Military Review

"Shale Revolution": saboteurs, crazy and contused maniacs according to Mikhail Leontyev

118
Head of Gazprom Alexey Miller in the program “Vesti” on Saturday with Sergey Brilev ” saidthat mining shale gas in the United States does not make a profit. “We are not aware of any project at the present time, where the profitability of shale gas production wells would be about a positive value. Absolutely all wells have a negative value. There is an opinion that it is generally a soap bubble that will burst very soon, ”he noted. He further said that the United States is not a competitor to Russia and expressed skepticism about shale. Among the arguments, Miller cited the fact that the United States is a gas-deficient country, while consuming the gas “most”. Experts believe that the volume of shale gas production in the United States corresponds to the reduction in natural gas production there. “Therefore,” Miller believes, “it seems that the production of shale gas in the United States is due to some other reasons. It can be assumed that these are the reasons for US energy security. ” As for production technologies, the head of Gazprom recalled: “We have long had exactly the same technology. Gazprom, for example, produces gas from coal in Kuzbass. ”




All these statements did not go unnoticed by the well-known analyst, host of the television program “However,” and the editor-in-chief of the eponymous weekly Mikhail Leontyev. In expressions, the chief editor was not shy. Here you and the similarity with the "wounded maniac", and "madness", and "direct lies", and "full fly" and "semi-criminal character", and, finally, "aberration of consciousness." The expressive attacks of comrade Leontyev ended with a philippic about the act of “brazenly sabotaging the instructions of the president”, which logically led to the council: “Mr. Miller ... to hospitalize”.

But who is it that appointed Miller to the post? Who is called “Putin’s man” at all, if not Miller? How can the left hand sabotage the action of the right?

In 1991-1996 Comrade Miller, an economist by training, worked at the External Relations Committee of the St. Petersburg City Hall and made a bad career there: he went through the steps of the department head and deputy head of the department and got to the deputy chairman of the committee. And the chairman of the committee was Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. In Gazprom in 2001, Miller got not as a man from the internal forge of personnel, but from the outside - was put by the president. In 2011, V. Putin awarded Miller a government award in the field of science and technology for the development of production technology for high-strength pipes for strategic gas transmission projects (another winner in the same year was Valentina Matvienko), and in 2012 he was awarded Certificate of Honor of the President of the Russian Federation for merits in the development of the gas complex and many years of diligent work.

There is such an opinion about Miller on the net: “Alexey is very executive and obedient. What they say to him, he does. Nothing bad can be said about him, but good too. He does not have his own opinion and is very convenient to deal with some kind of “Media Bridge”. And to steal from Miller's hand will not rise. Unless for myself. ”

Miller does not seem to be spoiled and needs treatment. At least, the president does not notice this. Here is comrade. Leontyev and decided to tell him. You have, they say, Vladimir Vladimirovich, a contused maniac at his side. Halfhead But this is now “halfway”, and when it does it ... “The aberration of consciousness” is no joke.

Not a joke. Even not April Fools' - although the material of M. Leontiev was published on the website "But" 1 April.



“... It looks like a contused maniac. The president instructed them to develop a response strategy for the shale revolution, the president spoke about the dangers of the shale revolution. No, says Miller, there is nothing that the president is talking about.

The United States is producing what Putin said about 214 billion cubic meters of shale gas. But Miller is implacable: “We don’t know any example of shale gas production, where profitability would be about a positive value. Absolutely all wells have a negative value. ” ... It's just some kind of madness. How do the US deal with it? In this case there is a direct lie. The United States does not import gas. All of this gas, destined for the United States, now goes to the European market, where it displaces Gazprom's gas and lowers the price. ”


Meanwhile, it should be noted that shale reserves of energy resources in the United States, which were actively developed there, turned out to be much less than expected. Agency "Bloomberg" even wroteThat estimates of shale gas reserves in the US for 2012 a year represent a “shocking step backwards for a rapidly growing industry.”

According to a recent estimate by the US Department of Energy, there are approximately 482 trillion cubic feet of natural gas from shale basins in the country. The latest data suggests an 42-percent reduction in inventory estimates from the 2011 year: the corresponding value was within 827 trillion. cc feet The downgrade was due to more detailed information that became available due to the increase in the exploitation of shale gas deposits over the 2012 year. This information is open, is translated into Russian and Comrade. Leontyev could spend three or four minutes searching through Google. Well, or "Yandex".

(By the way, it’s the same with oil. история. Against the background of recent revaluations of shale reserves at the end of 2012, the United States did not at all reduce, but increased the volume of oil purchases from Saudi Arabia and other countries of the Persian Gulf. According to “Financial Times”, in the structure of American oil imports, the share, for example, of Saudi Arabia overcame the mark in 15% (the maximum figure since 2003 of the year). The total share of the Gulf countries in the import of “black gold” in the United States exceeded 25% (the highest figure for the same 9 years). Shale mining is unlikely to help the United States quickly achieve "energy independence" and be by 2017, as promised by propagandists, the world's largest oil producer - “Saudi America”).

So, it’s at least premature to talk about total “ousting” of Gazprom’s gas in the world (except for the noble purposes of gosdepovskoy propaganda, that comrade Leontyev, of course, is not typical). Another thing is when exploration, development and mining provide us with new information. Maybe something will be clarified by the year that way 2020-th. Miller and Putin do not look so far in our time. It’s not even the fact that the current president will run for election in 2018.



Leontyev says:

“The US has already begun to export gas at the preliminary stage, including with the aim of stopping the fall in domestic prices for it. Now gas prices in the US domestic market are significantly lower than ours, and it is unprofitable for companies producing it. The United States has received a huge advantage in the form of cheap energy, which they are now trying to use. Americans give $ 10000 to heavy truck drivers for converting them from diesel to gas - despite the fact that gas is cheaper. That is, they accelerate this shale revolution. Only Miller is not clear.


Stop, stop, stop. Someday shale gas will give the US a chance to become one of the leading exporters of raw materials, but so far there is more noise and propaganda than truth. The market, of course, also responds to propaganda and analytical noise, but to a lesser extent than to the facts. Miller seems to know a lot more Leontiev.

The shale revolution in the United States could lead to an industrial revolution. This is exactly what experts of the Cambridge expert group IHS CERA say, Ekaterina Kravchenko reports in an almost recent issue. "Sheets". Yes, own production will gradually replace gas imports to the United States, IHS Vice President John Larson believes, but the main question here is how soon this revolution will reach the rest of the world.

Indeed, natural gas in the USA is 3-4 times cheaper than in European and Asian markets (3,5 $ for 1 million British thermal units - against 20 dollars in Asia). But Michael Stoppard, IHS CERA Managing Director, is sure that market rebalancing is about to begin, and prices will gradually come closer. American gas will gradually become more expensive - its price will rise to 5 $ already by 2014. Mr. Stoppard explains: cheap American gas will not soon change the structure of global trade. The first liquefied gas export terminal will appear in the United States at the end of 2015 or the beginning of 2016. By 2020, the United States will export 6 million cubic meters. feet per day. The impact of US exports will not be felt in the global market until 2020, Stoppard is convinced. With regard to the export of natural gas, the Obama administration has so far approved only one relevant application.

Here we are talking again about the future. "Cheniere Energy" concluded a contract with the British company Centrica for the supply of 1,75 million tons of shale gas annually, starting with 2018. And what about Gazprom? And in the 2011 year, Gazprom exported 8,16 billion cubic meters of gas to the UK; in 2012 - 8,11 billion. In September last year, the Russian monopolist entered into a new agreement with the mentioned “Centrica” to supply 2,4 billion cubic meters of gas for 2014-2016. The volume of Russian gas supplies will only grow, experts say. No recession.



So, we see: we are talking about times quite distant - 2018 year, 2020 year. Moreover, the Americans after revaluations of deposits are generally satisfied with caution in their statements.

By the way, it’s also interesting that, according to the same Vedomosti, adviser to the US energy administration, Heather Zichel, notes that petrochemical concerns led by Dow Chemical oppose increasing gas exports: this can lead to higher prices for gas. domestic market and weaken the competitive advantages of American companies.

Thus, the Americans have a dilemma: on the one hand, cheap gas is good inside the country, on the other hand, the companies producing it are not eager to sell gas cheaply and are aimed at export, which, being sane, is resisted by Obama, who needs more a healthy economy than foreign trade in raw materials. The strategy, frankly, is not at all Russian.

Now - a few necessary paragraphs about 10000 dollars to truck drivers. Obama is known to be back in 2011 She urged Americans "to change" on gas, but the gas topic has not yet gained popularity. To stimulate the gas engine in the United States previously allocated funds (up to 2010). Resource pro-gas.ru, referring to the magazine “Oil of Russia”, cites data that 15 billion dollars a year went to such stimulation in the USA. In particular, 2,5 billion was directed to development programs and demonstration of achievements; 300 million went to the federal government to purchase gas-powered vehicles for official use; 300 million - to replace diesel school buses with environmentally friendly cars powered by gas and other alternative fuels; 300 million - for grants for pilot projects under the Clean City program; 8,4 billion - for the purchase of new municipal buses and 3,2 billion - for energy saving grants.

Since 2011, when the crisis began to be felt more and more, the projects, apparently, were curtailed. In the same 2011 year, in October, the Congress rejected the project of the so-called 1380 act (The Natural Gas Act, HR 1380, or New Alternative Transportation to Give), promoted by a well-known businessman and benefactor Thomas BP Pickens. Americans Solutions, NAT GAS, - otherwise simply referred to as The Pickens Bill).

The goal of the Bill Pickens was a total transfer of US vehicles to gas fuel: either compressed gas or liquefied gas. The old resource producer and trader Pickens very much wanted domestic gas prices to rise (they would have increased if the demand curve went up). The act was served under a delicious sauce to reduce the dependence of the great capitalist homeland on oil, which so far has to be imported and for which you have to pay dearly. The Pickens Bill provided, among other things, tax credits (not subsidies at all, as some media say) to those who: a) buy a gas-powered vehicle; b) who is refitting gasoline or diesel cars under compressed or liquefied natural gas. To the Bill Pickens project, to the 104 section, were laid such loans in the amount of 7500 dollars (mass of a car no more than 8500 pounds) and up to 64000 dollars for a car with a mass of more than 26000 pounds.

However the project was rejected October 4 2011 of the year with the wording that can be summarized in a nutshell: let the demand for natural gas stimulates the market, not Congress. Information about the negative decision of congressmen laid out in open access on the Industrial Energy Consumers of America (IECA) website. On server Govtrack.us You can find the text of this document submitted to the 6 Congress on April 2011. It also states that HR 1380 was not accepted.

Mr Pickens still promotes his own autogasification plan, and he succeeds in some things, but not the subsidies that Comrade Leontyev was talking about. No, for 10000 dollars, truck owners are not yet given. It is rumored that the US government pays awards to companies using “gas” trucks, but, alas, there was no confirmation of these rumors. In addition, the main obstacle to the transition of freight to natural gas are significant costs for the conversion of cars. Therefore, analysts of the magazine “Fleet Owner” believe that the number of trucks on natural gas in the segment of medium and large carrying capacity in the United States will grow slowly. An increase in the production of "clean" trucks from 1950 units to 29483 units in 2017 is projected. This is just 8% of total truck production in the US of 6-8 environmental class over the coming years. As a result, carriers consider natural gas as an alternative fuel only in the distant future.



В "Forbes" You can read Peter Kelly-Detweiler’s article on how gas develops in the States. To save on fuel, Waste management in the US recently announced that it plans to have 80% new compressed natural gas trucks. They will cost about 30.000 $ more expensive, but each of them will then save approximately 27.000 $ per year. Another gas success: the acquisition of AT & T 1.200 gas vans from GM. Major engine manufacturers (Cummins, Peterbilt, Caterpillar, and Navistar) are set to build LNG engines. Navistar predicts that 1 from 3 of its new engines will run on natural gas. This will happen over the next few years. LNG infrastructure is developing along the highway, near existing pipelines.

All this also speaks about the development of not today, but at best, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow.

According to the magazine "Behind the wheel", around the world, about 10 of millions of cars work on natural gas, and only 200 of thousands of them drive to the USA.

Andrey Kuznetsov, Citigroup strategist in Russia and the CIS, expresses "Vedomosti" The following assumption: "Cars on natural gas - not news, but they still have not become a mass mode of transport in most countries due to the lack of sufficient infrastructure. However, the fivefold gap in prices between oil and gas becomes a sufficient incentive for switching to gas and building infrastructure — first of all in terms of heavy transport, which requires a less extensive network of gas stations and has large runs. So, according to our analysts, 30% of the truck fleet in the United States will switch to gas for 2020 g. This will reduce the demand for oil by 0,6 million barrels per day, which roughly corresponds to 0,7% of current demand. The same savings will be provided by the transfer to gas of the part of the sea transport. At the same time, we must realize that this process will be rather long and will become noticeable only by the end of the decade. We believe that by that time oil could fall to $ 85 per barrel. ”

Thus, again - 2020 year. And then at the end of the decade is scheduled only the beginning of the process. By this time, Gazprom, it must be assumed, will have an appropriate strategy. Or an unprofitable "bubble" in the American shale will burst. That is, it's too early to talk about “contused maniacs”.

