Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

totaladdict said:
So, why do you concentrate on food transport and not other things like fertiliser/farm machinery use? Is it because that's what people connect with more easily? Because the article would get unnecessarily complex otherwise? Because you don't want to imply some kind of 'going back to the land'? Or something else?

Whenever I've spoken to people about the subject of passing peak oil production transport is always the first thing people think of - usually in personal transport terms. The media will reflect that.

So, personal transport first, then transport of goods (esp. foodstuffs).

Most people just don't seem to think about the other uses of oil and it was good to see Adam's BBC article talking about plastics, pesticides, fertilizers etc.

The fact that peak oil is starting to seep into the conciousness of the mainstream media means that an increasing number of people will start asking 'what do we do about it?' and will look at oil based products with a view to seeking alternatives.

Once that happens I think the other agricultural uses of oil will become an issue. Certainly the fertiliser/pesticide issues will have resonance with a public that is largely sympathetic with organic farming as an idea. The implications of having to address the level of mechanisation of agriculture will be more difficult to swallow.


On a side note, can I just point out that this thread has now been going a year and congratulate everyone who has contributed on keeping it interesting, informative and, above all, civil for the whole of that period.
 
totaladdict said:
<snip> Obviously with that being the case the majority of energy (7 units) is used on the farm, whereas only 3 is in the transportation. (Unless I'm getting confused - bernie?)<snip>
From memory, the 3 is fertiliser, pesticides, irrigation etc. The 7 is everything else, which includes the whole processing (turning meat, wheat, corn, rice and soya beans into 'food') and distribution chain (supermarkets, refrigeration, packaging, etc), not just transport. It also includes the industrial stuff associated with e.g. fertilisers, but not counted directly, like feedstocks. Everything except actually cooking it.

I'll see if I can find a detailed reference for you online, I'm pretty sure I've seen it there someplace. (I don't have his book available to me right now)
 
Well I didn't find what I was looking for, but I did find an excellent piece called The Oil We Eat which has some very readable and interesting stuff about the US food system

I would also recommend Folke's rather drier agriculture page
 
Bernie Gunther said:
From memory, the 3 is fertiliser, pesticides, irrigation etc. The 7 is everything else, which includes the whole processing (turning meat, wheat, corn, rice and soya beans into 'food') and distribution chain (supermarkets, refrigeration, packaging, etc), not just transport. It also includes the industrial stuff associated with e.g. fertilisers, but not counted directly, like feedstocks. Everything except actually cooking it.

I'll see if I can find a detailed reference for you online, I'm pretty sure I've seen it there someplace. (I don't have his book available to me right now)
Ah, okay... it was this - "If it's just fertiliser and other farm stuff it's more like 7:1" - threw me off. If you do happen to come across some detailed stats it'd be cool to have a look. (I've looked around the folke gunther site loads of times now... it's a bloody handy resource!)

On another note, have there been stats about the proportion of oil energy that is used in agriculture posted in the thread? The stuff about household use is good, but something fuller would be good too. (If not, anyone have any handy or know where to look? - I guess some kind of country by country comparison would be nice too.)

(Oh, and Bernie... I see you don't follow MY links :mad: :D - I posted that oil we eat one a few weeks ago.)
 
For those wanting to keep up to date, NewsNow, now has a section devoted to the rising oil prices. Might be worth checking as they collate a good cross section of articles.

Click here
 
Oops, sorry about that totaladdict. I knew I'd read it someplace before, but I'd vaguely assumed I'd found the link on some previous visit to holon.se

