 10 to 17 degrees tons
    2. Curculum
      Curculum 7 June 2012 10: 23 New
      +6
      Fox 070I support 100! drinks
      In the link you have given, the author has clearly laid out this whole epic in plain language. Moreover, in the comments, he added: "that shale usually produces the same" energy "methane as from Gazprom's West Siberian fields. That is, it suits well to heat boilers. But for liquefaction and automobiles it is bad. very." - and about this in "our" article not a word!!! But after all, this is one of the fundamental indicators - the quality of the product, because of which its application depends and, moreover, transportation.
      I repeat: "Shale gas is quite a small, by value, local fuel, which has very limited use and can be extracted and used only as a" supplement "to the already existing list of" traditional "fuels. However, shale gas will never be able to displace natural - they are too different fuels to be mechanically substituted for one another. "
      Therefore, all this epic - vparivanie suckers derivatives!
      Based on the messages of the author of the article, such companies as "EDF", "Eni", "BASF", "E.ON", "Gasunie" - complete because they are investing in the construction of gas pipelines from the Russian Federation. Nonsense! wassat
      1. Darn
        Darn 7 June 2012 12: 50 New
        +1
        Hello Vitaliy
        In one film, they talked about Stirling's engine. The British managed to assemble a home installation. In which the gas is burned, the engine rotates, it rotates the electric generator and the house is supplied with electricity. Moreover, they boasted that this electricity is enough for all the needs of the house. Does it work on this weak gas? The question really needs to be asked to these developers. And so he filled the Bologna with gas, connected the unit and sit at home. And pofik on raising prices for electricity, heating.
        1. Curculum
          Curculum 8 June 2012 00: 29 New
          +1
          Hello, Benjamin!
          Unfortunately, my knowledge of engines ends on the ICE crank mechanism. In his youth, he made an overhaul of the internal combustion engine to the VAZ-21011.
          Therefore, your question I pass to the Internet, sorry. No.
          1. Darn
            Darn 8 June 2012 09: 29 New
            +1
            Hello Vitaliy.
            Alas, I have not correctly (stupidly) raised the question, sorry. I naively believed that everyone knows, or at least heard about this Stirling engine. This engine is different from internal combustion engines. It is an external combustion engine, that is, two pistons are heated and one is cooled. Although most precisely the air is heated, it does the job of moving the cylinder, and then it is cooled. Its advantage is that you just need to make a fire under one piston (the British burn natural gas) and it will work. Americans put videos on youtube, where a hot cylinder is heated by solar energy. And one computer company made cooling for the processor, the processor heats up making the Stirling engine work, it rotates the cooling fan. Not seen on sale. It is curious that even after the flame goes out under a hot piston, the engine still continues to work, though not very long. In winter, when batteries work at home, when they are hot, they can try to get it to work from this heat source, to twist it whit.
      2. characterist
        characterist 7 June 2012 14: 10 New
        +1
        Kurkul,

        in fairness, and not in order to dissuade someone from all the Western companies you listed did not invest your money, but a discount from Gazprom on forward contracts and this only applies to Nord Stream, South is a big question. And if you really , without husks, shale topics are interesting, you can read the report of the International Energy Community http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/goldenrules/#d.en.27023, it is true, in English, but the latest data, taking into account ecology and everything else. Yes, and about gas transportation: the economy of pipeline transport is interesting up to 2000-2500 km, from the 2000 prerogative of liquefied gas. Therefore, the Americans will rapidly convert their terminals in the Gulf of Mexico to liquefy gas for transportation to Europe and China. And This is against the background of the fact that in Germany there is a target program for the use of energy from renewable sources: by 2020, 40% of all energy consumed will be from renewable sources, to which gas has nothing to do with it.
        1. Darn
          Darn 7 June 2012 14: 38 New
          +1
          energy will come from renewable sources, to which gas has no relation.

          Biogas is not entirely true methane, in this case it refers to renewable energy. Manure and food waste cannot be scooped up.
          1. postman
            11 June 2012 13: 19 New
            0
            Quote: Here Damn
            Do not scoop out manure and food waste

            scoop out.
            in order to "produce" manure and solid waste, MORE energy is spent than is obtained by burning biogas.
            thermodynamics
            +
            efficiency (gas-heat-energy)
            And also:
            Henning Steinfeld, Head of FAO Livestock Information and Policy Division:
            “Livestock is one of the main culprits of the most serious environmental problems in today's world. In order to remedy this situation, emergency measures must be taken. ”
            Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO):greenhouse gas emissions (measured in CO2 equivalent) in the livestock sector 18 percent higher than the corresponding indicators of the transport sector. Livestock is also a serious cause of degradation of soil and water resources.

