PDA

View Full Version : Article: The Peak Oil Crisis: Connecting the Dots


PenforPrez
02-12-2007, 07:26 PM
This article from the Falls Church (Va.) newspaper says exactly what I've been saying for some time: There very soon will be an oil crisis of mammoth proportions with no solution.

I wish the Presidential candidates would specifically discuss the problems of oil production that we will face now in a matter of months, not years. It is only a very short matter of time before we are faced with the problem of not having enough oil to power greedy SUV's (and their greedy owners) and power plants and boats to deliver Chinese technotoys. This is going to drastically change our way of life, but as usual, this whole country is in denial that there will ever be a problem.

Paul


The Peak Oil Crisis: Connecting the Dots
By Tom Whipple
Thursday, 08 February 2007

In the months after 9/11 there was much discussion about the American government's failure to "connect the dots." Hints and clues that Al Qaida was about to launch airborne suicide attacks inside the US abounded but nobody put the bits and pieces together into a convincing warning.

Such it may be with peak oil. There are trend lines and clues from across the earth pointing to serious troubles just ahead, but once again they are not generally perceived as making a "convincing case," especially when nobody really wants to contemplate the conclusion.

The "dots" of peak oil cluster into four groups. First, there are the depletion vs. new discovery dots. Every active oil field on earth is giving up some share of the 85 million barrels we burn up each day. New wells are constantly being drilled into existing oil fields in an effort to maintain production as the oil from the field is used up.

As fields mature and new wells are not enough to maintain production, output starts to drop. To offset the loss and maintain or increase our 85 million barrels a day, new fields must be opened and start producing. This balance between old fields drying up and new fields starting up is the heart of the peak oil story. When there is not enough production from new fields or other "unconventional" sources of oil substitutes to offset the decline, it is all over— world production has peaked.

For the last couple of years, new production and depletion have been running just about neck and neck, with production from new fields just offsetting the declines in production and cutbacks from geopolitical factors such as insurgencies and other political disputes. Some knowledgeable observers, after noting the pace at which in production is falling particularly from the North Sea and Mexico's Cantarell fields, believe that new production going on stream during 2007 will not be enough to maintain the production level we have seen during the last two years.

These observers note the cost of extracting oil from new, mostly offshore, fields has been increasing rapidly and that many projects have been slipping due to the unavailability of skilled personnel and equipment necessary to bring them on stream as rapidly as planned.

It should be noted that we don't yet have returns in from the giant Saudi oil fields. Saudi production has dropped about 1 million barrels a day in the past year. The Saudis maintain they are simply cutting production due to a glut of oil and falling prices. Many outside observers, however, are suspicious that there may be more to the story. Various techniques of assessing the course of Saudi oil production suggest these giant fields, some of which have been in production for 60 years, are ready to go into rapid decline. If this is happening, the Saudis sure aren't going to tell us.

Just to be safe, the Saudi dot should probably be flashing amber just as the North Sea and Mexican dots are already flashing bright red.

The next cluster of dots are the one's for the world's oil exporters. Some of these countries are fine, upstanding places like Canada, Norway, and the UK that will keep sending us oil until they run out of exportable surpluses. Unfortunately, for the UK this is already the case. Even America's best friend to the north, Canada, only has a few years before its citizens start to question selling of so much of its oil to the US.

Most large oil exporters are monuments to political instability. Iraq and Nigeria are currently in death spirals that could easily lead to serious reductions in their oil exports during the next year or so. The political leadership of Iran and Venezuela at the moment seems to be doing their best to get bombed by somebody or other. At least they are ideologically screwing up their domestic petroleum industries to the point where their ability to export current quantities of oil has a very short half-life.

Then we have the global warming dots: meltings, droughts, famines, hurricanes, and you name it. While the US, at the minute, seems inclined not to do much about this until Wall Street actually goes under water, a critical mass of public opinion seems to be forming. Short of imposing a 50 mph speed limit, and rationing or taxing the dickens out of fossil fuels, there does not seem to be much the US can do about greenhouse emissions in the short run.

