Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")
- Thread starter Bernie_Gunther
- Start date
Monbiot's done an about face on global warming and big business. Quite an interesting article actually.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1574003,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1574003,00.html
George Monbiot + RSE Energy Enquiry
George Monbiot has written a new article in today's Guardian; he's asked some very good questions here: George Monbiot - It's better to cry wolf now than to wait until the oil has run out
As a reminder reference to his December 2003 article is found here: George Monbiot - Bottom of the Barrel
The Royal Society Edinburgh has recently asked interested parties for their views as to how Scotland (and UK) should address energy needs between now and 2050. Responses received to date are shown here: RSE Energy Enquiry - Responses Received . The majority of the responses, as might be expected, make no reference to PO but that of 'Depletion Scotland' most certainly does and also addresses the almost more urgent problem (for the UK) of steep natural gas output declines and consequences for electricity generation etc.
George Monbiot has written a new article in today's Guardian; he's asked some very good questions here: George Monbiot - It's better to cry wolf now than to wait until the oil has run out
As a reminder reference to his December 2003 article is found here: George Monbiot - Bottom of the Barrel
The Royal Society Edinburgh has recently asked interested parties for their views as to how Scotland (and UK) should address energy needs between now and 2050. Responses received to date are shown here: RSE Energy Enquiry - Responses Received . The majority of the responses, as might be expected, make no reference to PO but that of 'Depletion Scotland' most certainly does and also addresses the almost more urgent problem (for the UK) of steep natural gas output declines and consequences for electricity generation etc.
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article315546.ece
Saudi's just doubled their proven reserves.
pbman said:
Looking solely at that article, we can conclude:
at 9.5 million barrels per day from saudi alone, that comes to approx 100 days for 1 billion barrels
current stated reserves are 264 billion barrels, which, at current pumping rates, means 70 more years of oil from saudi. If they add the 200 billion barrels to their reserves, then saudi have nearly 130 years of oil left, assuming they find no more.
It says that saudi provide 10% of world oil, unfortunately the article doesn't tell us about saudi reserves compared to world reserves.
But the main man at exxon said we have 3 trillion barrels yet to be pumped, while estimating there were still 7 trillion to be discovered.
If the world consumes 95 million barrels a day, then the 3 trillion barrels gives us another 80 odd years, based on current usage.
Whereas if he's correct about the 7 trillion, then we have 270 odd years left of oil. Assuming no more is found on top of what he's talking about.
I think if these figures in that article are reasonable, that along with our expectations for new technology, we're bloody generations away from exhausting our oil. Therefore is there any such thing as 'peak oil' at the moment?
And if we have oil for the next 100-200 years, then for sure, by the time it runs out (if) then new methods of energy production will have been found through our advanced technologies.
Maybe 'peak oil' is crying wolf...
Agent Sparrow
the age of slippers and migraines
fela fan said:
Maybe the saudis over-report their reserves in order to get higher production quotas...
Agent Sparrow said:
Maybe the Saudis revised proven reserve estimates have been determined by replacing the old (1756) idea that oil derives from squashed Jurassic fish, with something much more sensible and rigorous, like modern (1950/60) inorganic theory, for example. Or maybe the Saudis are plain, untrustworthy lying A-rabs fiddling the numbers, as Simmonds, Campbell, Leherrere and now Monbiot the jolly Green Giant of the Gonad want us to believe. On the other hand, maybe all of these latter gentlemen have there own agendas.
Barking_Mad
Non sibi sed omnibus
bigfish said:
Everybody has an agenda. What's yours?
It's also interesting that Monbiot has backed down from his "peak oil is now" rhetoric to "nobody knows how much oil there is out there, plausible arguments can be made for nearly any level, so better to be safe than sorry".
What is true is the current known reserves of sweet crude are / have peaked, so unless big new discoveries are made a lot of investment is needed in different refinery capacity. Hence one reason for current high prices.
What is true is the current known reserves of sweet crude are / have peaked, so unless big new discoveries are made a lot of investment is needed in different refinery capacity. Hence one reason for current high prices.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Even if it were tru that the peak is a long way off, we've still got some short term problems for a few years. Whatever you think the reasons are for oil & gas available supply being very close to demand right now (I know we wont agree), there is certainly an energy problem right now. I notice it got upgraded to a 'crisis' on the TV news after Katrina, lets see when the crisis label disappears, that should tell us something.