            Livestock accounts for 65 percent of nitrous oxide emissions from anthropogenic activities, with a global warming potential (GWP) of 296 times that of CO2. This gas is released primarily from manure.

            For livestock breeding, 30 percent of the planet’s land surface is currently used, mainly permanent pastures, but this also includes 33 percent of the world's arable land used for livestock feed, the authors of the report emphasize. Forests are cut down to create new pastures, and this is a serious factor in deforestation, especially in Latin America, where, for example, about 70 percent of the area previously occupied by Amazonian forests has been converted to use these lands for grazing.
            =======================================
            I still know the only project that really works and does not harm nature:
            Audi balanced mobility, e-gas:
        2. Curculum
          Curculum 7 June 2012 23: 29 New
          0
          Quote: characterist
          in fairness, and not in order to dissuade someone from somehow all the Western companies you listed did not invest their money, but a discount from Gazprom on forward contracts and this applies only to Nord Stream

          Come on, seriously? Do you know who is the owner and operator of Nord Stream? Well, extract and read the charter of this company or the memorandum on its organization, this is not a closed infa.
          Quote: characterist
          Southern in big question

          I suspect you have a humorous mood.
          Quote: characterist
          can read the report of the International Energy Community

          Now I am sure that you are joking, because about this agency (but not the "community") even in "WikipediA" there is the following info: "Ahead of the launch of the 2009 World Energy Outlook, the British daily newspaper The Guardian, referring to an unidentified senior IEA official, alleged that the agency was deliberately downplaying the risk of peak oil under pressures from the USA. According to a second unidentified former senior IEA official it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" and that the world has already entered the 'peak oil' zone.
          The Guardian also referred to a team of scientists from Uppsala University in Sweden who studied the 2008 World Energy Outlook and concluded the forecasts of the IEA were unattainable. According to their peer-reviewed report, oil production in 2030 would not exceed 75 million barrels per day (11.9106 m3 / d) while the IEA forecasts a production of 105 million barrels per day (16.7106 m3 / d). The lead author of the report, Dr. Kjell Aleklett, has claimed that IEA's reports are "political documents".
          The anticorruption NGO Global Witness wrote in its report Heads in the Sand that "Global Witness' analysis demonstrates that the Agency continues to retain an overly-optimistic, and therefore misleading, view about potential future oil production." According to Global Witness, "the Agency's over-confidence, despite credible data, external analysis and underlying fundamentals all strongly suggesting a more precautionary approach, has had a disastrous global impact."
          As you can see - a very "cool" agency.
          Moreover, if you read their next passage: "In 2017, gas production in the United States will grow to 769 billion cubic meters from 653 billion in 2011, and production in Russia will grow to 757 billion cubic meters from 659 billion. At the same time, demand in the US will grow to 779 billion cubic meters from 690 billion in 2011. and to do elementary arithmetic operations, then a reasonable question arises: what is the United States going to export?
          Therefore, I prefer, sometimes, to read data and analytics from the association "Cedigaz".
          1. Splin
            Splin 7 June 2012 23: 46 New
            +2
            You speak several foreign languages ​​(I have a limited ability, I know Spanish well and read without problems! In English). Read about South Stream. this is the same promotion as American gas to every European home.
            PS And on Wikipedia, not everything is accurate. There are topics that anyone who wants. So for reliability, check the information with other sources.
            1. Curculum
              Curculum 8 June 2012 00: 37 New
              0
              Quote: Splin
              Read about South Stream. this is the same promotion as American gas to every European home

              Those. intergovernmental and inter-corporation contracts, creation of joint ventures, ordering and payment of feasibility studies, etc. - "advertising campaign"? Trying more than nem.
              Quote: Splin
              And on Wikipedia, not everything is for sure