Any serious, rapid, governmental action to cut emissions will of course have a serious impact on the last set of dots: the global economy. Here the question is easy. Do economic hard times come before or after peak oil? It should be obvious to everyone by now that if you take away a share of the world's oil and gas consumption, you are going to have some really serious economic problems. You can pick your own word to describe this phenomenon depending on how bad you think it is going to be— Recession? Depression? Collapse? Armageddon?

The key question is whether the economic troubles come before or after oil, for one reason or another, becomes very expensive and scarce. Many observers think there are serious economic troubles just ahead stemming from negative savings in the US, the housing bubble, collapse of Detroit, balance of payments, value of the dollar, or any number of other factors.

Where does this leave us? To anyone who cares to look, the dots are already connected and they spell big, big trouble just ahead. The dots are flashing bright red. The alarm bells are sounding. The klaxons are blaring. But few are noticing. As a nation, we are so engrossed with Wal-Mart's latest sales figures, interest rates, and surging in the streets of Baghdad, that we have failed to notice the cliff just ahead. Someday, the historians will say "on this one, connecting the dots didn't make any difference after all."

Jman06
02-16-2007, 02:31 PM
Ummm. Ya ...Were in trouble. China has 5 times the people as us and everyone is buying cars. Eventually there wont be enough oil for even half of China alone. Let alone the world! We just have to hope that we find new ways. I think if we did run out we would just have to adapt to smaller electric cars that are slower etc..There isnt enough ethanol for us. Maybe a new technology will come up soon. They are saying that nuculear fusion or is it fission, could happen in the future and that would solve it.

Bocheezu
02-16-2007, 02:50 PM
The Sky Is Falling, The Sky Is Falling Aieeeeeeeeee

PenforPrez
02-16-2007, 03:36 PM
Ummm. Ya ...Were in trouble. China has 5 times the people as us and everyone is buying cars. Eventually there wont be enough oil for even half of China alone. Let alone the world! We just have to hope that we find new ways. I think if we did run out we would just have to adapt to smaller electric cars that are slower etc..There isnt enough ethanol for us. Maybe a new technology will come up soon. They are saying that nuculear fusion or is it fission, could happen in the future and that would solve it.

China is not the problem so much. One-quarter of global oil consumption is in the United States alone. Cars and trucks, especially. I, for one, wonder how much oil could be conserved if we closed down 90% of these restaurants we don't need.

I agree with those who say there is no permanent solution. Every possible answer is fatally flawed. Nuclear fusion, ethanol, tar sands, hydrogen, solar, geothermal, etc.; they all have something in their fundamentals that prevents them from replacing liquid crude oil as the lifeblood of the economy.

Paul

Learjet434
02-16-2007, 04:24 PM
Oil will need to be supplemented with alternate fuels as the years go on in order to slowly reduce our dependence on oil. There are still tar sands to be mined, but that oil costs more per barrel to process. A push for ethanol is a good start, as Bush has wanted to do. Corporations are buying up crop land to grow corn and in the end, produce ethanol. This can have good results and bad results.

America and the world for that matter, will never be completely free from oil until the last barrel is removed from the ground. Freight trains burn diesel fuel and are a very efficient method of transporting goods. They could burn bio-diesel, but on engines that large in output, I'm not sure how their power would be impacted. Containerships burn bunker oil in massive quantities, however containership piston engines are some of the most efficient in the world. It would be hard for those to switch fuel, with current technology and maintain efficiency and cost.

Clean coal can be liquified and turned into fuel for cars. This is one idea on the table. The clean coal technology would also be great for power plants and reduce toxic emissions.

Efforts should be put in place to raise the fuel economy on all new vehicles. I don't think everyone should drive around in a Prius (I can't stand them myself). Besides, new their MSRP is $22,175, which is out of reach for a lot of Americans. I think people should still be able to drive their SUV or truck and enjoy good gas mileage and less emissions. Turbo diesel powered SUVs and trucks are a great example of this. Higher concentrations of bio-diesel mixed in with regular diesel at the pumps will be another help.

Having higher concentrations of bio-diesel (something over B5) at truck stops would be a good idea in my book as well.

