[Scientist]

The Peak Oil discussion is an important debate, but you should check the figures out there folks. Let me just quote you some:

- At $40pb shale oil can supply oil for the next 250+ years at current consumption rates. We are obviously at $50+bp this week.
- The total size of known shale oil resources represents 5000 years of reserves at present consumption!
- Aside from shale oil, there are other huge untapped energy resources such as deep water oil that have SO FAR been uneconomic to exploit
- "Known reserves" of oil is not a finite entity - oil exploration costs money and new searches are not initiated that far in advance of production for these reasons. Please take figures of "Peak Oil" based on "known reserves" with a pinch of salt

Oil demand and a move to other sources of energy WILL occur if the price of oil continues to rise. Let's take nuclear energy as one alternative:
- Known uranium reserves represent 14000 years of supply at present consumption!!!

I could go on, and I do believe that there should be more investment and emphasis on renewable sources of energy, but I strongly believe that will happen due to market forces rather than a doomsday scenario.

However if you strongly believe in Peak Oil, then buy huge amounts of crude futures and become a multi-millionaire in a couple of years time and live out your last days in style. Strangely I don't see the Peak Oil theorists doing so...

[Canuck]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Scientist', 'A')t $40pb shale oil can supply oil for the next 250+ years at current consumption rates. We are obviously at $50+bp this week.

[rerere]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Scientist', 'T')he Peak Oil discussion is an important debate, but you should check the figures out there folks. Let me just quote you some:.

[holmes]

ok while we are at it.
when our soils are gone in 50 years we will make synthetic soil.
when the water is poison.
when the air is killing 4 out of five we will make synthetic air.
when the protein sources are exterminated we will clone new ones.
thats it! cloning, synthetics and genetic modification are the answers!!
problem is we will all have cancers and mutated 3rd eyes. awesome future. i feel so much better. ahhh apathy again.
darn actually the above are true already to an extent.
nothing has ever worried me. wars, y2k, etc..
but overpopulation and peak oil are REAL. Got it?

[frankthetank]

Since I'm being lazy, why don't you give us the website you found these figures on?

[Scientist]

Sure, replies, sources and add. info follows:

- In Canada oil has been extracted from tar sands since 1978, costs of extraction reducing from £28pb to $11pb (Figure from 2000).
- Worldwide shale oil reserves estimated to be about 242 times conventional petroleum resources (Craig, James R et al, 1996, "Resources of the Earth: origin, use and env impact")
- US Energy Info Agency estimate it is possible to increase present global oil reserves by 5 times from tar sands and shale oil at a price of about $40pb.

- Reserves of uranium-235 are estimated at about 100 years (Craig, James R et al, 1996, "Resources of the Earth: origin, use and env impact" and WEC 2000). My reference to 14000 years of uranium should have been better explained - and assumed the use of fast-breeder reactors (using uranium-238). The use of uranium-235 to convert uranium-238 to plutonium-239 as fuel in fast-breeder reactors is estimated to hugely extend the lifetime of uranium-based energy production (to about 14000 years again according to Craig, James et al, 1996, "Resources of the Earth: origin, use and env impact)

Hope this helps.

[Scientist]

Holmes,

Overpopulation is a valid point and not one I'm discussing here. Peak Oil is a theory, not a fact. I find it an interesting theory, and am not a fan of an heavily-oil-based economy, but would like more facts and figures presented in debates, not just opinions.

[skateari]

I dont understand what you are trying to say here. If you telling us theres a whole crapload of oil out there, then your right, but its not enough, and its to hard to get, and its uneconomical to produce, and it wont even have an effect on the current oil markets of today. The problem is, we use so much, that anything we do find just makes up for declines elsewhere.

