So don't be afraid to buy a caseload! Or, you know, just read some poetry on here for free. Wait, I'm a terrible salesperson. Congratulations, Amanda! How exciting--I can't wait to see it in person and read all your poetry. We'll have to swap stories on the publication process so I can decide if I want to try out CreateSpace for my next book. And I suppose, since you did give me credit for my idea, I won't demand a cut of your royalties :o. Post a Comment. I write from my home overlooking the Puget Sound in Seattle, Washington, mostly while in my pajamas.
I haven't mastered the art of picking a medium and sticking with it, so I enjoy experimenting with many different forms, from novels to sonnets to magazine articles. I welcome requests to reprint my work or commission new writing. Caldwell Email mail amandalcaldwell. Buy my collection of poetry through CreateSpace or at Amazon. Ported to Blogger by Template-Godown. Amanda Caldwell. Poetry, fiction, essays, articles, songs, and visual art. References for the technically imclined. Read them. What your peak oil annual production only post teaches is how imprecise and ill informed most public policy dialog is.
Your word! Too much coffee today? Most of the issues you raise are discussed in my 80 other posts about energy. LK, you rant, not I. I posted a longish summary of basic petroleum geophysics for laymen, and conclusions therefrom. With lots of specifics. And backed by hundreds of pages of analysis referenced elsewhere. Refute any specific therein with counterfacts? Please try. Simple examples. Did, or did not, IEA call the conventional peak in Did or did not its head, Dr.
Faith Birol, call the overall peak by about ? Google can be your friend if you dont want to read my stuff with footnotes. As the late Justice Scalia siad re Gore v. What made it a rant was that it had no visible relevance to what I wrote, beyond your insult at the start.
Just occured to me. Is it still strategic? If not, what do you propose? Larry, if you want to continue replying, at least get my name right. Rud Istvan, hiding in plain sight at both Amazon and LinkedIn. Three ebooks on iBooks and Kindle plus more, according to my publisher.
Do get back with some counterfacts. I am rather boored by nonfactual counter opinions. My apologies about misspelling your name.
My ipad substitutes what it thinks the text should be without notice to me. I provide consulting services for your other questions, if you are willing to pay. We might go read your books, if you gave us a reference to them? Worked and consulted all over the world. I see some confused petroleum geochemistry, some reservoir engineering, a bit of economics, but very little geophysics. Please stop abusing the term.
Larry Thanks for the helpful collected links. It is the alternative fossil resource development that was not accurately forseen. That after previously strenuously denying such predictions lest such admission harm its stock price. Yet the higher costs, especially conventional, deep water, bitumen, and tight oil, are dampening the economy and hindering growth in developing countries. He shows almost ALL have already peaked and declined for their region. Geology-area still rules for the same type of resource and recovery technology. Technology takes a LONG time to develop. Yet it was not until about that commercial oil fracking took off in the USA!
That will give a much better grasp on future production and challenges. Focus instead on the long term geological constraints on each type of fossil fuel and the very long time it takes to develop and deploy new technology. Odd rebuttal day continues at WUWT! Your word comment discusses lots of stuff — supposedly rebuttals — without showing any relevance to what I said.
Lesson learned! In the future I will follow Willis example and request that people reply to quotes. I now accept that I was mugged by fools. Wrong is the kindest of words. Inaccurate does not describe the degree of divergence from what consequently happened. And governments also attended to the prediction of future energy shortages and rising market prices.
Especially the U. The ongoing cost of this debacle is going to look like an extraordinarily poor deal for the British people IF oil and gas stay cheap and cheerful. Frog, You would be well advised to pay attention to Rud Istvan. He laid out the basics of oils, fields and peaks. Conventional oil from older field has peaked. Most of the rest of the increase of liquids produced have been natural gas liquids that are not primary transportation fuels. Over the last decade, the U. That oversupplied the oil market and destabilized it and also led the Saudis to decide to kill their competition.
They went through this previously in This is just the second verse of a familiar song for them. How long it will last this time depends on the economic growth rate, but eventually the world economy will outgrow the present supply of cheap oil. That might take a good while in a stagnant world economy. Of course, I too can now look back and see who could be trusted to provide a good analysis and who turned out to be talking bull. But back in , when I first took note of serious concerns and read widely on this topic, I backed the wrong predictions.
