RE: Educated Opinions on Climate Change . . . . Peak Oil 3

[ornerynorsk]

Not to derail the original thread from its focus of discussion on AGW, but the argument is often made that we are running out of fossil fuels.

Disclaimer (flashing lights and sirens) I am no geo or petro expert, not even a novice, not even by the furthest stretch of the imagination. With that in mind, let me bring up the subject of peak oil as it relates to some supposed successes the Soviets had with ultr deep wells and rejuvenation of wells which had apparantly suffered flow reduction to the point where, conventionally, they would have been abandoned and removed from service.

Interesting stuff, and I would very much like to hear back from folks who are genuinely knowledgeable in the field. Total bunk, something to it, or have we all been handed the deluxe bill of goods from big oil and our collective western governments?

It is better to have enough ideas for some of them to be wrong, than to be always right by having no ideas at all.

 

[KENAT]

hokie, for a long time the problem was supposedly that US regs (and I think California may have been even tighter but can't recall for sure) had lower permissible levels of particulates (soot) that were difficult to meet.

However like Zdas mentioned the newest diesels meet those requirements.

If qualification is now the issue that's pretty sad.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[cranky108]

Localy an oil company is looking to test drill for oil (This is not known as an oil producing area). So if the current production rate is about 20%, we haven't reached peak oil.

What we may have reached is peak oil at the limits of current technology. Future technology will surely have a peak oil, after several more limits of current technology.

But what will happen is as the price of oil goes up (it might go down too) new developments in both extraction technology, and alternitives will make new oil available, and new alternitives practical.

No peak oil, just a technology limit.

 

[moltenmetal]

TGS4: at $1.25/L, the fuel savings (EPA compared to EPA) came close to paying back the difference in cost at the time I purchased versus a Matrix, but that's an apples to oranges comparison. The Matrix is a much smaller and less comfortable car. The Prius is cheaper now then when I bought it.

The cost difference between the Prius and the new Venza is nearly zero, the cars are very similar in size and shape (Venza's a foot longer) but the Prius fuel economy is double, so that's a no brainer. Of course, our idiot neighbours across the street bought the Venza...fuel economy matters absolutely squat to some people.

Battery life is no problem- Vancouver taxi drivers have taken them 500,000km without a loss in fuel economy due to reduced battery performance. You can lose half the installed capacity before the hybrid efficiency is meaningfully affected.

Another benefit: 125,000km and the brakes are barely worn at all.

You need to block the grille in winter to keep it warm- helps noticeably with the fuel economy.

 

[TGS4]

moltenmetal - that info is much appreciated. Thank you.

Do you have a nice-looking grille cozy cover, or do you do like I did in college and use a length of cardboard and twist-ties (on the inside of the hood, of course - on the outside was too uncouth)?

 

[hokie66]

Ssd indeed about the diesel situation. Are any of the politicians saying they will rein in the EPA?

 

[SnTMan]

hokie66, Sen Jim Inhofe and few others try to keep EPA in check, for their efforts they are vilified by the usual suspects.

Regards,

Mike

 

[SomptingGuy]

I find it odd and contradictory that the USA is festooned with big trucks, all running on diesel, all running with super-duper tweaks to boost eficiency and combat emissions (fantastic pieces of engineering). Whereas the auto fraternity are still either shunning diesel or being hampered by the government(s).

- Steve

 

[jmw]

The SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders) reported (unofficially, we were having a CIMAC meeting in their premises) on the difference in diesel cars sold in the UK Vs Europe and linked it to the fact that in the EU the price of diesel was less per litre than for petrol while in the UK the diesel was more expensive than petrol.
They also said the reason LPG was not a viable fuel option in the UK though it was on the continent was because although the LPG was essentially surplus (whatever that meant) they believed that if they established significant sales in the Uk that the government would then impose far to high a tax on it. (I think this was also the SMMT but can't recall after all these years)

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[owg]

I think "essentially surplus" means the following. Oil refining makes a couple of percent of LPG whether we want it or not. Preparing "wet" natural gas for use produces some LPG whether we want it or not. The demand for LPG may be quite low. So its essentially surplus. It may be exported or some may even just be flared.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[moltenmetal]

"Essentially surplus" means "nowhere nearly as valuable to the refinery as gasoline or diesel". That's not the same thing at all of course- if everybody started to use it as motor fuel the cost would skyrocket.

TGS4: I use lengths of split foam pipe insulation sleeve material (the stuff you get from the hardware store for use on your hot water lines), stuffed around the grille trim from the outside and held on with a few black wireties. Not my idea- got it from a Prius forum- but it's cheap, doesn't look too bad and works well. Takes 15 mins or so to install. If you don't use the grille blocking, the engine will not shut down as often as it could.

 

[cranky108]

Strange how different fuels seem to stand out, or stand down in different govermental areas.