              Absolutely agree. But I sometimes use it to quickly go to the source (there are references there). Those. I use Vika only to narrow the search space.
              1. Splin
                Splin 8 June 2012 00: 56 New
                +1
                The idea itself is an advertising campaign, and signatures and money for technical justification are the costs of production. Nobody gave and will not give. Believe me, they will refer to the crisis and invest in Nabuco.
                1. Curculum
                  Curculum 8 June 2012 01: 15 New
                  0
                  Splin, I DO NOT BELIEVE! I have grounds for this. Some of the above, all the rest - everyone reads and listens for himself, sees and hears - as he sees fit.
                  But the accuracy of this account depends on the individual abilities of the individual. Everyone has the same path, but the roads are different.
          2. characterist
            characterist 8 June 2012 11: 21 New
            0
            Here, it seems, sometimes people and serious people come across on the forum, open-minded, but naive in elementary matters, confusing causes and consequences. Financing of the Nord Stream and the sources of detailed funding, well, completely different things. Maybe you still have the size of discounts))) indicate from open sources.Well, seriously, any constituent document prescribes the amounts, but not the sources of these amounts. As for the South Stream, as they say, "God forbid our calves vovka z" usta " The Slavs will understand. They seriously talk about South Stream, excuse me if someone's national pride is hurt, only in Russia, it does not come to specific payments. And joint ventures, agreements are paper, it will endure everything, the question of who will put the loot on table))) Well, to give the opinion of Uncle Petit from Vicky, this is, excuse me, quite bad manners. You would have brought the opinion of "Look, Ru", the same "authoritative". You can talk about the authority of an agency at least from that conference participants held by the International Energy Agency about 2 weeks ago in London. Take an interest and many questions will disappear. The time of these people is very expensive to just ride around and talk about nothing.
            1. Curculum
              Curculum 8 June 2012 12: 45 New
              0
              characterist, what "sizes of discounts" should you indicate? If you follow your message, then you can get to the point that the entire equivalent of goods, expressed in Euros, belongs to the ECB.
              1. Curculum
                Curculum 8 June 2012 13: 10 New
                0
                "amounts are prescribed in any constituent document" - you are mistaken, the constituent documents indicate distribution shares in monetary and percentage terms of participants or founders.
                I am glad that the IEA is already an "agency" for you. But I know too well the direction of his activity, not only by hearsay, tk. I am a member of a financial group, whose activities involve direct contact, for example, with the ICC commission in Paris, the edition of the rules of which regulate the terms of delivery and payment for goods. Therefore, I understand the difference between "organizing a conference" and "conference participants". By analogy: if the agency organizes a concert of Joseph Kobzon, this does not mean that the members of the agency are singers.
                1. characterist
                  characterist 8 June 2012 16: 29 New
                  0
                  Kurkul,

                  let’s not say who works where, it’s not the point. And you don’t have to talk about the essence, if you have an authoritative opinion, then bring it. Only an opinion should be authoritative not only for you, but also generally accepted in Europe. And I ask you to in fact, without artistic allegories, that is, embellishments. An analogy with show business is inappropriate: the oil and gas business is a very narrow circle of decision-makers, strangers do not go there.
    3. postman
      7 June 2012 14: 28 New
      -1
      Fox 070 "The author of the article is disingenuous",

      Yours is not true. I have not "CORRECTED" or "DONE" anything.
      This used statistics from open sources. Links are given
      1. Fox 070
        Fox 070 7 June 2012 14: 50 New
        +2
        Quote: Postman
        I didn't "CORRECT anything

        And I don’t say that you corrected something. Just the topic you covered somewhat one-sidedly, not showing all the cons and pitfalls when using this gas. We did not conduct a full analysis of all opinions and did not say that the USA itself recounted its forecasts for the reserves of this gas in the direction of a significant decrease. You can continue, but I think this is enough.
        1. postman
          7 June 2012 20: 07 New
          +2
          Quote: Fox 070
          It’s just that you covered the topic somewhat one-sidedly, without showing all the minuses

          Yes, I would love to, but this is after all 9 pages (taking into account foreign sources).
          Well, how do you fit into the regulations?
          TW is not "rubbery". And so I had to squeeze, cut, throw away. no and 7
          % that was in the source.
          And one more thing: who would read BEFORE THE END, such a gossip?
          Estimate 9 pages .......
          1. Curculum
            Curculum 8 June 2012 00: 13 New
            +1
            Quote: Postman
            Yes, I would love to, but this is after all 9 pages (taking into account foreign sources).

            But if you have presented the very essence, then it turns out that it is precisely this message that is fundamental of all 9 pages, namely: it is time for Gazprom to recruit a team to dismantle the Nord Stream, break all contracts on Yuzhnoye and fully focus on domestic market.
            I hope you are a patriot of the Motherland, and it is worth, in this case, in an open letter to contact A. Miller!
            PS Such actions will force P. Globa to share the fee.
            1. postman
              8 June 2012 08: 45 New
              -1
              Curculum,
              There (at 9), mainly economics, technology, declining production, depletion,
              Ecology, reclamation.
              Both arguments FOR and AGAINST.