" In Canada oil has been extracted from tar sands since 1978, costs of extraction reducing from £28pb to $11pb (Figure from 2000).
- Worldwide shale oil reserves estimated to be about 242 times conventional petroleum resources (Craig, James R et al, 1996, "Resources of the Earth: origin, use and env impact")
- US Energy Info Agency estimate it is possible to increase present global oil reserves by 5 times from tar sands and shale oil at a price of about $40pb. "

US Enegery Info Agency, you gotta be kidding me. Thats not reliable source, all they say is what people want to hear. Tar sand and shale oil is BS sure there may be a lot of it scattered threwout the world, but its not in vast pools that we can just suck out. Its expensive, its hard and it simpily isnt gonna happen. Sorry bud. But even if it was economical to produce, it wont keep supply up with demand, and thats the only important thing.

Hows these for facts, tar/shale oil produces under 1% of oil production, we have used up all the cheap/easy to find oil avalible, which is about 1/2 of all the availible oil on this plant. Now the important part isn't when we run out, its when we reach the peak, and either the peak is already here or its soon to come. If shale/tarsands were even in the question, why arn't we doing it already?? if we arn't doing it now, then its already to late.

[rerere]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Scientist', '
')- In Canada oil has been extracted from tar sands since 1978, costs of extraction reducing from £28pb to $11pb (Figure from 2000).

[Aaron]

Canada subsidizes it's sands projects...

Not economic without these subsidies.

[holmes]

scientist sorry for jumping the gun. Just tired of this utopia and everything will solve itself. Nature doesnt work that way. It deals with cold hard facts. Our fluff society has us beleiving we are apart from nature.
Its not a thoery that oil production is becoming a scarce resource. Not oil but production. Im not an expert but i am educated in the natrual sciences and it will be beyond theory in a few years. And behind closed doors our politicos know whats up. Youll find out many of our top politicos are off the grid.
check this site out and dig deep.
i dont deal with theories. Hands on is what i like. Look around and youll find out the theory is becoming reality. Sure i believe that there will be a glut of oil on the market sometime bringing prices down but its temporary. Population has everything to do with peak oil. its not separate.
Look around and see how much energy we have wasted and continue to do so. Maybe im wrong but nature doesnt cater to our wims. contrary to what our culture has pounded into us.
Hubbert has been very close to being very correct.
Populations consume resources and crash. we are just following that path.

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/

[Scientist]

Skateari

Define uneconomical? If uneconomical at $37pb, is it economical at $52pb? Deep water oil is "hard to get" but BP are currently drilling for it in the Gulf of Mexico... tar sands may be hard to extract but they've been doing so since 1978.

Sure we use a lot of oil (too much?), and if we changed our ways (as is starting to happen) we could use less, and extract more, and utilise what we have better. Why does this mean that peak oil is definately here now? Where's that proof of that? At what price is oil too expensive to extract? Peak oil is based (to my understanding) on the premise that it will become too expensive to extract enough oil to meet demand - what is that price? is it $52pb, $60pb, $100pb??? We've seen price increases of 25% this year, but no economic collapse...

Maybe the US Energy Info Agency isn't a reliable source, but then are the peak oil authors/proponents a reliable source and if so why?

Admittedly every finite resource will peak sometime, wood did during the industrial revolution and people predicted catastrophe then, instead coal took over, and then coal became uneconomic to mine in most of Europe/US and that (along with tech advances) ushered in the oil age. So why is it different this time. When oil does become too scarse/uneconomic, why is that the end? Why won't market forces adapt and evolve, as they've done for the past 200 years?

[holmes]

you are right scientist however you are forgetting scale. Do you understand the amount of capital and energy needed to convert over to these monstrous energy projects. Its not feasible. We would need a die off. these monstrous buildings, homes, gyms, schools, etc..
Oil is the most condensed energy source there is no substitute. We are wasting it.
the scale is the problem. sure therewill be a small market move but it will not be able to convert the entire country. The way we live and all the industrialized countries is due to oil. Take it away lifestyles will change. But time will tell. I totally believe prices will continue to climb. Heck exonmobile is even saying they have hope but they also know reality is that they need to get to a sustainable energy source. Exxonmobile has some papers on the net. I just read one but cant find it. If i do ill post it.

also the cost environmentlly and socially is horrifying. the quality of life will be horrible if we burn these other fuels. Coal is bad enough.
so sure we can go round and round but we have disobeyed the laws for far too long and these other utopia energy sources defy physics and logic.

but believe what u want to believe i know i wont be able to afford heating oil in a cuople of years. maybe sooner.

[schabel]

hello peak oilers,

if I see right through, the peak oil production rate has arrived in Y2K, staying constantly at about 65 mbd since then (liquid, light crude oil), and nobody ever cared about it. Meanwhile, times have changed a little.

If you assume that wind power production costs will be further reduced and reach about 5 ct/kWh in 2010, wind energy will probably be more economic than oil. I haven't the real numbers, but assuming one barrel at $80 makes about 160 l heating oil, wich is very optimistic, you would get exactly the same price: 5 ct/kWh. Of course, 1 kWh electricity always will have much more value for our economy than 0.1 l of heating oil.

If you switch on hydrogen, you loose some percentage, but in the end, assuming fuel cells, you will need less energy to drive a car for example, at least with fuel cells, the car will need less than half of the energy compared to gasoline.

As far as I know, we have enough wind to power the world.

GE just orderd a wind power plant with 990 MW (660 turbines), which is the biggest order ever made in this industry. But it's not the peak, it's just about to warm up. It is estimated that in 2020, 20% of the worlds electricity production is out of wind. I guess this is a very conservative approach, because peak oil will boost renewables - and make them economical. In Germany about 7% of all electricity is produced from wind energy - today!

I guess, that bio fuels, wind energy and hdrogen will replace fossil fuels sooner as we can imagine. Solar and perhaps wave electricity will follow up. It's an unbelievable interesting time we live in.

[Rincewind]

OK let's discuss the points one by one. That's not to say I have the answers, I don't think anyone really does.

>The Peak Oil discussion is an important debate, but you should check >the figures out there folks. Let me just quote you some:

>- At $40pb shale oil can supply oil for the next 250+ years at current >consumption rates. We are obviously at $50+bp this week.

Can we technically produce 85 million barrels or more a day from oil shale. Not in theory but in practice. I am not aware of a production scale oil shale operation in the world. Is there one? So until it happens the $40pb figure is purely speculative.

If it is technically feasible, what would be the cost in economic, environmental and social terms of producing 85 million barrels and more a day from oil shale.

>- The total size of known shale oil resources represents 5000 years of >reserves at present consumption!

Yes but we are not talking about present consumption it will have to cover both cover growth in demand and the decline of petroleum.

>- Aside from shale oil, there are other huge untapped energy resources >such as deep water oil that have SO FAR been uneconomic to exploit

How do you know? Petroleum geologists don't know how much deepwater reserves there are. They can make educated guesses based on geological principles and sesmic data, but until the wells are drilled and the reserves are proved up that is all they are. That includes the boys and girls at the USGS as well.

>- "Known reserves" of oil is not a finite entity - oil exploration costs >money and new searches are not initiated that far in advance of >production for these reasons. Please take figures of "Peak Oil" based >on "known reserves" with a pinch of salt

Conversely please take the IEA USGS figures with a hand full of salt.
If discovery is directly proportional to the amount of wildcat feet/metres drilled then why has this ratio been declining for decades? Those cunning bastards in the early 20thC knew more about discovering oil than we do now?

>Oil demand and a move to other sources of energy WILL occur if the >price of oil continues to rise.

Yes there will be a transfer to other energy sources but all known and currently technically feasible alternatives do not have the same exergy (energy quality and verstility) as oil or occur in sufficent quantities to met the demand. This is especailly true for transport which is where the world is 90%+ reliant on oil.

>Let's take nuclear energy as one alternative:
>- Known uranium reserves represent 14000 years of supply at present >consumption!!!
Once again that 'at present consumption assumption' It's bad enough when BP does it - see my comment above.

Not all uranium ore is equal. Once the the best ore is used up the energy used to mine, and refine (enrich) starts to exceed the energy out.

