Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Rough Math

Discuss research and forecasts regarding hydrocarbon depletion.

Rough Math

Postby kochevnik » Fri 06 Apr 2007, 01:31:11

:!:

I was thinking about Dr. B and exports for the last few days.

Dr. B says that we should expect worldwide production to drop from 80 mbd to 55 mbd by 2020 - roughly dropping 2 mbd each year.

World has 36 million barrels per day of EXPORTS right now.

Worldwide population and standard of living is still increasing (look at how many cars GM sold in China is month - 300k).

As countries like Mexico (which once were exporters) deplete, they turn into importers (assuming they have the cash).

So in a typical year going forward, we see the 36 mbd export pie get :

a) depleted: 2 mbd
b) population increase = demand rise: 1 mbd (conservative)
c) exporters become importers: 0.5 mbd - (wild ass guesstimate)


----------------------------------------------
Extrapolate:

2007 - 36 mbd exports available
2009 - 29 mbd exports available
2011 - 22 mbd exports available
2013 - 15 mbd exports available
2015 - 8 mbd exports available
2017 - 1 mbd exports available


So any guess as to what year the last all-out, no-holds-barred, oil war begins ?

I used to talk about the Fourth Turning book here a bunch but gave up. Funny thing is, in addition to predicting 911 in 1997, the 4T authors also predict a big war in 2020 give or take a few years.

Smart guys.
kochevnik
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Rough Math

Postby Gazzatrone » Fri 06 Apr 2007, 04:46:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kochevnik', 'S')o any guess as to what year the last all-out, no-holds-barred, oil war begins ?


Never!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kochevnik', 'I') used to talk about the Fourth Turning book here a bunch but gave up. Funny thing is, in addition to predicting 911 in 1997, the 4T authors also predict a big war in 2020 give or take a few years.

Smart guys.


With no oil, how is this or any other oil based armegeddon likely to be powered?

I'm a doomer purely for the reasons that Humanity is so fucking stupid. But those that preach doom with a sword rattling above their heads, fail to see the conflict in their own message when it comes to likely outcomes and consequences of oil depletion.

How you gonna drive a Hummer with no oil in it?
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: London, UK

Re: Rough Math

Postby ohanian » Fri 06 Apr 2007, 05:45:00

I just want to point our a few night about your maths

from 2007 to 2020 is just 13 years

A drop from 80mbd to 55mbd is going from 100% of today's "production" capacity to 68% of todays "production" capacity.

So each year the drop is 13th root of 0.68 which is .97159

So each year there is a 2.9% drop in "production" capacity.

So the first year is dropping by 2.27mbd which is RIDICULOUS!!!


If you assume the drop is very slight in the early years then you would have to come to the conclusion that the drop in the later years would be catastrophical.


Instead of 2020, I would worry about 2060 which is the real date when the shit hits the fan.

In 2060, we would run out of coal!!! So imagine a world without oil and without coal. We would be fighting for bio-fuel plantation and uranium mines.
User avatar
ohanian
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1553
Joined: Sun 17 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Rough Math

Postby EnergyUnlimited » Fri 06 Apr 2007, 05:52:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gazzatrone', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kochevnik', 'S')o any guess as to what year the last all-out, no-holds-barred, oil war begins ?


Never!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kochevnik', 'I') used to talk about the Fourth Turning book here a bunch but gave up. Funny thing is, in addition to predicting 911 in 1997, the 4T authors also predict a big war in 2020 give or take a few years.

Smart guys.


With no oil, how is this or any other oil based armegeddon likely to be powered?

I'm a doomer purely for the reasons that Humanity is so fucking stupid. But those that preach doom with a sword rattling above their heads, fail to see the conflict in their own message when it comes to likely outcomes and consequences of oil depletion.

How you gonna drive a Hummer with no oil in it?


Some atomic war may come as a result of growing and untractable tensions between nuclear states (US v. Russia & China).
Midle East mess may prove to be excuse.

That will incidentally deal with population problem as well.
When there is no solution, war is a solution.
Magnitude of such a war is directly proportional to magnitude of problems causing it.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Rough Math

Postby Twilight » Fri 06 Apr 2007, 10:11:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ohanian', 'I')f you assume the drop is very slight in the early years then you would have to come to the conclusion that the drop in the later years would be catastrophical.