“What does the global gas revolution mean for Russia? - A. Kuznetsov asks. - Oddly enough, the impact of the situation on the gas market on the Russian macroeconomy is not so great. Gas accounts for only 12% of exports and if, as we expect, the price in Europe falls by a quarter, Russia may lose 3% of export earnings. Bad, but not a disaster. ”

However, Comrade Leontyev continues to scare the fear:

"And finally - a completely psychedelic statement, right Kudrin gas of some kind:" Gazprom has exactly the same technology, gas is extracted from coal in Kuzbass. " This is a full fly away. ... It is necessary to do something with this - a doctor, maybe, call? If a person thinks that we, extracting gas from coal mines, “own the technology of shale gas extraction” - that is, stepped hydraulic fracturing - then the person should be urgently treated ... ”


In the informatorium of Gazprom there is an article called "How can I extract natural gas from coal seams". It says by the way: “It is not possible to extract it from all types of layers; Coals that are intermediate between brown and anthracite are the most promising for mining. Such coal is rich, for example, Kuzbass. The most common options are the injection of water or gel for hydraulic fracturing, injection of air or air-air mixture through the well, and the impact on the formation of a current. "

Conducting the world's first hydraulic fracturing attributed Halliburton (USA, 1947). Later, hydraulic fracturing operations were carried out in the USSR, and the developers of the theoretical basis were Soviet scientists S. S. A., Zheltov Yu. P. (1953), who also had a significant influence on the development of hydraulic fracturing in the world. Hydraulic fracturing is also used to extract methane from coal beds, compressed sandstone gas, and shale gas. For the first time the coal seam was fractured at 1954 in the Donbas.

Comrade Leontyev goes on to say that A. Miller’s interest in shale oil instead of gas is “semi-criminal”. Gazprom, the analyst says, does not need shale gas, “it needs a price.” The task of Miller, as Leontyev sees it, is “to nightmare the state, to justify the inhuman costs of mining”.

“And here's another interesting one: shale gas is unprofitable. And shale oil, in Miller's version, means profitable. This is generally some kind of aberration of consciousness. Psychosis".


And what kind of aberration, if oil, as opposed to not so significant gas, gives in Russia about 30% of export earnings? Gas - 12%, petroleum products - 28%, and the total export of fuel and energy products of Russia was at the end of last year 69,8%? It is not difficult to count. The budget is filled with oil and petroleum products, and in a clear understanding of this, it seems, and reveals the "semi-criminal nature" of Miller. As for Leontyev’s expressive arguments, it’s ridiculous to even try to justify the profitability of gas production by the profitability of oil production. Hurry up, as they say, make people laugh.

Let's not take it on our own, and even more so to guess. Listen to the experts. how warned Raiffeisenbank analyst Andrei Polishchuk, given the decline in gas prices in the United States, investments in the extraction of shale gas there may be of low profitability. Prices in 3,5 $ per 1 million British thermal units, or 122,5 $ per 1000 cube. m, barely cover the cost of production. Many investors today are cutting investments, says Tatyana Mitrova, an expert at the Energy Center of the Skolkovo Business School. And, curiously, according to both experts, more attractive will be investment in the United States in the production of shale oil.

Approximately the same, with some amendments, can probably be projected onto Russia. Only low-margin production of shale gas here will turn into generally unprofitable - if only because of climatic conditions.

However, what is happening to Comrade Leontiev seems to be "an act of brazenly sabotage the instructions of the president." The analyst proposes a solution: Miller to “hospitalize”, and Gazprom to “sell to the Americans.” The last, of course, April Fool's joke.
Russia overslept "shale revolution"

Mikhail Leontyev on the unprecedented statement by the head of Gazprom, Alexey Miller, regarding the production of shale gas in the United States.

Author:
118 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. bulgurkhan
    bulgurkhan April 3 2013 08: 26 New
    +7
    So, according to our analysts, 30% of the truck fleet in the USA will switch to gas by 2020. This will reduce oil demand by 0,6 million barrels per day, which roughly corresponds to 0,7% of current demand.


    The daily oil consumption in the United States is about 15 million. barrels., therefore, only for trucks, the reduction will be 4%, not 0.7% as you wrote.
    1. Vadivak
      Vadivak April 3 2013 09: 17 New
      10
      Quote: ..
      In expressions, the chief editor was not shy. Here you have the resemblance to the “shell-shocked maniac”, and “craziness”, and “straight lies”, and “full fly away”, and “semi-criminal character”,


      In the process, Leontiev was given a command
      1. Vladimirets
        Vladimirets April 3 2013 10: 38 New
        +6
        Quote: Vadivak
        In the process, Leontiev was given a command

        GDP? Why, you can simply and quietly leave at your own request, especially as the GDP set it. Leontiev really went too far.
        1. core
          core April 3 2013 11: 33 New
          +3
          in this situation, what kind of golden parachute would it take for the miller to leave?
      2. Sirocco
        Sirocco April 3 2013 11: 26 New
        11
        . Many gas companies in the UK have initiated shale gas production processes on the coast of North West England. The report raises serious questions about environmental risk and human health. In addition, it is assumed that hydraulic fractures led to two small earthquakes in Lanshire. It is noted that the UK has a high population density, so gas wells will be located near settlements where wells are highly likely to be contaminated. Also, significant public concern will be caused by the use of heavy vehicles necessary for the operation of the well. This report could cause a moratorium on shale gas production in the UK.

        September 1, 2011 in Brussels published a report of the latest research by the US Environmental Protection Agency. As a result, there are undeniable facts that greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas production are greater than that of coal, oil and ordinary gas, the total methane losses during gas production is 3,6-7,9%.

        Studies emphasize the need to further improve shale gas production technology to control methane emissions, soil and groundwater pollution, given the high level of uncertainty in the estimates. Unfortunately, against the background of the picture of depletion of traditional gas reserves, shale gas will not be able to become a worthy alternative to natural gas in the near future, since it does not meet modern environmental requirements for energy. Prospects for large shale gas production are currently available only in sparsely populated areas and in countries that agree to reduce environmental safety.
      3. StolzSS
        StolzSS April 3 2013 12: 23 New
        +1
        Yes, without a bazaar))) Well, as they say, dogs bark the caravan))) By the way, Koreans can order the shooting of barking dogs))) they’re shooting their experts at the mortar ...)))
      4. RDS-1
        RDS-1 April 3 2013 13: 00 New
        +8
        Quote: Vadivak
        In the process, Leontiev was given a command

        Yes, it has been tormented by shale gases for a long time, and now an exacerbation has occurred. smile When I first read his maxims - I could not believe my eyes, I even thought that it was clumsythin trolling. However, the amazement didn’t go away; how can one say “face” loudly so that the consciousness is so sharply cut off by a smart person in general?
      5. zart_arn
        zart_arn April 3 2013 16: 52 New
        +2
        I agree with you. The conclusions and comments of M. Leontiev cannot be taken seriously. Hiding behind pseudo-patriotism, he publicly barks at the request of those in power.
        1. zart_arn
          zart_arn April 3 2013 17: 04 New
          0
          Something Leontiev never mentioned that Russia overslept the industrial revolution, there was no command to see.
          1. vlasov70
            vlasov70 April 3 2013 19: 32 New
            0
            and what do you mean by the industrial revolution?
    2. Setrac
      Setrac April 3 2013 11: 33 New
      0
      Quote: bulgurkhan
      The daily oil consumption in the United States is about 15 million. barrels., therefore, only for trucks the reduction will be 4%, not 0.7% as you wrote

      Yes, somehow 30% of the park and 0.7% reduction do not fit.
      1. True
        True April 3 2013 18: 59 New
        +1
        And what about Gazprom? And in 2011, Gazprom exported 8,16 billion cubic meters of gas to the UK; in 2012 - 8,11 billion. In September last year, the Russian monopolist concluded a new agreement with the aforementioned Centrica on the supply of 2,4 billion cubic meters of gas during 2014-2016. The volume of Russian gas supplies will only grow, experts say. No recession. .... Yeah, absolutely no! Do we even read what we write?
    3. Reasonable, 2,3
      Reasonable, 2,3 April 4 2013 07: 43 New
      0
      Whose mumbled. A meteorite fell from the sky, and a Jew lies beneath it, so it’s such a misfortune, the stone has nowhere to fall.
  2. Nesvet Nezar
    Nesvet Nezar April 3 2013 08: 27 New
    47
    The shale revolution is noodles from the category of the SDI program and the huge oil reserves in the USA .... The SDI program (strategic defense initiative) supposedly developed by the Americans to repel the attacks of Soviet ballistic missiles in the late 80s. This cartoon as American satellites destroy aggressor rockets every day for six months turned on Soviet TV channels. We were so scared that we decided to disarm. As a result, the American missile defense is a miserable part of that cartoon, and we ruined the USSR. The huge oil reserves in America - also at the end of the 80s, they told us that the Americans are so smart that they do not extract their oil but reserve it and carry oil from the Persian Gulf across the whole world only because they are so perspicacious and looking to the future. In fact, it turns out that it is unprofitable to extract “our” oil and the depth of this oil ensures that it will never be extracted (only Texas oil, which is extracted and has long been profitable) ... Now we are being rubbed that they will produce shale gas - any a specialist in mineral resources and hydrocarbons knows that if they start to do what they say, then missiles are not needed and America will destroy itself as an environmental disaster. Americans know how to lie. On this actually live. Salesmen.
    1. krasin
      krasin April 3 2013 08: 38 New
      +6
      +++ At the expense of shale gas, the topic has already been raised. Absolutely to the point !!
    2. shurup
      shurup April 3 2013 08: 57 New
      +3
      Without stopping the hype, the US and the EU are quietly staging a “shale revolution” in Ukraine. Gas and electricity will go to civilized Europe, while the natives will have debts and environmental consequences.
      It's time to help Tymoshenko out of the dungeons. After a forced rest, she will not only tear Leontyeva like a Tuzik heating pad.
      1. Egoza
        Egoza April 3 2013 09: 37 New
        16
        Quote: shurup
        It's time to help Tymoshenko out of the dungeons.

        That you sho! she’s stealing this gas too!
      2. Garrin
        Garrin April 3 2013 11: 28 New
        +2
        Quote: shurup
        Without stopping the hype, the US and the EU are quietly staging a “shale revolution” in Ukraine. Gas and electricity will go to civilized Europe, while the natives will have debts and environmental consequences.

        http://censor.net.ua/photo_news/236826/shokiruyuschie_foto_s_pervyh_skvajin_doby
        chi_slantsevogo_gaza_v_ukraine_ekologicheskaya_katastrofa_donbassa
        Here at this link you can see a photo story about the production of shale gas in the Donbass. Comments are redundant.
      3. wax
        wax April 3 2013 12: 07 New
        +1
        Amer want to continue to develop methods for extracting gas and oil from shale, but in other countries, preferably turning them into sub-basal. Yes, and it is necessary to recoup the costs already made. Better than Ukraine, for this purpose it is difficult to choose a victim at the present time.
    3. atalef
      atalef April 3 2013 13: 25 New
      +1
      Quote: Nesarya Nesvet
      The shale revolution is noodles from the category of SDI program and huge oil reserves in the USA ..

      Noodles or not, says one fact, the United States has ceased to import gas, will soon begin to export.
      1. Nesvet Nezar
        Nesvet Nezar April 3 2013 19: 19 New
        +2
        Quote: atalef
        Quote: Nesarya Nesvet
        The shale revolution is noodles from the category of SDI program and huge oil reserves in the USA ..

        Noodles or not, says one fact, the United States has ceased to import gas, will soon begin to export.


        That's when they start exporting, then we'll talk. In the meantime, there are not even facts - just words, even at the expense of stopping imports.
    4. edge
      edge April 3 2013 16: 43 New
      +2
      Quote: Nesarya Nesvet
      Now we are being rubbed that they will produce shale gas - any specialist in mineral resources and hydrocarbons knows that if they do as they say, they will not need rockets and America will destroy itself as an environmental disaster. Americans know how to lie. On this actually live. Salesmen
      I’ll add a little bit; the project for the production of shale gas was developed by 3 small American firms, they found out the idea for the idea of ​​money after a while, it was dangerous and unprofitable, now they sell the idea around the world and ...... you grab onto it.
      1. not good
        not good April 3 2013 19: 43 New
        +4
        In the USSR, in the places where shale deposits were developed, there were attempts to use shale gas for domestic purposes, but this experience was not widely used. Firstly, there was enough natural gas, secondly, shale gas is more demanding on safety measures (explosive) .Just western gas stoves are not yet took off into the air. Flag in hand, the key to start ..... Although Mr. Miller could moderate his optimism.
  3. Professor
    Professor April 3 2013 08: 29 New
    -25
    This is the rare case when I agree with Leontief. good

    The first export terminal for liquefied gas will appear in the United States in late 2015 or early 2016.

    The terminals have already been built and were originally intended to import gas.

    According to the magazine “Behind the Wheel”, around 10 million cars are running on natural gas all over the world, and only 200 thousand of them drive to the USA.

    Americans are very traditional and do not like change, especially with regard to their holy car.