I see you refer fast breeder reactors in a later message. They have yet to get them to work properly despite billions of francs and yen that have been invested. There is no guarantee that they will ever will be practical (economic). Also I am not sure that I would want to live in world plutonium based economy especially if you live in a country a lot of people don't like.

>I could go on, and I do believe that there should be more investment >and emphasis on renewable sources of energy, but I strongly believe >that will happen due to market forces rather than a doomsday scenario.

Peak Oil is not a dooms day scenario it is the way societies/people/governments/markets react to Peak Oil that will cause the doomsday (sic). Most here are pessimistic about civilisation's ability to respond because of the continued wide spread denial of the problem and the difficult choices that need to be made by people who should know better.

>However if you strongly believe in Peak Oil, then buy huge amounts of >crude futures and become a multi-millionaire in a couple of years time >and live out your last days in style. Strangely I don't see the Peak Oil >theorists doing so...

Go over to the Petroleum and Energy Markets Board where the more self interested 'Peakers' are all taking long positions on crude and natural gas (and crowing about it as well).

Perhaps on this board we don't like the idea of profiting on the people's misery, or we don't want to be so well off that we end up with our backs to the wall when the revolution comes.

Rincewind

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rerere', 'D')oes cost include putting back the land after strip mining is done?

[Hegel]

@Scientist

What is your scientific background?

[Geology_Guy]

Interesting debate. The last operating oil shale plant in the world was in Australia and it shut down several months ago.

I myself plan to invest in oil company stock, but I do not plan to invest in oil shales. Oil shales will be a huge resource when somebody figures out how to extract the oil without using more energy than you gain. There are millions of acres of cheap oil shale leases just sitting idle in the American west. I encourage somebody to go and figure out how to make money at it and give America energy independence.

To extract the oil you have to dig up the shale, haul it to a proccessing plant, pulverize the rock (the shale), heat it up to about 900 deg. F. an add certain elements including hydrogen if I remember right. Also this proccess uses lots of expensive water (you will have to buy water rights).

Remember also that you are buying oil and natural gas on the open market to run your oil shale plant. Hopefully you will get more than 1 barrel of oil for every barrel of oil used and hopefully the environmental crowd will leave you alone.

Good luck

[PK]

Scientist

You have raised some important points. Let me try to answer one of them.

Canadian Tar Sands

Based on my research, cost of extraction of Tar Sands is approximately USD15/bbl. In order to earn an attractive return on their investments, investors would be willing to invest only if they are convinced that the long term oil price is trading above USD20/bbl (which might not be such a big problem at the moment).

However, Tar Sands have 1 major drawback - ease of extraction. Approximately CAN60 billion have been invested/will be invested from now till 2012. The total production expected from these investments is a mere 1.2 mmbbl/d (million barrels per day). The gestation period for a major Tar Sands project (250 000 bbl/day) is at least 6 years at a cost of close to CAN10 billion.

Next, if we are aware that say Peak Oil is say in 2005, would we be able to identify it in 2005? Probably not. In the world of fudged reserves, it is more likely that the earliest time possible for enough people to get their act together is 2007. If we somehow managed to raise another CAN60 billion, overcome the labour shortage to get 6 major projects online within 3 years, we would have managed to squeeze out an additional supply of 1.5 mmbbl/d (very optimistic scenario).

Meanwhile, we would have lost 5 years. In those 5 years, assuming depletion is at the rate of 2.0 mmbbl/d, we would still be 8.5 mmbbl/d short.

So far, I am not aware of any commercial extraction of shale oil. I understand that Exxon's official position is that it is not economically feasible at the present moment.

P.S. Personally, I do not think a die off scenario is the most likely one. However, I believe that the world would be to undergo a severe adjustment period of 5-10 years

[trespam]

I'll make it simple:

1. Shale Oil is, first and foremost, not oil, it is kerogen. In addition, it has never proved possible to extract oil at any large scale from shale oil. Every attempt has been a failure. The process is likely energy negative. It's not an answer.

2. Your numbers for nuclear material are completely wrong. Maybe 100 years at current use (probably less), but much fewer years if we gear up. Breeder reactors aren't viable right now.