But then look what happened. Anyone betting on demand exceeding supply by , lost that bet. But seemingly solid analysis from the past seems to have lead to some very wrong predictions. Do the Saudis still have control over the market? To some extent they can over-supply and lower prices. But when they stop dumping then where will the new price settle? Natural gas liquids can be put through a reformer and made into gasoline and diesel fuel and jet fuel and… The cost to do this is low, but bottle propane has a nice fat markup….
While I prefer to use it in the BBQ, it is near trivial to use it for motor fuel and I have driven propane powered vehicles. It assumes that nothing comes into the world except a few insignificant meteorites. Ideas are new. Ideas change productivity. Ideas create new resources. Ideas reach existing resources cost effectively. Who cares if Ancient Rome had uranium?
We live in a world with limits, but with work they can be transcended. But assuming that some invisible hand will pave an easy road for us puts us on the fast track to disaster. America has prospered because for two centuries business and government have make wise investments in infrastructure, research, and education — which have paid off big-time. I recommend E. I thought peak oil had more to do about the price of extraction and if this is so, will we have to depend on middle east oil in North America?
Price is what links supply and demand. As i said upstream, there is an inverse relationship between ore quality and quantity, so that once the world is fully explored all deposits known costs will rise over time — offset by better tech that lowers the cost of extraction and refining details here. At some unknowable point either the balance will tip so that rising prices force lower production aka peaking production and demand destruction — or new forms of energy replace it.
As for US imports of oil, successfully modeling for decades in the future that involves many factors of economics, technology, and geology. The record suggests that doing so lies beyond the state of the art. My guess emphasis on guess is that new tech will produce cheap electricity and relatively inexpensive electric vehicles — slowly replacing use of liquid fuels for ground transportation — producing a demand-driven peak oil. It might as well be infinite. I have calculated the volume of all of the oil ever produced anywhere in the world. This volume compares in size to a largish mountain.
But a large mountain compares to the Earth as a bacterium compares to a cue ball. Considering the volume of all of the sedimentary rock on the earth, and throw in the volume of all of the worlds oceanic sediments, we have barely begun to scratch the surface of what the world holds. Future technological improvements should be considered nearly infinite, considering how quickly new technologies and techniques can be invented and evolve. The biggest dangers we face, IMO, is crippling our ability to innovate by dismantling or crippling our economic and energy infrastructures, and discrediting our scientific institutions or more accurately perhaps, allowing them to discredit themselves so that progress slows to a crawl or becomes impossible.
Our political leaders and regulatory agencies are leading us rapidly astray. Electricity can, and will be cheaply produced by nuclear reactors 4th and later generation fission machines, and fusion machines. But, the battery problem will make electric cars forever out of reach. The problem is driven by inorganic chemistry, which is a mature science, and the inherent engineering problems of electricity.
If you have have enough cheap electricity, you can make liquid fuel out of air and water. An electric car which can travel hundreds of miles and be recharged in minutes will be out of reach, but transport is going to decline dramatically over the next few decades. Peak oil refers to the point of maximum rate of extraction, followed by a decline.
According to the Wiki article containing the above graphic:. The same article notes that his worldwide forecasts called the peak around the year , which has not happened. Peak conventionally extracted oil occurred…but 10 years of high prices produced an abundance of alternative inexpensive extraction methods and alternative fuels and substantial improvements in efficiency. I thought he was talking statically. That is, conventional is defined as what is conventional at the time of the statement. Most Peak Oil projections assumed oil was a finite resource and one could calculate the date of Peak Oil by determining how much oil is in the ground or under water.
I took a different approach. For me, the question has never been how much oil is potentially available, but rather how much affordable oil can we humans produce? We almost had an oil crisis in when there was a temporary lag in new oil production and there is ample evidence the production of conventional oil has already peaked. Hence, new oil production must come from resources that are largely more expensive to produce. Shale oil liberated by fracking is a good example, as are the cost of oil derived from sands, deep sea wells, and the arctic.
When that calculation approaches 1 for 4, as is happening, oil will become too expensive to use as resource for gasoline, diesel, and jet fuels, and — as shown in — will be too expensive to use as an agricultural liquid. Imagine blue on the left side and red on the right. Blue represents tax and red represents subsidy. Right now oil is deep blue and other forms of energy wind and sun are deep red.
