peak oil production in 2009? - what next? 18

[davefitz]

There are rumblings that the peak in world oil production may occur in 2009, and that the demand for oil is increasing very rapidly in developing countries ( China , INdia) .

There does not seem to be any effort being made in the USA to reduce the rate of consumption or to reduce demand. Simple efforts such as the following are not being used :
a) increase CAFE ( auto gas mileage )
b) improve mass transit in major cities ( Seatle, Houston, LA, etc)
c) propaganda which is aimed at changing attitudes toward energy consumption.

What is the most likely end result in 2009 if noone takes steps to prepare for this event?

 

[davefitz]

Gregolock:
Well, I was careful enough to use quotation marks on "proof". According to some philospphers, we can never know anything, there is no proof to anything, blah blah blah...

The way many conventional economists explain the growth and stability of nation's economy, they relate the growth in wealth to the increase in energy consumption. Of course, one can alternatively say there is no cause and effect relationship, and that it is just coincidental. In particular, the relationship of energy consumption and wealth per capita seems to have reversed in some EU countries lately.

In any case , if the demand for oil increases faster than the rate of production increases, then the cost for oil must increase so as to reduce demand, at a rate related to the flexibility to switch to alternate fuel or alternate ways of lifestyle. To the extent these demands are inflexible, there can be sorts of crises developing .
( I know, no-one needs to review economics 101)

I do not know of anyone that is refuting the basic premises at <

http://www.peakoil.net>,

viz, that there will be a peak in oil production in the near future. I also do not see any efforts to make the demand for oil more flexible in the US. It seems as though we are looking for trouble
( what, me worry?).

 

[DrillerNic]

Most people accept that there is a finite supply of oil, but as Sheikh Yamani (ex- head of OPEC) said, "the stone age did not end for a lack of stones"! The oil age will porbably end when a better fuel is developed, not because the oil ran out.

I've done reserves audits, so I know that one of the key parts of working out how much oil there is left in a field is the oil price; ALL reserves figures are based around economics. Change the price and you get more oil. The last field I looked after has had a repreive due to sustained $30 oil- it was due to be abandoned next year, and now they are working over three wells and abandonment is slated for 2008. And the world's Proved and Proabable reserves of oil are increasing:

http://www.bp.com/subsection.do?categoryId=95&contentId=2006480

(This is probably the best and most respected sets of energy statistics you'll find).

Having read a lot of the Peak oil stuff, one of the funny things is watching the younger Earth Scientists still working in the oil & gas industry arguing with this guy who retired from the industry some time ago! I'd go with the guys still in the industry!

And don't forget there are problems with the Hubbert curve: it's only valid for clearly defined, separate basins; the Hubbert curve for discoveries in the US has recently gone up due to an brand new basin, the Deep & Ultra Deep Gulf of Mexico, for example. Then think about the untapped basins off the Florida Gulf Coast, the Eastern US seaboard (there's oil onshore in teh Eastern US and there's quite a bit of oil offshore in the Canadaian Atlantic coast so ther's proabably oil in the US Atlantic coast. The same reasoning works for offshore California.) So now extend these problems of using the Hubbert curve globally: how does the Hubbert curve account for totally unexplored basins world wide- Southern Atlantic, the huge sedimentary basins of East Africa and so on?

At the same time, using less energy is a good step: the EU uses less energy per head for a similar GDP per head. But then fuel is heavily taxed in Europe, so fuel efficiency and small cars are popular....

 

[jmw]

DrllerNic,
No, sorry, you can't include California.

It doesn't matter what they have off-shore, new finds or old, it cannot be touched.

These guys/gals would prefer not to spoil there wonderful state with nasty offshore oil exploration. Bad enough to have all that nasty horrible black stuff oozing up through the ground at La Brea, without having oil on the beaches; no thanks, they'll meet their energy needs (and water) from out-of-state resources, and, by the way, they are going to cap the price they pay.

While CA may be a leader in many environmental issues, with some tough calls on emmissions, and while they will restrict oil production, it doesn't necessarily extend to cutting their usage to match their own production.
This is the NIMBY state.

http://www.cfact.org/site/view_article.asp?idCategory=7&idarticle=252

Talk about SUVs, is this the state with the highest ownership of the mother of all SUVs, the HumVee? er, and doesn't/didn't the new Governor have one?


JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[DrillerNic]

JMW- I'm not that worried about California: the Newfoundlanders opposed oil exploration off the Grand Banks for decades, and now they're getting upset because there's not enough drilling going on. I'm sure California will change their ides if the lights start to go out!

 

[moltenmetal]

The Newfoundlanders opposed drilling until the fish ran out. Then they were all for it. 25%+ unemployment might have something to do with it.

Doubt similar circumstances will EVER motivate California or British Columbia to go the same route.

 

[jmw]

Here is an interesting article about reserves that addresses the issue of the currebt focus on the easily accessible and economically processable light oil reserves.
Heavy oils and bitumen/asphalt (also orimulsion, see orimulsion thread on this site)are more expensive to extract and process and emissions are more complex to deal with.

As we deplete the light oils ("cherry-picking"? or is this "low-hanging-fruit in management jargon?) then the economics of heavy oil processing become more attractive.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs070-03/fs070-03.html

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[moltenmetal]

Exactly as I said in my original post. There's no worry about running out of fossil fuels anytime soon. There IS a concern that as we wantonly burn through the existing, light stuff, we'll have to bring on more and more heavy stuff (tar sands bitumen AND coal) to keep up. These fuels are characterized by both a higher cost of extraction and a higher cost in CO2 emission per BTU of heat produced, than natural gas or light oils.

What it means is that from a greenhouse gas emissions perspective, as consumption increases and light oil and gas reserves deplete, our problems will be getting WORSE at an increasing rate. Prices will go up too, but not fast enough to stem wasteful consumption.

 

[jmw]

Excuse me Davefitz, if i pre-empt your thread and start part two for the 56kers.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.