Jman06
02-21-2007, 11:57 AM
China is not the problem so much. One-quarter of global oil consumption is in the United States alone. Cars and trucks, especially. I, for one, wonder how much oil could be conserved if we closed down 90% of these restaurants we don't need.

I agree with those who say there is no permanent solution. Every possible answer is fatally flawed. Nuclear fusion, ethanol, tar sands, hydrogen, solar, geothermal, etc.; they all have something in their fundamentals that prevents them from replacing liquid crude oil as the lifeblood of the economy.

Paul


CHINA is not the problem YET. But their economy has been booming every year and more and more chinese get cars which is why it has been going up. More demand. THey said if every chinese person used as much gas as every american does we would easily be out of oil. Every year more and more chinese get cars and it will be a problem soon.

ONe quarer of consumption is in the US because everyone owns cars and can afford them. What happens when China reaches thst stage with 5 times the population. And they will. They are already heading in that direction. It amazes me what people dont know is going on in the world. China is the next superpower and already competing for oil with us developing relationships and contracts with african countries that have lots of oil.

Jersey_Steve
02-21-2007, 12:54 PM
Haven't people been saying this for the past 20 years? Seems like every couple of years, they start raving how there will be no more oil. We really have no idea how much oil there is, because the people in the Middle East keep that number in a triple locked vault. I'm sure they've figured out how much oil they have to the cubic centimeter, it would be nice if they told us. But then they wouldn't be able to charge such insane prices.

I'm not so worried about China. China is going to impode in a couple of years (something else people have been saying for years ;)) because they are growing too fast for them to keep up with.

As for ethanol and bio-fuels... those are great if we want to trade our oil imports for food imports. Even if we take all of our farm land and use it to make bio-fuel, it still won't be enough.

Sometimes, there are no solutions. I think this will be one of those.

dongle
02-21-2007, 12:55 PM
I wonder if the internet/computer revolution combined with exponentially higher energy prices will lead to a civilzation of home dwellers that dont actually travel anywhere but instead telecommute to work everyday via the internet. That would certainly cut down on traffic.

redav
02-21-2007, 02:58 PM
As for ethanol and bio-fuels... those are great if we want to trade our oil imports for food imports. Even if we take all of our farm land and use it to make bio-fuel, it still won't be enough.
I see the real benefit of ethanol/bio-diesel is localized, on-site production of versatile fuels primarily made from waste products, not from corn or sugarcane. I think it was Coors that set up an ethanol plant in CO that made it from waste grains that they couldn't put into their beer. In such cases, the fuel becomes very economical (because you've already got the waste product & you need to do something with it) and doesn't divert profitable, useful resources like corn.

In theory, one could have a neighborhood facility that converts everyone's lawn trimmings from the summer into fuel to use in furnaces during the winter. And then we wouldn't have to worry about filling up all those landfills.

Jersey_Steve
02-21-2007, 06:06 PM
I see the real benefit of ethanol/bio-diesel is localized, on-site production of versatile fuels primarily made from waste products, not from corn or sugarcane. I think it was Coors that set up an ethanol plant in CO that made it from waste grains that they couldn't put into their beer. In such cases, the fuel becomes very economical (because you've already got the waste product & you need to do something with it) and doesn't divert profitable, useful resources like corn.

In theory, one could have a neighborhood facility that converts everyone's lawn trimmings from the summer into fuel to use in furnaces during the winter. And then we wouldn't have to worry about filling up all those landfills.

Good theory, but I don't see how I'm going to heat my house on the 2 or 3 barrels of lawn clippings and leaves I mow/rake up. And even though it will communal (and some people have bigger lawns and more trees), it won't be near enough.

Plus those lawn clippings, leaves, wood chips, are used in composts as well. Landscapers and gardening people will be up in arms, and rakes, over using the clippings to make a little bit of fuel.

If you want to conserve oil, tax the hell out of it. If gas was 6 bucks a gallon, I know I wouldn't be driving.

PenforPrez
02-21-2007, 08:04 PM
Haven't people been saying this for the past 20 years? Seems like every couple of years, they start raving how there will be no more oil. We really have no idea how much oil there is, because the people in the Middle East keep that number in a triple locked vault. I'm sure they've figured out how much oil they have to the cubic centimeter, it would be nice if they told us. But then they wouldn't be able to charge such insane prices.