              "open letter" to Miller .....
              Yes. I understand this is a joke?

              And who is Globe?
              1. Curculum
                Curculum 8 June 2012 09: 20 New
                0
                Quote: Postman
                I understand this is a joke?

                At the same time - ironic.
                Quote: Postman
                And who is Globe?

                This is Pavel Pavlovich Globa in the genitive case.
    4. chukapabra
      chukapabra 8 June 2012 01: 53 New
      +2
      Quote: Fox 070
      Shale gas is another duck. He can never be an alternative and should not be inflated from a molehill.

      In the USA, it is already an alternative, or as you can call getting rid of the United States of gas imports / As for the price of production of 220-250 bucks per 1000 cubic meters, I do not believe it. Who pays the difference? Have you forgotten they are already exporting gas, at a loss or something?
      technology does not stand still. Shale gas will be developed, more environmentally friendly technologies will be found without any doubt. In general, more and more gas fields have been found in the world recently, therefore, the price of gas will fall IMHO.
      1. Curculum
        Curculum 8 June 2012 09: 47 New
        0
        Quote: chukapabra
        You forgot they already export gas

        But is it possible from this place in more detail? Which US company already is an "exporter", how much and where already exported?
  • Ross
    Ross 7 June 2012 09: 26 New
    +5
    Sooner or later, the freebie will end with carbohydrates. It's time to develop other sources of income.
    1. Darn
      Darn 7 June 2012 15: 14 New
      +2
      Hello Eugene.
      Sooner or later, freebies will end with carbohydrates

      Well, for me, the freebie has long ended for me. When I get bills for electricity, gas, heat at home. It seems to me that I could spend this money with more benefit for myself than paying for utilities. Which will rise in price again. It’s like we live in the 21st century, but nothing changes for me. If (purely theoretically) to provide myself with these services for free then I would be fine. And the state also doesn’t need to spend this energy on me.
      1. Splin
        Splin 7 June 2012 15: 36 New
        +1
        Well, for me, the freebie for me has long ended

        In Ukraine, gas production costs $ 75; in Russia, it is probably even cheaper.
        Why then in the central regions they deliver it at a price of 120! I understand the territory is large, but not 1,5 times more expensive.
        1. Darn
          Darn 7 June 2012 15: 53 New
          +1
          Hello Splin
          I understand the territory is large, but not 1,5 times more expensive.

          Yes, they have an excuse for the car, and this is only one of them. The most important thing is a rollback. Well, officials want to live well, teach children in Harvard, and this is such a waste in bucks.
  • Oleg0705
    Oleg0705 7 June 2012 09: 27 New
    +3
    Dialogue with M. Khazin - Shale Gas

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an7Gy-M-dLg
  • vitvit123
    vitvit123 7 June 2012 09: 41 New
    +3
    Everyone has a "slate", but in Russia (with the largest area) it is not. What a problem!
    If everyone goes to oil shale, and we go over and again become the country with the largest reserves of oil shale! But you can’t ignore this!
    So Russia is Russia!
    1. FREGATENKAPITAN
      FREGATENKAPITAN 7 June 2012 10: 08 New
      +2
      Here Iya about the same ....... I think. That the reserves of oil shale in the regions of Siberia and the North are such that when we deal with them in a dense ...... these guys will whine quietly ....
      after all, after all, the shale will end sometime .....
    2. Yan005
      Yan005 7 June 2012 10: 08 New
      +3
      Quote: vitvit123
      What a trouble!

      We even have a city in the Northwest: Shales ...
      That's just the problem: we have gas, oil, but in Europe (and others), no, or very little
      The situation is different with shale
  • танк
    танк 7 June 2012 09: 48 New
    +3
    Russia ranked first among countries whose resources are estimated at tens of trillions of dollars. Rating compiled by the Internet portal 24 / 7 Wall St.
    The total cost of natural resources of the Russian Federation exceeds $ 75,5 trillion. The next in the ranking, experts identified the United States with reserves of $ 45 trillion, and Saudi Arabia with almost $ 34,5 trillion.


