[khebab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('markcmyers', ' ')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o if I understand correctly the real unknown variable is the total oil production. But what about the type of curve (logistic, gamma, gaussian??), it seems to me that the order of the model which is used for the fitting is also an unkwnown variable and can change dramatically the type of decline (steep or soft) after PO.

[Sololeum]

I've really got no idea BUTTTT..............

Take a look at http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/commttee/R6228.pdf
This link shows on page 17, Dr. Neil Williams, Chief Executive Officer – Geoscience Australia advising the House of Reps that we have very little oil left and it is declining fast... 11 to 4 years since 2000 I think!! A cliff in oil depletion in anyone's book.

The most worrying is the giant Ghawar Field in Saudi Arabia peaked in 1981 www.gregcroft.com/ghawar.ivnu and it is widely believed that as a result Saudi Arabia has Peaked and if so axiomatically so too the world.. This view of a Saudi Peak = World Peak is promulgated by Matthew Simmons founder and CEO of Simmons and Company International.

The really worrying issue is that modern "Super Straw" technology now employed universally by the oil industry to extract oil more efficiently has masked Peak, which in current thought shows the half way point in oil stocks.

Australia does not fit this more traditional model and nor the North Sea nor does Ghawar, the slow ride to depletion still talked about will no doubt be a giant slippery slide not a roll a coaster!

To get attention I opine that the first Campbell report in 85 (Petroconsultants) saying the world would Peak in 2000 was right and that we are NOW on an undulating plateau.

We may only have 40% of oil left but most people still think we have 50% or more to go!!!

If you artificially keep production up in major fields such as Ghawar and then add new smaller fields it looks as though the world is still expanding production (true) and therefore must have over half left (may well be untrue). The decline when sets in is not a gradual decline but a short sharp fall as here in Australia.

What do you reckon!!

[Franc]

Former methods of extracting oil where tapping only 26% of the deposit.
So the oil industry has worked hard to improve the extraction efficiency all along.
Doing so they have proven to be quite imaginative sometimes!
For we all know that on pockets which have dryed out there is still plenty of oil down there but how to get it up to the ground?
At that stage some considered that if it is really impossible to lift the oil why not try to burn it in situ to turn it into steam to rotate alternators?
The french have tried it near Paris on an experimental base and it was not the brilliant success we expected and it stayed an experimental venture with no industrial use.It's GAZ de FRANCE who did that experiment.
I would like to know if the americans have tried the same and what their results have been?

[trespam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Franc', 't')he deposit.Doing so they have proven to be quite imaginative sometimes!

[americandream]

And we thought the US of A was the problem. I always had my suspicions about these slimyassed Europeans - after all wasn't it these guys who created the Jewish problem in the Middle East with that Nazi bullshit in WWII.

Now the Frenchies wanna burn the stuff in the ground!!! Old Europe my arse!!

[pilferage]

That doesn't sound half bad, might as well get some use out of it...
Smoke 'em if ya got 'em!

[savethehumans]

Yeah! Who cares about that silly old global warming thing, anyway?

[Grasshopper]

Actually, there has been a successful application of in situ combustion (fireflood) at Battrum, in Saskatchewan, Canada. The reservoir was filled with heavy oil, with a low initial recovery rate (<10%). Air was injected into some of the wells, eventually igniting the petroleum when the pressure and oxygen level got high enough. This increased recovery to an estimated 30% of original oil in place. Of course, the rest of the oil is now gone, but was unlikely to have been recovered by any other process, anyway.
The in situ burning decreases the viscosity of the oil (possibly even changing it's chemistry?), and also increases pressure by giving off combustion gases, (in addition to the air that was pumped in), hence making the remaining oil easier to produce.
I don't know anything about whether carbon dioxide was produced, or remained in the reservoir. I think there is positive EROEI, as it has been producing in this way for over 25 years.

[Rod_Cloutier]

If the world is really serious about avoiding the peak oil problem and switching our energy usage to sustainable sources, one idea to move us in that direction is an oil extraction levy.

Governments could create a quota system by which the amount of oil firms want to extract is tied to an levy system. For example, if a firm wants to extract 1 million barrels of oil a year then they must invest "X" amount of money in alternative energy development.

Take a sample quota:

1 million barrels= 100,000 dollar investment
2 million barrels= 200,000 dollar investment
10 million barrels= 1,000,000 dollar investment
50 million barrels= 50,000,000 dollar investment
ect...

If this levy system was enforced world wide, there would very quickly be sufficient investment funds available to be put towards sustainable alternative energy sources. Also this system would be far better than Kyoto accord in controlling carbon emissions as the levy is a disincentive to extraction, as well as being the investment tool mentioned.

levy's could be increased over time to make extraction more and more expensive, while more and more money from the forthcoming proceeds develops the new global energy infrastructure.

