Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

[elbows]

Yes, although I'm sure Falcon is certainly aware of that. For example he is not afraid to point out where biofuels are turning one mans lunch into another persons transport fuel. His anticipation of what these energy woes mean for the welfare state as we know it have also caused some lively debate in various threads over the years.

From my point of view I cannot help but notice that the end of cheap oil has already had implications for people who live in countries where fuel is heavily subsidised. There is pressure on countries to eliminate such subsidies no matter the social cost, although this pressure is somewhat resisted, not least because the resulting social unrest threatens regimes.

 

[free spirit]

Conversely though, as I'm sure you're aware, if you have a village that's entirely dependent on the global economy, it can (and very often does) get fucked just as thoroughly by events beyond its control.

The diversity point, which is an excellent one, cuts both ways.



http://www.feasta.org/documents/shortcircuit/contents.html

that's true in a neoliberal globalised economy where profit and free trade is all that matters.

I'd need to be convinced it was anything like as true in a relatively planned / controlled economy where social & environmental impact was as important as profit.

As my dad likes to point out, the most ridiculous part of the privatisation of our water, electricity, gas etc companies is that there was no requirement within the privatisation for those companies to actually continue to supply those services to us / guarantee supplies etc.

Not that I'm against the idea that having sufficient reserves of nationally / locally supplied fuel to see us through any glitches in the international market is a good idea - it blatantly is, and is all part of the diversity of supply argument. It's in large part why renewables will be so important, as they reduce dependence upon internationally traded energy resources.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sure, but that's the sort of economy we're stuck in right now and any resource constraints and/or environmental catastrophes will be mediated (and probably not in a good way) by that neoliberal global economy.

So adding some diversity in the form of parallel, subsistence/means of production etc, seems pretty sensible to me, although I'd be the first to admit that I don't have an obviously workable plan to achieve that.

I mean, I can see bits of a solution. You're obviously helping when you bolt some solar onto a public or private building, but clearly a great deal more diversity of subsistence is needed.

 

[free spirit]

Sure, but that's the sort of economy we're stuck in right now and any resource constraints and/or environmental catastrophes will be mediated (and probably not in a good way) by that neoliberal global economy.

So adding some diversity in the form of parallel, subsistence/means of production etc, seems pretty sensible to me, although I'd be the first to admit that I don't have an obviously workable plan to achieve that.

I mean, I can see bits of a solution. You're obviously helping when you bolt some solar onto a public or private building, but clearly a great deal more diversity of subsistence is needed.

yes, that's the situation we're currently in.

The question though is the direction of change we want to try to make.

I'd prefer that we attempted to change the terms of the global neoliberal free trade agreements to make them work towards sustainable development models, rather than giving up entirely on the entire interconnected global technologically advanced society / economy we now have and moving straight towards some form of post collapse self sufficiency model.

That's just giving up IMO, and should be saved as a last resort option for the point where we actually have passed the point of no return and technological industrial society has actually already collapsed.

(though i do see a role for some who prefer that lifestyle to take that route, and in so doing to keep some of those older skills of green woodworking, blacksmithery etc etc alive, as those skills would be needed if we do really fuck things up).

Encouraging as much self sufficiency as possible / practical is also a very necessary thing as it helps those communities to be more resilliant to the whims of global markets / global shortages forcing up prices etc. it should also help to reduce the ability of markets to manipulate pricing on a supply and demand basis as people would have other options if the price went too high... not to mention the reduction in transport energy consumption, and the benefits of keeping trade and money within the local economy.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Are they mutually exclusive?

See e.g. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch26.htm

especially this bit ...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch33.htm

 

[Dr Jon]

When the little man in the TV talks about fracking and ‘revolutions’ he’s lying. What he leaves out is that the customers are flat broke and cannot afford to buy fuel, nor can they afford to borrow. ‘Broke’ is why oil prices are declining, not an excess of supply

Buy the Rumour …

 

[Falcon]

no just crude, I added the word 'extra' because it's additional to current levels.

love the way you hold up the IEA as being beacons of truth one year, and a compromised organisation the next when their report doesn't match your views.