Place all your faith in reserve statistics if you like, but the daily production figures are the thing that counts.
Back in the late 70's the output from Saudi was somewhere around 8.5 million barrels per day, and was projected to grow to 12.3 million barrels per day in 1984. Obviously all sorts of other stuff happened to oil price etc, so things didnt work out like that. I will be interested to see just whether Saudi ever manages to reach 12.5 million, 25 years later. If they dont then who knows, maybe they actually reached nealy the peak at the end of the 70's, and would be in steep decline by now if it werent for the recessions of the 80's etc that reduced demand, thus delaying the inevitable decline.
Im fully prepared to concede that we may not be at peak, only time will tell. I see plenty of evidence that something is changing, both in the oil market and in the wider world, the rhetoric used by our leaders, revised IEA forecasts, a gradual move in media coverage and how they treat the issue. Until a year or so ago the oil price rises were attributed almost solely to to the terror threat, this has changed quite a bit. If I had to bet, Id bet its a sign of impending decline, just have to stay alive another few months or years to see.
I repeat my call for those who are skeptical of peak oil to look at the refinery and light crude situation. Do you concede that part of the refinery problem is that there doesnt seem to be much currently available spare light crude output? Do you condece that only Saudi Arabia has the ability to add significant amounts of daily production to the global supply right now? But they dont have nice extra light crude, they have heavy sour stuff that needs refining. Apparently they are reducing the price of it a lot, way cheaper than the light sweet oil, to try to get people to buy it.
If all of this is true, then doesnt this suggest there may be a problem? If it can happen with light sweet oil, then eventually it will happen with all oil.
Do you even believe that Saudi Arabia is the only country with spare millions of barrels per day production? Thats what the media says, thats why its always up to Saudi to make big offers whenever OPEC meets, other OPEC members cant. Do you accept this? And if so, then doesnt the fact theres only 1 country left who can significatly increase supply, say bad things about the state of everyone elses ability to produce the oil we need? And if the concerns about Saudis ability to actually deliver are true, and Russias massive increase in oil output in recent years has finished (as it seems to ave done for now at least), then ooh brown pants time!
We hear bad news about the growth forecast all the time this year. Do you accept they are related? Do you think we'd have enough oil to survive the 4th quarter of 2005 if all countries growth this year met the forecasts?
If its a cold winter this year, you may get to see natural gas shortages coming into play in Britain and the USA this winter. I cant help but keep wondering how the dramatic decline in North Sea Oil & Gas, is compatible with theories about there being abundant supply and no danger of peak.
Place all your faith in reserve statistics if you like, but the daily production figures are the thing that counts.
Back in the late 70's the output from Saudi was somewhere around 8.5 million barrels per day, and was projected to grow to 12.3 million barrels per day in 1984. Obviously all sorts of other stuff happened to oil price etc, so things didnt work out like that. I will be interested to see just whether Saudi ever manages to reach 12.5 million, 25 years later. If they dont then who knows, maybe they actually reached nealy the peak at the end of the 70's, and would be in steep decline by now if it werent for the recessions of the 80's etc that reduced demand, thus delaying the inevitable decline.
Im fully prepared to concede that we may not be at peak, only time will tell. I see plenty of evidence that something is changing, both in the oil market and in the wider world, the rhetoric used by our leaders, revised IEA forecasts, a gradual move in media coverage and how they treat the issue. Until a year or so ago the oil price rises were attributed almost solely to to the terror threat, this has changed quite a bit. If I had to bet, Id bet its a sign of impending decline, just have to stay alive another few months or years to see.
I repeat my call for those who are skeptical of peak oil to look at the refinery and light crude situation. Do you concede that part of the refinery problem is that there doesnt seem to be much currently available spare light crude output? Do you condece that only Saudi Arabia has the ability to add significant amounts of daily production to the global supply right now? But they dont have nice extra light crude, they have heavy sour stuff that needs refining. Apparently they are reducing the price of it a lot, way cheaper than the light sweet oil, to try to get people to buy it.