    Summing up the article, I can only say that the fact is that the United States no longer imports gas. Queue for oil.
    1. KOMPLEKT
      KOMPLEKT April 3 2013 08: 37 New
      22
      We are all very pleased that the United States is becoming self-sufficient in the field of energy. This will undoubtedly stop their fascist policy of taking minerals from other countries.
      1. atalef
        atalef April 3 2013 14: 44 New
        -2
        Quote: KOMPLEKT
        This will undoubtedly stop their fascist policy of taking away minerals from other countries.

        Those. You want to say that * fascists * rob minerals from Russia and Russia at the expense of * fascist money * form 69% of the budget?
    2. Atlon
      Atlon April 3 2013 08: 59 New
      22
      Quote: Professor
      This is the rare case when I agree with Leontief.

      And a rare case when I disagree with him! negative
      1. Igarr
        Igarr April 3 2013 09: 11 New
        10
        Pavel, join in.
        These PR campaigns got it already.
        Especially about this ... shale gas.
        Well, do not learn anything .... SOI, goyim, Iraq, Iran, shale, star-vans ...
        .
        If America squeals in ecstasy, it means the rabbit has finished its work.
        So this should be approached.
      2. Suhov
        Suhov April 3 2013 09: 40 New
        +2
        Quote: Atlon
        And a rare case when I disagree with him!

        Not a joke. Not even April Fools ’- although the material of M. Leontyev was published on the However site on April 1.

        And still:
        America, shale gas, exports, near future, April 1 ...
        Vague doubts torment me ...
        wassat
      3. Ascetic
        Ascetic April 3 2013 12: 09 New
        10
        Quote: Atlon
        And a rare case when I disagree with him!


        But perhaps you can also agree with this conclusion

        “The next two decades involve the development of the structure of the Marcellus field, which is located in the eastern part of the USA, where the development density is several times higher (than in Louisiana and Texas, where shale gas is produced today) - there are more people who drink clean water and want continue to do this, while maintaining clean ponds with good natural water. How will the development of shale gas production go there, one will still have to see. Rather it will be more profitable for Americans to convince Poles that it is profitable to produce shale gas and turn their country's territory into a Martian landscape than to persuade their compatriots to sacrifice their own ecology»

        Otkritie FC oil and gas specialist Vadim Mitroshin

        Given the growth in gas consumption in the United States, producing it for domestic use makes sense, but whether they can economically produce and deliver it to Europe and to sell at competitive prices - this will be a very serious matter(Well, unless of course other suppliers are cut off by "democratic" methods, creating favorable conditions for themselves. What they actually do globally, implementing their policies of "controlled chaos" and color revolutions, increasing the risks of competitors and creating an image of a single island of prosperity in the world.
        Hedgehog it is clear that in the same Europe. In addition to Russian gas, for example, LNG from the Middle East, where cash costs per unit are generally very small, will be enough competitors for American shale gas. Well, in order to put pressure on Russia, it is possible to turn the same Poland and Ukraine into one continuous landfill for shale gas production, because people of the third grade living there are simply not healthy, because the maximum they need is to ensure a high level of consumption of celestials of the “golden billion”. and the less people. the more oxygen the "chosen"
        Quote: Professor
        This is the rare case when I agree with Leontief.
        .
        Well, by forcing the Poles with the Ukrainians to get gas at their own place, you can kill two birds with one stone - press out the Russian competitor and transfer harmful production to foreign territory.
        1. Hunter thomson
          Hunter thomson April 3 2013 12: 20 New
          -2
          Quote: Ascetic
          Well, by forcing the Poles with the Ukrainians to get gas at their own place, you can kill two birds with one stone - press out the Russian competitor and transfer harmful production to foreign territory.


          In Poles, the gas turned out to be bad, with a high content of CO2. Depends on the reservoir. Everything else in your comment is nonsense. Look at gas prices in the US domestic market, add 30-40 percent of the cost of liquefaction and transportation, and take away that even in this case, prices for 1000 BTU will be lower than in the domestic market of Russia. Fold the numbers themselves, or help you?
          1. Ascetic
            Ascetic April 3 2013 14: 00 New
            10
            Quote: Hunter Thomson
            In Poles, the gas turned out to be bad, with a high content of CO2. Depends on the reservoir. Everything else in your comment is nonsense. Look at gas prices in the US domestic market, add 30-40 percent of the cost of liquefaction and transportation, and take away that even in this case, prices for 1000 BTU will be lower than in the domestic market of Russia. Fold the numbers themselves, or help you?


            According to the Director of the Institute of Oil and Gas Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician Anatoly Dmitrievsky, the cost of shale gas production in the USA for 2012 is not less than 150 dollars per thousand cubic meters
            article The "shale revolution" is postponed
            link
            According to most experts, the cost of shale gas production in countries such as Ukraine, Poland and China will be several times higher than in the United States
            article Should I thank Hollande for the ban on shale gas? ("La Tribune", France)
            link
            The cost of shale gas is higher than traditional. So, in Russia, the cost of natural gas from old gas fields, including transportation costs, is about $ 50 per thousand cubic meters. m
            link
            The cost of gas in the United States is now $ 140, and even now, Chesapeake Energy is the largest and first in oil shale in debt as in silk. At the end of 2012, Chesapeake Energy recorded a loss of $ 940 million

            By 2010, shale gas production in the United States (on paper) reached 51 billion cubic meters per year. And although this, in general, is a rather ridiculous figure - not even reaching 8% of Gazprom’s production - but the fanfare in the media played to the fullest, and the largest world companies spent about $ 21 billion on assets associated with such promising production shale gas.
            And then what happened is that what always happens in the USA, which has been separated through and through, always happens. Another stock bubble burst. It turned out that US gas companies attributed production volumes, proven gas reserves, and underestimated production costs - in order to raise the prices of their shares on the stock exchange. The US Department of Energy had to admit this, and it was announced that retrospective production figures would be adjusted downward
            Gas companies blotted out $ 21 billion worth of “shale” assets to suckers, along the way, the US government divorced foreign gas suppliers to lower prices - and now this has been bluffed retroactively.
            The truth is very simple. Shale gas production is economically meaningless.
            link
            1. Ascetic
              Ascetic April 3 2013 14: 07 New
              +4
              In all predictions about the United States as a renewed energy superpower, flooding the world with its shale oil and gas, only one thing is wrong. They are based on a bubble, on the usual deception of Wall Street scammers. In fact, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the shale revolution is a brief outbreak in the energy sector, a new fraudulent pyramid carefully built with the same Wall Street banks and market analysts, many of which participated in the inflating the dot. com ”in 2000 and, more spectacularly, the bubble of US real estate securitization in 2002-2007. (vi) Take a close look at the real results of this revolution and the real costs of it, all this is very instructive.

              US shale gas bubble burst
              link

              Starting in August 2012, many large shale gas producers in the United States were forced to announce Large write-offs of the value of their shale assets. BP has announced write-offs of $ 4,8 billion, including more than a $ 1 billion drop in the value of its US shale assets. UK-based BG Group wrote off $ 1,3 billion of its shale investments in the US, EnCana, a large Canadian shale gas operator, spent $ 1,7 billion of write-offs of shale assets in the US and Canada, warning that the figure could rise if gas prices will not recover.
              Australian mining giant BHP Billiton is one of the worst hit shale in the US since it came at the very end of a bustling show. In May 2012, he announced that he was considering depreciating shares on the value of his US shale assets, which he bought at the peak of the shale gas boom in 2011, when the company paid $ 4,75 billion to buy a shale project from Chesapeake Energy, and bought Petrohawk Energy for $ 15,1 billion
              But worst of all at the moment is a former superstar in the Chesapeake Energy shale gas industry from Oklahoma.
              This company, according to the majority, is typical of the shale gas industry and was previously proclaimed the leading player in the shale business. In August 2012, rumors spread that Chesapeake Energy would file for bankruptcy. This would be very embarrassing for a company that was the second largest gas producer in the country. It could also allow the world to recognize the deception that was behind the promotion of the “shale energy revolution” spread by the likes of Yergin and the Wall Street energy promoterswishing to earn billions on M&A and other transactions in this sector to replace their grim experience in real estate.


              Shale landscapeShale landscape
            2. Kars
              Kars April 3 2013 14: 16 New
              0
              Quote: Ascetic
              the basics in the US for 2012 - at least $ 150 per thousand cubic meters

              Quote: Ascetic
              , is about $ 50 per thousand cubic meters. m


              And for Ukraine NOW the cost of procurement is about 500)))

              So the only problem is Ecology. Even with the Soviet Socialist Republic in the alleged places of shale gas production, even atomic bombs exploded.
              1. Ascetic
                Ascetic April 3 2013 14: 42 New
                +3
                Quote: Kars
                So the only problem is Ecology. Even with the Soviet Socialist Republic in the alleged places of shale gas production, even atomic bombs exploded.


                This is a bit from another opera. By the way, I also wrote about this. This technology was used to extinguish fires in gas fields, in particular, there were successful attempts. and unsuccessful both near Kharkov in 1972. Read about it here.
                link
                And the technology of oil shale is described in the link given by me in the previous post. Read, there the entire technology is painted on the fingers.
                Oil, too, was not without JV experiments



                Extinguishing a fire in a gas field. Then everything worked out. And near Kharkov .. alas ..

              2. Ascetic
                Ascetic April 3 2013 14: 52 New
                +7
                Quote: Kars
                And for Ukraine NOW the cost of procurement is about 500)


                Just not the COST, do not confuse, but the price of the PURCHASED gas from Gazprom according to the contract. Is it good or bad. I am talking about the cost of PRODUCTION. Who is to blame if you agreed to such a price .. It's generally from another opera .. Here and develop a slate following the example of the Americans, then you will not depend on Gazprom ... Who is stopping that? Workplaces. advanced technology, low cost, ease of mining are some advantages .. Won Hunter Thomas will write down everything in detail. These are questions to him and not to me ... I brought the links, read, compare. analyze .. Good luck .. I’m only talking one nonsense, bring me to the emergency and all things ..
                After all, I don’t live near shale mining sites .. I’m more interested in Moscow’s intention to build a cemetery near our summer cottage, located in a water reserve in the north of Mos.obl. Ever since the time of Luzhkov, we have been fighting until the danger has passed .. You want to drink clean water from a well or a well, you know .. yes, I like to sit on a lake with a fishing rod ... The same problem will be with shale ... You have everything ahead.
                1. Kars
                  Kars April 3 2013 16: 30 New
                  0
                  Quote: Ascetic
                  Just not the COST, do not confuse, but the price of the PURCHASED gas

                  For us, it is the prime cost. The price of its production from the gas pipeline)))
                  Quote: Ascetic
                  I speak about the prime cost of PRODUCTION.

                  But we are not particularly interested in this? We need shale gas production to be less than the purchase of imported gas.
                  Quote: Ascetic
                  Who's stopping that?

                  Here is one thing that makes it really hard to interfere.
                  Quote: Ascetic
                  ..Von Hunter Thomas will write down everything in detail

                  so some paint this way, others paint that way, it's harder with that.
                  Quote: Ascetic
                  unsuccessful as near Kharkov in 1972

                  but there was a nuclear explosion. another one in Donetsk for crushing the ore body.
                  in general, the use of a peaceful atom is a huge article - there are more than a hundred explosions in almost the entire territory of the USSR
              3. Reindeer herder
                Reindeer herder April 3 2013 19: 59 New
                +2
                In Soviet times, 12 nuclear warheads were blown up in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug and the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug in the interests of the Ministry of Energy, but not for the production of shale gas, but for the exploration of oil and gas fields. There were also explosions in Kuzbass to remove methane from coal seams, but the experiment was unsuccessful because after a short time, it accumulated again. In Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug and Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug I had a listing with the coordinates of the charges, I live 250 km from the nearest. By the way, there was no radioactive contamination of the area.
            3. atalef
              atalef April 3 2013 19: 01 New
              -2
              Quote: Ascetic
              By 2010, shale gas production in the United States (on paper) reached 51 billion cubic meters per year.

              I don’t know whether on paper (as you say) or not, but the states stopped buying gas, you didn’t ask yourself a question, but what covered this deficit - if not your own production?
              As for the price - whatever one may say, this gas is cheaper than Gazpromovsky - and this is the same fact.
              After that, scream that it's all a lie.
              But, the fact remains, America uses its own gas and it is cheap.
              And do not twist it, if they start exporting it (and they will start) it will supplant Gazprom and gas prices will automatically fall.
              Object to that, anything hi
              1. Ascetic
                Ascetic April 3 2013 21: 46 New
                +5
                Quote: atalef
                After that, scream that it's all a lie.
                But, the fact remains, America uses its own gas and it is cheap.
                And do not twist it, if they start exporting it (and they will start) it will supplant Gazprom and gas prices will automatically fall.


                For God's sake smile wassat Flag in hand! Probably they didn’t read the article?