The IEA is best understood as a politically compromised organisation of competent people who occasionally manage to sneak the truth out under the radar. Which exactly explains why their message is usually wrong, but punctuated by the occasional truth.

You quote the wrong bits. I quote the occasional right bits. And that is because the competent people and I have the same training.

 

[Falcon]

I think his logic is very often flawed, and it is here to an extent. He argues that producing solar panels and other hardware for renewables is not worth it - that even in the current system, it is not effective use of resources. But the eroi is what it is given the other things that are being done - and no matter how destructive those other things may be, you are still doing something that will contribute towards future sustainability. That this doesn't in and of itself solve the problem on its own doesn't make it not the right thing to do.

There is much to like about your post (indeed this whole direction of debate). But I have to disagree. Creating low efficiency energy conversion devices and building high efficiency low energy structures (homes, railways, etc.) both require energy. You cannot burn the same barrel of oil twice. So every energy conversion device we build is a low energy home we have not built. Since we will never build all the low energy homes we need before oil becomes unaffordable/unavailable, every solar panel or turbine we build now can be visualised as that freezing person at the margin for whom we have not built a low energy home.

The only reason we keep building these devices is because we cannot visualise these freezing people at the margin.

 

[free spirit]

The IEA is best understood as a politically compromised organisation of competent people who occasionally manage to sneak the truth out under the radar. Which exactly explains why their message is usually wrong, but punctuated by the occasional truth.

This has long been my view on the IEA, I just have to wonder why you held them up as a paragon of virtue previously.

The IEA is a government sponsored institution that is required to provide policy advice to governments on Peak Oil. Peak oil poses an existential threat to the continuity of government. The IEA hires good guys, and is flashing the red warning light like fury.

You quote the wrong bits. I quote the occasional right bits. And that is because the competent people and I have the same training.

ok mr competent - when was it that oil peaked, and how far down the decline should we now be according to you?

You appear to miss the fact that I pointed out a year or 2 ago that the new discoveries and investment in new oil sources that began when the oil price rose in 2003/4 would lead to exactly the sorts of rises the IEA is now showing coming into the short term pipeline.

At that time you first tried stating that there wasn't any significant extra exploration investment, then that this didn't equate to significant extra exploration or R&D activity, and then that this wouldn't lead to any significant additional oil production.

You were and remain completely wrong, despite your self proclaimed competence in the field. Frankly I'd be pretty embarrassed if I called something like that as wrong as that in the field in which I was supposed to work as some form of an expert.

Unfortunately you're playing the part of the boy who cried wolf, meaning that people won't take real experts seriously when they actually do warn of oil peaking and the necessity of taking action now while we actually still have oil left to help us make the transition relatively painlessly to the low carbon, low fossil fuel, low energy intensity economy & society that is within our grasp.

 

[Falcon]

ok mr competent - when was it that oil peaked, and how far down the decline should we now be according to you?

Define "oil". The supply of light, sweet, $20/oil crude (the sort the world runs on) peaked in 2006 and the global economy entered terminal decline in 2008 when the price rose to $90 - the threshold price above which the operations of the global industrial manufacturing system become unaffordable.

You appear to miss the fact that I pointed out a year or 2 ago that the new discoveries and investment in new oil sources that began when the oil price rose in 2003/4 would lead to exactly the sorts of rises the IEA is now showing coming into the short term pipeline.

You appear to miss the difference between (1) discovering and mobilising new oil, and accelerating previously discovered oil. The former is good (and hasn't happened), the latter accelerates the rate of decline post-peak, is happening, and is suicidal. You also appear to miss the fact that the significant flow rate is energy, not liquid volume, and that it is entirely possible for the liquid rates of new oil sources to increase while the energy flow rates to fall - and it has.

At that time you first tried stating that there wasn't any significant extra exploration investment, then that this didn't equate to significant extra exploration or R&D activity, and then that this wouldn't lead to any significant additional oil production.

That is exactly what has happened. We are now losing 40 million barrels of daily production capacity in the next 7 years and have added barely 10. We've spent more this decade on exploration than last, yet discovery has fallen.