    And what is so expensive with us and we are poor smile Paradoxical situation, we are 2 times richer than the USA and at the same time 2 times poorer (financially) smile
    1. FREGATENKAPITAN
      FREGATENKAPITAN 7 June 2012 10: 18 New
      +5
      Yes, all the same, they steal ...
      As the course of history showed, no one from outside won us ... and the Cold War was not won by the states ........ we don’t like ourselves .... when we put things in order in the country, then that's it will be the other way around .....
      Conclusion:
      - I need a leader of the country at the level of Stalin, Roosevelt, etc. .... able to lead in solving these problems ..
      -Need people’s desire to follow this leader .....
      Now 90% of the population is in a state of apathy ..... so many experiments on it have been conducted since the late 80s .....
      The people wake up, Russia will become the Great ...
  • Liberal
    Liberal 7 June 2012 10: 07 New
    -7
    Shale gas is bullshit! After all, the Russian Federation will not forever be a pitiful raw material appendage of the hostile West. Under the careful leadership of the party, government and our august National Leader, Russia will soon turn into a world leader in the field of nanotechnology and simply into a "country of dreams." The population of Russia is growing, the innovative economy is gaining strength, the Russian Army is being revived and saturated with the latest weapons and military equipment. Go Russia!

    and the fact that the price of gas in the United States is lower than in Russia is a legacy of the dashing 90s - temporary difficulties laughing

    1. Fox 070
      Fox 070 7 June 2012 10: 31 New
      +6
      Quote: Liberal.
      gas price in the USA is lower than in Russia so this is a legacy of the dashing 90s - temporary difficulties

      Well no, here you are lying brazenly! The gas price in the USA is determined by many parameters, and, first of all, the time of year. Also, consumers in terms of price are divided into several categories. Most expensive is gas for ordinary citizens. So, the price in the summer is $ 400. and in winter 700 dollars. The cheapest gas goes to electricity producers is $ 100 per thousand cubic meters, but this is the same low-calorie shale gas.
      So, do not powder people’s brains. fool
      1. Liberal
        Liberal 7 June 2012 10: 42 New
        -7
        Quote: Fox 070
        Well no, here you are lying brazenly!


        It's good that at least you don't dispute my other theses, and you probably agree with them (as a conscientious citizen and patriot). About the "world leader in nanotechnology", "the country of dreams", "innovative economy" and other joys that the National Leader brought us ...
        1. Fox 070
          Fox 070 7 June 2012 10: 51 New
          +2
          Quote: Liberal.
          It’s good that you don’t dispute my other points

          We discussed the problem of gas prices in the United States.
        2. carver
          carver 7 June 2012 10: 56 New
          +2
          And why dispute the complete nonsense, if you are even in the data that you can check lying.
      2. танк
        танк 7 June 2012 14: 16 New
        +2
        I live in the Kaliningrad region the price of gas for 1 cubic meter is about 70 rubles, we multiply by 1000 cubic meters = $ 70000 or $ 2180, in America $ 400 !!!! Now calculate how much cheaper their gas is for an ordinary resident. Dear FOX 070, do not powder your brains myself and people. What I'm telling the truth is easy to check on the Internet.
        1. Fox 070
          Fox 070 7 June 2012 14: 31 New
          +2
          Quote: tank
          do not powder brains for yourself and people

          I do not powder brains. RESPECTED. We consider the price per 1000 cubic meters, and the Americans consider it to be the British thermal unit, which is almost two dozen times more expensive. So consider, DEAR.
          1. chukapabra
            chukapabra 8 June 2012 15: 52 New
            +2
            Quote: Fox 070
            I do not powder brains. RESPECTED. We consider the price per 1000 cubic meters, and the Americans consider it to be the British thermal unit, which is almost two dozen times more expensive. So consider, DEAR


            Well, then we’ll come to a common denominator, for whom is gas cheaper? Somehow bring the units down, Mr. Expert. And tell someone and at what price laughing
        2. postman
          7 June 2012 20: 15 New
          -2
          Quote: tank
          I live in the Kaliningrad region gas price for 1 cubic meter about 70 rubles

          Seriously?
          You probably made a mistake?
          http://www.peterburgregiongaz.ru/755
          In St. Petersburg and Len. areas of
          4, 05 / m3 or 4056,76r / 1000m3
          Do you really have 750% MORE EXPENSIVE?
          (Ofigeli then completely)

          Quote: tank
          for 1 cubic meter about 70 rubles

          49,61r / m3
          http://www.newtariffs.ru/tariff/tarify-tseny-na-gaz-dlya-naseleniya-ot-predpriya
          tiya-kaliningradgazifikatsiya-kaliningradskay

          Quote: tank
          for 1 cubic meter about 70 rubles

          49,61r / m3
          Tariffs - gas prices for the population from the enterprise Kaliningradgazification, Kaliningrad region (Kaliningrad)
          1. танк
            танк 8 June 2012 11: 51 New
            -1
            I will throw you a scanned account in the PM
            1. postman
              8 June 2012 17: 07 New
              0
              Quote: tank
              I will throw you a scanned account in the PM

              Yes, let's do it. You throw off ours, maybe in FAS?
              This is of course ENDLESS ...