                Very high rates of depletion of shale gas wells require a constant injection of capital, estimated at $ 42 billion per year, for drilling more than 7000 wells in order to maintain production. For comparison, the cost of shale gas produced in 2012 was only $ 32,5 billion. "

                Here he is cheap gas that sponsors the state and lobbied for all this is Dick Cheney.

                complex accounting (methods) of company fraud make it almost impossible for analysts and shareholders to determine what are the real risks


                In other words, another mortgage type bubble. With the help of their analytegoffs and the media, they actively dust the suckers - shareholders on a global scale and sell nothing. We must pay tribute to the United States, they are the schemers of the pros. mining from shale is many times more expensive than from sand. AND will always be more expensive. Shales lie deeper, require long complex horizontal drills, the explosions and chemicals themselves, the gas is heavily contaminated and requires expensive cleaning, the return of wells is low and quickly ends, which requires constant expensive expensive new drilling and materials, etc. We will not even mention that all of this requires MUCH ENERGY, for which gas is mainly produced, and shale gas is also energetically worse than natural gas. And this whole devastation can be justified only proximity to large consumers (the exception is the construction of an expensive pipe and the transportation itself) and, indirectly, in this way - the receipt of "national fuel". However, a) "proximity to large consumers" does not combine well with the extremely poor ecology of shale production and the need for large and growing areas for drilling, which already in practice means the availability of such production in only a few large enough countries with free areas, as well as the need to build some kind of pipe from such more distant places b) Despite the ubiquity of gas shales, only a very small part of them is economically and energetically profitable, and again, they are not necessarily close to consumers, which again puts transport in its place c) again But this event is beneficial for countries with an already developed pipeline network (in particular, for Russia itself, which has a dofig of these shale itself) d) making distant exports economically senseless, since it takes away the last advantage over pipeline natural gas and, moreover , even over the transportation of natural liquefied from the same Qatar e) early the development of new technologies requires very great manpower and resources, the following will go the already passed path without trial and error.
                1. Ascetic
                  Ascetic April 3 2013 21: 52 New
                  +4
                  perfectly set in these PRs, it makes hundreds of boobies in the world nightingale about "just about the upcoming shale tale." And, I must say, they are singing after all, that they’re about to have “candy” in their hands. Although clever people show them hundreds of times that it’s - "while big kaka", however, in boobies "ears do not want to hear, eyes see, and nose - sniff" all this is "good." Which, incidentally, is also well understood by Western realists, letting all the PR go by the ears and with all this bacchanalia, however, investing heavily in Russian deposits and pipes.

                  Moreover, I already noticed as soon as a situation appears about another American fake or freezing under the guise of super-duper = nano-breakthroughs, Hunter, Professor and Karish appear tearing a shirt on his chest for a right American cause. Protecting a scam needs to be a sucker yourself. a person interested in protecting him. There is simply no other logic in such an accented and categorical defense
              2. Ascetic
                Ascetic April 3 2013 22: 24 New
                +3
                Quote: atalef
                And do not twist it, if they start exporting it (and they will start) it will supplant Gazprom and gas prices will automatically fall.
                Object to that, anything


                I myself will not .. there are professionals

                Averias Today, 09:16 6
                For the first time faced a dilemma. To believe that, just before that, there was the same article about shale gas. And the same thing was said there that not everything is so rosy with the booty that the President of the United States is driven head over heels. And since I myself have the education of a geologist, I generally go into a stupor. I will not go into details and subtleties, but what kind of export deliveries can be discussed? When the United States achieved shale gas production, export levels. Before that, they will ruin the whole ecology (nature) around the deposits and not only (groundwater). The debit of the wells is not high yet, but a lot of costs. Where is the cheapness? And the fact that residents of those states where development is being held are massively staging protests, even a lured GreenPis is sounding the alarm. Does this mean something? Although the US is carefully concealing it. So now think about whom to believe. Of course, I respect Mr. Leontyev, the muse is smart, no doubt. But what is he, is he an encyclopedia and a professional in all conceivable and inconceivable issues. If he has something against Miller, that's what you need to say. And do not mix everything in one boiler. And the fact that the type of shale gas production can be a problem for Gazprom (competition and so on), and the article noted this in passing. Do not tell, although, for the first of April, the joke is cool. Gazprom also probably cast a spell.

                PS The Japanese are also yelling at all the "crossroads" - they say we’ll overwhelm everyone with cheap methane hydrate and rare earth elements from the depths of the ocean. Yeah, the question is different, provide yourself first. Set up mining technology. And it’s all screaming.

                This is again for apologists of ordinary American crooks ..
                1. BruderV
                  BruderV April 3 2013 23: 32 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Ascetic
                  The debit of the wells is not high yet, but a lot of costs. Where is the cheapness?

                  It could be written two or three years ago and someone would have believed. YOU are either copy-copy junk, or you live in some other year. If they have any environmental problems, it’s not in the Texas desert, where nothing is growing anyway, but in other states such as New York, such production is not carried out.
                  1. Ascetic
                    Ascetic April 4 2013 01: 09 New
                    +2
                    Quote: BruderV
                    . If they have any environmental problems, it’s not in the Texas desert, where nothing is growing anyway, but in other states such as New York, such production is not carried out.


                    Shale gas is characterized by the following indicators of production decline:

                    in the first year to the level of the first days of production: by 65%;
                    in the second year to the level of the end of the first year: by 53%;
                    in the third year to the level of the end of the second year: by 23%;
                    in the fourth year to the level of the end of the third year: by 21%;

                    That is, over 4 years, production in open wells is reduced 10 times to the initial level. Even in 2007, American shale gas workers learned quickly get a high peak debit, write bravure reports on loans for the bank, and then the debit of the well rapidly drops to almost zero. This is the whole shale fake and the scam of American companies .. to succeed in sucking in suckers assets until production has fallen.
                    The scheme is very simple: the company takes a loan, drills a well. The well produces gas - the next loan is taken as collateral in the form of future production of this gas and two more wells are drilled. They give gas - even more credit is taken for production and four wells are drilled. Interest on past loans is given at the expense of part of the fresh loan. A classic credit pyramid, formally “provided” with gas, which theoretically can be squeezed out of a well in ten years. In fact, the flow rate of the well is rapidly falling
                    Nowhere outside the United States has shale gas production become economically viable. And the fact that it is beneficial in the USA is a situation, artificially created by printing cut green paper
                    The mechanism of the bubble is that firms developing shale fields seek to increase their capitalization by show a sharp increase in recoverable gas reserves. Which, in fact, in the end will be unprofitable to extract.

                    And here are the results
                    Chesapeake Energy Financial Highlights


                    Financial Performance Devon Energy


                    The financial performance of the largest shale gas producers in the United States clearly illustrates the unfavorable pricing environment and technological characteristics of production.
          2. Nesvet Nezar
            Nesvet Nezar April 3 2013 19: 26 New
            +1
            Quote: Hunter Thomson
            Quote: Ascetic
            Well, by forcing the Poles with the Ukrainians to get gas at their own place, you can kill two birds with one stone - press out the Russian competitor and transfer harmful production to foreign territory.


            In Poles, the gas turned out to be bad, with a high content of CO2. Depends on the reservoir. Everything else in your comment is nonsense. Look at gas prices in the US domestic market, add 30-40 percent of the cost of liquefaction and transportation, and take away that even in this case, prices for 1000 BTU will be lower than in the domestic market of Russia. Fold the numbers themselves, or help you?


            Yes, we know how you plyuserki plusers. Here on an Internet post goes about the retirement of one entrepreneur ... Allegedly, he should receive 43 soup per month if he puts the money in the bank. Only his mathematics is fabulous. Of the annual contributions to the pension fund (35 thousand), it turned out in 30 years for some reason 5 million instead of 1 million (35000 rubles * 30 years = 1050000 rubles) ..... So we’ll count the fraudsters without you ....
            1. Ghenxnumx
              Ghenxnumx April 4 2013 12: 13 New
              +1
              Quote: Nesarya Nesvet
              Yes, we know how you plyuserki plusers. Here on an Internet post goes about the retirement of one entrepreneur ... Allegedly, he should receive 43 soup per month if he puts the money in the bank. Only his mathematics is fabulous. Of the annual contributions to the pension fund (35 thousand), it turned out in 30 years for some reason 5 million instead of 1 million (35000 rubles * 30 years = 1050000 rubles) ..... So we’ll count the fraudsters without you ....

              You forgot that the bank accrues another% for each year (which, by the way, this businessman said winked ) - this is how more than 28 million rubles are gained in 25 years, I didn’t count further, but it’s so clear that you’re not very good with mathematics. hi
            2. Atrix
              Atrix April 4 2013 14: 45 New
              -1
              If you do not know how to calculate compound interest, then use this link
              http://planetcalc.com/573/
              If, as you said, a person pays 35000 a year, then in 30 years he will receive the amount of 2910193 rubles at 6% per annum
              1. Ghenxnumx
                Ghenxnumx April 4 2013 15: 42 New
                -1
                Quote: Atrix
                If you do not know how to calculate compound interest, then use this link
                http://planetcalc.com/573/
                If, as you said, a person pays 35000 a year, then in 30 years he will receive the amount of 2910193 rubles at 6% per annum

                1. here, you probably didn’t notice do not poke, with the exception of friends, to which you definitely do not belong.
                2. How do you all (those with the / - / sign) like to twist the facts to their side - I counted with the annual transfer of% when making a contribution, and not with a recount when withdrawing, is it clear now?
                3. You forgot that we are talking about a long-term contribution, and this is at least 12%, it was from them that I repelled
                For clarity, you can follow this link:
                http://www.nettrader.ru/education/calc/deposit4
                1. Atrix
                  Atrix April 4 2013 17: 00 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Ghen75
                  http://www.nettrader.ru/education/calc/deposit4

                  You do not understand i wrote this Nesvet Nezarnot you
                  1. Ghenxnumx
                    Ghenxnumx April 4 2013 17: 41 New
                    +1
                    Quote: Atrix
                    You do not understand, I wrote it ... not for you

                    Guilty, I didn’t guess repeat - for specifics, it is better to make the address address. hi
        2. old rocket man
          old rocket man April 3 2013 14: 59 New
          +3
          Quote: Ascetic
          Quote: Ascetic
          Well, by forcing the Poles with the Ukrainians to get gas at their own place, you can kill two birds with one stone - press out the Russian competitor and transfer harmful production to foreign territory

          I think the dog rummaged here.
          И fass Leont'ev, really, only now he was directed not against Miller, but against Ukraine and, to some extent, against Poland in a compartment with the Baltic states in order to drive them into an adventure with shale gas,it seems to me
          1. Ascetic
            Ascetic April 3 2013 21: 35 New
            +2
            Quote: old rocket
            And Fass Leontiev really was, only he was directed not against Miller, but against Ukraine and, to some extent, against Poland in a compartment with the Baltic states in order to drive them into an adventure with shale gas, as it seems to me


            The Poles did not have time to trap. Svidomity-have every chance to slip out. So - alas, this was not our chance to introduce Poland and Ukraine to reality.
            Translating into the language of correct concepts, we can say this:
            We can HOPE that Poland will fall into this trap. But here we CANNOT count on it.
            1. Kars
              Kars April 3 2013 21: 45 New
              0
              Quote: Ascetic
              into this trap

              And what exactly is the trap?
              Quote: Ascetic
              Well, I only carry nonsense, bring me to the emergency and all things

              just paid attention.

              but what's the point? you are still a moderator, so I’ll see me anyway, but I’m looking at the last column of comments.
              And I’ll still see quotes, as an example of this old rocket))))
              1. Ascetic
                Ascetic April 3 2013 22: 14 New
                +2
                Quote: Kars
                And what exactly is the trap?


                In Poland, the shale miracle did not happen? And in Ukraine?
                link
                What we do not agree on shale gas in Ukraine!
                link
                Hydraulic fracturing in Russia is widely used, but in remote areas where no one lives. In oil wells. There are no roads, no settlements - nothing. Complete deserted wilderness for a couple of hundred kilometers. Technologies, equipment, specialists - domestic. Not only drinking water for miners, but also water for hydraulic fracturing is imported there from the outside, and it needs a lot. Moreover, according to our technology, especially harmful substances are not used.
                As for the Ukraine project, which is mentioned in the article, the situation is fundamentally different. There is no technology, no equipment, no specialists, no money for hydraulic fracturing. They hire TNCs that use hazardous chemicals such as arsenic. It is noteworthy that the zapadentsy subsidized by the general budget banned hydraulic fracturing on their territory, and all the delights of the lack of drinking water go to the Russian units (Donetsk and Kharkov) of the Ukraine project.

                1. Kars
                  Kars April 3 2013 22: 25 New
                  0
                  Quote: Ascetic
                  What we do not agree on shale gas in Ukraine!

                  What exactly is the trap?

                  about technology, harmful substances --- it’s too early to say, they’ve personally sent you the documentation.

                  Wet money should not Ukraine but
                  Quote: Ascetic
                  TNCs

                  which will sell us the produced gas. And in doing so, flesh taxes.
                  even though there is a problem that our authorities have chosen too big preferences. I hope that they know about the experience of Russian cooperation in projects .. Sakhalin-1.. and .. Sakhalin 2 ..
        3. Sirocco
          Sirocco April 4 2013 03: 59 New
          0
          The United States will allocate $ 35 million for a joint US-Ukrainian program for the disposal of RS-22 missile hulls at the Pavlograd Chemical Plant.