Gasoline started as a surplus from the making of Kerosene as lamp fuel.

Presently many farmers use Propane as a fuel. They have conversion kits and they say it keeps the engine cleaner.

If I recall the early diesels in the US were loud, and smelly, so many people diden't want them. But some imported German diesels did not have those problems. So the problems seemed to be limited to Detroit, and what they make, not to diesels themselves.

 

[owg]

cranky108 makes a very good point about co-products. While making whale oil substitute out of crude oil, no-one wanted the naphtha cut.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[owg]

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about early refining. "In the 19th century, refineries in the U.S. processed crude oil primarily to recover the kerosene. There was no market for the more volatile fraction, including gasoline, which was considered waste and was often dumped directly into the nearest river."

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[KENAT]

hokie66, lots of people talk big about reigning in EPA as about various other things.

As to how much gets done...

It does depend a lot on whose propaganda etc. you believe.

Posting guidelines faq731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

(probably not aimed specifically at you)
What is Engineering anyway: faq1088-1484​

 

[SomptingGuy]

Wasn't EPA the basic joke in that Simpsons film?

- Steve

 

[DrillerNic]

"What we may have reached is peak oil at the limits of current technology. Future technology will surely have a peak oil, after several more limits of current technology.

But what will happen is as the price of oil goes up (it might go down too) new developments in both extraction technology, and alternitives will make new oil available, and new alternitives practical.

No peak oil, just a technology limit."


Well, obviously.... and we've seen how new technology has changed things again and again (seismic in the 1930's; subsea engineering and diverless technology went from 350ft in the North Sea in the 70's- where the Norwegian Trench was too deep for a pipeline- to 10,000ft+ today; multiple fracs in horizontal wells, pioneered in the tight chalk reservoir offshore Denmark have opened up tight shale reservoirs).

Ultimately, unless you belieave in the Russian abiogenic oil theory (and I'm dubious) oil & gas are both a finite commodity. But there are areas of the world we haven't really looked for oil yet (East Africa, large chunks of India, South Atlantic, and strangly, large bits of the Middle Eat- why explore when you have the Gawhar Field?); and types of reservoir we haven't really exploited yet (offshore heavy oil, shale gas, methane hydrates, oil shales, tar sands).

And then we have increased technology increasing recovery factors: better imaging to see where the bypassed oil is at the field level (4D seismic) and well level (things like NMR logging, azimuthal resitivity logging) and technologies like horizontal drilling and slim hole infill drilling to get at the bypassed oil and stuff like miscible gas/ surfacatant injection to get more of it out (for example for the Clair Ridge development, BP are going against 50 years of North Sea experience and will use fresh water for the water injection, as they now think sea water injection is a bad thing for recovery factors).

Unless somehting very dramatic happens, oil & gas will still be around a century from now as a transport fuel- the use for electricity and space heating may decline (the amount of oil used for electricity generation is almost nill now). However, the main suppliers of oil & gas may be very diffferent form today and the main useers of oil & gas may also be very differnt from today!

 

[cranky108]

So we agree that the limit on oil production is technology and price. Two factors will affect those, as new technology is developed, the older technology will become cheeper, or disappear. The people who make the old technology don't want to go out of business, so they develop new technology, or a cheeper way to manufacture the old technology.

The price depends on development and consumption. If the price goes up, consumption will go down. If it stays up to long the customers will find alternitives. If development exceeds current consumption, (maybe because of cheeper old technology), then the price goes down, followed by an increase in consumption (That Seedoo may become fun again).

The problem is the people who predict these things don't see very far in the future. Or they get paid for saying what people want to hear.

Predicting peak oil is like predicting the horse races. Few of these people got rich on putting there money where there mouth is.

 

[owg]

cranky108 noted "If the price goes up, consumption will go down". This has certainly not been true for crude over the last 15 years as the link "

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2008/05/354-oil-supply-vs-prices.html"

should show. Perhaps he meant consumption will not go up so much. I suppose if world government posted the price at $200/bbl ($100 for the supplier and $100 tax to world government) supply and consumption would go down.

HAZOP at

http://www.curryhydrocarbons.ca

 

[GregLocock]

It'd go down a bit, but not that much. We already know what the USA's domestic oil use would look like in a $200/bbl world, as Europe has been there for ages.


Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[cranky108]

I supose there are some users that would take longer to reduce there consumption. And you are correct the responce to price changes lags at some time function of the price change.

This can be seen in the sale of car types. Big cars if the price of fuel is low. Smaller cars if the price rises.

I believe the largest change in consumption is in other than transportation fuels. The so called fun uses of motors.

On the other hand, if oil rises in relation to natural gas, there will be a shift to the less expencive fuel. Again it will take time, and may or may not be a sustained shift.