When oil is deep red we have reached peak oil. Probably opening up Alaska to unlimited oil production and not just ANWR as Texas had many years ago, would provide many years of oil reserves and production if not for the USA, probably the world.
And many of the western US states have land owned by the government which will not allow oil production. Peak oil was always about oil availability. Now it is about type, sub-type, price. Fact is, in there is a lot of oil. The world is swimming in oil. No one predicted that. Long-term predictions about energy — and commodities — have a poor record of success. History shows large swings, which are often mysterious at the time. On top of that the Saudi Princes started a price war to regain discipline among oil producers — just as they did in The nice thing about oil is the box is periodically reopened and that confuses a lot of people.
Nicely said! The history of oil has been one of milestones of tech and discovery since the Drake well in Eventually the entire world will have been explored, starting a new era of oil — in which the relationship of price, tech, and deposit quality-quantity play themselves out. But we have time. South America has barely been tapped. Venezeuala has a ton of crude sitting there due to politics. Colombia has vast reserves, but the commie rebels do cause a problem. Exxon just hit a huge field off Guyana. Argentina has vast shale reserves. Also, let us not forget about coal, which can be converted into diesel.
Already being done, but shutdown by politics in the US. In the meantime, live long and prosper! That means the world economic activity will be times today. We can extract times the oil we are now today??? You are actually incorrect. Oil will last us for ever, because in years society will be much lower than today.
Horse and buggies dont need gasoline. And, given that the current cost incentive to simply take a derate and burn PRB. However, I would be interested seeing in any projected heat content data the EIA might have? Have you seen any? Thorium can already be used in present light water reactors rods in burn testing now and in CANDU designs. Yeah, molten salt would be nice to have in production, but it does not limit the use of thorium today.
He gave lots of speeches to urge conservation, and a switch to massive coal and nuclear usage in order to save petroleum. He was just as deluded then as Obama is now. Is it the office you think that makes them silly? Or were they that way when they moved in? It was not a list of everyone who ever gassed a date for peak oil. It was a list of some predictions by some well-known experts about oil.
My guess is that they sound silly because we expect them to have answers to every question. Steve It is highly unlikely your grandchildren will consume oil based products in the quantities we do now. The political future of most nations depends on having enough accessible fuel. IFF we were at Peak Oil now, and that is very unlikely, Hubberts theory says production fades roughly as it rose. The downside of the bell curve looks much like the entry. As I have a new grandson, that means he will be driving in about 17 years. Poor Nick. This was about the predictions of peaking, which I listed.
It was self-explanatory with a link to the source for more info , at least to people who read the newspapers. Editor, You mainly listed a set of dates and names from a report of Hirsch et al. Their conclusion:. World Oil Peaking is Going to Happen World production of conventional oil will reach a maximum and decline thereafter.
That maximum is called the peak. A number of competent forecasters project peaking within a decade; others contend it will occur later. Prediction of the peaking is extremely difficult because of geological complexities, measurement problems, pricing variations, demand elasticity, and political influences. Peaking will happen, but the timing is uncertain. But the key thing is, they are talking about conventional oil.
Which is why I showed the table of production of both over time i. The peak oil people most often referred to the peaking of liquid fuels, hence the severe economic effects they predicted when that peaked. Not to a scenario with ample liquid fuels but peaked conventional oil — which would have had far milder effects. Yes it is. The EIA does not collect information in any narrower form. The EIA does not collect information on crude oil production without lease condensate, or on lease condensates as a separate category.
What makes you a troll is that you seldom ever? Interesting to see that you join Nick in this. I do not consider Rritvan a troll. He often makes insightful comments to my posts, although we often disagree. Especially as he makes no specific criticisms of my post, just bold smears. Those people predicting peak oil may have been wrong, but the money that a lot of people made and lost was vast and very real. And it extended way beyond energy to commodities such as copper. People who knew, at the time, when the commodity supercycle ended did well…and those who failed to get the memo and continued to invest did not.
