Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby mattduke » Fri 29 May 2009, 08:23:45

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ian807', '
')If we were smarter, and started now, damming every river for electricity, re-instituting a rail system, switched more things to coal and natural gas and made a big push to develop solar. wind and wave power, we might transition painlessly.

We won't, of course.


1. We are smart enough---its the dopes and crooks in DC who won't act.
2. There aren't any more major rivers to dam.
3. Obama lied---he isn't putting significant money into the rail system
4. Coal emits too much CO2---not a good option
5. Natural gas would be OK, but this administration opposes most drilling
6. Solar, wind and wave power cannot contribute enough electricity to replace oil and run electric rail, electric cars, etc.
7. We will NEVER transition painlessly. It will be a very difficult and expensive process. 8)

The United States doesn't have enough savings to pursue those projects.
User avatar
mattduke
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3591
Joined: Fri 28 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby shortonsense » Fri 29 May 2009, 09:10:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'C')alifornia heavy oils have been in production since before you were born...


That doesn't help your case---the California heavy oilfields peaked decades ago.


Of course they did. And their EROEI is so bad that companies have been continuously producing them for a century.

If EROEI matters, don't you think they would STOP at some point, rather than continuously spending all that money on a losing EROEI proposition?
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby shortonsense » Fri 29 May 2009, 09:12:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '
')Which in no way answers the question posed here.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o are you saying USGS information doesn't indicate Peak Oil will be "later"?


The USGS information says nothing about peak, now, later, never.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby Aaron » Fri 29 May 2009, 10:59:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '
')Which in no way answers the question posed here.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o are you saying USGS information doesn't indicate Peak Oil will be "later"?


The USGS information says nothing about peak, now, later, never.


Really?

From the USGS website:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he measure of petroleum availability that most affects our economy and our daily lives is the rate at which petroleum can be produced. At some future time, world oil and gas produc-tion capacity will decrease as supplies are depleted.


http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs119-00/fs119-00.pdf



The EIA seems to think they have...

Image

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n any event, the world production peak for conventionally reservoired crude is unlikely to be "right around the corner" as so many other estimators have been predicting. Our analysis shows that it will be closer to the middle of the 21st century than to its beginning. Given the long lead times required for significant mass-market penetration of new energy technologies, this result in no way justifies complacency about both supply-side and demand-side research and development.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.

Hazel Henderson
User avatar
Aaron
Resting in Peace
 
Posts: 5998
Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Houston
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 29 May 2009, 13:17:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', ' ')Now back to that graphic.. first of all, a CUBIC MILE of oil is of a lot oil.


Yes, what we use in one year, I believe.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Lastly, the graphic seems to imply that these alternatives would need to be a TOTAL REPLACEMENT for that cubic mile of oil. Well as we all know, peak oil isn't about running out, it's about dealing with a SHORTFALL -- not a sudden and total disappearance.


Well, the lastest numbers indicate a decline rate of 9.1% for our largest existing fields. Using the
Rule of 70..70/9.1= 7.6 to reach a 50% reduction in supply. 7.6 years doesn't sound sudden to you?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lso, everyone here is assuming current usage will just continue as it is on into the future. When a peak on light sweet becomes obvious, there will likely be much more conservation to preserve the remaining oil.


With current population growth all conservation efforts would be eclisped in a few years.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') For an honest prediction here, you'd have to start factoring in the effects of an all-electric vehicle fleet. Petrol would naturally become reserved for what cannot be replaced with electric power -- things like air and sea travel, plastics, chemicals, etc.


What will produce this electricity?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 29 May 2009, 13:21:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('argyle', '
')I don't want to dispute peak oil. But even if it's "late" now, if we drastically switch from oil to renewables (together with conservation (which doesn't always mean loss of comfort or loss of job -> for example replace a regular 100watt led bulb with a CFL light bulb) and invest locally (instead of oil rich middle-east countries) a considerable difference and softening of the crash can be done.
Actually investing locally also means more local jobs (maintenance, production,.. of windfarms, solar, ..) instead of prepping up some distant middle-east country funds.