Meanwhile, I've been re-reading Food, Land, Population and the US Economy which has a lot of very interesting stuff about the relationship between population density, standard of living and the energy efficiency of agriculture. Something especially interesting for the UK.
Similarly, European countries with a high population density, such as Germany and the U.K. have only 0.12 ha of arable land per capita, which is less than the arable land available per capita in India or Burundi.
Standard of living here is obviously higher, and the result is a much lower number of farmers per capita, with both labour productivity and land yield sustained by higher hydrocarbon energy inputs.
In conclusion, in countries with a high standard of living, an increase in population density results in a dramatic decrease of the output/input energy ratio in agriculture. The less arable land available per capita in these countries, the higher the consumption of fossil energy to maintain food production. Thus, the denser developed countries are populated, the more they will depend on fossil energy inputs to bolster their food security.
This suggests to me that there are several variables that need to be tackled to improve UK food security. The energy used to make farming economic for the farmer, and the energy used to raise yields are both possibilities. Given the problems of erosion etc that also need to be tackled to provide sustainability, my bet is that it's the productivity variable that's most accessible. Using industrial chemicals to boost per ha yield wrecks the soil and is unsustainable. More land could be reclaimed however, Cuban style.

The present UK approach is to have a tiny number of farmers, the labour productivity of each supported by lots cheap oil energy, so each can make a decent living relative to UK standards by working more ha per farmer. That seems to make less sense the more expensive the energy becomes. The question about where the rest of the energy goes also becomes vital when you look beyond the agriculture itself, because if a significant chunk of it disappears into the processing and distribution chain, that's also potentially recoverable by localising food production (as Folke suggests)

If that's done on a large enough scale, conflict with corporate interests is almost bound to arise, because a lot of money is made in the processing and distribution of food. One rather interesting possible benefit though, is that by localising, we raise the potential income of the farmer to the the point where farming becomes less dependent on energy inputs to boost productivity. This might permit the more labour-intensive approaches required for high-yield sustainable agriculture, for example Biointensive and similar methods. The losers though are food processing and distribution firms. Who are also hit by rising energy costs, but who are ultimately less necessary to food security. We don't have to process our food or distribute it nearly as much as we do, but we do have to have food of some kind. So if something has to give ...

The line of argument I'm suggesting here directly supports Tainter's thesis that we have levels of complexity in our food systems that are unsustainable.
 
Bernie - yes you are right you are not worthy ;)

Total - basically food transport was just one example...it would all get a bit messy if i ran through every impact. But its not because i know everything about it either...its just pretty immmediate and easily understandable (for me as well you understand).

atb
adz
 
pbman said:
Maybe you guys want to re think your position of giving china a total pass on koyoto? :rolleyes:
I can't be arsed to do all that unless, youe are seriouse. And i didn't percive that.
 
pbman said:
Maybe you guys want to re think your position of giving china a total pass on koyoto? :rolleyes:

But peebs, I thught that anything to do with the environment was to quote you "a circle jerk"?

Or are you, as usual, just being an ignorant mud-fucker?
 
ViolentPanda said:
But peebs, I thught that anything to do with the environment was to quote you "a circle jerk"?

Or are you, as usual, just being an ignorant mud-fucker?

No it not the topic that makes a circle jerk. :rolleyes:
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/12/business/12RESE.html?hp

An Oil Enigma: Production Falls Even as Reserves Rise

In the 1990's, many public companies used aggressive accounting gimmicks — some legal, some not — to satisfy investors' demands that they report higher earnings. Oil companies face similar pressures to build reserves. And intentionally or not, some companies may have booked reserves that are not technically or economically viable, said Matt Simmons, a Houston investment banker who has warned of a potential supply crisis. Outsiders have essentially no way to know whether estimates of reserves are accurate, he said.

"We're going to have another Shell," Mr. Simmons said. "They're not the only company that got optimistic on proved reserves." Neither Mr. Simmons nor anyone else is asserting that ChevronTexaco did anything illegal.

Once a year, companies announce their "reserve replacement ratio," telling investors whether they have found enough new oil and gas during the year to make up for their production.

Energy investors scrutinize the reserve replacement ratio more closely than any other measure of corporate performance, said Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst with Oppenheimer & Company. Every company aims to replace at least 100 percent of its production every year. And for the last decade, the industry's four giants, Exxon Mobil, BP, Shell and ChevronTexaco, have met that goal with remarkable consistency, at least until Shell's admission in January.