By the time the oil is finally running out there will be sufficent alternative energy sources to make up for the loss of world oil stocks.

[Kingcoal]

The US government retains its power in the world by being the world’s largest single customer. Being the customer of last resort allows the US to maintain the petrodollar, etc. The price to pay for that power is the fantastic, uncontrolled consumption in the US. The US government uses the Federal Reserve and the IRS tax code to steer its citizens into this binge so as to drive the economy and maintain dominance as a customer. In other words, the US is the number one oil consumer on purpose. "The customer is always right," as the saying goes.

Considering that, it's unlikely that the present administration would go for any limits on production. Where world politics isn't involved, such as with coal burning power plants, the US in the past has smacked industry with serious regulations concerning pollution.

In the first round of Peak Oil in the seventies, the US did take an enlightened approach with fuel economy standards, etc. They worked. The US consumption was significantly reduced from '79 to '90. If Bush1 hadn't frozen those standards, automakers would be required to produce cars that get at least 35mpg by now.

[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kingcoal', ' ')If Bush1 hadn't frozen those standards, automakers would be required to produce cars that get at least 35mpg by now.

[Frank]

Not sure if it was Bush1 or Republican controller Congress in late '80's?

Regardless, CAFE improvements are sorely needed - and quickly. Levels for SUV's/Light-trucks just went up from 20.7 to 22.2 (2007). BFD.

I hope everyone on this board writes their Representative to support energy conservation measures.

[aahala]

A small sales tax in the US on coal,NG, and oil, foreign or domestic with the funds directed toward alternative energy and efficiency/conservation measures could have a large effect within a decade or so.

There's no political support(outside this board ) for this of course.

[Kingcoal]

Yes they do produce them and I'm the happy owner of one. When the standards were put in place, not many ordinary people drove trucks. Small trucks were the domain of building contractors and such. Because of that, those vehicles were exempted from the standards. Add to that the tax write off for a vehicle over 2 tons used in business, again originally targeted at small business, and you have our present situation with 2 ton SUVs.

What amazes me is that people are still buying and driving vehicles like that back and forth to work. I'm by no means poor, I just would rather put the money into my home or whatever, than in my gas tank.

[Ayoob_Reloaded]

Himac Research says they have a supercarbuerator that would get you 100-200 mpg... http://www.himacresearch.com/links.html

I saw an article in some newspaper yesterday that said we're extracting some kind of gasoline type stuff out of shale by drilling holes in shale rock and heating the rocks, and then drawing up the released hydrocarbons. Sound familiar? I never heard of this before. I thought shale was a waste of time.

Other than that, stiiiiiiiiil peakin.

[savethehumans]

Ayoob, isn't shale and oil sands more or less the same thing?

[JoeW]

i don't think so. a couple feet below the soil is my yard is plenty of shale, and i would bet you plenty that there are no hydrocarbons locked in there, just waiting to be released.
i believe that "oil shale" is less common than shale. shale is the geologic predecessor to slate, i believe. perhaps someone who has actually taken a geology class could chime in.

[Rod_Cloutier]

Yet again- American egocentricity puts a good idea aside. As a Canadian I can't believe how time and again Americans view the world through the lens of their own country and their own government, and their own narrow perceptions of what might be possible.

The US government never signed Kyoto, or the worldwide treaty banning landmines, or dozens of other initiatives put forth by other nations of this world. The US goverment has abandoned the United Nations prefering a "go it alone" strategy where "They don't need a permission slip from anyone to do anything". The US government has launched two major wars in the last 3 years and is now talking about going to war with two more (Iran and Syria). The US government is keeping its populations afraid -to give themselves a blank policy cheque to do whatever they say is necessary-Aka Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 documentary.

That the US government would never favour a extraction levy is a forgone conclusion. But does that prevent the rest of the planet from comming up with creative solutions to the peak oil problem? If the people of the US want to put their country on the road to decline does that mean that the other 200 plus nations of the world have to follow them down?

let me revise my initial post to say:

"If the rest of the world (excluding the US) was to adopt a oil extraction levy then there would quickly be sufficient investment capital for alternative energy resources, throughout the rest of the world -excluding the US."

[Devil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ayoob_Reloaded', 'H')imac Research says they have a supercarbuerator that would get you 100-200 mpg... http://www.himacresearch.com/links.html

[aahala]

The provided link has a page called "Christianity and carburetors".

If you wonder what Jesus may have to do with the sale of carburetors,
take this opportunity to read the page.

http://www.himacresearch.com/about/christ.html

I would like to thank the person who provided the link -- I needed a good laugh.