Read http://jeffvail.net/

The Renewables Hump 2: Digging Out of a Hole
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby AAA » Fri 29 May 2009, 13:42:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'C')alifornia heavy oils have been in production since before you were born...


That doesn't help your case---the California heavy oilfields peaked decades ago.


Of course they did. And their EROEI is so bad that companies have been continuously producing them for a century.

If EROEI matters, don't you think they would STOP at some point, rather than continuously spending all that money on a losing EROEI proposition?


Sorry to jump in late but one reason the heavy oil projects continue to produce in California is because it would cost MILLIONS and MILLIONS to P&A all the wells and remediate the soil.

Image
How can Ludi spend 8-10 hrs/day on the internet and claim to be homesteading???
User avatar
AAA
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed 12 Nov 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby shortonsense » Fri 29 May 2009, 21:58:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')f course EROEI matters. The search for energy and competition among populations is what drives cellular activity, evolution, and human enterprise.


Thats not what Monte said. Now that the "true believer" contingent has weighed in, what do the astrological signs say about heavy oil there Pstarr?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PStarr', '
')In the limited example above (California Texas strippers, etc.) where reservoir drive is not the primary engine of production, the EROEI is lower but remains positive and thus there is energy and money to be extracted. Enough to maintain the well and the operator and make a few buck. But surely not enough to invest in deepwater projects, saturian methane space elevators delivery systems, or to maintain the average American's lifestyle. :evil:


Nice wiki quote! But it isn't what Monte said either. Matter of fact, it contradicts his claim that the crappy EROEI of heavy oil makes it require a "ladder" ( apparaently a technical term used in industry he heard once while having his gas pumped ) and whatever this "ladder" is, it negates more than a century of heavy oil production, let alone the strip mining of oil in northern Alberta.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby shortonsense » Fri 29 May 2009, 22:03:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')
The USGS information says nothing about peak, now, later, never.
Of course the USGS speaks encyclopedias about peak oil. It surmises total OIP, URR, and RR and thus predicts a production peak.

It's just that like encyclopedias (and unlike the Web) the USGS is hopelessly out of date. It's 2000 study has already been superseded by reality: it's actual finds are 10 billions barrels behind it's rosy predictions.


Please reference any other scientific investigative organization on the planet which provided a global, comprehensive study which tried to predict future discoveries of oil and gas in a probabilistic and systematic way.

Just one will do, to see how well they stack up against each other.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby shortonsense » Fri 29 May 2009, 22:11:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '
')Which in no way answers the question posed here.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o are you saying USGS information doesn't indicate Peak Oil will be "later"?


The USGS information says nothing about peak, now, later, never.


Really?

From the USGS website:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he measure of petroleum availability that most affects our economy and our daily lives is the rate at which petroleum can be produced. At some future time, world oil and gas produc-tion capacity will decrease as supplies are depleted.



Thats just a statement of fact. I don't think anyone can claim with a straight face that consumption in a finite environment is possible, its a favorite peaker strawman to accuse people of this position when it doesn't exist. I believe that everyone holds the basic position you've listed above, including CERA, Lynch and the EIA...accusing them of something else to make fun of them is just par for the peaker course for some reason. Never understood it myself, but I laugh every time I think of JD's disclaimer on the topic at the top of his blog page.

The only reference to the USGS and someone picking a peak that I am familiar with is here

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/of00-320/

and I don't know if he's picking a peak or just referencing a peaker?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '
')
The EIA seems to think they have...

Image


The EIA made the exact same mistake that ASPO did, and all of this was referenced by Hirsch at the tailend of his 2005 DOE report. No point in perpetuating confusion on the topic when Hirsch has already attributed everything correctly.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby shortonsense » Fri 29 May 2009, 22:14:23

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AAA', '
')
Sorry to jump in late but one reason the heavy oil projects continue to produce in California is because it would cost MILLIONS and MILLIONS to P&A all the wells and remediate the soil.


You didn't just claim that there are reasons beyond EROEI to produce heavy oil now did you?