The fall in production at the big oil companies does not portend an immediate crisis in the industry. The four so-called supermajors produce only a small fraction of the world's oil; together, they extracted 3.2 billion barrels last year, about 10 percent of production worldwide. (Some analysts classify Total, a French company slightly smaller than ChevronTexaco, as a fifth supermajor.)

The supermajors control an even smaller share of global reserves. Together, the four companies have about 40 billion barrels of oil, or 4 percent of the world's proven reserves. They also have about 150 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to produce the energy of 25 billion barrels of oil.

At Exxon Mobil, oil reserves rose from 9.6 billion barrels at the beginning of 1994 to 12.1 billion barrels at the start of this year, a 26 percent increase. But Exxon Mobil's production fell 2 percent, from 909 million barrels in 1994 to 893 million last year.

At ChevronTexaco, oil reserves jumped from 6.9 billion barrels at the beginning of 1994 to 7.7 billion barrels in January 1998 to 8.6 billion barrels at the start of this year. But after surging from 644 million barrels in 1994 to 757 million in 1998, production plunged to 641 million barrels last year.

At BP, the data is considerably more confusing, because the company has had so many acquisitions and sales over the last several years. Still, BP's production at its wholly owned fields has plunged to 562 million last year from 672 million barrels in 1998, while its reserves have risen to 7.5 billion from 6.5 billion over that span.

(BP, ChevronTexaco and Exxon Mobil are all the products of mergers within the last decade; the reserves and production data reflect what the companies would have done if they had existed in their current form for the entire period.)

Shell has actually increased its production slightly since 1994, despite the embarrassment of its announcement in January that it had improperly classified billions of barrels of reserves as proven instead of probable or possible. Shell's admission shows just how muddied reserve data can be, analysts say; the reserves it reclassified are real, but they will not be developed for years because of technical and political problems, so they should not be called proven. In coming years, if those problems can be solved, Shell may be able to once again classify them as proven, said Jennifer Rowland, senior oil analyst at J. P. Morgan.

Now I'm wondering how will be solved those political problems...
 
http://www.nypress.com/17/22/news&columns/AaronNaparstek.cfm?page=1&last=6

THE COMING ENERGY CRUNCH
A $2 gallon of gas is just the beginning.


THE ELECTION-YEAR mudslinging over gas prices officially began on March 29, when Dick Cheney accused John Kerry of flip-flopping on his support for increased gas taxes. "After voting three times to increase the gas tax and once proposing to increase it by 50 cents a gallon," Cheney charged, "he now says he doesn't support it."

With gas prices rising to record levels, Kerry was only too happy the vice president brought up the topic. That evening, Kerry told the crowd at a San Francisco fundraiser that if the cost of a gallon kept creeping toward $3, "Dick Cheney and President Bush are going to have to carpool to work together. Those aren't Exxon prices, ladies and gentleman, those are Halliburton prices!" That zinger elicited a huge roar and zipped around the world as the sound bite du jour. It was such a hit, Kerry added it to his stump speech.

The Bush campaign struck back with a new television ad, entitled "Wacky." "Some people have wacky ideas," says a mildly sarcastic male voice. "Like taxing gasoline more so people drive less. That's John Kerry." A vaudevillian image of 12 guys in business suits riding a gigantic, clownish bicycle jitterbugs across the screen.

You can't squeeze a whole lot of policy detail into a 30-second ad or an evening-news sound bite. But after sifting through the rhetorical chaff on gas prices, the parameters of the current national debate on energy policy become clear.

For the Bush campaign, gas taxes are out of the question. There will be no discussion of, say, the wide-ranging benefits that Europeans have derived from their $5 per gallon, or the fact that we pay a gas tax to the Saudis rather than our own public coffers. Gas taxes are simply "wacky." You'd have to be even more "wacky" to talk about people driving less.

The message coming from the Democrats is equally demagogic. Though the Kerry campaign has issued policy papers focused on reducing American dependence on foreign oil (buried deep within the Kerry web site), in public he has tended to steer clear of discussing these ideas. Rather, he uses his airtime to criticize the president.

