[Madpaddy]

I was asked to give a talk on energy to a group of army engineers next week.

This is the talk I am going to give

www.globalvision.ie/oil.ppt

I would appreciate any comments people have on this.

Warning: the file is 3.5 megabytes, so may take time to load up.

Thanks,
Madpaddy

[Marklar]

great presentation and very easy to follow and understand.

Not sure about the resource wars section. May not be something to bring up in the first presentation. May not take you serious

[killJOY]

Very impressive. I might only check the publication date of Manning's article "The Oil We Eat." I believe it came out in 2004, not 2005.

Also professional-looking. When I give talks, I use a big notepad and a chalk board!

[Madpaddy]

Thanks guys,

I apreciate the positive feedback. Wasn't sure about the resource wars myself but you have to remember most of my audience have served with the UN in the Middle East and would be familiar with the effect of US foreign policy there. As well as that, the current US administration is about as popular in Ireland as Oliver Cromwell so anything that makes him look bad will go down well.

[XOVERX]

For accuracy, the first oil well was dug in 1854 in Poland.

The PA will was the first US oil well.

[nero]

Hi Madpaddy,

I took the time to jot down some notes about your presentation while reading it, here goes my response. If I sound too critical understand that I appreciate we have different view points on some issues, I am simply stating my leaving my view point unvarnished.

Slide 3: "oil originated from the CHEMICAL decomposition" Decomposition that we usually think of is caused by the action of biological agents eating our remains. I think it is important to also state that the oil then migrates from the source rock to accumulate in geological traps.

Slide 4. Oil is very slowly being produced even as we speak. It is formed on a geological time scale not a human time scale

Slide 5 Nature produced alot more oil than 2Trillion barrels. That is just a (low) estimate of the ultimate recoverable, The OOIP original oil in place is usually said to be about 3-4 times that.

Slide 7 Not necessarily pumped out slowly, Initially it flows very quickly under it's own pressure. I like the sponge analogy.

Slide 7 oil does not travel from a high to low concentration, it flows from high pressure area to low pressure area.

Slide 10 is important it should deserve a couple of slides. Even more important it needs the backing of more examples, eg, texas, lower 48, north sea. In general I like to emphasize that the shape of the curve is not determined by geology but by economics.

slide 12 he didn't use any complex mathematical models in 1956, It was simply based on the estimate of the EUR and then engineering judgement.

slide 14 graph is lower 48

slide 19 I would suggest that you emphasize that these numbers are very hard to estimate but that there is no doubt that it is going down


Part II Consequences: The population decrease is an indirect consequence don't lead off with it. Lead off with a graph of the recent history of the oil price. That is the direct consequence of peak oil. Second consequence is renationalization of oil resources (lots of evidence for this). Third consequence is that oil will no longer be fungible (importing countries will seak to secure long term contracts instead of relying on the "open market".) We are already seeing chinese examples of this. Fourth consequence is resource wars. Then "perhaps" you can link in a possible fifth population consequence. For sure there is a connection between PO and GW but you are missing any mention of the key link: COAL.

slide 35. The link between GDP and oil is in my opinion not a causally directed one. An increase in oil use did not cause the increase in GDP. Similarly an increase in GDP did not cause the increase in oil consumption. There are counter examples where GDP increased without an increase in oil use.

slide 36. Supply and demand have to equal to each other, cause we aren't increasing our stocks significantly. I hate the misuse of these terms what you're really saying is that the price will increase. Just say that and stop abusing the terms supply and demand. (Sorry Madpaddy, I don't mean to target you with the imperative tense here, that's for the general audience)

slide 47, hockey stick graph is discreditied you shouldn't use it

slide 51 climate roblems will not disappear there is always coal

[Jack]

Very nice! I don't suppose you'd consider posting a link to the final version?

[Madpaddy]

Thanks again,

Nero,
Your points are appreciated and noted. I'm wondering if you read the speakers notes with respect to consequences. I do mention that increased GW will be the result of increased coal burning.

I reckon I gave slide 10 as much as I could because of time constraints.

