[Carlhole]

Study sees harmful hunt for extra oil

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FT.com', 'A')ll the world’s extra oil supply is likely to come from expensive and environmentally damaging unconventional sources within 15 years, according to a detailed study.

This will mean increasing reliance on hard-to-develop sources of energy such as the Canadian oil sands and Venezuela’s Orinoco tar belt.

A report from Wood Mackenzie, the Edinburgh-based consultancy, calculates that the world holds 3,600bn barrels of unconventional oil and gas that need a lot of energy to extract.

So far only 8 per cent of that has begun to be developed, because the world has relied on easier sources of oil and gas.

Only 15 per cent of the 3,600bn is heavy and extra-heavy oil, with the rest being even more challenging.

The study makes clear the shift could come sooner than many people in the industry had expected, even though some major conventional oil fields will still be increasing their production in 2020. Those increases will not be enough to offset the decline at other fields...

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')he only reason that 8% has been extracted

[I_Like_Plants]

This is why I'm very skeptical of nuclear saving Civilization*, because I think if all the energy used to create and maintain the nuclear industry were tracked, we'd find it's riding in the shoulders of oil and has yet to show an energy profit - likely never will, it takes oil to run all the stuff to run, maintain, and clean up after, a plant.


*As if Civilization is worth saving!

[Colorado-Valley]

"The study makes clear the shift could come sooner than many people in the industry had expected ..."

Hmmm ...

[RdSnt]

But how do you convince that companies developing the Canadian tar sands(for example), who are making enormous profits, to stop production.
The majority of people consider profits to be equivalent to energy. If a company is making a profit then the energy used must be less than the energy extracted. Hell for that matter, the majority don't consider energy use at all.
Our way of life, here in North America, should be much more expensive to sustain than it is. And really it is, we mask the actual costs by transferring those costs into the future via debt. We artificially boost competition, thus reducing the cost of goods, by inflating our personal and government debt levels to un-recoverable levels.

[retiredguy]

Good point, RdSnt. As long as the price of corn makes it profitible for the farmer to plant corn, he will plant more corn.

[RdSnt]

Yupe, and who could blame him. It makes perfectly good sense.
Then you say to him, but you are using more fuel to grow the corn and process it into ethanol, than the ethanol will give you back in energy. You have to stop growing corn. He's going to laugh you off the farm.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('retiredguy', 'G')ood point, RdSnt. As long as the price of corn makes it profitible for the farmer to plant corn, he will plant more corn.

[gg3]

Seems to me that article is basically an admission that the good stuff has basically peaked and all that's left is the stuff that will have a low EROEI.

As for nuclear, we could bootstrap our way into a nuclear/wind/solar economy right now, but the longer we wait, the more and more difficult it will be to do that.

In the long run, we'll arrive at a sustainable stable state. Between now & then, dieoff is a bitch.

[grabby]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('retiredguy', 'G')ood point, RdSnt. As long as the price of corn makes it profitible for the farmer to plant corn, he will plant more corn.

[nth]

gg3,

I don't know anyone disputing that the cheap stuff is gone, but they do have an interesting twist that the expensive will become cheaper as cheaper ways of extracting it are developed. Of course, they are right about using technology to lower pricing, but there are limits and this is where I think they will be wrong.

As for pstarr's EROEI statement, when they stop using NG and use tar sands to produce in-situ tar sand oil, then their EROEI will definitely be above 1. Of course, they are only operating a pilot plant that does this. Actually, operate is not the right word, but experiment with a pilot plant on this.

Actually, many in the industry argue that current methods are above 1, but I have not seen a detail scientific paper on it.