Most disinterested scientists now believe we will be in a permanent oil shortage by 2015 at the latest. This is real stuff.

http://www.energybulletin.net/997.html

Jan Lundberg, founder of the Lundberg Survey for gas prices, sees Peak Oil-related societal chaos.

The bell curve of oil "production" was devised by Marion King Hubbert, a Shell Oil and U.S. government geologist. Although Hubbert has on the whole been borne out except in the minds of fundamentalist-classical economists, what he did not factor in was collapse. Therefore, the curve will be truncated to a cliff just as the gap between supply and demand is felt and hits.

The scenario I foresee is that market-based panic will, within a few days, drive prices up skyward. And as supplies can no longer slake daily world demand of over 80 million barrels a day, the market will become paralyzed at prices too high for the wheels of commerce and even daily living in "advanced" societies. There may be an event that appears to trigger this final energy crash, but the overall cause will be the huge consumption on a finite planet.

The trucks will no longer pull into Wal-Mart. Or Safeway or other food stores. The freighters bringing packaged techno-toys and whatnot from China will have no fuel. There will be fuel in many places, but hoarding and uncertainty will trigger outages, violence and chaos. For only a short time will the police and military be able to maintain order, if at all. The damage that several days' oil shortage and outage will do will soon wreak permanent damage that starts with companies and consumers not paying their bills and not going to work.

http://www.energybulletin.net/4404.html

Former Texas oil man T. Boone Pickens (who was the only expert to correctly predict the current oil situation) expects $200 oil within a few years. Even Dick Cheney admitted in 1999 that there would be an oil supply gap by 2010.

http://www.peakoil.net/Publications/Cheney_PeakOil_FCD.pdf

I'm not so worried about China. China is going to impode in a couple of years (something else people have been saying for years ;)) because they are growing too fast for them to keep up with.

China will implode after Peak Oil hits. Not enough oil to send technotoys to the U.S. means no work for them. ;)

As for ethanol and bio-fuels... those are great if we want to trade our oil imports for food imports. Even if we take all of our farm land and use it to make bio-fuel, it still won't be enough.

As I explained in another thread, ethanol is an expensive joke. Ethanol cannot produce more energy than it consumes; it can't be done. Bio and soy diesel are better, but they are still far less effective as energy sources than liquid crude oil.

Paul

redav
02-22-2007, 09:32 AM
The Energy Bulletin website is a biased, one-sided collection of articles. Using that as your source is like getting all your news from Fox News--you are not going to see the full or accurate picture.

dongle
02-22-2007, 12:05 PM
VentureOne is building a three wheeled car that gets 100 MPG with a 350 mile range while costing under $20k. You'll notice however that many people on that board scoff at the idea of conserving and try to make it seem useless.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6159

If you read the various other science articles on their you'll notice that like 90% of the posters dont believe in global warming or energy conserving and want to maintain the status quo. There is such a big difference between the people on QLC and the people on DailyTech. Personally, I agree way more with the QLC stance towards pretty much everything. The DailyTech people are whacked. They are very useful though if you're looking to buy a new computer. Scary how my two virtual worlds have just met.

FYI there's another good article on conserving energy here:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6168

note all the nay-sayers of that idea as well.

redav
02-22-2007, 12:39 PM
There is such a big difference between the people on QLC and the people on DailyTech. Personally, I agree way more with the QLC stance towards pretty much everything. The DailyTech people are whacked.
To completely threadjack--

The two sites are at either ends of the spectrum. QLC is definitely not the middle of the road. There are many, many people who would say that the people who post here are just as whacked (and they wouldn't necessarily be wrong).

dongle
02-22-2007, 04:20 PM
To completely threadjack--

The two sites are at either ends of the spectrum. QLC is definitely not the middle of the road. There are many, many people who would say that the people who post here are just as whacked (and they wouldn't necessarily be wrong).

Yeah I agree both sites are rather one sided. I guess I just agree more with the side that this site tends to take. I'd love to see what the DailyTech regulars think of the threads in this Current Events category. I know oil and global warming are big heated topics for them.