In slide 14, it says lower 48 on the graph but it is indistinct - will change.

Slide 3,4 &5 & 7. - you are correct and right - will change

Jack,

Feel free to use the link - I will update the final version soon.

[egoldstein]

I would really like to show this presentation around, if okay with you? A really great summary.

Hope you won´t mind if I suggest a few things about the points in the "Priorities (Ireland)" slide...

(After typing for an hour or so, I realise this is more than "a few things"... please forgive me for the obnoxious length of the post - I think your pp presentation is great even if you completely ignore what I say)

- Tackle population growth:

No disrespect intended; I appreciate that many people (including myself) have genuine concerns relating to population growth, however, there are a few reasons why I am deeply concerned both with the manner in which it is articulated, and its Irish relevance or context.

The growth in population in itself is not inherently bad. There are two related aspects which can cause trouble however:
a) The "Externalisation" of costs, in Econo-speak; as an example, the pollution and unsustainable use of common-resources e.g. using the air and oceans as dumping grounds, without cost to the producers but with collective cost to us all; or the depletion of freshwater sources (lakes, watertables etc.) upon which we all depend. This is also known as "the tragedy of the commons", but should really be called "the tragedy of the Unmanaged commons."
Globally, we can see also that developed countries can Externalise their social costs of living (for their "non-negotiable" way of life, to quote Cheney) on to the developing and Third-World countries. Actually, also onto the developed countires own domestic populations even (the lower economic classes).
b) Among desperately poor people, the "Time preference" horizon is radically shortened; people who dony´t know if they´ll be alive or dead in 6 months, are less likely to be concerned on how they will survive with a baby in 9 months. The social and personal costs of having children are not as likely to be considered by them as by people who have the material and economic stability to reflect on the future. "Population control" can be seen as an attempt to address symptoms rather than causes (especially when it is advocated by people at the top of the world social-ladder, so to speak) - as a rule of thumb, the wealthier the population, the less likely it is to have very large families. "Wealthier" does not necessarily mean "Rich", only economically and materially more stable. This means that the costs of raising children, and having more people around, are factored into society and families.
c) The Irish Famine is sometimes used as a Malthusian case-study, but remember that it happened with a population about twice that of Ireland now - and while Ireland was a food exporter, at a time when scientific agricultural practice and chemical fertilisers did not exist. Not only were people capable of feeding themselves, but the political and social system externalised all costs of a highly exploitative system onto the lower class, catostrophically. I think this is why mentioning population as a priority might not be either relevant or appropriate in an Irish context (please excuse my obnoxiously long-winded way of getting to that point).

- Impose very high levels of energy efficiency for cars and houses;

That´s certainly a way of preparing for oil-shocks on the supply-side; One thing I might add is that on the demand-side, the cost of fossil-fuels and their energy derivatives should not be lessened, but that other alternative energy sources should be untaxed. In other words: the demand is for energy, not specifically fossil-fuels; a key way of both rationing non-sustainable energy use, and of encouraging efficiency in energy production and use in general, is through the price mechanism. Tax on fossil-fuels can be justified both for the social costs they impose (e.g. not just regarding pollution, but for transportation infrastructure usage-fees and maintenance costs, congenstion costs on society etc.) and as a method of mitigating price swings, or of encouraging greater efficiency in use through higher cost. Taxes on alternative energy supplies are less justifiable - especially if they are carbon-neutral. Likewise for technology that decreases energy wastage.

- Less money on roads and more on RE programs and DECENT pub. transport system.

This is not a criticism, but actually the money spent on roads could be justified, if the people (specifically the vehicles) who used-occupied the roads paid for them. Toll-booths are one way, tax on the fuel used - especially fossil fuels - is another way (the more on-road petrol you are using, suggests that you are using the roads more). But there ought to be a direct funding connection made between such a tax and road use and production - currently all tax goes into a general fund, and then it is doled out according to political whim. Also: the change in law regarding blood-alcohol levels in Ireland has led to a flowering of private night-time mini-bus services all over; showing that if costs of a certain behaviour are raised, society can creatively adapt; people still go to pubs, but they go in collective transportation.

- Grants for domestic electricity generation;

Again, I don´t mean this as a criticism: in actual fact, grants are less important and may not even be necessary. The chief stumbling block in Ireland is that the ESB is constantly putting up artificial barriers. It is possible elsewhere to have reverse-metering - where electricity you generate and feed into the grid lessens or reduces the bill you pay. Another problem is that the ESB chooses to price inputs of energy into the grid as though it were a private proft-maximising company, when it is a public utility, producing a public good, supposedly for the publc benefit. Although the grid is technically run by a seperate company, this is pure labelling in practice. It is effectively a state-monopoly run for the benefit of its employees, rather than the public (That "alternative energy levee" on your bill goes to subsdise peat-stations); this isn´t an argument for privatisation, either, just that the public service function be followed.

- Reasoned debate on use of Nuke power;

Which is fair enough - but I´m going to get my retaliation in now (!) by saying that Nuclear power may very well only excacerbate problems, since ne of the biggest sources of uranium is in Iran (Surrr-PRISE!!), and the potential peak of uranium production may occur in 20 years (And nuclear waste is effectively forever).

- Greater use of arable land for biofuels;

There is a report by Davy´s Stockbrokers in Dublin doing the rounds (perhaps Tom Atkins at www.organiccollege.com and also the folks at peakoil.ie may have a copy) with a very interesting take on this (and also on developing fresh-water shortages worldwide - and we thought oil was a problem). In order for the UK to replace its current petroleum transport usage with biofuels, it would take a land-area 4 times the size of the UK to grow it. Biofuels should certainly play a part, but inevitably there will be conflicts between food and fuel production, if fuel use is not curtailed (And this doesn´t mean less people will travel on roads, only that the type of transport may change - e.g. the mini-bus to the pub example).

- Buy locally produced goods where possible;

If oil prices continue to trend upwards, this will become more of an economic imperative, rather than simply a personal lifestyle choice, a point worth emphasizing. There are two sides to the coin of modern agriculture:
1. Most of the (now very much diminishing) returns of agricultural production comes from -
a) Fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides;
b) High-bred crops;
c) Heavy Irrigation.
Chemical Fertilisers, herbicides and pesticides, are almost entirely-hydrocarbon based; Fertilisers for example, are about 90% composed of natural gas - itself undergoing its own peak at the moment, leading some Irish farmers to rent more land, rather than spread more fertiliser, to try and sustain yields and avoid the ever higher prices of fertiliser.
High-bred crops, rather than being a saviour, actually impose extra costs - a farmer does not actually own the seed he buys to sow, he licences it the same way you licence software. This means farmers cannot save seed to plant next year - to do so would be a breach of the law - but must purchase more each year. High-bred varieties, while giving technically higher yields, also require more inputs (fertiliser, herbicides, and pesticides) since they are not naturally reslient. GMO´s will only tighten and accelerate this process, something which seems to be overlooked by anti-GM people constantly; whatever about the debatable safety effects, the social, economic and legal effects are much less open to debate. The effect is collective vertical monopolisation of the human food-supply world-wide.
Irrigation is not seen as a cost in Ireland, but this is a deviation from the norm world-wide - and in fact it means that we have an endowment from nature that is currently completely undervalued. The Davy´s report explains that irrigation and fresh water supply is increasingly a matter of grave concern world-wide, especially for China and India. Aquifiers, which took millenia to form, are being depleted at perhaps twice the speed of replenishment.
2. Cheap transportation plays the second huge part in reducing costs of food - for supermarket purchase and distribution networks e.g. - and of course this is founded upon cheap oil.


Okay, now that I´ve inflicted all that on you, I´ll just shut up.

Thanks for the powerpoint, the best of luck to you.

[simontay78]

I found a Video-Slide Presentation from the internet (Torrent) and it's have very nice presentation Not As much information as yours but brought across very professionally in the speech.

File Name: Richard_Heinberg_-_Peak_Oil_-_Powerdown_-_11-12-2004
File Size 94Mb

Anyone wants one...PM me i forward u via MSN

[Madpaddy]

Jeez,

I had written a long post to egoldstein and the server crashed when I posted it.