I put the start of the turnaround and reversal as the completion of the Three Gorges dam and the end of the build-out for the Beijing Olympiad. Thanks for the reminder! That works until it fails, usually hard. The cure for high commodity prices is high prices is high prices. The cure for low prices is low prices. There are many who believe the current excessive production is a strategy to stop fracking, particularly in the United States. I am not so sure.
These are something to watch. The tone of certainty and all. The End of Suburbia — 52 minute documentary on peak oil. Someone put up a graph of CMIP5 versus observations. It looks great and that the models have been correct.. Can someone help me? Same goes for any other topic you are being challenged on.
Warning though, the answer is never simple. Big difference!
During the carbonaceous era on tiny Comet Halley, vast amounts of organic matter were preserved in the sediments of shallow inland seas. Two years ago we had our oil heater replaced by a new very efficient burner, our oil consumption was gratefully cut over halve! I see technology in the coming years make the same if not better advances.
- Field Guide to Meteors and Meteorites.
- Change Password.
- Coalitions End (Gears of War, Book 4).
- Amanda Caldwell: My poetry book is published!.
To me all this talk is not relevant. The Peak Oil story is still correct because the math has not changed. The bottom line is that light sweet crude production peaked a few years back. Yes, we did spend hundreds of billions of dollars to develop expensive tar sands and totally uneconomic shale; we invested in water drive systems that would produce more oil now but at a cost later on as some of the recoverable gets left behind. The only way to see what is happening is to look at the balance sheets and cash flow statements of the marginal producers and they are toast.
The SEC filings for the pure shale producers show negative cash flows even when prices were near a barrel. And given the heterogeneous nature of shale formations, the rapid depletion rates, and very small core areas where production is very profitable but limited, we are looking at a small amount of economic production that is dwarfed by the credit induced levels of uneconomic production that we see today.
If we look at the latest report from the Bakken we see that in November there were 10, operating wells producing barrels per day of oil. That compares to the November report when there were 4, operating wells producing barrels per day. All those new wells provide us with the greatest flow rates but even doubling the number of older wells was not sufficient to offset the production decline from existing wells.
That seems very strange given the assumption of hyperbolic decline curves where production stabilizes and stays somewhat constant for many years in the future.
Similar authors to follow
What has been remarkable was the honesty of the CEOs of the shale companies. Every presentation that I can remember hearing has made it clear that there were funding gaps that needed to be closed by new borrowing, selling assets, or issuing new shares. The managers doing the presentations were clear that their reported earnings depended on certain assumptions about the depreciation rates, the shape of the decline curves, and the ultimate recoveries that were based on calculated on the basis of those assumptions.
Analysts were taken in by the very profitable wells in the core areas and assumed that the rest of the formations would yield similar results. But that is not how the geology works and the actual production data shows very different results. Before I end this I have to mention the problem with aggregating the production data. What we use as consumers is not the oil but the products that are made from that oil. And how much product is made depends on the type of oil that is produced.
A barrel of heavy oil, the production of which has increased substantially thanks to massive investments in capital, produces a lot more asphalt and a lot less gasoline and kerosene than a barrel of light sweet crude. We can actually produce more oil and get a lot less high-value product. What I find most harmful is the dislocation that the credit bubble has created. It has allowed politicians and investors to pursue fantasy with one betting on inefficient alternative energy schemes like solar and wind energy and the other on a scam like shale-oil.
If we took the uneconomic marginal producers off-line, global production would fall by several million barrels that would more than offset the decline in demand due to the collapsing economic activity in the EU, US, and even the developing world. The problem is that the malinvestments have prevented rational research into realistic solutions to our production problems.
Even worse is the status of the US dollar, which was supported by a myth of energy independence that will never happen. Once investors in American treasuries figure out that the shale miracle was yet another scam we could see a very sudden increase in poverty as purchasing power declines and jobs in industries that should never have developed are shed. You can choose to believe the mythology but I prefer to look at the real world data. By the way, it is easy to prove me wrong. All any of you have to do is to show that the SEC filing for primary producers show positive cash flows during the periods of high oil prices.
Seeing as the number of words used is important on this thread is important, I will keep this short. At peak oil, USD per barrel Discovery channel did a detailed program on the oil sands development. They followed the building of two complete oil sands processing trains each , barrels per day capacity.
- Understanding Weight-Loss Programs.
- Items in search results?