              Threat some kind of "defective gives me a minus for a simple normal comment, he probably works in Kaliningrad in Gazpromias ..
        3. postman
          7 June 2012 20: 55 New
          -1
          Quote: tank
          the price of gas for 1 cubic meter is about 70 rubles

          78,52 / m3 - TIN!
          (the truth is liquefied)
          Tariffs - gas prices for the population from the enterprise Kaliningradgazification, Kaliningrad region (Kaliningrad)
          For the use of liquefied gas from group storage units on the basis of the approved consumption standards, by the Decree of the Mayor of Kaliningrad dated September 17, 2001 No. 2838, the following tariffs were established for the residents of Kaliningrad:
          1. sesame
            sesame 7 June 2012 22: 10 New
            0
            (the truth is liquefied)
            But these are two different things.
        4. sesame
          sesame 7 June 2012 22: 08 New
          0
          You didn’t confuse anything? 70 rubles for 1 m3 ?. I pay 3.5 rubles for 1m3, and then I think that is expensive.
          1. postman
            8 June 2012 00: 08 New
            0
            Quote: sezam
            You didn’t confuse anything?

            All right
            The resolution of the mayor of Kaliningrad dated September 17, 2001 No. 2838,
            Only for some reason liquefied
            Quote: sezam
            I pay 3.5 rubles for 1m3,

            In flax. there is no such area since 01.01.2012/XNUMX/XNUMX
          2. танк
            танк 8 June 2012 11: 52 New
            0
            We have no other gentlemen))) but in all of Europe there is. They say that we will be waiting for about 15 years soon))
            1. postman
              8 June 2012 17: 09 New
              +1
              Quote: tank
              We have no other gentlemen)))

              Well, yes, everything is in the spirit of OUR.
              we deliver to Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic region, and you send to Kaliningrad (your own).
      3. chukapabra
        chukapabra 8 June 2012 07: 43 New
        +2
        Quote: Fox 070
        Well no, here you are lying brazenly! The gas price in the USA is determined by many parameters, and, first of all, the time of year.

        as in the whole world .tk. gas is traded on exchanges along with all petroleum products

        Quote: Fox 070
        Most expensive is gas for ordinary citizens. So, the price in the summer is $ 400. and in winter 700 dollars. The cheapest gas goes to electricity producers is $ 100 per thousand cubic meters, but this is the same low-calorie shale gas.

        So Gazprom sells gas only to citizens fool ? If the price reaches 500 bucks for 1000 cubic meters, but the electric power industry, chemistry, heating the northern stream, or the whole gas pipeline system has nothing to do with it?
        On a stock exchange in the US, the price is 90 bucks for natural gas. What are they going to export? Low calorie gas? Let's do something more objective. Already something, but they know how to count money in the states.
        Already one here argued that the cost of shale gas production is 225 per 1000 cubic meters. Sell at 70 per 1000, a difference of 150 bucks, with production of 51 billion cubic meters, the total amount of the subsidy should be 75 billion, and who pays for it?
        Quote: Fox 070
        So, do not powder people’s brains.