          According to UNIAN, President Viktor Yanukovych announced this today after the ceremonial opening at the PCP of the full-scale installation of hydromechanical removal of solid rocket fuel of RS-22 intercontinental ballistic missiles.

          According to him, an agreement on US funding of a program for the disposal of solid hulls of intercontinental ballistic missiles was reached during his meeting with US President Barack Obama in April 2010.

          Yanukovych also noted that all necessary equipment will be assembled and installed at the PCP until 2013.

          “Until 2014, in extreme cases, until 2015, it will be possible to 100% utilize solid rocket fuel and missiles at the Pavlograd Chemical Plant,” he said. The president. We must ask the people of Pavlograd how they like rainfall, rain, and trees that dry in the summer. How are things with oncology, and allergy.
      4. wax
        wax April 3 2013 12: 09 New
        +2
        The professor knows where the city lies, but for Russia. But Leontiev got something out of his mind. Contusion?
    3. djon3volta
      djon3volta April 3 2013 09: 01 New
      +4
      Professor tell me why you always protect america in the open runet.ty on amerskie sites also praise her, unless of course you are there?
      1. Professor
        Professor April 3 2013 09: 07 New
        -2
        A statement of the fact that America’s transition to its own gas is called the defense of America? request
        1. evfrat
          evfrat April 3 2013 09: 37 New
          +7
          Professor, you are just a fabulous "professor." shale gas = shale oil = Libya + Iraq. This is the legalization of theft. And the cowboys can just wish good luck, they will need it soon.
          1. Professor
            Professor April 3 2013 09: 47 New
            -2
            Facts are stubborn things. America does not import gas at all, and from Iraq and Libya as well. hi
    4. Alexander Romanov
      Alexander Romanov April 3 2013 09: 55 New
      +5
      Quote: Professor
      that the fact is that the US no longer imports gas. Queue for oil.

      Lord Professor, we live on different planets laughing
      1. Professor
        Professor April 3 2013 10: 20 New
        -2
        Lord Professor, we live on different planets

        I suspect that in different galaxies. wink

        Here are the full statistics including previously binding contracts. The terminals built to import Arab gas stand and are waiting for their turn for export.
        US Natural Gas Imports by Country



        BP hopes to use Freeport terminal to export natural gas


        Shell, El Paso plan natural gas export terminal
        Here are the data from two years ago according to which the United States exported 2011 billion cubic meters of gas already in 42.67.
        Natural gas - production:
        651.3 billion cu m (2011 est.)

        Natural gas - consumption:
        689.9 billion cu m (2011 est.)

        Natural gas - exports:
        42.67 billion cu m (2011 est.)

        Natural gas - imports:
        97.86 billion cu m (2011 est.)

        Natural gas - proved reserves:
        7.716 trillion cu m (1 January 2009 est.)
        1. Suhov
          Suhov April 3 2013 10: 34 New
          +5
          Quote: Professor
          The terminals built to import Arab gas stand and are waiting for their turn for export.

          Export of shale gas, shale oil and as a result the shale appendage of great China ...
          wassat
          1. Professor
            Professor April 3 2013 10: 38 New
            +1
            You can’t argue a lot here. Export of hydrocarbons did not lead to anything good.
            1. Vladimirets
              Vladimirets April 3 2013 11: 11 New
              +1
              Quote: Professor
              Export of hydrocarbons did not lead to anything good.

              Who?
              1. Professor
                Professor April 3 2013 11: 18 New
                -4
                Exporters. While some are developing science and industry, others are sitting on an oil needle screaming Ala Wakbar.
                1. Vladimirets
                  Vladimirets April 3 2013 11: 28 New
                  +3
                  Quote: Professor
                  Exporters. While some are developing science and industry, others are sitting on an oil needle screaming Ala Wakbar.

                  Those who sit on the valve feel no worse than those who develop science and technology. wink Especially when you consider that 50 years ago they rode camels and ate barley cakes.
                  1. Professor
                    Professor April 3 2013 11: 35 New
                    +1
                    These are only those who directly cut a coupon with a hydrocarbon. For example, Holland nearly ruined its economy by launching the export of hydrocarbons, Nigeria is actively "eating up" its billions, while Japan and Singapore have "gone the other way."
                  2. Petr_Sever
                    Petr_Sever April 3 2013 12: 08 New
                    +3
                    "Especially when you consider that even 50 years ago they rode camels and ate barley cakes."

                    They will return to this way of life after the hydrocarbons run out.
                    Mind a lot is not necessary, eat up the contents of the bowels.
                    1. Hunter thomson
                      Hunter thomson April 3 2013 12: 11 New
                      +1
                      It is believed that the Stone Age did not end because the stones ended. The collapse of all these Arabian regimes could come long before they pump out the last barrel.
                      1. Suhov
                        Suhov April 3 2013 15: 37 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Hunter Thomson
                        It is believed that the Stone Age did not end because the stones ended.

                        Beautifully said, I have not heard ...
                        good
            2. Suhov
              Suhov April 3 2013 15: 32 New
              +2
              Quote: Professor
              You can’t argue a lot here. Export of hydrocarbons did not lead to anything good.

              With your permission.
              The export of hydrocarbons, in most cases, is a direct path to softening the brain, will, muscle, etc.
              wassat
    5. Hunter thomson
      Hunter thomson April 3 2013 11: 51 New
      0
      Oddly enough, Leontiev is very often right, although he discredits (or deftly disguises?) His impeccable logic of "cheers with a patriotic Orthodox hysteria." Gazprom’s mantras in the spirit of "we are not afraid of the gray wolf," or, "But we don’t care ... we mow the grass," they touch. America will not export gas by 2016, but is doing it now. (so far with significant restrictions imposed by law), but the United States became a net exporter of gas in 2012, in addition to shale exploitation in the United States, new technologies in exploration and deep-water drilling open up and make available a huge number of previously unknown or unavailable fields (gas in Israel), the coast of Latin America (oil of the same Falklands) By the way, I remember these cries that Israel will not see gas, that there will be a war, Turks, Arabs, aliens will destroy them and take away gas, but last week gas from Tomar is already in Israel. And Netanyahu apologizes to Erdogan, under pressure from Obama, that everyone would happily close the Israeli vaults on the Nabuko, and drive Israel gas to Europe in transit through Turkey. Yes, here the Chinese seriously set out to carry out the thorium energy revolution. And in order not to lag behind the Chinese, the Indians rushed after them, with the silent support of all the same Israeli nuclear scientists. And the most pessimistic forecasts of those. specialists - no later than the twentieth year, thorium energy will begin to squeeze out traditional power generation everywhere in the developed World. But Gazprom and the cheers of the patriots have their own mantras: "All lies and law enforcement, voluntarism and American propaganda. Gas has been selling gas for many years at a loss, if only to annoy Russia. We don’t believe, we’re not afraid, for our motherland, we’ll break such vests" .
  4. Atrix
    Atrix April 3 2013 08: 53 New
    -11
    That's how interesting it is in Russia, if Leontiev says in tone with the "party" that everything is fine in the "Russian Kingdom" then he is considered an expert here laughing And as soon as he said that they overslept, they immediately enrolled in amateurs laughing And it’s also interesting to become temporarily distant in 2018-2020, and when they say for rearmament it is almost tomorrow laughing
    And on the topic, progress does not stand still and I think Leontev wanted to say that if today it is not very profitable, then in 5 years it will become profitable. And if Gazprom does not conduct development and sits idle again, it will again be in the role of catching up.
    1. Igarr
      Igarr April 3 2013 09: 15 New
      0
      But Gazprom is not idle.
      He leads the Sport to Children campaign.
      He is leading a highway reversal project in China.
      He is ready to direct ballistic missiles of the submarine .. there where Leontyev will say.
      It even reduces the number of sponsored sports teams.
      He even pays gigantic ... not like Golden parachutes ... Golden airships like Zeppelin.
      Where there .. folding hands ...... rolling up his sleeves to his shoulders - plows.
      ..
      Miller just got tired of it already. I sat up.
      Another figure is needed.
    2. Vladimirets
      Vladimirets April 3 2013 11: 13 New
      0
      Quote: Atrix
      And as soon as he said that they overslept, they immediately enrolled in amateurs

      One person cannot know everything and the question here arose not in Miller, but in shale gas.
    3. Suhov
      Suhov April 3 2013 18: 12 New
      +1
      Quote: Atrix
      That's how interesting it is in Russia, if Leontyev says in tone with the "party" that everything is fine in the "Russian Kingdom", then he is considered an expert here. And as soon as he said that they overslept, they immediately enrolled in amateurs. and when they say for rearmament it’s almost tomorrow

      What surprises you? In our world, everything is relative!
      The moments you are interested in are specific manifestations of the theory of relativity, which the great A. Einstein interpreted as follows for ease of understanding:
      If you have a beautiful girl sitting on your lap for an hour. Time in this case will seem to you instantly.
      But if you sit for a minute in a hot frying pan, then a minute will seem to you forever.
      wassat
      It all fits ...
      hi
  5. rpek32
    rpek32 April 3 2013 08: 55 New
    +2
    You look at February 31 and our gasoline will become cheaper wassat
    1. evgenii67
      evgenii67 April 3 2013 11: 35 New
      +3
      Quote: rpek32
      You look at February 31 and our gasoline will become cheaper

      Yes you are an optimist! It will become cheaper somewhere in the west if oil collapses to $ 70, and in this case prices will rise again in order to avoid "shocks"
  6. Atlon
    Atlon April 3 2013 08: 56 New
    15
    Leontief’s reaction is striking, and absolute illiteracy on this issue ...

    "So, according to our analysts, 30% of the truck fleet in the US will switch to gas by 2020."

    To begin with, heavy-duty trucks, these are 99% diesel cars, "convert" them to gas, will not work with all desire! Therefore, I conclude that it’s time to treat the analysts.

    Well, as for shale gas, here Miller is right. I just said this very softly, well, as it should from the TV screen (I heard this statement). But really, the situation is that all this shale gas, full of bullshit! And again to write why, and why, frankly, reluctance. Already a thousand times frayed.
    1. dzvero
      dzvero April 3 2013 09: 14 New
      0
      for diesel engines it is possible to replace up to 30% diesel with gas. such units are already on sale, although prices are still high.
      1. Mart
        April 3 2013 09: 18 New
        +8
        Quote: dzvero
        for diesel engines it is possible to replace up to 30% diesel with gas. such units are already on sale, although prices are still high.

        In the USA, we are really talking about the conversion of any trucks: I shoveled a lot of foreign articles on this topic. But re-equipment is expensive (the article says it). That is why the "Bill Pickens" and set tax credits. For heavy trucks, they amounted to 64.000 dollars. However, this, of course, is not subsidies at all. And the draft act was rejected by Congress. And there are few people willing to switch to gas in the USA right now. hi
        1. dzvero
          dzvero April 3 2013 09: 41 New
          +3
          the fact that they are in no hurry to switch to gas is understandable. so far, the only plus of such a transition is a 15-20% reduction in fuel costs. but nobody canceled the problem: is there a developed network of gas stations on the routes; how the addition of gas will affect the survivability of a diesel engine; how much the carrying capacity of the car will decrease ... most likely, the truck owners calculated for themselves and lobbied for the repeal of the law so that they would not cry later.
          1. Atlon
            Atlon April 3 2013 10: 54 New
            +6
            Quote: dzvero
            the fact that they are in no hurry to switch to gas is understandable. so far the only plus of such a transition is a 15-20% reduction in fuel costs

            Again untruth! Forgive me, but by the will of fate, I am engaged in small-tonnage cargo transportation (Gazelles). So:
            1. HBO (gas equipment) is expensive, and pays off no sooner than after 7-8 years.
            2. There are few gas stations, and gas is often of poor quality.
            3. The problem with starting the engine at low temperatures (gas does not evaporate)
            4. The problem with the cylinder-piston group (increased wear).
            5. The problem with candles (covered with white coating, you need to clean every two months)
            6. Engine power drops by 15-20%, consumption increases accordingly (up to 30%). The gazelle consumes 14-15 l / 100 km of gasoline or 22-25 l / 100 km of gas. With the cost of gasoline 28 p / l, and gas 16 p. / L, the savings are scanty.
            7. It is impossible to control how much gas you filled at a gas station, and it is impossible to control how much is left. Moreover, in the winter, the car refuses to go when the gas remains slightly less than half the cylinder, and in the summer the refueling “to the eyeballs” is fraught with a cylinder explosion.
            8. The need to always have a supply of gasoline in the gas tank, to start the engine in the winter, and to be able to get to the gas station if the gas is "out".
            9. The constant smell of gas in the cabin

            These are the cons, and now the pros:

            1. Low price
            2. Environmentally friendly

            After weighing the pros and cons, and having experience operating a Gazelle with HBO, I came to the conclusion that gas gives more problems than advantages. Now I go only on gasoline.
            1. dzvero
              dzvero April 3 2013 12: 57 New
              +1
              I have been running on gas for the past five years. True, I don’t own trucks, but friends and acquaintances have UAZ 69, UAZ469 and UAZ462. the latter, in my opinion, can be compared to a gazelle. part of what you write - true, part - reflects specific conditions. the points:
              1. Our equipment for a carburetor costs about 200 euros with installation (50 liter bottle). for a single injector - 250-350. for the injector - 350-450. for Peugeot - 700-800 euros, there is a catch with collectors;
              at our price of gasoline at 50 p. and gas - 25 p. installation pays off after 12000 - 20000 km
              2. ten or twelve years ago, there were really very few gas stations; Now almost every gas station has gas. about the quality of gas - yes, you are right, sometimes it comes across ... but the quality of gasoline is not so hot ... :) by the way, methane plants are now in fashion. But with the gas stations and with the plants themselves, so far everything is just as you described in your post.
              3. Yes, you’re right, sometimes there are problems in winter, but due to the “freezing” of the evaporator it is covered with hoarfrost and the membranes lose their elasticity. you really need to start the engine on gasoline and switch to gas after warming up. but if necessary, it is possible to pour boiling water over the evaporator (3-4 liters, no less) and immediately start the engine even at -20. retribution - deterioration of the evaporator membranes and increased engine wear.
              4. If the car drives mainly on gas, you need to adjust the ignition and wear will be acceptable. Cleaning a carburetor or injector every 15-20000 km also helps.
              5. I had no problems with candles; you can probably pick up candles with a different heat number ...
              6. yes, it is.
              7. Yes, everything is true. my friend works at the gas station and told everything :) so I refuel on the proven gas station, although sometimes they mess up there.
              8. In principle, yes. but there should be a pressure gauge on the cylinder, it is quite enough for the orientation of the stock.
              9. But UTB is already dangerous - somewhere there is a leak, but UTB is dangerous! should not smell!

              I pour 5 liters of gas a year - enough.
              all friends and acquaintances on the UAZ have gas installations. some of them didn’t fill gasoline in the tank, and even the tanks were turned off. if they need, then a tube from a canister ...
              taxi drivers drive gas on our way.

              You are right - gas is not a panacea, but if you travel a lot, it is practically an alternative to diesel in terms of economy. my mileage is not very large - about 2500 - 3000 km per month, but even in this case, the economy is not bad.
              1. Atlon
                Atlon April 3 2013 14: 42 New
                +3
                Quote: dzvero
                You are right - gas is not a panacea, but if you travel a lot, it is practically an alternative to diesel in terms of economy. my mileage is not very large - about 2500 - 3000 km per month, but even in this case, the economy is not bad.

                I think you will not deny that it is trucking that implies high mileage?
                And now we will count:
                Suppose you have 50 gasoline and 25 gas (we have 28 and 16) you can almost say half the price of what you have and what we have. so:
                Gas consumption is one third more than gas, which means that to drive 1000 km, I need 150 liters of gasoline or 200 liters of gas. We consider:
                150x28 = 4200 p., And for gas 200x16 = 3200 p. that is, purely on fuel costs, with a difference in price in half, saving only 23-24%. But this is only fuel. And if you take into account the problems I have listed, and the decrease in motor resources, as well as additional costs for maintenance and repair of gas equipment, the savings are not at all obvious ...
                The fact that you write payback for 12000 km of run, excuse nonsense! This is one season. If this were true, I would have converted all Gazelles to gas. however, the reality is that on the contrary, even the existing HBO was withdrawn and sold.
                You are probably pleased that refueling a personal car looks cheaper, but it is subjective. and I have to consider the costs, and objectively, gas gives minimal savings, with a payback period of at least 7 years. But there are much more problems with it than that meager saving. This is in cargo transportation, and as you know, trucks go all year, and not just in summer.
                1. Igarr
                  Igarr April 3 2013 20: 29 New
                  +1
                  Gas washes oil.
                  Fly.
                  No one thought, but those who ride on gas say they got this problem.
                  It seems not annoying, but ... to be beyond 50 km with jammed dvigunom .... not ice.
                  Or how?
                  1. Simple
                    Simple April 3 2013 20: 51 New
                    0
                    Quote: Igarr
                    Gas washes oil.
                    Fly.
                    No one thought, but those who ride on gas say they got this problem.
                    It seems not annoying, but ... to be beyond 50 km with jammed dvigunom .... not ice.
                    Or how?


                    Gas leaches oil is a fact.

                    But not all gas structures are fraught with the above-described disaster.
                    I drive a car "on gas" (company "Vialle") starts the same
                    “On gas”: there, liquefied gas is supplied to the “native”
                    (but a little redone) high-pressure pump
                    "Native" nozzles.
                    The above problems are not present.
                    1. Atlon
                      Atlon April 4 2013 08: 55 New
                      0
                      Quote: Simple
                      The above problems are not present.

                      What is the total mileage on HBO?
                  2. YuDDP
                    YuDDP April 4 2013 00: 07 New
                    0
                    Quote: Igarr
                    Gas washes oil.

                    What prevents buying oil for gas engines? Its full. And it’s inexpensive. For example, Mobil 705
                  3. Atlon
                    Atlon April 4 2013 08: 54 New
                    0
                    Quote: Igarr
                    It seems it doesn’t bother, but ... to be 50 km away with a jammed dvigun .... not ice. Or how?

                    I wrote: "motor resources are declining." By the way, oils have to be changed twice as often, they oxidize very quickly. Until you start to use the car professionally, you will not understand that gas is nonsense. My Friend took and sold HBO, six months later, as he hung "checkers" on the car. Just one thing is a personal car, and another thing is commercial. Different runs, different realities.
                2. Reindeer herder
                  Reindeer herder April 4 2013 12: 04 New
                  0
                  Gas is not as scary as you say, and not as good as the advertisement says. We have all the UAZs on gas. 2 hours a day. The scheme of work 1 + 2 i.e. 1 gas stations account for 2 gas station. The savings are still substantial. But the car does not go more than XNUMX years, then it takes off.
        2. Igarr
          Igarr April 3 2013 09: 47 New
          +2
          Well, here, Oleg.
          Thank you for the article.
          And under Ram Vyakhirev, in 1996-97-98. He beat himself in the chest, shouting - the share of motor vehicles in Russia by 2000. on GAS - will be 90%.
          (I slightly increased ... well, okay. There was a gradation - by type.)
          Did not do.
          Although now - come, re-equip. Though compressed gas, even liquefied.
          Gazprom launched INDUSTRIAL operation last year vessels of liquefied gas. OUR vessels.
          Terminals in the Far East for liquefied.
          .
          In America, Dewar vessels have long been used. And we used them before 2012.
          Only they are screaming about this slate. What for?
          ... And it is very good that at least officially - Gazprom reacts so deliberately to this tantrum.
          But Europe - nothing at all.
          And all business.
          1. Mart
            April 3 2013 09: 59 New
            +2
            Quote: Igarr
            Well, here, Oleg.
            Thank you for the article.

            Thanks for thanks, Igor!

            Here is a little material on the Russian gas-engine theme:

            "Viktor Zubkov took the floor, who complained that there was more talk about America than about Russia. Then he admitted that in the past five to six years there has been a" shale revolution "in the world and now America produces about as much gas as we (in 2012, the United States had 680 billion cubic meters, and Russia had 655. At the same time, they built 579 gas processing plants, and we only have 29. At this Zubkov decided to forget about America and return to Russian affairs. Especially non-payers got it. "Indebtedness for gas is 143 billion rubles! " - he was indignant. Gazprom had to withdraw this money from circulation. It would be even better if the company could disconnect debtors, but the monopoly does not have such a right. But it is possible to suspend the gasification of debtors, Zubkov threatened.

            After that, he chanted an ode to gas engine fuel, which, for example, is used by all of Pakistan’s public transport, and in Russia it is in the role of a stepson. "How can a village withstand thirty-two rubles per liter of diesel fuel!" he exclaimed. The audience was amazed at this figure, but continued to listen carefully. Zubkov then explained why the peasants are not eager to gasify their cars: you can drain the liquid fuel (for your own needs), and this manipulation will not work with gas. Owners of public transport are also indifferent to gas engine fuel. After all, the cost of fuel they are compensated from the budget, why bother with the conversion of equipment? But gas costs 8 - 10 rubles per cubic meter. "

            Source: "Rossiyskaya Gazeta", http://www.rg.ru/2013/03/20/toplivo.html.
            1. fzr1000
              fzr1000 April 3 2013 10: 14 New
              0
              But the Caucasus does not need to give gas and electricity and immediately the debt decreases.
      2. Suhov
        Suhov April 3 2013 10: 23 New
        0
        Quote: dzvero

        for diesel engines it is possible to replace up to 30% diesel with gas. such units are already on sale, although prices are still high.

        Sparkling diesel fuel!
        wassat
        How is mineral water - with or without gas?
      3. Atlon
        Atlon April 3 2013 11: 05 New
        +4
        Quote: dzvero
        for diesel engines it is possible to replace up to 30% diesel with gas. such units are already on sale, although prices are still high.

        Do you know how much of the world goes to waste sunflower oil? Do you know that diesel drives sunflower oil after french fries and any fast-food products, without any alterations?
        In addition, do you know that in Europe there are already up to 40% of gasoline, ECO brand? This is gasoline with 30/70 alcohol (30% alcohol).
        What do I want to say with all this? And the fact that talking about shale gas is PR. And attempts to mix it into diesel fuel are generally nonsense from the point of view of the economy. An internal combustion engine can drive renewable fuels. Gasoline on alcohol (with minimal alterations), and diesel on vegetable oil, and on used oil (without alterations).
        Now, think for yourself who is interested in inventing fairy tales and selling "such installations are already on sale, though the prices are still high" wink
        1. wax
          wax April 3 2013 12: 19 New
          +1
          Bred. Miller is absolutely right. Over time, it is possible that methane from hydrohydrates will make some contribution to the energy sector. Everything is environmentally friendly.
        2. dzvero
          dzvero April 3 2013 13: 09 New
          0
          You are right.
          in sunflower oil, in my opinion, it is best to drive an atmospheric diesel engine. I'm not sure that all sorts of comm-rails there, cdi and others will be pulled. I myself have long wanted to try in sunflower oil, but my wife does not allow her car. ugrobish - says.
          about oil shale - gas and oil - it’s not PR, it’s already PR for the divorce of different offended people.
          but about the installation for diesel engines - they really are. and really so far are expensive. but expensive for me - 1000 euros just to make diesel fuel consumption of 6.5 liters in the city become 6 ... but for a taxi driver or company, such an investment can pay off. Of course, if you drive the car like a slaughter.
    2. core
      core April 3 2013 11: 39 New
      0
      I wonder, why did you get that trucks will not go on gas? what is the catch?
      1. Atlon
        Atlon April 3 2013 11: 58 New
        +1
        Quote: core
        I wonder, why did you get that trucks will not go on gas? what is the catch?

        Learn the thermodynamics and principle of diesel operation. I am your gaps in secondary education, I do not intend to patch. The conversation is about a diesel engine and gas. And all heavy trucks are diesels. The gas engine will work, but with an expensive alteration (HBO).
        1. core
          core April 3 2013 13: 58 New
          0
          and you didn’t think that it was not about remaking a diesel engine for gas, but new engines or some other solution. alteration is our reality, but they can do things differently. all serious.
          1. Atlon
            Atlon April 3 2013 14: 54 New
            +3
            Quote: core
            and you didn’t think that it was not about remaking a diesel engine for gas, but new engines or some other solution.

            Do not be a child!
            Did you know that back in the USSR there were experimental cars using hydrogen?







            At the same time alterations of the internal combustion engine are minimal. And the exhaust is ... water vapor. Greener! But hydrogen production is still more expensive than gasoline, and its storage on board implies cryogenic capacities.
            I will tell you so, until the oil runs out, new technologies (and they are) will not enter the market.
            1. GHG
              GHG April 3 2013 17: 48 New
              +2
              In the photo you have gas generating machines. It was such a milestone in our automotive industry. Today, the abbreviation "Gasgen" to the absolute majority of people does not say anything. And only a few lovers of the history of technology know that there were cars in which wood chocks were used as fuel. But there was a time when the question "what is gasgen?" they simply poked a finger: he went! And this word was not at all considered an abbreviation. Some people for some reason are convinced that gas genes, which cost chocks instead of gasoline, were an exceptional attribute of Soviet poverty. In fact, this type of fuel was distributed throughout Europe.
              And my grandfather went on this. good
              http://www.autotruck-press.ru/archive/number41/article274
              1. Igarr
                Igarr April 3 2013 20: 34 New
                +2
                I'll tell you even more.
                In the film "17 Instantaneous Spring", Stirlitz rides exactly on a gas-generating car.
                Look, 3 or 4 series, how he sticks firewood ...
                For Russia - an exceptional technology.
                It’s good for everyone ... nobody is in a hurry anywhere .... it’s being processed - even manure ... and chop it up ... little ... ... - a problem, or what?
              2. Atlon
                Atlon April 4 2013 09: 00 New
                0
                Quote: GES
                In the photo you have gas generating machines.

                Yes you are right. But not cars, but cars. In the topmost photo. Volga and RAF are just hydrogen. RAF personally saw at VDNH. He has two “thermos” in the trunk in the back, and the engine is ordinary (Volgovskiy).
        2. YuDDP
          YuDDP April 4 2013 00: 02 New
          0
          Quote: Atlon
          Talk about a diesel engine and gas

          Diesel is converted to gas-diesel. But you can initially put a gas engine, such are produced. In any case, we get an engine operating according to the Otto cycle (with a candle), and not a Diesel (self-ignition).
          Trucks need a moment, and it is higher for diesel engines.
  7. korp67
    korp67 April 3 2013 08: 57 New
    +6
    Do not forget that by manipulating prices for Arab oil in the USSR, they drowned. And here are the same technologies. More smoke - the enemy is fooling around.
    1. Atlon
      Atlon April 3 2013 11: 10 New
      0
      Quote: korp67
      Do not forget that by manipulating prices for Arab oil in the USSR, they drowned.

      This is one of the myths.
  8. djon3volta
    djon3volta April 3 2013 08: 58 New
    +1
    The United States did not reduce at all, but increased oil purchases from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries

    The USA consumes gas and oil more than anyone else in the world, and this is no secret! Further, to mine only the USA makes strategic storage facilities for diesel fuel, gasoline and oil in tanks, this is also not a secret, although it is not advertised very much. I generally suspect that in the USA their oil and ordinary (non-shale) gas didn’t remain, therefore they store it, and therefore they attack different countries under various pretexts to pump oil cheaply, such as from Iraq or the UAE (we agreed with the UAE without war).
  9. dzvero
    dzvero April 3 2013 09: 04 New
    +7
    I am glad that in our country the production of this H. herni was banned.
    and since no one decree is given to the Americans, the fact that they are developing shales all the same, in my opinion, means:
    a) they are stupid and ecology they do not care;
    b) the eruption of the yellowstone is just around the corner or some other total fur-bearing animal is creeping up;
    c) the extraction of the last resources of the territory before the future outcome of the elite;
  10. igor36
    igor36 April 3 2013 09: 10 New
    +2
    Quote: KOMPLEKT
    This will undoubtedly stop their fascist policy of taking away minerals from other countries.

    Far from stopping. This policy is determined by transnational corporations for which the US market is only part of the dough that needs to be taken away and divided.
  11. Averias
    Averias April 3 2013 09: 16 New
    +6
    For the first time faced a dilemma. To believe that, just before that, there was the same article about shale gas. And the same thing was said there that not everything is so rosy with the booty that the President of the United States is driven head over heels. And since I myself have the education of a geologist, I generally go into a stupor. I will not go into details and subtleties, but what kind of export deliveries can be discussed? When the United States achieved shale gas production, export levels. Before that, they will ruin the whole ecology (nature) around the deposits and not only (groundwater). The debit of the wells is not high yet, but a lot of costs. Where is the cheapness? And the fact that residents of those states where development is being held are massively staging protests, even a lured GreenPis is sounding the alarm. Does this mean something? Although the US is carefully concealing it. So now think about whom to believe. Of course, I respect Mr. Leontiev, the music is clever, no doubt. But what is he, is he an encyclopedia and a professional in all conceivable and inconceivable issues. If he has something against Miller, that's what you need to say. And do not mix everything in one boiler. And the fact that the type of shale gas production can be a problem for Gazprom (competition and so on), and the article noted this in passing. Do not tell, although, for the first of April, the joke is cool. Gazprom also probably cast a spell.

    PS The Japanese are also yelling at all the "crossroads" - they say we’ll overwhelm everyone with cheap methane hydrate and rare earth elements from the depths of the ocean. Yeah, the question is different, provide yourself first. Set up mining technology. And it’s all screaming.
    1. Egoza
      Egoza April 3 2013 09: 41 New
      +4
      Quote: Averias
      When the United States achieved shale gas production, export levels. Before that, they will ruin the whole ecology (nature) around the deposits and not only (groundwater).

      You are absolutely right! That's exactly what American companies are eager for abroad to develop shale gas, even to equip the field with their own money, and they stipulate in the contracts that they are not responsible for the environment! am
    2. Smol79
      Smol79 April 3 2013 10: 43 New
      +1
      Yankees earn a loss. But they solve the following problems: people are busy and world gas prices from their cries have fallen. At the exit, they saved.
  12. mosgeo1
    mosgeo1 April 3 2013 09: 16 New
    +1
    Sorry for the rudeness, but something is wrong with us here! Whether shale, or methane, oil, atom, thermonuclear, are all the fruits of the technological revolution, which allows us to keep our brains in the temperature range of 36,6 tenths of a degree limited by nature. And we need this in all conditions of our unique body, home, car, train, at the South Pole. Ladies and Gentlemen, if you are drowning a bathhouse in the form of our common home, then you need to understand that we are all together in it and we will constantly live. A planet shrouded in the atmosphere, like a satellite of the Sun, has no other way. And even our astronaut Savinykh V.P. I wouldn’t get into Salute 7 if the batteries on board the station were closed. Earth has accumulated tremendous energy in itself during its existence, it’s easy to blow it up, is it necessary?
    1. Setrac
      Setrac April 3 2013 12: 42 New
      +2
      Quote: mosgeo1
      Sorry for the rudeness, but something is wrong with us here! Whether shale, or methane, oil, atom, thermonuclear, are all the fruits of the technological revolution, which allows us to keep our brains in the temperature range of 36,6 tenths of a degree limited by nature. And we need this in all conditions of our unique body, home, car, train, at the South Pole. Ladies and Gentlemen, if you are drowning a bathhouse in the form of our common home, then you need to understand that we are all together in it and we will constantly live. A planet shrouded in the atmosphere, like a satellite of the Sun, has no other way. And even our astronaut Savinykh V.P. I wouldn’t get into Salute 7 if the batteries on board the station were closed. Earth has accumulated tremendous energy in itself during its existence, it’s easy to blow it up, is it necessary?

      And now repeat everything in Russian)
  13. Egor.nic
    Egor.nic April 3 2013 09: 18 New
    -1
    The whole article is nothing more than a storm in a glass of water .....
  14. FC SKIF
    FC SKIF April 3 2013 09: 41 New
    +3
    Leontiev is a very serious analyst, but with shale gas he has a "fad". After his video, where gas is compared with crushed stone, I rummaged through the mountains of information on the Internet. My opinion on the problem: there is no absolutely accurate data on the cost price in the SHORT-TERM PROSPECT. Seriously, it's hard to calculate, little data. But in the LONG TERM, this technology is deadly. Ecological damage, removal of significant territories from households. activities, health compensation for workers and residents. I understand using this technology on Mars, but at home ...
  15. ovgorskiy
    ovgorskiy April 3 2013 09: 45 New
    +3
    Something Leontyev recently began to attack Gazprom, and not only on shale gas. Very similar to the order, only from whom?
    All scholars in this industry (not politicians) unanimously say that shale gas has no special prospects, at least when there is traditional gas. And the profit from shale gas is really zero or negative. All profit from production comes either from gas condensate or from oil that is extracted from the same wells. To produce primary gas, billions of additional investments are needed and spit on the environment. It’s better to use these funds for the development and development of new deposits of traditional gas, since there are many more in our country. There is nothing of the economy in the American shale revolution, one policy. AND pind ... Americans do not get it from a good life, as the saying goes, "you will not get out when you want to live."
  16. Natalia
    Natalia April 3 2013 10: 01 New
    +2
    Hello everyone!)))
    Yes, Leontiev had fun) I do not know what sales cause his panic, usually he is consistent and restrained.
    But this topic is hackneyed to holes. Scare scare Russia with its "shales" but in the end the ends themselves barely barely make. Because no matter how much they (the EU and the USA) would not like, yet oil shale is not a competitor, and oil, too.
    And there’s nothing to be surprised at, because this is a usual information war, to blow investors ’ears so that the indices on stock exchanges become at least a little bit acceptable ...... make investors develop into something that is not profitable to invest in, as while Russia has natural resources it’s hard to compete with them, and it’s not just a matter of cost.
    We say a lot that voooot, the Russian economy is formed by oil and gas ...... you know, yes, but this, as we see, creates problems for our competitors. Russia has so much oil and gas that it doesn’t end anyhow, and so on. Russia is considered a reliable supplier and everyone buys and buys from it. So they came up with hysteria in the form of a "slate" .....
    1. Natalia
      Natalia April 3 2013 10: 07 New
      +2
      And in continuation of this topic, “the shale revolution,” I would like to note the fact that the economic and political integration of Russia and China is just in handy, because this will lead to further diversification of energy flows from Russia, and we will get a more flexible system of supply to the market. As a result, we will cease to depend only on deliveries to EUROPE.
      1. Natalia
        Natalia April 3 2013 11: 43 New
        +2
        The so-called "Shale Ghost" .... it is the ghost that is still incompetent and over time it will become even more illusive because it must be openly recognized that there is simply NO way to replace natural oil and natural gas with something else, and the near future will not be seen.
        The mass hysteria launched by the West is largely determined not by the desire to create alternative energy sources (although this too), but by the desire to remove as many countries as possible from Russia’s influence ..... and where to bring it? Outside where, because there is no such type of energy carrier that would be able to finally and without turning off the existing ones.
        We have said many times that our commodity economy is our curse ..... but in modern conditions it is also a GIFT. Since today we have something that is affordable and there are a lot of it .... and over time it will be more.
        Therefore, our opponents (for example, the USA) are trying to come up with new ideas (oil shale) and are forced to invest in the development of EXPENSIVE, SMALL-EFFICIENT projects requiring large investments, when the economy is undergoing a crisis against the background of various massive sequestries ..... and at the same time they are striving to pull in this adventure (shale) and others, trying to convince I would say this .... one invest in an inefficient industry like that, agree for vile.
        1. Natalia
          Natalia April 3 2013 12: 09 New
          +2
          Since the beginning of the 90s, we have been prepared for information in order to say today to the whole world: “Long live the American shale, goodbye to Russian gas” - you will not convincingly agree.
          Remember, the whole world insisted that we are a raw materials appendage and that everything should be worse for us ... what we see.
          ........ we somehow didn’t get any worse, but now some people are forced to extract oil shale and spend billions on it. While we calmly and measuredly continue to produce gas and oil which we do not drive a lot on economic issues. And we can also calmly seek and develop new types of fuel and energy and do it comfortably, without any shale hysteria and snot on the river .....
        2. Atlon
          Atlon April 3 2013 14: 57 New
          +2
          Quote: Natalia
          that there are simply no ways to replace natural oil and natural gas with something more efficient and competitive, and in the near future it will not be imagined.

          As a fuel, there are more than enough alternatives! As a valuable raw material for the chemical industry, perhaps you are right.
  17. zao74
    zao74 April 3 2013 10: 22 New
    +2
    The white Siberian fox is inevitably creeping up to the amers and this is a fact.
  18. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 April 3 2013 10: 24 New
    +5
    Leontiev is a complete ignoramus in the geology and economics of the mining industry, his arguments are not worth a penny, but rudeness will prove absolutely nothing.
    In geology, there is such a thing as balance and off-balance mineral reserves.
    Balance reserves are those that are economically viable to develop at current prices and production and processing technologies.
    Currently, shale gas reserves are off-balance, natural gas prices are not too high, and the technology for producing gas from shale is very expensive.
    And this trend will continue for a long time, 15-20 years for sure.
    In many countries, there are unprofitable mining enterprises funded by the government for state economic security.
    That is, you can buy someone else's cheaper, but your workers and engineers will lose their jobs, you will have to find funds for the purchase of raw materials from other budget items and you can fly by large.
    So the Americans do not produce shale gas from a good life and not to get high profits.
    1. Vovka levka
      Vovka levka April 3 2013 14: 10 New
      0
      I agree. Their goal is simple, to become non-volatile. And I must say that we are slowly moving towards this.
      1. Atlon
        Atlon April 3 2013 16: 20 New
        +1
        Quote: Vovka Levka
        I agree. Their goal is simple, to become non-volatile. And I must say that we are slowly moving towards this.