While crowds love Kerry's line about Bush and Cheney riding to work together, there is something disappointing about the Democratic nominee ridiculing the idea of carpooling. In addition to reducing traffic, car-sharing happens to be one of the fastest, cheapest, most high-impact ways that Americans can make real reductions in daily oil consumption. Car-sharing should be part of the Democratic platform, not a laugh line.

Kerry and the Democrats' other gasoline talking points are equally ill-advised. Telling the president to do a better job of "jaw-boning" the Saudis does not address the need to make America less beholden to foreign energy suppliers. Nor does the call to release oil from the Strategic Reserve.

The strategy for both campaigns so far has been pretty simple: Gas prices are rising rapidly. Blame it on the other guy. Present yourself as the guy who will make gas cheaper.

In the age of the 30-second campaign ad, we've come to expect this sort of approach to complex issues. It's the norm. But America is on the cusp of an energy crisis that is going to redefine the way we live—whether our leaders prepare us for it or not.

...

In 2000, there were 16 discoveries of oil "mega-fields." In 2001, we found eight, and in 2002 only three such discoveries were made. Today, we consume about six barrels of oil for every one new barrel discovered.

This year, 11 new mega-projects came online; next year, 18 will start producing. But by 2008 only three big new fields are scheduled to start flowing, with no new projects on track for 2009 or 2010.

...

The Oil Depletion Analysis Center estimates "the military costs of protecting pipelines and tanker routes, borne mainly by U.S. taxpayers, at around $15 to $20 per barrel."

...

His [Mat Simmons] final assessment of the Saudis is chilling. "We could be on the verge of seeing a collapse of 30 or 40 percent of their production in the imminent future, and imminent means sometime in the next three to five years—but it could even be tomorrow. If we need a plan B, it would sure be nice to know that with a little bit of advance warning."

...

Likewise, the U.S. economy has in the past been protected from the impact of energy price increases because energy costs have been so low and such a small percentage of total economic activity. According to Stephen Leeb, those days are coming to an end. "If the price of energy is only five percent of the total economy then increases aren't so important. When energy costs become 10 percent of the economy, that's significant. We're at about eight percent right now. That's very close to the tipping point."

When the tipping point comes, Americans will be compelled to live very differently than they do today. One leading American social critic, James Howard Kunstler, sees serious political and cultural turmoil up ahead as the way of life Americans have built over the last 60 years begins to break down. With decreasing access to cheap oil, Kunstler sees the fundamentals of industrial agriculture, manufacturing and retail trade changing significantly.

...

Unlike President Bush, who after the crisis of Sept. 11 asked the American people to go shopping, Kerry should ask something meaningful of the American people. He should ask every American to change at least one thing in their homes, workplaces and communities to make the nation a bit more independent of foreign energy. Americans would respond. We love self-help and personal transformation. It's our national religion.

In fact, only in the last few days, the Kerry campaign has started to head in this very direction, including more substantial discussion of energy in his campaign speeches. "A strong America begins at home," he said, "with energy independence from the Middle East... Our dependence on foreign oil is a problem we must solve together the only way we can: by inventing our way out of it. Let's ensure that no young American soldier has to fight and die because of our dependence on foreign oil."

Energy. Power. Change. These are the campaign themes of a presidential candidate worth electing this year.
 
This piece is in todays Guardian but I cant get on their website at the minute, so here's the BBC piece. I don't know much about the sequestration technique (anyone?) but his quote of,
"Sequestration is difficult, but if we don't have sequestration then I see very little hope for the world."
should make a few folk sit up and take notice.

Shell boss 'fears for the planet'


The head of one of the world's biggest oil giants has said unless carbon dioxide emissions are dealt with he sees "very little hope for the world". In a frank interview, Ron Oxburgh told the Guardian newspaper that climate change makes him "very worried for the planet". He said a technology to trap harmful emissions, blamed by many scientists for climate change, must be developed.

But he said he feared "the timescale might be impossible". "No one can be comfortable at the prospect of continuing to pump out the amounts of carbon dioxide that we are at present," said the Shell boss. "People are going to go on allowing this atmospheric carbon dioxide to build up, with consequences that we really can't predict, but are probably not good." He said a technique called carbon sequestration urgently needs to be developed to capture greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide, so they can be stored underground, rather than be allowed to enter the atmosphere. "You may be able to trap it in solids... and probably have to put it under the sea, but there are other possibilities. "Sequestration is difficult, but if we don't have sequestration then I see very little hope for the world."

His comments echo those of government chief science adviser David King, who declared in January that climate change was a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism, and blamed the US for failing to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. Lord Oxburgh continued: "You can't slip a piece of paper between David King and me on this position." The remarks are likely to anger other bosses within the oil industry who argue a link between the use of fossil fuels and global warming has not been established.

Lord Oxburgh took the top slot at Shell in March and was charged with restoring its battered image. The company had been rocked after it was found to have overstated its oil and gas reserves, which led to the departure of former boss Philip Watts and several top executives. Two months ago Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking at the launch of an international campaign aimed at speeding up greenhouse gas emission reductions, said there was "no bigger long-term question facing the global community" than the threat of climate change.
 
Oil price climbs on Iraq attacks

Saudi Arabia's plan to increase production has cooled record prices
The price of crude oil has climbed after saboteurs attacked pipelines across Iraq, all but halting output. Investor concerns were also amplified by the bomb attacks that on Thursday claimed more than 40 lives in and around the capital, Baghdad. Oil-cartel Opec is planning a boost in production to soothe market nerves but fears persist that a major disruption to supply will lead to a shortages.

Crude rose 1.3% to $37.80 in New York and was trading at $35.64 in London.

While that is well below the record of almost $42 set last month, analysts are wary of predicting a drop in crude prices and many have said that the days of cheap oil are over. Opec admitted on Thursday that the world's thirst for crude had taken it by surprise and forecast that demand would increase even further in the second half of this year.
 
I was wondering what people thought of using vegetable oil as a replacement for petrol? For anyone not in the know it is possible to convert your car to run on vegetable oil. (originally diesel engines were apparently designed to run on peanut oil) After doing a little reading it would appear that there are some excellent advantages to using vegetable oil as a replacement, namely:

It takes far less energy to produce vegetable oil - if vegetable oil is used to power harvesting machines then we can create a totally renewable energy source.

Bio-diesel has the advantage that it can be used in almost all diesel cars without conversion and it feeds from the same vegetable oil pool but the process of converting the oil involves the use of toxic chemicals.

Carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas, with concentrations in the atmosphere rising at approximately 0.5 per cent per annum. The United Kingdom alone contributes an estimated 2 per cent to global man-made emissions of carbon dioxide.

Waste oil works just as well as fresh oil so its most sensible to use the oil for cooking first then filter out all the bits and use it for fuel.

Unlike petroleum-based products, vegetable oils are biodegradable, nontoxic, and are derived from a renewable resource. When used as a fuel, they produce nearly 100 percent less greenhouse gases than petroleum-based diesel fuels (see sidebar), and when used as motor oil they improve gas mileage by more than 3 percent and reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions by 75 percent, according to Ford.

Any waste products from vegetable oil filtering and handling can be composted.

Nitrogen oxide emissions are roughly the same with vegetable oil and DERV

Perhaps most importantly it is said to be 'carbon-neutral' ie it wont beadding any excess carbon into the atmosphere due to how it breaks down and is absorbed. It's also very cheap (at present) with one guy's website saying that he can run his car to the cost of 26p per litre ('high end costs are around 40p per litre) . Of course if this ever became a popular alternative the Govt would no doubt be taxing it at a much higher rate than it is currently. The conversion kits are currently quite reasonably priced, ranging from £300 to around £1000, which considering the savings on fuel and benefits to the environment is a pretty good trade off I'd have thought. You can also use waste oil, for example cooking oil, which once filtered can be bought for 15p a litre, or if you filter it yourself 7p a litre.