The true believers aren't going to be happy with you.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby Sixstrings » Fri 29 May 2009, 22:49:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
What will produce this electricity?


Are you not aware that France generates ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of its electricity using nuclear power?

The US is the premier nuclear state on the planet.. we too are more than capable of going all nuke. Sure, at the moment, nobody wants a nuke plant in their town. But trust me, opinions will change as the demand for electricity skyrockets.

And there are other options besides going all-nuke: coal, natural gas, solar, and wind. You can knock those las two all you want, and maybe even nat gas, but how can you dismiss coal power? At current usage rates, the world has at least 250 years worth of supply.

EDIT: to clarify here, I haven't become an anti-doomer. I still think the Black Swan theory is a concern.. the idea that our current system may in fact not be able to adjust fast enough in response to a sudden and severe disruption in our just-in-time chain of supply. When and if that disruption happens, it's the social instability factor that becomes a danger greater than the fuel shortage itself.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby dunewalker » Fri 29 May 2009, 23:00:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '
')The US is the premier nuclear state on the planet.. we too are more than capable of going all nuke.
At current usage rates, the world has at least 250 years worth of supply.

EDIT: to clarify here, I haven't become an anti-doomer.


In that case you might want to do more research on the concept that "the US has at least 250 years worth of coal supply". While you're at it maybe do some research on the financial situation regarding construction of nuclear power plants, both historically, presently and in the future, nevermind the issue of public opinion. Then, if you still have free time, how about doing some reading on the topic of coal contribution to air pollution...
"Wilderness is another civilization apart from our own." - H.D. Thoreau
User avatar
dunewalker
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1253
Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Location: northern California
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 29 May 2009, 23:03:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', ' ')Thats not what Monte said.


Flow rate of production.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 29 May 2009, 23:23:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sixstrings', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')
What will produce this electricity?


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he US is the premier nuclear state on the planet.. we too are more than capable of going all nuke. Sure, at the moment, nobody wants a nuke plant in their town. But trust me, opinions will change as the demand for electricity skyrockets.


Nuclear is not a renewable energy source and uranium is expecting a shortage soon.

Given the horrendous capital costs, waste issues, and long construction times, I would say it is excessive optimism to count on nuclear, if ever. New reactors proved unfinanceable in the robust 2005–08 capital market, despite new U.S. subsidies approaching or exceeding their total construction cost.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd there are other options besides going all-nuke: coal, natural gas, solar, and wind. You can knock those las two all you want, and maybe even nat gas, but how can you dismiss coal power? At current usage rates, the world has at least 250 years worth of supply.


Total proven world reserves of coal are estimated to total almost one trillion tons and are projected to last over 200 years at current rates of consumption. The US has about 250 billion tons of recoverable coal reserves. According to the EIA figures, we can see that we have 255 years of coal remaining in the year 2000 given our current rate of consumption. That prediction assumes equal use of all grades of coal, from anthracite to lignite. Population growth alone reduces the calculated lifetime to some 90-120 years. However, if we look back in history, we see that there were 300 years of coal reserves in 1988, 1000 years reserves in 1904, and 10,000 years reserves in 1868! As each year goes by, our coal consumption increases and we see that the projection becomes meaningless. And if we suddenly move to a bigger reliance on coal, and coal liquidfaction for gas, then this estimate would surely drop dramatically.

Coal peak projections:
Hubbert Model Peak 2032
EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2004 Peak 2060
Flat gas consumption and greater coal consumption Peak 2053
Flat gas consumption and synfuels from coal to replace oil Peak 2035

http://www.energyedge.net/The_Coal_Story.pdf

Some say a peak in 15 years
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/29919

Even if you could build them, how would you transmit the energy? We don't have the grid capacity for it.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: An admission -- I'm not sure if Peak Oil is true

Unread postby shortonsense » Sat 30 May 2009, 00:55:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', ' ')Thats not what Monte said.


Flow rate of production.


I don't think you know any more about flow rate of production than you do EROEI.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron