[sicophiliac]

Well I read this on the main page. Its good news if its true.. I notice all the doomers tend to sight the estimate that peak oil is this year. Others seem to say 2008ish, this report extends that out for a bit. Itll give me the time to finish up my hotrod and enjoy it for a few good years which is something im definatly happy about. One thing though.. if we hit peak in say 2015.. we might be slowly edging up onto a plateau . Now demand will probably be right up there if not exceed that production level in the comming years so I dont think well be seeing gas for 1.20 a gallon anytime soon. I doubt itll go under 2 a gallon! Another thing about post peak, though conventional oil depletion might be steep we have to assume production from tar sands, coal to oil and maybe even oil shale will be ramping up pretty well to soften the landing so I doubt itll be too bad. Energy costs arent going down so the renewables as well as all the hybrids and efficiency improvements will continue to get plenty of support.

[DoctorDoom]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sicophiliac', 'O')ne thing though.. if we hit peak in say 2015.. we might be slowly edging up onto a plateau.

[gary_malcolm]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '
')A major American city goes from being a thriving landmark and port of international commerce to being a thriving cesspool of rape gangs and anarchy in under 4 days with virtually no response from the government?

[DoctorDoom]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MattSavinar', '
')Why should we have any hope of our government responding to the "long emergency" with any more effectiveness than it did to the "short emergency" that was the hurricane?

[Taskforce_Unity]

I opened a topic before to talk about my report

http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic11688-15.html

Please go there to respond, i will try to respond there to all questions. Maybe the mods want to close this one?

[seahorse2]

RocDoc,

Regarding SA, I think there is serious reason to question their claims, and I base that on the article Sada al-Husseini wrote for Oil and Gas Journal, August 2, 2004. This was an article which appeared in a series of articles specifically addressing Peak Oil. Unlike unnamed SA sources, this is coming from someone "in the know." In that article, Husseini states:

Regarding the Caspian Sea and Siberian pipelines offsetting declines in North America and the North Sea, he states:

"in any case they would not offset the accelerative production declines in North America and the North Sea while accomodating increasing demand throughout the world."

Regarding new OPEC capacity scheduled to come on-line in late 2004, he stated:

"this is a limited volume from plants and facilities under commissioning and originall was scheduled to replace declining capacity in any case."

Regarding long term price of oil, he states:

"In the longer term, crude oil prices are destined to continue to escalate through the end of the decade."

Regarding the abundance and development potential of future Russian and OPEC reserves, he writes:

"the future resources themselves may not be as abundant or readily available for development as assumed by organizations such as the EIA and the US Geological Survey."

He disagrees with the optimist opinions regarding future oil production capacities:

"even if the USGS and EIA resource estimates are technically feasible, their conclusions regarding future oil production capacities are not straightforward and cannot be reliable."

He states that no one is undertaking the investment necessary to meet the optimistic production calculations:

"There is no evidence that these policies and hence the investments are occuring on the required scale anywhere in the world."


He warns of rapidly depleting the resource base even if the investment was made:

Furthermore, if a rapid increase in global oil production were to occur, it would result in an accelerated depletion of proven and existing resources" [side note, this is what Simmons and other pessimist have been saying]

He notes how even a large field like Kashagan is "proving to complex a technical and political challenge for the rapid exploration of its resources."

Regarding future oil discoveries:

"it is realistic to assume there will continue to be future oil discoveries and developments, the majority will be smaller, complex accumulations. Consequently, their finding and development costs will be higher than past experience." [note, sounds like ASPO and Simmons, except that he's from Saudi Arabia]

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'i')t is realistic to assume there will continue to be future oil discoveries and developments, the majority will be smaller, complex accumulations. Consequently, their finding and development costs will be higher than past experience." [note, sounds like ASPO and Simmons, except that he's from Saudi Arabia]

[kevincarter]

About what you said regarding "going nuclear"

Going nuclear will not save us, at all.

First, products to produce nuclear energy will also peak at some point, but that’s not the most worrying.

How do we get the materials?
What do we do with the radioactive waste?
Do we have effective and affordable nuclear cars, trucks and ships ready to be constructed? No. Do we have the facilities to build them on a mass scale? No.
If the West goes nuclear everybody will try to follow. Again, what will they do with the waste? Also, are they (or us) ready to handle a bunch of Chernobyl’s?
Going nuclear is a great chance for many to produce materials needed for building nuclear weapons, just what the world does not need.
Going nuclear, if by some rare chance it ever worked, would increase the population of the planet even more.

Going nuclear is probably the WORST idea.

[o2ny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kevincarter', 'H')ow do we get the materials?
What do we do with the radioactive waste?
Do we have effective and affordable nuclear cars, trucks and ships ready to be constructed? No. Do we have the facilities to build them on a mass scale? No.
...
Going nuclear is probably the WORST idea.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('o2ny', '
')
"Since the first commercial nuclear power plant began producing electricity in 1957, the total amount of accumulated spent fuel is 9,000 tons. It would fit inside a space equivalent to a high school gymnasium with room to spare."

[kmann]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lehyina', 'S')omething which I think is being slightly overlooked here is the sensitivity of world demand/consumption projections. Whatever the liquids production capacity projection and its peak is, the real crunch comes about when supply becomes permanently less than demand. By way of example lets assume for a moment that this particular production capacity forecast is perfect and has no inherent uncertainty.
Now if world average demand growth is a constant 2% per annum from here onwards the supply demand gap will be permanent as from 2010 onwards. If however world average demand growth is only 1% per annum from here onwards the permanent supply demand gap will not occur until 2016 onwards - so this one factor alone (i.e. demand growth assumption) gives an uncertainty range of 6 years for the point at which the supply demand gap becomes permanent. By not giving sufficient attention to this kind of uncertainty peakoilers give a misleading idea about the supposed accuracy of projections and have thereby expose themselves to the 'crying wolf' criticism. Personally, whether the critical year is 2005, 2010, 2015 or even 2030, its still too short a time when I consider what kind of world and society my grandchildren are going to inherit.

[Ludi]

As long as it's always "still 5 or 10 years away" we'll never have to do anything about it. Then it will be too late.

[Lehyina]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'A')s long as it's always "still 5 or 10 years away" we'll never have to do anything about it. Then it will be too late.

[NEOPO]

Not trying to pick on you BUT!!!
"$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ts a great pity the world's politicians cannot get their act together for Peak Oil the way they did to tackle the ozone hole. Guess its because Peak Oil is a much more intractable problem.

[0mar]

Any alternative out there, ANY, needs trillions of dollars of investment, decades of double digit growth and non-interference from politics/industrial espionage shit. Then, the alternative can be in a position to compete with oil at some level.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('0mar', 'A')ny alternative out there, ANY, needs trillions of dollars of investment, decades of double digit growth and non-interference from politics/industrial espionage shit. Then, the alternative can be in a position to compete with oil at some level.

[Dezakin]

kevincarter:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')irst, products to produce nuclear energy will also peak at some point, but that’s not the most worrying.

[Concerned]

[quote="Dezakin"]
We mine it from high grade ore, medium grade ore, low grade ore, granite and ordinary dirt... ordinary crust has about 10 ppm of uranium and thorium, well enough to support positive energy return in breeder reactor regimes.
[quote]

How much energy required to mine a useful quantity of uranium or thorium from seawater or the earths crust? Any ideas how much it would cost in todays prices?

Do you have any links to the types of breeder reactor regimes you are talking about? Are they commercially viable or in the experimental stage?

Thank you.

[Dezakin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow much energy required to mine a useful quantity of uranium or thorium from seawater or the earths crust? Any ideas how much it would cost in todays prices?

[rogerhb]

.... and are you going to let the result of the world play with nuclear? Current administration doesn't seem to think so.