If all of this is true, then doesnt this suggest there may be a problem? If it can happen with light sweet oil, then eventually it will happen with all oil.
Do you even believe that Saudi Arabia is the only country with spare millions of barrels per day production? Thats what the media says, thats why its always up to Saudi to make big offers whenever OPEC meets, other OPEC members cant. Do you accept this? And if so, then doesnt the fact theres only 1 country left who can significatly increase supply, say bad things about the state of everyone elses ability to produce the oil we need? And if the concerns about Saudis ability to actually deliver are true, and Russias massive increase in oil output in recent years has finished (as it seems to ave done for now at least), then ooh brown pants time!
We hear bad news about the growth forecast all the time this year. Do you accept they are related? Do you think we'd have enough oil to survive the 4th quarter of 2005 if all countries growth this year met the forecasts?
If its a cold winter this year, you may get to see natural gas shortages coming into play in Britain and the USA this winter. I cant help but keep wondering how the dramatic decline in North Sea Oil & Gas, is compatible with theories about there being abundant supply and no danger of peak.
If you've not already seen it the following article re light sweet crude, written after the issue of the OPEC August 2005 report is most pertinent to the section of post I've quoted above: OPEC Reveal Global Light Sweet Crude Peakedelbows said:
Saudi Aramco speaker at Offshore Europe 2005 conference indicated that SA could produce 12m bopd in 2010 (which is an increase of 1m bopd over 5 years v the 11m bopd SA told the conference it was producing now). See my post dated Sept 13, 2005, 0325 pm: Offshore Europe 2005 Conference . If we do indeed take SA at its word then an extra 1m bopd (presumably mainly heavy sour crude) over the next 5 years won't, on its own, do much to address the combination of 3.7% pa demand growth plus offset the increasing number of oil producer nations in decline. It will help but we really need a whole new Saudi every 3 years to sustain such demand growth.elbows said:
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Well now, it has been getting lively in here hasn't it?
Here's a question for those who assert that peak oil is a myth. Supposing for a moment that peak oil were not a myth, the indicated mitigations would involve changing our society and especially its infrastructure in order to maintain a decent quality of life while burning considerably less oil, gas etc.
Oddly enough, these are very much the same mitigations that are indicated for slowing down and eventually arresting anthropogenic climate change.
So my question to bigfish and co is this: "Do you also argue that these mitigations should not be put in place in order to address climate change?"
(this question relates to Barking_Mad's question about agendas over the page)
Here's a question for those who assert that peak oil is a myth. Supposing for a moment that peak oil were not a myth, the indicated mitigations would involve changing our society and especially its infrastructure in order to maintain a decent quality of life while burning considerably less oil, gas etc.
Oddly enough, these are very much the same mitigations that are indicated for slowing down and eventually arresting anthropogenic climate change.
So my question to bigfish and co is this: "Do you also argue that these mitigations should not be put in place in order to address climate change?"
(this question relates to Barking_Mad's question about agendas over the page)
To the above quoted extract from BG's post I'd add the question: 'reference my post dated Sept 13/05 re the exponential function and Dr Albert Bartlett's well known lectures re 'Arithmetic, Population and Energy' (referenced higher up this thread) do you still argue against mitigation steps to arrest and reverse the exponential demand growth which has been running at 3.7% for past 12 months?'Bernie Gunther said:
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
The overall trend is still skywards though, even if it dips for a year or two ...
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Yep, that's about what I think too. However, even if you think peak oil is a way off, or that the abiotic oil fairy will save us, then in terms of the mitigation, I don't see that it makes much difference. Moving to an economy based on solar flows is necessary as a mitigation in either case.slaar said:
If there is no immediate problem with oil/gas then the obvious implication is that there is still a very urgent problem about climate change, because no immediate limit on burning fossil fuels means you can keep on doing it, unless the necessary mitigation are put in place to slow the pace at which we're going through them. Unless of course you want to claim that climate change is also a myth.