You were and remain completely wrong,

Nope. We are now running jet planes on peasant food (because they don't count) and bulldozing Detroit. That wasn't really on the cards five years ago.

despite your self proclaimed competence in the field. Frankly I'd be pretty embarrassed if I called something like that as wrong as that in the field in which I was supposed to work as some form of an expert.

I'm curious. I have distinctions in separate masters in petroleum engineering and energy economics, 20 years of senior managerial experience in some of the largest oil companies in the world, I've manufactured most of the propaganda you routinely regurgitate on these boards, and now consult on this subject to major energy consumers. What - exactly - would constitute competence, for you?

 

[free spirit]

I'm curious. I have distinctions in separate masters in petroleum engineering and energy economics, 20 years of senior managerial experience in some of the largest oil companies in the world, I've manufactured most of the propaganda you routinely regurgitate on these boards, and now consult on this subject to major energy consumers. What - exactly - would constitute competence, for you?

As I said, I'd be extremely embarrassed if I were in that position of working as an expert in a field, but at the same time demonstrably being so completely wrong in my projections and statements about the industry.

As for you competence... well there are many hopelessly incompetent people seem to find their way to the top of their professions.

I've no idea if you're specifically competent in your specific job role or not though, but I suspect you could probably have been a pretty good propagandist for the oil industry - back then, I'd still have been ripping the piss out of your shit inaccurate projections btw, you've just jumped from being wrong on one side to being wrong on the other.

 

[Falcon]

As I said, I'd be extremely embarrassed if I were in that position of working as an expert in a field, but at the same time demonstrably being so completely wrong in my projections and statements about the industry.

As for you competence... well there are many hopelessly incompetent people seem to find their way to the top of their professions.

I've no idea if you're specifically competent in your specific job role or not though, but I suspect you could probably have been a pretty good propagandist for the oil industry - back then, I'd still have been ripping the piss out of your shit inaccurate projections btw, you've just jumped from being wrong on one side to being wrong on the other.

So you've nothing to say about $20/bbl peak oil in 2006, oil discovery vs acceleration, collapsing discovery rates and converting food into energy supplies to prolong arrangements ?

Just misdirection? - I'm OK with that.

 

[free spirit]

So you've nothing to say about $20/bbl peak oil in 2006, oil discovery vs acceleration, collapsing discovery rates and converting food into energy supplies to prolong arrangements ?

Just misdirection? - I'm OK with that.

no misdirection, I just didn't see anything there that we've not already covered several times. If you insist though

I see you've now come up with a new clarification to your previous predictions. You're now retrospectively predicting peak $20 dollar oil back in 2006... unfortunately the statements I referred to were the ones you've made in the intervening period where this new clarification wasn't involved, where you predicted actual peak oil and actual reductions in actual energy availability from oil not just that it'd get a bit more expensive.

ie the statements and predictions you made which have now proven to be wrong, so far at least. Coming along and redefining them several years later after you've been proven to be wrong doesn't suddenly make you right.

You appear to miss the difference between (1) discovering and mobilising new oil, and accelerating previously discovered oil. The former is good (and hasn't happened), the latter accelerates the rate of decline post-peak, is happening, and is suicidal. You also appear to miss the fact that the significant flow rate is energy, not liquid volume, and that it is entirely possible for the liquid rates of new oil sources to increase while the energy flow rates to fall - and it has.

1 - I'd be delighted if you would discuss the issue in relation to energy, as opposed to just oil. But even when you say this, you still only mean energy from oil, as opposed to energy in all its forms, which you refuse to discuss.

2 - the net energy from oil is still increasing, as a basic first principles calculation based on the EROEI figures bandied about clearly indicates. Even if oil had fallen to an average EROEI figure of 20:1 that would still only result in 5% of energy from oil being used in its manufacture vs around 2% 50 years ago, or maybe 3-4% in 2006. 2006-2011 all liquids production went up by around 5%, therefore net energy from oil must have increased in that period.