        you do not powder
        1. Curculum
          Curculum 8 June 2012 11: 01 New
          +1
          chukapabra, You have piled everything up: the domestic market in the USA for the population, the domestic spot market in the USA, the European spot market.
          Moreover, your "Have you forgotten they are already exporting gas ..." at 01:53 completely contradicts
          Quote: chukapabra
          What are they going to export?
          .
          Therefore, no one needs to powder your brains - this has already been done, unfortunately. lol
  • crossbow
    crossbow 7 June 2012 10: 45 New
    +3
    Gazprom’s linking gas prices with oil prices was very expensive for Europe today, who would have thought 10-15 years ago that the oil price would go over 100 dollars per barrel and that gas would cost 450 dollars per 1000 cubic meters. Europe about the need to get rid of dependence on Russian gas (Gazprom’s share now is basically not large, about 26% of the market), whether due to shale gas or liquefied gas from Qatar, they have only one goal -bring down the pricewhat Europe has already begun to achieve gradually - the recent 10% discount of Gazprom to some consumers in Europe testifies to this. If the future of shale gas in Europe is still vague, then the supply of liquefied gas to Europe is on an ever-increasing scale a serious reality and a danger to the financial situation both Gazprom and the country.
  • apro
    apro 7 June 2012 10: 52 New
    +2
    Another lure if it was something like oil and gas prices collapsed immediately, so there’s no need to overlook it.
  • Zloysobaka
    Zloysobaka 7 June 2012 11: 20 New
    +6
    The problem with shale gas is that it can be non-combustible. You can invest, build, drill, pump ... and the output is 20% methane, like in Poland, and everyone cried your money. In general, there are many local gas fields in the world. Extraction is not always profitable. The article is a semi-liberal scarecrow from the category, "You can't spend your kids only on defense, give it to pensioner grandmothers, otherwise foreign uncles are worried."
  • Leisure
    Leisure 7 June 2012 12: 03 New
    +2
    The oil shale, to the evil grandmother, frostbitten their ears.
  • cord
    cord 7 June 2012 12: 48 New
    -1
    No, you look, ah! What an impudent person - raised a hand to guarantee our stability! Threatening the existence of an "energy superpower"! Shoot! Damn, all over the world everyone is developing "green technologies" and alternative sources of fuel, and only in Russia, resenting the expression "raw material appendage" at the same time, foaming at the mouth, they protect the fat Gazprom and in every possible way convince themselves, in the main, that that oil shale is a myth, and the "yin-yang" of Putin's stability - oil and gas - will last forever and only at $ 100500 per barrel / cubic meter. But as the oil price goes down, as it is now, the "strong ruble" and "technological development" and other mythical things are immediately exposed. A colossus with feet of clay, which can bring down the decline in the price of mineral resources. Laughter, and more!
  • atos_kin
    atos_kin 7 June 2012 12: 53 New
    +4
    It was buzzing that experiments on the obviously pernicious idea are again being conducted in Ukraine.
  • Alexander Romanov
    Alexander Romanov 7 June 2012 13: 27 New
    +3
    Yes, deeds, I realized that if Ukraine begins to produce shale gas, the environment will be destroyed. As a result, in addition to gas, Ukraine will also buy water in Russia.
    1. Aeneas
      Aeneas 7 June 2012 14: 07 New
      +6
      And in Ukraine, with water, and so strained. Almost the entire Southeast and Crimea from the Dnieper through the canals are provided with water. There (Donbass, Krivbass), everything is dug-dug by mines, iron ore, and uranium quarries ... Gas wells will only complement the industrial landscape, and their anti-environmental friendliness will only smile at the harsh locals.
      1. Splin
        Splin 7 June 2012 21: 54 New
        +1
        And in Ukraine, with water, and so strained

        Let me disagree. In Ukraine, there is no tension with water, there are problems (probably like most of the former republics) with filtration plants. And the canals have appeared ... It's just that the modern urbanization of people is not always guided by nature. Therefore, let's say a canal from the Northern Donets and supplies Donetsk "metroplia", and the largest Ukrainian North-Crimean canal was built in 1961-1971 for irrigation in general. There are really problems in Turkmenistan. Almost everything is strange in the ditches.
  • Rashid
    Rashid 7 June 2012 15: 38 New
    +2
    After reading the title of the article, I thought that it would be about "revolutionaries" who are fighting in slates (slippers), as in Libya.
  • black cat
    black cat 7 June 2012 16: 45 New
    +5
    Quote: Fox 070
    Shale gas is another duck. He can never be an alternative and should not be inflated from a molehill.

    Who knows English there is a good (in my opinion objective) review of Russian origin.
    Shale Gas: Great Expectations, Modest Plans
    http://www.oilandgaseurasia.com/articles/p/131/article/1410/
    Yes, there are problems with shale gas. High content of impurities. But I was in the gas fields and saw giant sulfur dumps. Who does not know in Russian gas (maybe not everywhere) is also a high content of impurities. Nothing, clean and use. And shale gas will also be refined and sold. I'm more concerned with Iraqi and Qatari gas. Their production costs are cheaper. Yes, and in cars there is a tendency to get rid of fuel. I’m afraid that with falling demand for oil, Gazprom will have a hard time and the Medveputy will rip off ordinary citizens by increasing the price of gas inside the country. And now try to oppose the policy of the Kremlin. They will throw a drunk into the demonstration and everyone (everyone) will be fined not less than 10000 rubles.
    1. Curculum
      Curculum 8 June 2012 01: 07 New
      +1
      Quote: gatto nero
      But I was in gas fields and saw giant sulfur dumps

      Was there a cellphone? Photos would be lover.
      Quote: gatto nero
      I'm more concerned with Iraqi and Qatari gas

      Thoughtfulness is good, but gas is not supplied from "iras" or "Vysurkovskaya propaganda"?
    2. Splin
      Splin 8 June 2012 01: 18 New
      +1
      Their production costs are cheaper.

      Russia sells the most expensive hydrocarbons in the world. And if oil is approaching the market price, then it is not easy for an importer to jump off a gas pipe. Therefore, there will be no South Stream.
      1. Curculum
        Curculum 8 June 2012 11: 23 New
        0
        Quote: Splin
        And if oil approaches market price

        This phrase shows how far you are from the topic of trading in oil, oil products and, accordingly, gas.
        If you answer the question: "Why do oil prices depend on the statements of, for example, the head of the US Federal Reserve System?", Then you yourself will understand that your proposal "Russia sells the most expensive hydrocarbons in the world" is an incorrect minimum.
  • crossbow
    crossbow 7 June 2012 17: 43 New
    0
    gatto nero,
    ... will rip off ordinary citizens by increasing gas prices in the country ....

    Already in May I paid 18% more for gas, although they promised to increase it only from July and by 15%, like that.
  • Leisure
    Leisure 7 June 2012 21: 15 New
    +1
    There is a difficult choice, either gas or water.
    In the south of Europe, there is already a shortage, and in 20 years, "drinking" water will remain only in the north of England and Scandinavia.
  • Denis Kozlov
    Denis Kozlov 7 June 2012 21: 39 New
    -2
    Well done Americans, they create, invent, try and rest assured that gas prices will fall, and based on these experiments a new technology will be developed to produce cheap alternative fuels (American)
    1. Curculum
      Curculum 7 June 2012 23: 43 New
      +1
      Quote: Denis Kozlov
      Well done Americans, they create, invent, try and rest assured that gas prices will fall, and based on these experiments a new technology will be developed to produce cheap alternative fuels (American)

      You yourself are opposed to who you are. Therefore, we are calm.
      P.C. And the surname is common. It’s a pity that you don’t read it thoughtfully.
    2. sergo0000
      sergo0000 8 June 2012 11: 37 New
      +1
      Denis Kozlov,
      They really do a lot! And someday you have to answer for everything!
  • sergo0000
    sergo0000 7 June 2012 22: 46 New
    +1
    But I
    was on gas
    deposits and saw
    giant sulfur dumps. Who not
    knows in Russian gas
    (maybe not everywhere) too
    great content
    impurities. Nothing cleanse and
    use. And shale gas


    will also be cleaned and
    sell. gatto nero,

    Where did you see large dumps of sulfur in Western Siberia? Don’t fool people! Don’t talk about what you have no idea! Or deliberately mislead. Do not lick amers here ....
    Our gas is natural and enters the pipe almost without purification into the transit pipe! For which it is valuable. And if you saw in the picture how the torch burned throughout Siberia, then you know if the associated gas burns or burned during oil production. the last time the oil workers didn’t want to. Because bringing it to the condition of the natural increases its price by 4 times !!!
    And you reasoning how you scare people with some sort of shale gas! Associated gas is a by-product of oil production. And there are no special costs for its production. But there are costs for its utilization. And at the same time, do not tell people that knowing this, other countries will ruin their ecology for the extraction of shale gas, instead of acquiring gas processing plants through their companies and using associated gas for their needs. At the same time freeing oil workers from this haemorrhoids. Proposals have already been received from the Japanese during the Union, but our Politburo didn’t.
  • Kyrgyz
    Kyrgyz 8 June 2012 06: 58 New
    +1
    we will export drinking water from Altai and Baikal at $ 600 per barrel wink
  • AlexxxNik
    AlexxxNik 8 June 2012 09: 46 New
    -1
    states - the empire of lies and everything that comes from them always needs to be evaluated from these considerations. in the meantime, we are waiting for grand revelations on shale gas, it painfully appeared on time and exactly where he is especially needed and they do not like Putin
  • nokki
    nokki 8 June 2012 10: 45 New
    +3
    Oh, and here it was not without the American HEALERS!
  • sergo0000
    sergo0000 8 June 2012 10: 48 New
    +1
    states - empire of lies and all that
    always comes from them
    evaluate from these
    considerations. AlexxxNik,

    That's right! drinks