Does it worry you that all it takes is a little new technology to destroy peakoil for another 100 years?
Think about it.
We all know there is a ton of oil left in the oilfields even after 100 years of production. The problem is we can only recover a percentage of oil that is in place due to several factors but mainly because the oil doesn't flow easily to the wellbore.
All it takes is some new technological advance that would allow the oil to flow better and allow the world to recover another 5% of the oil in place. The infrastructure is already there, the wells are already there, and the market is already there.
A great example is natural gas. Everyone thought we were running out of natural gas and in terminal decline. But then technology advanced and opened up shale reserves and now we are awash in natural gas. Production is up and will remain up for some time to come.
The same thing could happen to oil and probably will happen to oil.
PeakOil is You
Peak Oil in 100+ years
First unread post • 15 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Peak Oil in 100+ years
by AAA » Fri 15 May 2009, 15:02:19
How can Ludi spend 8-10 hrs/day on the internet and claim to be homesteading???
-
AAA - Tar Sands
- Posts: 702
- Joined: Wed 12 Nov 2008, 04:00:00
Re: Peak Oil in 100+ years
by Caffeine » Fri 15 May 2009, 15:15:27
While it would be nice if a new energy technology were to appear, I don't know that that new technology would fix the following:
depletion of NPK in topsoil
nuclear waste
the giant plastic sea in the Pacific
depletion of fisheries
etc., etc.
I guess we might go from talking about Peak Oil to Resource Depletion.
depletion of NPK in topsoil
nuclear waste
the giant plastic sea in the Pacific
depletion of fisheries
etc., etc.
I guess we might go from talking about Peak Oil to Resource Depletion.
- Caffeine
- Lignite
- Posts: 201
- Joined: Wed 16 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Re: Peak Oil in 100+ years
by TheDude » Fri 15 May 2009, 15:27:22
Forget technology, I'm for removing the overburden and directly extracting the oil from the reservoirs. Barring that, we can heat up kerogen with nuclear weaponry. No mess, no fuss. This article also shows how we could remove that overburden, creating mile deep open pit mines. Or how's this: first, remove all the citizenry from a producing nation, then send in contractors with simple drilling rigs to exploit shallow depth marginal plays like we have in the states. Voila, gentle declines worldwide. Problem solved, omelette made.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
-
TheDude - Expert
- Posts: 4896
- Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Re: Peak Oil in 100+ years
by Grautr » Fri 15 May 2009, 16:11:27
Peak oil is nessessary and the sooner the better. Imagine how badly we could screw up the world with our over population if some tech was developed for us to carry on our consumer culture for another 20 years?
-
Grautr - Lignite
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Thu 09 Feb 2006, 04:00:00
- Location: Maastricht, the Netherlands
Re: Peak Oil in 100+ years
by Ludi » Fri 15 May 2009, 16:52:13
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Grautr', 'P')eak oil is nessessary and the sooner the better. Imagine how badly we could screw up the world with our over population if some tech was developed for us to carry on our consumer culture for another 20 years?
Don't worry, we can fix the world with a little new technology.
- Ludi
Re: Peak Oil in 100+ years
by AAA » Fri 15 May 2009, 16:57:23
You guys are a rough crowd.
Only TheDude was able to have a little fun with it.
Only TheDude was able to have a little fun with it.
How can Ludi spend 8-10 hrs/day on the internet and claim to be homesteading???
-
AAA - Tar Sands
- Posts: 702
- Joined: Wed 12 Nov 2008, 04:00:00
Re: Peak Oil in 100+ years
by ian807 » Fri 15 May 2009, 18:02:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'w')e can heat up kerogen with nuclear weaponry. No mess, no fuss.
Um. Seriously. You think it would be that simple. Let's say you go that route, and explode a nuke 6000 feet down the borehole. Are you sure, absolutely sure, that the none of the oil reservoir will contact atmospheric oxygen during the course of this little exercise?
When oxygen and hydrocarbons mix on a small scale, you get Centralia, Pa. (Google it). The fire has been burning for years now. How long do you think it would take an oil reservoir to burn out? And what would be the pollution consequences? I think we just might put a little more CO2 in the air than desirable, eh?
But let's say it didn't catch fire. There are lots of minerals down there, the kind of minerals we used to wrap around nuclear weapons to increase their radiation yield. Cesium, cobalt, etc. Some of these won't decay for millions of years.
Oh, you wanted radiation-free gasoline? Tough look buddy.
And then there's just getting the stuff out. Assuming it hasn't ignited, it will be hot, very hot. Heat under the earth doesn't dissipate that fast. How long will we have to wait to actually get some of this stuff before it evaporates? Oh, and you think it's still oil? After the heat of a nuke, what you'll probably have is pool of heavy hydrocarbons at the bottom and light ones at the top. The first wells reservoirs will probably ooze enough light hydrocarbons like butane into the air to create some very lovely (at a distance), very large fireballs in the atmosphere.
So just at a guess? We're not going for this anytime soon.
Cheers!
-
ian807 - Tar Sands
- Posts: 899
- Joined: Mon 03 Nov 2008, 04:00:00
Re: Peak Oil in 100+ years
by TheDude » Sat 16 May 2009, 00:50:32
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ian807', 'W')hen oxygen and hydrocarbons mix on a small scale, you get Centralia, Pa. (Google it). The fire has been burning for years now. How long do you think it would take an oil reservoir to burn out? And what would be the pollution consequences? I think we just might put a little more CO2 in the air than desirable, eh?
No one lives in Centralia any more, ergo this isn't a problem. The removal of the citizenry will be good for the economy, housing values in nearby communities will increase, UHaul rentals will take off, and so forth. GDP can increase in manners some may find distasteful but nevertheless it is the system we have and you don't want to overhaul things too much in a recession, do you? As for CO2 even nations that have ratified Kyoto have failed to meet their targets, all of them have been eclipsed by the gains made by the BRIC nations; China in particular has drastically increased their output of GHGs and even have a 3000 mile long burning seam of coal, at no noticeable impedance to their GDP growth; indeed if anything growth in GHG emission and GDP looks to be positively correlated. I suspect this fixation on the negatives of global warming is primarily from those who lack an understanding of economic rudiments.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd then there's just getting the stuff out. Assuming it hasn't ignited, it will be hot, very hot. Heat under the earth doesn't dissipate that fast. How long will we have to wait to actually get some of this stuff before it evaporates?
Crude oil is extracted at temperatures in the hundreds of degrees. Pressure and heat increase with depth.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')h, and you think it's still oil? After the heat of a nuke, what you'll probably have is pool of heavy hydrocarbons at the bottom and light ones at the top. The first wells reservoirs will probably ooze enough light hydrocarbons like butane into the air to create some very lovely (at a distance), very large fireballs in the atmosphere.
You obviously didn't open my link, this wasn't an observed side effect of Project Gasbuggy.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')h, you wanted radiation-free gasoline? Tough look buddy.
"Tough look buddy"? Is that a Japanese all-girl pop band?
As for radiation you should be aware there are serious studies suggesting that it can be beneficial to one's health. Perhaps mild doses of radiation from gasoline could mitigate the detrimental effects brought on when driving, such as poor health due to lack of exercise, increased stress through road rage, etc. As is so often commented upon, we need to think out-of-the-box to solve the problems of peak oil.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o just at a guess? We're not going for this anytime soon.
I disagree, as does an esteemed colleague in the peak oil community.