        To become non-volatile, you must at least moderate your appetites to the level of generally accepted decency, and not consume more than anyone else in the world!
  19. pensioner
    pensioner April 3 2013 10: 54 New
    +4
    Due to the nature of the work, I communicate a lot with employees of the regional gas transmission enterprises of Gazprom. One day, one of them in the office managed to talk with a rather high-ranking representative of Big Gazprom. He asked about the future of Gazprom in connection with the “shale revolution”. I made the following for myself.
    1. The situation with the “shale revolution” Gazprom certainly worries and is very worried.
    2. Cost reduction has become the main task for the next few years.
    The methods are different. From the abandonment of non-core assets to the cancellation of various payments, of which in Gazprom (especially in the Bolshoi) tuyeva hucha. When he announced the approximate order, I almost o..el. Many have already come under the hand in connection with the policy of economy that has begun. As a rule, these are simple hard workers and engineering staff. Well, their family members, respectively. We see for ourselves, since we are moving very actively around Gazprom facilities.
    3. New, “shale” technologies are being created. Both by Gazprom and its money. It seems like in some Siberian institutes. It seems like they created something in Tomsk, but are not very sure. Who knows - enlighten. It is interesting to learn more.
    4. Gazprom is intensely hunting for such technologies. Those. carries out industrial espionage.
    5. Shale gas is definitely not enough for everyone. Those. given the pace of development of the situation in the gas markets, nothing can lead to disastrous consequences for Gazprom.
    6. The cost of shale gas is an incomprehensible thing, because The amers of our specialists, under various pretexts, are not allowed until production. not to mention some calculations and documentation. Only from a helicopter to see yes in the office of firms to sit, which produce this gas.
    7. O... Gazprom’s trump card is eastern Siberia and the shelf. Plowed field for geologists and miners from the already explored. The main obstacle is the lack of roads and harsh environmental conditions.
    8. And most importantly, Asia. That's where Gazprom climbs in full swing.
    Gazprom is now heavily investing in the construction of new gas pipelines and the modernization of the linear part of the old ones. They do not spare money. For which many thanks to us from us. I forgot. Gazprom considers domestic consumption to be its large reserve. The growth of industrial production of the solvency of the population is a direct income for it. The conclusion he made. The next 20 years, Gazprom is not in danger, but most likely will be favorable for him. But he made a reservation that this is in the current state of affairs. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to work on world markets every year due to the huge number of participants in the process. He says that every year it’s becoming increasingly difficult to understand who and what is standing in front of you. Most of all, Gazprom fears a crisis similar to 2008. Although it has also benefited from it. huge volumes of the linear part of the MG were repaired. They transported less gas and stopped some section of the MG in 2008. there were no problems (mostly). I have no reason not to believe him. I really want to believe - before retirement there is less left than the period of his forecast
    .
  20. vovich
    vovich April 3 2013 10: 55 New
    0
    Maybe I'm wrong, but the "shale" topic in this case is only an excuse, against which there is a "run over" personally to Miller.
    Moreover, Leontiev uses rather sharp epithets. He usually doesn’t go into his pocket for a word, but in this case he’s very aggressive in expressions.
    Question. What for? Both essentially represent the interests of the government. Well, everyone in their field of course. Then why this mini-scandal? What's happening? And who benefits from this?
    1. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 April 3 2013 11: 55 New
      +2
      Quote: vovich
      The "shale" topic in this case is only an excuse, against the background of which there is a "run over" personally to Miller.

      The shale theme is not a collision with Miller, but with Gazprom, a standard PR campaign to bring down prices for Russian gas and Gazprom shares ..
      In the stock markets, this happens all the time, someone must praise their goods and blaspheme the goods of a neighbor, in order to bring down the price or raise the price.
      A typical example: the media voices a rumor that in Asia (Africa, Antarctica, on the Moon) they discovered a richest deposit of "gold" (silver, copper, bronze, GTO badges), there began to be prices for the "gold" that will now fall on sale 20% (2 times, 3 times, 1000 times). Fools begin to sell "gold" and shares of gold mining enterprises, and the sly ones who launched speculation buy up and enrich themselves when everything is back to square one.
      Gazprom, like any other enterprise, naturally does not like such tricks.
      1. vovich
        vovich April 3 2013 12: 14 New
        0
        Quote: Corsair5912
        The shale theme is a collision not on Miller, but on Gazprom

        Why should Leontiev do this? Shoot down gas prices. What is it to him?
        1. Corsair5912
          Corsair5912 April 3 2013 12: 55 New
          +1
          But what does Leontiev do not need loot? He, too, does not live on a cloud, and the nectar from heavenly cuisine does not feed him.
          A case is known in history when a meteorologist professor took a bribe for the forecast that the summer would be cold and rainy, traders profitably sold raincoats and umbrellas, and the summer was dry.
          The power of the word is great, it is not in vain written in the scripture: - First there was a word - but Gazprom shares fell later.
          1. BruderV
            BruderV April 3 2013 20: 55 New
            0
            Quote: Corsair5912
            But what does Leontiev do not need loot?

            Well yes. It was worth expressing the seditious idea of ​​the insolvency of the national heritage as a person immediately recognized as a schizoid, Western numit and still knows who. I will soon begin to write a textbook on dictatorship from this site, everything’s straightforward. So what still needs to happen in order for the shale revolution to be recognized as a fact? Should Gazprom sell its debts to some African cannibal leader for a symbolic one dollar?
  21. Sirocco
    Sirocco April 3 2013 11: 35 New
    0
    I had to operate the car on gas, saving, YES, power loss, speed loss. In a straight line and in the city will.
  22. Hius-124
    Hius-124 April 3 2013 11: 42 New
    0
    Gazprom has become bronzed, has become fat and clumsy, it is high time in such places as Yelets, Torzhok and others to build gas processing plants for gasoline, as well as chemical plants in the Far East, like Rosneft in Tynda, such levers of influence on the energy politics in the world, then the whole situation will look somewhat different, in our favor. yes
  23. yacht
    yacht April 3 2013 11: 47 New
    +2
    Personally, I’m not a gas geologist, and therefore I can’t argue where the truth about shale gas is, and I won’t and will not. But there are facts available to everyone, namely the United States stopped importing liquefied gas, while those countries that were focused on exporting gas to the United States, in particular Qatar, are forced to seek new markets, including in Europe. This led to a drop in gas prices and considerable financial losses for Gazprom. These are facts and you can’t argue against them.
    1. Corsair5912
      Corsair5912 April 3 2013 13: 01 New
      +1
      Bullshit, USAA how much liquefied basic elements they consumed, so much they consume, shale gas will never satisfy their needs.
      They can temporarily lower the level of exports from stocks to bring down prices. So this is their standard technique, the exchange game is built on this.
  24. Drappier
    Drappier April 3 2013 12: 14 New
    +1
    Well, Putin ordered him to figure it out, well done V.V. reads the foreign press, studies, everything there is full of shale revolutions laughing but Miller, as it were, is a person in the subject, I think, well, he explained that this is another American canoe. But why did my esteemed Leontiev break loose from the chain? laughing do you know spring ....
  25. wax
    wax April 3 2013 12: 29 New
    0
    That's what it means to be in public and a recognizable journalist. The belief is gradually developing that everything he has spoken, like DAM's, is immediately cast in bronze and is the ultimate truth.
  26. pinecone
    pinecone April 3 2013 15: 03 New
    +1
    Quote: yacht
    Personally, I’m not a gas geologist, and therefore I can’t argue where the truth about shale gas is, and I won’t and will not. But there are facts available to everyone, namely the United States stopped importing liquefied gas, while those countries that were focused on exporting gas to the United States, in particular Qatar, are forced to seek new markets, including in Europe. This led to a drop in gas prices and considerable financial losses for Gazprom. These are facts and you can’t argue against them.


    I agree completely. In any case, Gazprom, and with it the state budget of the Russian Federation, will face difficult times. Poland has already achieved a significant reduction in the price of natural gas received from here.
    It will be even more difficult to recoup the enormous costs of building the Nord Stream.
  27. Averias
    Averias April 3 2013 15: 09 New
    +1
    Looks like Detroit and went bankrupt due to the fact that all the money invested in the production of shale gas. wassat
  28. valokordin
    valokordin April 3 2013 15: 17 New
    +1
    Quote: pinecone

    I agree completely. In any case, Gazprom, and with it the state budget of the Russian Federation, will face difficult times. Poland has already achieved a significant reduction in the price of natural gas received from here.
    It will be even more difficult to recoup the enormous costs of building the Nord Stream.

    Well, Miller is a great gas carrier, and ask him where the revenue for 5% of the gas sold, Stepashin, and the military prosecutor’s office go to it.
  29. Atrix
    Atrix April 3 2013 16: 06 New
    0
    Predicted gas reserves in Eastern Siberia and the Far East have not yet been confirmed. This was reported by Interfax with reference to the Deputy Head of the Gazprom Production Department Nail Gafurov. The estimated reserves are 25 trillion cubic meters of natural gas.

    According to Gafurov, real reserves may turn out to be much less than those taken into account when forming the Eastern Gas Program. He noted that the company now needs to “rethink” the data obtained as a result of drilling, and understand what to do next. Gafurov stressed that the company's work is complicated by the poor geological exploration of Eastern Siberia and the Far East. Currently, from the point of view of geology, only 6-7 percent of the region has been studied.

    According to Alexei Davydov, CEO of Gazprom Geological Exploration, from 2013 to 2016, the gas monopoly will allocate 40 billion rubles a year for geological exploration in the region. First of all, Gazprom will explore the Sakhalin shelf, the reserves of Yamal and Eastern Siberia. Each of these areas will receive 30 percent of the allocated funds.

    The Eastern Gas Program was approved in 2007. Gazprom is the curator of the project. The program provides for the creation in the Far East and Eastern Siberia of a unified system for the extraction, processing of gas and transportation of raw materials to the Asia-Pacific countries, mainly China. The program includes a number of investment projects, including the construction of the Sakhalin-Vladivostok gas pipeline and the increase in production on the Sakhalin shelf.

    Last year, proven gas reserves in Russia grew by 816 billion cubic meters. The volume of production amounted to 655 billion cubic meters, which is 2,3 percent less than the results of 2011. The total explored gas reserves in Russia exceed 60 trillion cubic meters, which is the largest indicator among all countries of the world.
    http://lenta.ru/news/2013/04/03/stocks/
  30. Karabin
    Karabin April 3 2013 19: 47 New
    0
    And yet, from what motives did Edinoros and the messenger Leontyev savagely and publicly apply the edinoros and the messenger Miller? I do not believe that the case is allegedly a slate gas revolution, which Gazprom does not recognize. There are many technological revolutions, imaginary and real, that Russia has ignored over the past 20 years. There is something else. A riddle, however?
  31. воронов
    воронов April 3 2013 20: 19 New
    0
    They decided to remove Miller, the team was given to the face Leontyev
  32. Apollo
    Apollo April 3 2013 21: 19 New
    +1
    Gazprom Neft drilled a well for shale oil production

    Gazprom Neft announced the completion of the drilling of the first prospecting and appraisal well for the purpose of industrial research and testing of the Bazheno-Abalak horizon of the Palyanovskaya area of ​​the Krasnoleninsky field .................... Gazprom Neft ”Also said that this summer it plans to prepare a project for the industrial development of shale oil deposits in the Palyanovsk area of ​​the Krasnoleninsky field .......... As the newspaper VZGLYAD reported, on April 1, LUKOIL Vice President Leonid Fedun said that Russia could mine 10 million barrels of nave and on the day when will develop deposits of the Bazhenov formation, which will be applied to the oil shale technology.
    The task of keeping oil production at 10 million barrels per day until 2020 was set by Russian President Vladimir Putin, and this task, according to Fedun, is quite feasible .............. Energy consulting company Wood Mackenzie writes that there are serious reasons for the repetition of the shale revolution in Russia in the USA. There, hydraulic fracturing technologies, the so-called fracking, and horizontal drilling led to the beginning of the development of a number of fields that were previously considered unprofitable. This resulted in a real boom in the production of shale gas and oil.
    http://vz.ru/news/2013/4/3/627200.html
  33. YuDDP
    YuDDP April 3 2013 23: 48 New
    0
    Quote: rpek32
    by February 31 and our gasoline will become cheaper

    and not only gasoline smile
  34. Axel
    Axel April 4 2013 01: 40 New
    +1
    If the oil price drops to 80 bucks per bar., Then the profitability of shale gas, of course, will become very problematic. In this sense, Rosneft can help Gazprom by dropping the price of oil on the world market.

  35. Simple
    Simple April 4 2013 17: 39 New
    0
    Quote: Atlon
    Quote: Simple
    The above problems are not present.

    What is the total mileage on HBO?


    So far 34000 km.
    7,5-9 l LPG consumption per 100 km Golf 5 1.4 TSI.
    Due to the fact that the gas is not injected in a gaseous state,
    gas evaporates slightly cools the combustion chamber, thereby almost
    loss of power is fully compensated.
    My friend for the sixth year "on gas" - about 110000km car
    (True, BMW 5) - not complaining.
  36. high
    high April 28 2013 23: 54 New
    0
    In early April, an article entitled "Unconventional Mediterranean Oil" was published in the Nezavisimaya Gazeta Bala.
    The article contained information about the extraction of oil products from oil shale in Israel, which is fundamentally the opposite of forum comments ..... someone is right ...
    ,, In Israel - one of the largest oil shale deposits - 250 billion barrels of oil.
    They have not yet been used because the technologies needed to extract fuel were expensive.
    Israel involved in the development of the author of the revolution in the technology of oil production from oil shale - Harold Winiger. Winiger sharply reduced environmental damage.
    Its technology is Oil at a highly profitable cost of about $ 35–40 per barrel and an extremely low environmental impact.
    The Wieniger process produces greenhouse gas emissions half that of conventional oil wells and, unlike open-pit production, does not consume water. And what is the territory in which the same amount of oil will be extracted as in Saudi Arabia? About 25 square meters km of Israel.
    In aggregate, the oil and gas reserves in Israel are commensurate with the reserves of Saudi Arabia. Many of the world's leading oil companies collaborate with Israel on an investment basis. ,,
    Conclusion: if the largest oil and gas companies in the world have announced investments in Israel ...... and there is already a turn in Europe, Cyprus, Greece, Jordan for cheaper oil products ....... then, M. Leontyev is apparently right!