If you truly were an expert in the field worthy of that status you'd have done those first principles calculations yourself prior to making an idiot of yourself with your false pronouncements, then when challenged on it just stating that the net energy figures don't exist.

ps I've been surrounded by real world renowned experts in the energy field most of my life, you make far too many elementary mistakes to possibly class as one of them I'm afraid, no matter how many masters with distinctions you hold. Not disputing that you have a fair level of expertise in the field mind, but not to the extent that I'd hire you or recommend you to others, your analysis has too many obvious holes in it for that I'm afraid.

pps I'm also not in that class, so if you were then you'd be able to rip my arguments apart easily if you were right, rather than the vice versa situation we seem to be in.

 

[rich!]

I suspect you are being ingenious here.

UK is pioneering approaches to scaling up retrofit insulation on homes. 30% by one applied technique is a typical gain.

In the mean time, how does cheap power from solar or wind not work for construction or manufacturing? Because that seems to be a lot of your argument.

 

[rich!]

Gah,for ingenious read ingenuous.

 

[Falcon]

the net energy from oil is still increasing, as a basic first principles calculation based on the EROEI figures bandied about clearly indicates. Even if oil had fallen to an average EROEI figure of 20:1 that would still only result in 5% of energy from oil being used in its manufacture vs around 2% 50 years ago, or maybe 3-4% in 2006. 2006-2011 all liquids production went up by around 5%, therefore net energy from oil must have increased in that period.

You simply cannot distinguish between the acceleration of previously discovered, high EROEI oil (which is briefly supporting the EROEI you think you are talking about, in exchange for suicidally increased depletion rates to come) and the discovery of new low EROEI oil in insufficient and unmobilisable volumes.

I don't know whether it is because you have cognitive difficulties, or whether you have reached the point where the quantity of humble pie required by your acknowledgement of this error would cause you to choke to death. But I do know it is a very, very simple point that school children grasp perfectly readily.

The oil we used to get 50 years ago, EROEI > 80, the last of which we are accelerating:

The oil we discover now, EROEI < 10:

And I'll never tire of puncturing your airy, patronising flatulence with the fundamentals:

Discovery peaked 40 years ago, discovering and mobilising [1] one Iraq's worth of light sweet crude every 5 years would delay peak fourteen years. We are decades away from mobilising the one (and last) Iraq we have.

This is what we are doing instead, and where it is leading, and you have simply no clue that this is the phenomenon to which you are referring when you imagine that predictions of peak have failed:

[1] - I confidently predict you will totally fail to grasp this point in your next expulsion

 

[Falcon]

Gah,for ingenious read ingenuous.

Or disingenuous? FWIW, I think you were right the first time

UK is pioneering approaches to scaling up retrofit insulation on homes. 30% by one applied technique is a typical gain.

In the mean time, how does cheap power from solar or wind not work for construction or manufacturing? Because that seems to be a lot of your argument.

Indeed, and I've fitted a lot of it to my passive house. I've also stuck 4kW of solar on its roof and a geothermal system.

The solar is a throwaway science experiment - I confidently expect the PV to become useless the minute one of several hundred points of failure of its impossibly complex supply chains fails. The energy that was wasted building it (and its supply chain) would have been better spent making the insulation for the next home. That's my simple point.

 

[Falcon]

An interesting and very typical article, which has been seeded in an undiscerning (i.e. typical) newspaper by a large oil company with the intent of projecting the perception that the rate of oil discovery has increased recently (Free Spirit's assertion).

From "Today’s oil discovery sizes not seen since 1960" (The Globe And Mail, April 16, 2013) :

just one oil play in the Texas Midland Basin, the Spraberry/Wolfcap shale, may have a total recoverable resource of up to 50 billion barrels using new tight-oil extraction technologies

Today’s North American oil boom, if sustainable, takes us back to the discovery atmosphere of the 1950s and 60s.

while the Eagle Ford shale could be up to 25 billion

there are likely to be several more “sweet” mega-plays, including prolific ones germinating in Canada that could collectively stack up to be the most significant era of reserve additions in the 155-year history of the industry.

Yet the best context for the size of the Spraberry/Wolfcap, and the tight oil revolution as a whole, may be the Canadian oil sands

The article title - the bit most people will read - wasn't "Today’s oil discovery sizes might not have seen since 1960". Yet if you aren't aware that the oil industry routinely posts "may-be/could-be" posts to get people frothy, then quietly withdraws them (or, worse still, just leaves them uncorrected), you might be forgiven for imagining things were looking up (Free Spirits adorable position). Yet in 2011, the US Energy Information Agency estimated US unproved technically recoverable shale gas to be 827 trillion cubic feet (EIA 2012). In 2012, it estimates it to be only 482 trillion cubic feet — 40% lower — noting ‘there is far more information available today than a year ago’. This pattern is a fixture in media management - Caspian reserves are an order of magnitude lower than the press reports of the time - did you know that?

And of course, tight-oil and oil sand reserves are like a million pound inheritance that your mad Aunt instructs her £80 a month lawyers to release to you at £100 a month if you pay their bill.

Meanwhile, I've translated the biggest actual finds of recent times into days of world supply, noting their mobilisation time is measured in decades:

These newspaper articles are the sort of information free spirit bases his opinions on, and the data I supply is the sort he either doesn't know about, or can't understand, when he believes he is ripping apart the argument that, surprise surprise, a finite and small store of oil that has undergone exponentially increasing drawdown for a century is now exhausting.

 

[free spirit]

You simply cannot distinguish between the acceleration of previously discovered, high EROEI oil (which is briefly supporting the EROEI you think you are talking about, in exchange for suicidally increased depletion rates to come) and the discovery of new low EROEI oil in insufficient and unmobilisable volumes.

I don't know whether it is because you have cognitive difficulties, or whether you have reached the point where the quantity of humble pie required by your acknowledgement of this error would cause you to choke to death. But I do know it is a very, very simple point that school children grasp perfectly readily.

The oil we used to get 50 years ago, EROEI > 80, the last of which we are accelerating:

The oil we discover now, EROEI < 10:1

yes I know.

But you've made a specific statement that net energy is decreasing, I was simply proving that this specific statement was wrong.

Net energy is currently still increasing, for it not to be then the energy input to oil production across the entire range of oil production would need to be increasing faster than the total production volume is increasing. This is not the case, at least not yet.

I've no doubt that at some point this will become the situation, I'm just pointing out to you that you are wrong to state that this is actually the case now.

Feel free to attempt to show why I'm wrong with some actual figures, I bet you can't though.

 

[free spirit]

These newspaper articles are the sort of information free spirit bases his opinions on

oh fuck off you disingenuous prick.

That's a charge you really can't lay at my door.

 

[Falcon]

Net energy is currently still increasing, for it not to be then the energy input to oil production across the entire range of oil production would need to be increasing faster than the total production volume is increasing. This is not the case, at least not yet.

Hilarious. The IEA has stated (World Outlook 2010) that light sweet crude peaked in 2006. Coal and gas EROEI is falling like a stone. Renewables have EROEIs which are at best a small positive fraction of light sweet crude.

So the fluids that have replaced depleting light sweet crudes, contributed to any synthetic-debt accelerated fluid increases, and coal, gas and so-called "renewable" electricity generation, are all of significantly lower EROEI than the light sweet crude which constitutes the baseline of your assertion of RISING EROEI. There will be some support from acceleration of the last volumes of early 20thC discoveries, but all that does is accelerate the depletion rate your science projects have to compensate for. Falling EROEI is a mathematical necessity.

By the way - what exactly is your argument?

 

[Falcon]

oh fuck off you disingenuous prick.

That's a charge you really can't lay at my door.

Then your agreement with them and identical methods must be coincidental.

And your aggression is entirely inappropriate.

 

[equationgirl]

IEA WEO 2010 is now two years out of date by the way.

 

[Falcon]

IEA WEO 2010 is now two years out of date by the way.

And have they changed their mind about the peaking of light sweet crude?

 

[equationgirl]

And have they changed their mind about the peaking of light sweet crude?