That's exactly what Bakhtiari implied when he made the prediction:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bakhtiari', 'T')hereafter, global production would enter a decline, at first with a benign gradient, which would then get gradually steeper, leading to a 2020 production level of some 55 mb/d (give or take 3 mb/d).

Now we're actually starting from a peak of 85 mb/d (EIA gives roughly 84.6 mb/d average for 2005 and 2006, and the world demand prediction for 2007 is 85 mb/d).

Let's assume we see production do this:

2007 - 84 mb/d (production just fails to meet demand)
2008 - 83 mb/d
2009 - 82 mb/d
2010 - 80 mb/d (average decline rate of 1.5% to 2010)
. . . .
2020 - 55 mb/d (necessary decline rate 2010 - 2020 is 3.7%)

So from 2010 to 2020, you are going to see an average of 2.5 mb/d annual production loss through depletion. What that would do to the export pie (assuming estimates (a) and (c) given by the OP hold true) is something like:

2007 - 36 mb/d
2009 - 31 mb/d
2011 - 23.5 mb/d
2013 - 15.5 mb/d
2015 - 7.5 mb/d
2017 - 0 mb/d

That is, in the short term, not so bad. In the longer term, far worse because to hit 55 mb/d on schedule, the decline would have to resemble a cliff.

I don't think we will have to wait for all oil exporters to lose export ability through natural depletion and demand growth before the capacity is taken off market. If the Bakhtiari's projection holds true, by 2013 the shape of the market will look obvious and countries with available export capacity are going to come under internal pressure to start taking their exports off the market (and external pressure to reduce internal demand!). Once that debate kicks off, international relations become very interesting, lots of people arguing that they have an enforceable entitlement to purchase of resources by virtue of their ability to pay, producer's willingness to sell be damned.

Just for the sheer hell of it, let's assume the 1 mb/d annual demand growth completely ceases in 2010 as a result of economic crisis in spite of continuing growth in population, and Bakhtiari's "give or take 3 mb/d" comes out on the favourable side, giving us 58 mb/d in 2020. World oil export market then does this:

2007 - 36 mb/d
2009 - 31 mb/d
2011 - 24.8 mb/d
2013 - 19.4 mb/d
2015 - 14 mb/d
2017 - 8.6 mb/d
2019 - 3.2 mb/d

Which postpones the "Your oil. Sell it to us. NOW." debate by a whole two years.

It's an interesting play with numbers, not sure what valid conclusions we can draw however. Anyone with any insight into whether this means anything?
Twilight
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Rough Math

Postby kmann » Fri 06 Apr 2007, 13:04:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gazzatrone', '
')How you gonna drive a Hummer with no oil in it?


Germany did it in WWII, only they were Panzers not Hummers, and they had methanol not oil.
User avatar
kmann
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon 25 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Rough Math

Postby Fiddlerdave » Fri 06 Apr 2007, 13:55:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow you gonna drive a Hummer with no oil in it?

There will always be plenty of oil for hummers (the people who driver hummers have both the money and political power to ensure their supply).

It is the cars worth under $20,000 or $30,000 that will be off the road, or driven only under direst need that will make up the shortfalls.
User avatar
Fiddlerdave
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Rough Math

Postby Gazzatrone » Fri 06 Apr 2007, 17:44:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kmann', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gazzatrone', '
')How you gonna drive a Hummer with no oil in it?


Germany did it in WWII, only they were Panzers not Hummers, and they had methanol not oil.


That was then this is now and we are not talking the Third Reich but U.S Army here. If the U.S Army were intelligent enough to run their armed force on something different they would but they don't.
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: London, UK
Top

Re: Rough Math

Postby Gazzatrone » Fri 06 Apr 2007, 17:48:30

Sorry I am forgetting that any wars that occur will be those of civil wars. The U.S WILL be a bloodbath. Fuck going to the Quays in 2015.
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: London, UK

Re: Rough Math

Postby Zardoz » Fri 06 Apr 2007, 19:44:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gazzatrone', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kmann', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gazzatrone', '
')How you gonna drive a Hummer with no oil in it?