- Key World Energy Statistics 2010;
- Food and drug regulation in an era of globalized markets.
- Burning to Read: English Fundamentalism and Its Reformation Opponents;
- Its Down To Earth;
- The essential manager : how to thrive in the global information jungle;
One for Shell and one for Sun Oil I think. They expressed awe at the cost, USD 18 billion. Looking at their cost figures this was repaid in 42 days and at an ongoing cost of USD 1. Oil shale is the subject of discussion but it has a very low oil density, that is yield per cubic metres of rock. Existing oilfields have a much higher yield even at forecast total production possible. But if you apply those two technologies to existing proven and producing fields you unlock a massive global new supply of supply at virtually no cost. So at current realistic Oil prices of USD 25, you dont spend billions on capital expenditure but you rework existing fields or just do nothing.
The scam is not current prices but the stupid high prices humanity was forced to suffer. That the Saudis overspent their windfall profits concerns me not one iota. Plus the ongoing cost for the equipment mining equipment does not last forever. Over a longer period of time, fields are exhausted and need to be replaced. No i dont. If it costs ten billion to build a new oilfield with all its infrastructure and process facilities.
That is the capital expenditure. If they then produce at 1. And i am not talking about new, I am talking about existing proven fields with all facilities in place. I have said in both cases what the capital cost is and that is what i wrote off in the required periods. Its just simple maths. Operating costs, take usd , per day, at 1,5 million barrels per day that is only seven cents per barrel.
How long does steel pipe last? How much maintenance does a gas separator need? For your peace of mind, i built two offshore production systems, on time and on budget and both operated way beyond their design specification. This vapid post is just another attempt to attract traffic to the Fabius Maximus website. It sounds like you are calling me a liar. They are all quite specious. Why would they be mentioned in that report, which was a list of oil production forecasts? It does not discusses how price boosts supply, since it focuses on the post-peak world.
It does discuss the other two predictions: improved efficiency and alt liquid fuels. The resulting change in demand might astonish us. Higher prices allows exploitation of the larger supply of lower-quality ore. My posts all worked a consistent theme: the major energy institutions forecast peaking several decades from now. The Hirsch report showed that preparation will take 20 years on a crash basis.
If we start now, efficiently and gradually, we can make an easy transition to a post-oil world — one with less pollution. Persistent slower global GDP growth after the crash which almost nobody predicted has pushed out the time of peaking — and contributed to the crash in prices more supply, but less than anticipated demand — but that also makes us less able to pay for the necessary investments to prepare. So nothing has changed the wisdom of my view imo. I did some research for Hirsch, hence the mention.
Follow-up note: when discussing these three predictions I was making commonplace observations. They were nothing special or unique. I guess an investment advisor must develop an aptitude for Delphic prognostications. I dunno. The world uses 36 billion barrels of oil a year, but does not find 36 billion in reserves to replace it. Each year of discovery can be a variation on previous years given the time needed to find and explore new fields.
In they found about 80 billion new barrels, some 60 billion in and about 10 billion in , according to energy info. It jumps around. Malthusians have always been wrong. The carrying capacity of the Earth is mind-bogglingly higher than they claim. Peak oil is not about there being more oil left, or about there being new technologies to get it.
Ultimately its about EROEI — that it takes too much energy to extract it compared to some other source of fuel. And that is the issue. WE dont use oil in power stations because its too expensive. We use gas. Peak oil for electricity generation has come and gone, as has peak oil for many many regions where oil is drilled. What is the issue with all these things is that at a given point a rising cost-benefit curve exceeds the cost-benefit of something else.
It has only been the massive use of government legislation that has basically piled cost on — say — nuclear, and piled negative cost on renewables, that has disguised the fundamental issue that in the case of power generation, ex of regulatory burdens nuclear power is probably the cheapest and most reliable way to generate power. Evidence of the past is no guarantee of the future.
I am not dead yet. That does not mean I never will be. I was benchmarking what well-known experts were saying during the peak oil days. This was not intended as the next Britannica entry on the oil industry, just a look at one facet of it. Lol, sounds like a warmist hiding the decline in global temperature. Peak oil is when global production starts to decline permanently, for whatever reason.
Yes, that is correct.
There are many factors which might force a peak in oil production. Or, as Robert Hirsch explained in a presentation , production might peak due to political decisions by producers. It might peak because superior substitutes are created. It might peak due to political decisions by consumers, such as regulations limiting CO2 emissions. Energy dynamics are complex, with their interplay of geology, technology, politics, and economics. Synthetic Oil — made by the Fischer-Tropsch process usually from natural gas, CO, and CO2 — is in most ways better for your car than conventional motor oil.
It is, however, more expensive. If the F-T process was more efficient then this gas to liquid GTL process would replace crude very quickly! But it is not, so natural gas has not replaced oil on a large scale. Natural gas is expensive to transport except by pipe not always feasible , so GTL would allow much more nat gas to be sold.
But oil prices collapsed before GTL could get rolled out on a large scale. Note: coal can also be converted to oil using F-T. Maybe you could consider condensing some of those paths, to illustrate how they mitigate various doom scenarios, and the alleged debt-cycle collapse havoc to come yet to transition, no to end of world lol , and post them back in here also when done, including economic change making new economic technical pathways viable, and how they interact. If your batteries are energy-dense enough and rechargeable fast enough, then say goodbye to inefficient reciprocating combustion engines, and their issues as well.
Suddenly the entire picture is transformed. That is the real problem.
There is an inverse relationship between ore quality and quantity. Once the world if fully explored i. This trend is offset by improving tech, which lowers the cost of production. This takes place in a larger context: the speed of this process i. Price shows the interplay at any moment of these factors, and influences how they develop. Over shorter time horizons we will have the usual boom-bust commodity price cycles, driven by the interplay of demand changes and capital investment cycles — plus efforts to create cartels.
Looking far ahead, our descendants in ? The goal is to get there with a minimum of trouble. All this is easy to describe this but impossible to make reliable predictions. Given the importance of energy, imo it is prudent to prepare for future problems rather than trust to luck. We could easily have a decade of recession in the s. Cheap energy afterwards would not erase that suffering. In my 80 posts about this I try to help people see through specific myths.
As we see in the comments here, people love their misinformation — and tend to react by closing their eyes and screaming. Just as we see in the climate wars. I think that you are just trying to generate interest by misrepresenting what was said and what the real argument is. Peak Oil is about peak daily production and nothing else. It is not about how much oil is in the ground because that has not changed.
The increased reserves that many of the naive optimists try to use to divert attention from what really matters are mostly a fiction. It was found many decades ago but due to reporting requirements was never reported properly. If we move the reserve charts back to the time that those reserves were discovered we will find that there is a serious problem with the discovery process. If we look at the figure in the link below we see a huge jump in reported reserves for the Middle East during the s.
That was not due to drilling or new recoveries. It was done with the stroke of the pen as OPEC members decided to ration production based on reported reserves. Two of the countries that reported a large increase in reserves were Iran and Iraq. They certainly were not drilling at the time because they were busy fighting each other in a war. Worse are the SEC rules that allow producers to assume that the formation between productive wells contains as much oil as the areas where the wells are.
But we know that is not to be true. Shale is not homogeneous and porosity, permeability, and organic content varies greatly. While it is possible to make a profit in shale, that is only true for the tiny core areas that are close to being tapped out. The massive write-downs of resources and reserves should be coming in the next few years as the curtains are pulled on the shale myth and most of the players wind up in bankruptcy.
Peak Oil is about one thing. Peak Production. Not just of barrels but of total petroleum products. The most recent data muddies the waters because it includes natural gas plant liquids NGPL together with the production of crude, which is an aggregate number that is made up of several different grades of oil, each with a different yield of high-value petroleum products. The numbers are not very clear and nobody seems interested in presenting a clear picture, mostly because the Western oil companies can no longer replace reserves and because the data shows that the production of economic light sweet crude peaked more than a decade in our past.
I suggest that you will seem more credible if you deal with the specific points being brought up. You might want to start by showing us how we can continue to produce al of that shale and tar sands oil at a loss for much longer. How many shale gas and oil companies do you expect to go bankrupt in the next six quarters?
And how many of the drillers. Surely the Editor of the Fabius Maximus website should be able to answer such a question. Another story. How the doomers like to conflate that with peak oil non-issue is quite devious and misanthropic of them oh dear, that word again. There are comment here. Who are you arguing with?
For example…. See the table I provide, or click through to the EIA website and see the notes. Sorry, you were badly misled. Please be more careful. Do away with all modern technology, every bit of it. Anything with plastic, get rid of it, ban it completely from you life. Avoid touching plastic ever again, as a rule. Do it for the children!
No driving in cars either, not even taxis. No combustion engines at all, no watch, no evil solar panel industrial technology and demon batteries! And no more evil telephones or radios. I spend money to fill my tank. Oil, natural gas and coal are concentrated biofuels. They represent thousands to millions of years of condensed solar energy.
First of all EROEI reflects the point at which its not worth extracting oil for use as an energy source at any price. They are different things. A massively under-appreciated fact, thanks for putting it in those straight, easy to understand terms. We use oil for transportation fuels because it works very well for that purpose. Oil is just the feed stock. The form of the fuel matters, a lot. Long after lift cost exceeds oil BTUs we will be lifting oil to make convenient energy dense fuels, right up to the point wher some other synthetic path becomes more efficient. Right now we have wells in California with electric pumps lifting oil.
Some of that electricity from nuclear plants. Since there is a functionally infinite supply of uranium from sea water at acceptable prices, we never run out of energy to do the lifting, so EROEI is a red herring. What matters is cost of nuclear or wind or solar electricity to do the lift vs cost of alternative paths to transportation fuels.
The FORM of the energy matters more than the energy in it for transportation fuels. As long as oil gives cheaper transport fuels than the alternative paths, it will be lifted, even at negative EROEI via using electric lift pumps. Effectively turning nuclear energy into motor fuel. Actually, that happened several times in human history in several places. One of the causes of the Roman Empire is contributed to running out of wood locally. Taking too much energy and time to import it. It happened in England when they ran out of oak trees for ship building.
Easter Island another example. Socialist government borrowing is going to come to an abrupt end. Have a look at Venezuela today. Well… not quite. So, from a practical point of view, nuclear is only good from producing power up to the daily low at max. The rest is made up from fossil assets. Solving that problem is one of the reasons nuclear technologies like the small modular reactor are being perused. But that technology is years away. Its not currently economic.
Operated at low capacity factors the high capital cost of nuclear power renders it pretty expensive in load following mode, but technically it can, and France at least does. France is in fact a good example, where nearly all the baseload and a lot more is covered by nuclear, with some load following,. The decision to not have dispatchable nuclear is not a technical one, its an economic one. If you have baseload nuclear power, it can be used to synthesize hydrocarbon fuels from water and any carbonaceous feedstock.
These fuels can be used for the powerplants needed for the diurnal load variation. There is no better battery, joule per kilogram, than a long-chain hydrocarbon. Nothing new need be invented. I originally pointed out the theoretical capacity for nuclear to load follow using the Small Modular Reactor design — other designs are possible.
But… as I said, actual load-following nuclear capacity is roughly years away. Only if you know little about economics. She was wrong about oil consumption, and her economics are just making stuff up. To give one of many examples, in her oft-quoted July post she says…. Neither the start or end of QE3 had much effect on Treasury interest rates, and no visible effect on the rates charged to consumers the riskless rate plus a credit spread. The bottom line: the rate of growth of consumer credit increased as QE3 was phased out Sept to October — and remained stable and rapid after QE3 ended.
Outstanding consumer credit grew at 6. So her prediction about credit was wrong. We had best hope that ristvan is off by a couple of orders of magnitude. Not taking any position here, but merely pointing out the math. Just look at the long long history of such estimates. We always seem to have had no more than about twenty years worth of oil in the world, despite increasing production and depletion of existing reserves. Oil producers pay for more reserves to be found when they have less reserves than their planning horizon.
We had the Bronze Age which ended but not because we ran out of tin and copper. We had the Iron Age which ended but not because we ran out of iron ore. We are now in the Steel, Oil, Neodymium, Aluminium, Silicon take your pick Age and when this epoch ends it will not be because we run out of the stuff, but because something better has come along. Oh, and they were first made from coal… Eastman Chemical still does use coal. There are also folks making chemicals from garbage. I doubt we will ever run out of garbage. The notion that we need to save the oil to make plastics is just daft and ignorant of chemistry and history both.
We just have more finds and more types of oil. We have kept exploration up and up to keep the rate of oil production up. We are not running out, not for another years and as it runs out the price goes up and up so, maybe twice that time actually. For all the talk of the arctic, and Antarctica, and Greenland, if big reserves are found they WILL be drilled, end of story. Civilisation is built on oil and there is nothing to replace it.
The only way solar could work, is to shove everyone into huge cities designed to run on solar, literally the only way as things stand. I hear the UN are planning just that. Again with the mistake of understanding what peak oil means. It means world production will start to slow at some point, and never recover. It could be economic reasons, or geopolitical reasons.
It could also be because of net energy returned drops significantly. That slowing of production will force a slowing of consumption. But some will be able to out bid others for that lower production of oil, that in turn means someone who needs that oil will have to do without.
Those who will have the hardest time trying to out bid others will be those who are most in debt. Virtually all organic chemicals can be made starting from synthesis gas CO and H2 regardless of its source, whether it be natural gas or biomass. Now we could argue whether there is enough biomass certainly. There is way more than needed for plastics and other synthetics. A couple of examples:. Turn that into plastics instead, you get a few gallons of plastic per person per week. BTW, there are folks making bioplastics today from corn.
Henry Ford with George Washington Carver made plastic parts for cars out of soybeans decades ago. Still, if desired, we can grow plastics via corn, soy, or even trees. No way we can use that much plastic, so we dump it in landfills to rot, or compost it. Only AGW remains a problem and it, too, is fading away. Not correct. And those were the more professional of the peak oil community. Apocalyptic predictions were commonplace.
Here are a few of the thousands available from a brief google search. Not so. Apocalyptic predictions were common in the peak oil community. Which was the subject of this article. The Oil Drum and ASPO has large followings, and were quoted as expert sources in the major media — which gave lavish coverage to the doomsters.
Songs That Mention California (listed by artist) With Comments and Lyrics
As I said, the major climate agencies and, as you note, the oil companies provided sober analysis throughout this period. The contrast between the two is the relevant point of my post. To learn more about the Peak Oil movement — the large number of people who were extremely worried about what they saw as an imminent doom — I recommend reading Peak Oil: Apocalyptic Environmentalism and Libertarian Political Culture by Matthew Schneider-Mayerson University of Chicago Press, The interviews with these deluded people are quite sad.
Some of them restructured their lives to prepare for the End. This is a report of five different reasons why the world will end this year. The minority who fear such things are hysterical and always exist, but their fears mean nothing. I never said that society became hysterical. This was about a hysterical minority that for several years had a disproportionate influence in the US — an all-too-common phenomenon in recent US history.
The most the minority achieved was to raise awareness of a need for energy security. As I pointed out, there are always insignificant minorities who are hysterical about something, and — as illustration — I linked to five different reasons why the world will end this year. I have to wonder how many times we have to explain this. Peak oil is not about what oil is in place. The peak oil calculation is dependent on the OOIP and economic recovery factor.
Decline curves are generally plotted as rate vs cumulative production. A decline curve is dependent on original oil in place and the recovery factor. Hubbert simply calculated a hypothetical decline curve for the world. Shale oil like the Bakken and Eagle Ford is not unconventional oil. It is plain old crude oil. Oil shale Green River and tar sands Athabasca oil sands are unconventional oils because they are bitumous kerogens — essentially incompletely formed crude oil.
Wow, you really have no clue. Kerogen is the precursor for oil. Bitumen is the opposite. Do yourself a favour before you post too much more and read Oil Unconventional oil is vast, but difficult to extract, hence a low flow rate, and have a low ERoEI. Which makes their net enery output lower. That means more energy has to be diverted from society to get that oil.
Google it. Most of the organic matter in oil shales is derived from various types of marine and lacustrine algae. It may also include varied admixtures of biologically higher forms of plant debris that depend on the depositional environment and geographic position. Bacterial remains can be volumetrically important in many oil shales, but they are difficult to identify. Most of the organic matter in oil shale is insoluble in ordinary organic solvents, whereas some is bitumen that is soluble in certain organic solvents. Solid hydrocarbons, including gilsonite, wurtzilite, grahamite, ozokerite, and albertite, are present as veins or pods in some oil shales.