Anyway, thanks for the comments. Good points but I would comment that Ireland with an 8 million population, dependent on one food crop in 1841 did not end too well and the standard of living was appalling.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n order for the UK to replace its current petroleum transport usage with biofuels, it would take a land-area 4 times the size of the UK to grow it. Biofuels should certainly play a part, but inevitably there will be conflicts between food and fuel production,

[SoothSayer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('simontay78', 'I') found a Video-Slide Presentation from the internet (Torrent) and it's have very nice presentation Not As much information as yours but brought across very professionally in the speech.

File Name: Richard_Heinberg_-_Peak_Oil_-_Powerdown_-_11-12-2004
File Size 94Mb

Anyone wants one...PM me i forward u via MSN

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Madpaddy', '
')I would see only 25% of the current car population on the road or about 300,000 vehicles. Fuel priority to school buses, ambulances and politicians cars (joke).

[julianj]

Hi Madpaddy,

Overall I thought your ppt was an excellent overview. Congratulations.

Although I think you should ensure your facts are right (noting the points raised by people above), I think you should beware of getting bogged down in arguments over details - I think we here know how one can go on about reserves and recovery rates etc till the cows come home.

I think your presentation is pretty good as it stands - you have to hammer home the bigger picture, as you are obviously aware.

Having too many slides with too much information will confuse your audience (medically this is termed Skrebowski's Syndrome )- they will undoubtedly have questions and hopefully do their own research.

Good luck with it!

[Madpaddy]

Hi Julian,

My thoughts exactly. I just don't have the time to back up every source I have and the general point is what I am trying to get across. I have changed some of the things Nero brought up on my presentation version. I spent about 25 minutes alone yesterday trying to find out ireland's rank among oil dependent countries. I plan on breaking the thing up into 8 or 10 presentations with much more and factual detail and give a night class i it.

Energyspin,

Good feedback - just to let you know. I am a civil engineer (army corps of engineers) serving in the Navy (go figure) and these guys and women are my peers so I can explain my methodology to them before I begin. None of them will have heard of heinberg anyway...

Thanks again,

MP

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Madpaddy', '
')
Energyspin,

Good feedback - just to let you know. I am a civil engineer (army corps of engineers) serving in the Navy (go figure) and these guys and women are my peers so I can explain my methodology to them before I begin. None of them will have heard of heinberg anyway...

Thanks again,

MP

[Sleepybag]

Both slide 13 and 14 show the USA production. One is US-48, and the other is including Alaska. You can replace one with the North Sea example, to show that the USA is not unique in this case.


The EROEI on page 19 can be explained with the graphic above. Over time, easy oil is used up first, and the arctic, sour or deepwater oil is left for later.

I would not mention population decline. I would mention that when oil plateaus, and population grows, that oil per capita must shrink. Countries like Germany and Italy and Russia already faces declining populations, so it is not expected that Europe worries about having too many people.

I liked this joke:
"Industries hit by oil-peaking:
- Agrarian business
- Aviation
-
And that is just the letter A"

[mididoctors]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', '
')
slide 47, hockey stick graph is discreditied you shouldn't use it

slide 51 climate roblems will not disappear there is always coal

[nero]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'n')ero wrote:


slide 47, hockey stick graph is discreditied you shouldn't use it

slide 51 climate roblems will not disappear there is always coal

[Lucretius]

Great presentation - very well done and elaborates some important points I haven't often seen (focus on characteristics and geology of oil reservoirs and the graphics describing the uses of petroleum).

One minor nit: extrapolating from Cheney's comments on slide 26 gets you to production from existing wells of ~50 mbd (70 mbd at a 3% annual decline rate). Adding 50 mbd gets you to 100 mbd - though to be frank I'm not sure about Cheney's calculator since I get a gap of ~37mbd in 2010 using his assumptions (2% annual demand increase = 87 mbd less 50 mbd from existing wells). Neither figure is really feasible, but 100 mbd is well short of 120 mbd.