There are some practicle downsides to using it, mainlythe amount you'd need to fuel mass transit. According to figures we grow around 2 million tonnes of oilseed rape per yer which yields 0.6 million tonnes of rapeseed oil, which works out about 5% of UK diesel consumption. This is a drop in the ocean for diesel consumption and of course doesnt take into account the massive market share of petrol consumption. If my maths is right, we'd need 340 million tonnes of rapeseed oil in order just to meet the levels of diesel usage. Alternative sources also include soya and sunflower oil which work just as well. Other obstacles include the temperature at which the oil works. It's not particularly good in very high or very low temperatures, although scentists are apparently working on alterting the molecular structure of it in order to make it more 'stable'. Other problems are mainly due to smell, I understand it smells a bit like a fast food restaurant, but I'd have thought this could be overcome at some point.

Perhaps Bernie could comment on this as he knows far more about farming and use of land than I, but you get the impression, unfortunately, that although this might work on a low consumption level its not the solution to our fossil fuel problem. Anyway, just a few ideas

A few links:

http://uk.srd.yahoo.com/S=11111254/...=WS1/R=3/*-http://www.geocities.com/vegoilcar

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0422_030422_veggiefuels.html

http://www.journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_svo.html
 
The quick answer, as you've seen I think, is that the demand for fuel is so high with respect to the acreage required to grow biofuels as an alternative way for us to meet that demand, that it is likely to compete problematically with our food needs. I'll dig out some specific figures when I have more time later today.

You can look at the problem this way, oil is a concentrated accumulation of many thousands of years of biomass growth, whereas biofuels are presumably made from current harvests of biomass. Where are we to grow all that stuff?

Of course, biofuels might make more sense in the context of greatly reduced demand. Not as a direct substitute for fossil fuels assuming present demand
 
I think that would be the best use of them, at least in the short term. If you could use this alternative in specific areas and as part of a general diversification away from fossil fuels than it would certainly have its part to play as you'd be saving fossil fuels for more important processes. But as you rightly pointed out you'd probably have to knock down cities to grow the amounts you need! It's a shame the government isn't using this sort of area to push diversification. I'm sure some areas of transport could be switched over to this - it would be a start if nothing else
 
This is still the best thread that has ever been on Urban75. I started reading this over a year ago, and it still hasn't deteriorated. Congratulations to you all, especially Bernie, Barking and adzp.
Cheers.
 
kropotkin said:
This is still the best thread that has ever been on Urban75. I started reading this over a year ago, and it still hasn't deteriorated. Congratulations to you all, especially Bernie, Barking and adzp.
Cheers.
Nice of you to say so kropotkin, but I think serious plaudits are also due to nano, for giving us some good honest challenges to deal with.

I think that dialogue was what made this thread so good in the first place.

I'd also like to note the sterling contributions of BackatchaBandit, slaar, freke, davekriss, laptop, infobomb, bigfish, atitlan and many others, and rather more recently the arrival of totaladdict and truestory who seem intent on keeping it interesting.
 
Self congratulatory backslapping all round. :) Anyone wanting to do a research paper on this subject could do no better than to read this thread. Well done all.
 
Barking_Mad said:
Self congratulatory backslapping all round. :) Anyone wanting to do a research paper on this subject could do no better than to read this thread. Well done all.

Research paper?

How would one go about getting the thread awarded a collective PhD?

Dr*0.02 laptop
 
Funnily enough me and mate over here in sunny catalunya are thinking of trying to make our own biodeisel...

Its a bit complicated but i can put up and align and tune in sat dishes nowadays so it cant be as fiddly as that...

This place has a `recipe`:
http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html

I want to become a Bio-Petro-Baron and wear furs and have gold necklaces for my African pets and live on my yacht...ooops giveaway...
 
Yeah, one of my mates is currently doing just that. He is doing a joint Centre for Alternative Technology/ Uni. Brighton Masters in sustainable energy and architecture.... his project is on making either bio-diesel from vegetable oil, or another technique which uses an algae (much better energy density for growing).

Very interesting stuff.
 
Any links to his work or stuff he uses?

Does he plan to have any private zoos/solid gold Fedoras/personal carrying assistants? I know I have...oops giveaway again...
 
Back
Top Bottom