I don't know, I don't have the most recent copy in front of me, being at home.

 

[Falcon]

I don't know, I don't have the most recent copy in front of me, being at home.

I do.

Output from OPEC countries rises, particularly after 2020, bringing the OPEC share in global production from its current 42% up towards 50% by 2035. The net increase in global oil production is driven entirely by unconventional oil, including a contribution from light tight oil that exceeds 4 mb/d for much of the 2020s,

Free Spirit is talking out of his hat.

 

[equationgirl]

I do.

Free Spirit is talking out of his hat.

If you have WEO 2012 in front of you why do you keep quoting from WEO 2010?

I believe free spirit more than I believe you right now, I know that.

 

[Falcon]

I don't 'keep' quoting 'WEO 2010'. I quote the occasion, in 2010, where WEO explicitly documents that conventional oil peaked in 2006. These matters are only ever visible in the rear view mirror. The fact that they don't continue to do so reflects that fact that it keeps being the case that it peaked in 2006.

Believe who you like. I wish you well, but my welfare only marginally depends on you understanding what is going on. But yours does.

 

[free spirit]

which constitutes the baseline of your assertion of RISING EROEI.

By the way - what exactly is your argument?

To start with, it's quite obviously not what you just stated is it, I've in no way ever asserted that EROEI is rising in oil at least, nor would I. It almost certainly is getting better for solar, but that's a different point.

What I'm disputing is your statements about liquids rising, but net energy falling.

I'm of the opinion that net energy from all liquids has been rising still over the last couple of years as volumes have risen, albeit by a lower rate than the increase in volumes.

Having checked your statement again, I've realised that you're probably also referring to the reduced energy content of Natural Gas Liquids and biofuels vs oil derived petrol & diesel, which I'd not factored in to my previous estimates.

I've set up a spreadsheet to try to analyse this, and even accounting for the reduced energy content of the liquids as well as the reduced EROEI on new production, a gradually reducing EROEI on existing oil supplies, and assuming your statements about an 8% decline rate for existing oil were correct, we'd still be getting something like a 0.7% increase in net energy content from the sort of annual rise in total liquid volume we've seen in the last couple of years.

So I'm still of the opinion that you're currently wrong to make that statement about net energy already falling, however I would accept that we're quite possibly on the cusp of the point where in oil (all liquids) terms we will end up with the possibility of rising liquid volumes, but reducing net energy.

However, if the IEA is anything like correct about the rise in tight light oil & crude forming the majority of the increase in volume though to 2018, then I still doubt this will apply.

I think NGL has made up around 50% of the increase in liquids over the last few years, which results in a significant reduction in energy content per volume, but the IEA has them making up less than 25% of the increase though to 2018, so this factor will apply proportionately less if they're right.

If the assumptions I've used were right, then for the 8% per year decline rate in existing oil, we'd be needing around a 1% overall increase in all liquid volumes each year to get and actual increase in net energy production from all liquids. This is very rough and ready though and it really depends a lot on the make up of the additional liquids.

I would be pretty interested to see any figures anyone else had produced on this though - have you got any links to anyone else who's done these calcs?

 

[free spirit]

On a more general note though, the main difference between my position and Falcon's over peak oil / peak net energy from oil, is one of timing.

Falcon essentially states that we've already peaked in net energy terms, whereas I accept this could be a possibility, but think the evidence is pointing more to the peak probably being in the region of 2020-25.

I don't dispute that the net energy available from oil or equivalents (all liquids) is on the verge of peaking and entering a long term decline, I just dispute the timing and particularly statements about it already happening now.

I would urge Falcon to back up his position on this if he is able to though, with actual worked out figures based on the latest data ideally.

Other points I dispute relate to the actual impact of a reduction in energy available from oil, as I'm of the opinion that efficiency improvements and changes to alternative fuels would / could enable us to offset this decline without it causing too much of a problem.

And the importance Falcon regularly places on oil to the exclusion of all other energy forms, as it's only really oil that's in immediate danger of peaking, and viewing this as part of the overall energy mix helps to put this into context.

and a few other things.