Germany did it in WWII, only they were Panzers not Hummers, and they had methanol not oil.


That was then this is now and we are not talking the Third Reich but U.S Army here. If the U.S Army were intelligent enough to run their armed force on something different they would but they don't.

The military will always have all the fuel and petroleum products it needs to engage in whatever mischief it wants to. U.S. production alone will more than cover it.

Meanwhile, we civilians will be bicycling and walking.
"Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
User avatar
Zardoz
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6323
Joined: Fri 02 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia
Top

Re: Rough Math

Postby Twilight » Fri 06 Apr 2007, 20:12:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', 'T')he military will always have all the fuel and petroleum products it needs to engage in whatever mischief it wants to. U.S. production alone will more than cover it.

Meanwhile, we civilians will be bicycling and walking.

The unstoppable force versus the immovable object, perhaps.

The US could reassign an ever-increasing proportion of its expensive domestic oil production to meet its military needs command-economy style, but no country it would encounter on the battlefield would be doing likewise. Distributed static defence uses few concentrated energy resources, thus no opponent would share that cost and vulnerability. We can see the wars of the future in the present day, and it is clear that resource-intensive high-tech vs low-resource low-tech is not only not guaranteed to produce results, but is also immensely embarrassing when it doesn't.

There would be even more intense pressure to produce results. Right now there is a great difference of public opinion over what are the deliverables of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, which makes it a lot easier to satisfy some camps at the expense of others. In a truly energy-poor world, when resource wars are openly waged with public acquiescence, there would be great pressure to produce an energy return on investment. The wars will initially be resource sinks, and if no return is forthcoming, continuation will become untenable. It will only take a couple more wars and the loss of a few more major exporters to drive home the point (and people will feel it in their wallet on a monthly basis) that the policy is counterproductive. It matters little how much power a country wields, if it keeps destroying the very things it tries to seize. If everyone loses their standard of living and walks or cycles in poverty, what would the point of the wars be? What would the architects gain by waging them? What interests would they serve, bearing in mind they are wealthy enough to bail out anyway?

Thus I think any global resource war period would be very brief, and things would quickly settle down to local border conflicts. These are likely to be numerous and destructive, but the age of the cross-continental war is drawing to a close.
Twilight
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Rough Math

Postby Gazzatrone » Sat 07 Apr 2007, 03:49:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', 'T')he US could reassign an ever-increasing proportion of its expensive domestic oil production to meet its military needs command-economy style, but no country it would encounter on the battlefield would be doing likewise


And even then the U.S would still be able to fuck up a war when they are the only players
THE FUTURE IS HISTORY!
User avatar
Gazzatrone
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 581
Joined: Mon 07 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
Location: London, UK
Top

Re: Rough Math

Postby EnergyUnlimited » Sat 07 Apr 2007, 06:04:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gazzatrone', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', 'T')he US could reassign an ever-increasing proportion of its expensive domestic oil production to meet its military needs command-economy style, but no country it would encounter on the battlefield would be doing likewise


And even then the U.S would still be able to fuck up a war when they are the only players

I think, you are missing one point.
Further resource wars may be waged in Nazi style.
To prevent party ending atomic war US would have to sit down at the table with Russia, China and perhaps EU and divide world into areas of influence.

Later on "give me your oil away for free" type of demands could be made against particular oil producing nations.
In case of refusal several nukes (cheap) could be used against major populations centres followed by carpet bombing with phosphorus of any particular areas of interest followed by land invasion with clear orders for troops to shot or rape whoever you see.
You may note, that only relatively small areas like oilfields, transit routes etc would have to be occupied.
In any case conquest by genocide would be really easy and cheap, with decent "EROEI".
If Hutus/PolPot/Hitler/Stalin/you-name-it could do it so US Army could manage as well.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7537
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Rough Math

Postby shakespear1 » Sat 07 Apr 2007, 08:18:55

Analysis of Russia's export numbers suggest that this is alredy happening

$this->bbcode_second_pass_code('', 'countries with available export capacity are going to come under internal pressure to start taking their exports off the market (and external pressure to reduce internal demand!).')
Men argue, nature acts !
Voltaire

"...In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation."