A team from SAIC led by Dr Robert Hirsch produced a compehensive report on Peak Oil Mitigation for US DOE in February 2005 (I posted link a few pages back on this thread). Conclusion was that mitigation (on a 'Manhatten project scale') needed to commence 20 years prior to peaking to avoid major economic shocks. Agree report mainly addressed US where oil consumption per capita is much higher than almost anyplace else but all OECD and developing nations will need to implement major mitigation projects. On this basis mitigation is urgent even in the event of a delayed peak.slaar said:
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
No argument there zceb90. Also, that mitigation should take into account soil erosion, aquifer depletion, the phosphorus cycle and so on if it's to be truly sustainable. That has rather larger implications than "simply" replacing the entire infrastructure of petrol driven cars with nuclear/hydrogen driven ones and carrying on with business as usual in all other respects.
My guess is that bigfish's hysterical claims about abiotic oil are motivated by some sort of fear of the consequences of mitigation, just like pbman's equally hysterical claims about climate change. I've tried asking him this question in a number of ways before* and never got a straight answer, but this seems like one that's hard to dodge, so I'm quite interested to see what his answer is.
* see e.g. his wild thrashing about (and enthusiasm for the views on climate change of novelist Michael Crichton) on this thread
My guess is that bigfish's hysterical claims about abiotic oil are motivated by some sort of fear of the consequences of mitigation, just like pbman's equally hysterical claims about climate change. I've tried asking him this question in a number of ways before* and never got a straight answer, but this seems like one that's hard to dodge, so I'm quite interested to see what his answer is.
* see e.g. his wild thrashing about (and enthusiasm for the views on climate change of novelist Michael Crichton) on this thread
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Of course, anyone wanting a real discussion of the politics of sustainability could always try this thread instead of hiding behind theories that let them claim that a requirement for this sort of mitigation doesn't exist.
In one of my local shops today I met a toolpusher who, at the age of 60, is being offered all the work he wants, including offshore assignments. He told me that another driller whom we both knew and who had been 50 odd years in the business had just been to renew his drilling school certificate and was also being sought after for offshore North Sea work....and he's now 71. I've known both of these drilling hands for over 25 years and, to me, that's first hand evidence of the industry wide 'skills gap' in the sub 45 age group which numerous speakers including Simmons and Skrebowski have been referring to.
As well as discussing people shortage in the oil industry Matt Simmons in a recent interview reported that Saudi was searching extensively for suitable drilling rigs. Given that rig dayrates in N Sea, for example, have increased by 100% in past 12 months now's not really the ideal time to be seeking rigs whether for onshore or offshore work - good ones are hard to come by and the rates are extremely high. To me this is another pointer to those in the industry believing high crude prices are here to stay and that many more wells are required in Saudi to raise output and offset declines in mature oilfields. Remember, if these new wells are exploration / delineation wells as opposed to development wells then any consequent output increases are 3 to 4 years hence (for onshore projects) and 5 to 6 years hence (offshore / deepwater projects).
Above is certainly a pointer to supply bottleneck being much wider than simply a few refineries in US GOM being temporarily offline.
As well as discussing people shortage in the oil industry Matt Simmons in a recent interview reported that Saudi was searching extensively for suitable drilling rigs. Given that rig dayrates in N Sea, for example, have increased by 100% in past 12 months now's not really the ideal time to be seeking rigs whether for onshore or offshore work - good ones are hard to come by and the rates are extremely high. To me this is another pointer to those in the industry believing high crude prices are here to stay and that many more wells are required in Saudi to raise output and offset declines in mature oilfields. Remember, if these new wells are exploration / delineation wells as opposed to development wells then any consequent output increases are 3 to 4 years hence (for onshore projects) and 5 to 6 years hence (offshore / deepwater projects).
Above is certainly a pointer to supply bottleneck being much wider than simply a few refineries in US GOM being temporarily offline.
Here's a couple of peak oil links from this week:
32 page feature in the New Statesman this week:
http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/pdf/energysupp2005.pdf
(this is really impressive)
George Monbiot article in The Guardian this week:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,1578886,00.html
32 page feature in the New Statesman this week:
http://www.newstatesman.co.uk/pdf/energysupp2005.pdf
(this is really impressive)
George Monbiot article in The Guardian this week:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,1578886,00.html
Similar threads
- Poll