Alan Greenspan
shakespear1
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Rough Math

Postby AirlinePilot » Sat 07 Apr 2007, 21:30:32

Add just a half of a percent or maybe even a whole percent and see what happens to the out years for production. It could very well be MUCH UGLIER than anyone in here currently imagines. I think its going to go downhill quickly within about 2 years or so depending on discoveries and projected depletion rates.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta

Re: Rough Math

Postby Plantagenet » Mon 09 Apr 2007, 19:45:13

Peak Oil doesn't mean production drops to zero.....it means production gradually decreases after the peak is reached.

Prices will rise as oil production drops.

Other technologies will become competitive as oil prices drop, and will be increasingly used.

There is no reason to fantasize a "Mad Max" future.
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Rough Math

Postby Twilight » Mon 09 Apr 2007, 20:10:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'P')eak Oil doesn't mean production drops to zero.....it means production gradually decreases after the peak is reached.

Prices will rise as oil production drops.

Other technologies will become competitive as oil prices drop, and will be increasingly used.

There is no reason to fantasize a "Mad Max" future.

Yes, we know the decline will approximately follow an exponential function. [smilie=icon_rolleyes.gif]

And no, other "technologies" will not become competitive. "Technology" is an energy consumer, not an energy source.

Please read more closely before making assumptions about what is being discussed.
Twilight
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3027
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Rough Math

Postby kochevnik » Tue 10 Apr 2007, 00:01:06

:!:

To be honest - I'm a little disappointed here - I've been gone since I posted this and I was kinda sorta hoping someone could show me where my math doesn't make sense.

Instead all I got was a whole lotta -'Well, it's wrong because it just has to be wrong' or 'It's wrong because I say so'

If the math isn't wrong by at least a magnitude somehow, then I feel pretty sick to my stomach, to tell you the truth.

Twilight has it pegged - if we have ten years to zero exports no matter what that curve looks like, long before then, everyone and his brother will be scrambling for what's left - no matter what the cost (lives and money).
kochevnik
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Rough Math

Postby kmann » Tue 10 Apr 2007, 12:32:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kochevnik', ':')!:

I was thinking about Dr. B and exports for the last few days.

Dr. B says that we should expect worldwide production to drop from 80 mbd to 55 mbd by 2020 - roughly dropping 2 mbd each year.

World has 36 million barrels per day of EXPORTS right now.

Worldwide population and standard of living is still increasing (look at how many cars GM sold in China is month - 300k).

As countries like Mexico (which once were exporters) deplete, they turn into importers (assuming they have the cash).

So in a typical year going forward, we see the 36 mbd export pie get :

a) depleted: 2 mbd
b) population increase = demand rise: 1 mbd (conservative)
c) exporters become importers: 0.5 mbd - (wild ass guesstimate)


----------------------------------------------
Extrapolate:

2007 - 36 mbd exports available
2009 - 29 mbd exports available
2011 - 22 mbd exports available
2013 - 15 mbd exports available
2015 - 8 mbd exports available
2017 - 1 mbd exports available



I'm having a hard time understanding your assumptions and what exactly you're trying to model.

assumption a) Is the depletion of 2 mbd apply to all production or only to exporting countries? Either way it seems far to pessimistic. It seems to me it should be depletion for exporting countries only. Once the a country no longer exports its depletion no longer counts against exports available.

b) again is this demand rise within exporting countries only, thus making 1 mbd less available for export? It seems too high.

C) I don't understand how this accounts for anything different than what is in assumption a or b. It looks like added demand, not decreased exports.

It appears that the model mixes increasing demand and available exports, which would only be valid for exporting countries.

As I see it: Decrease in Available Exports = Exporting Countries depletion + Exporting Countries increase in demand
User avatar
kmann
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 551
Joined: Mon 25 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Rough Math

Postby kochevnik » Tue 10 Apr 2007, 21:47:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kmann', '
')It appears that the model mixes increasing demand and available exports, which would only be valid for exporting countries.

As I see it: Decrease in Available Exports = Exporting Countries depletion + Exporting Countries increase in demand




Nice catch.

You are absolutely right. The math here is all wrong.
kochevnik
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri 20 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Next

Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron