Peak Oil

spangbr:

You have the "theory" wrong. The fact of the matter is the the peak of oil production has already happened or son will. Perhaps it would not matter except for one very large concern: accelerating demand.

Alternatives certainly are available but none were ever developed far enough to offer comprehensive solutions, even within decades from now. There was a time (the 1970's) that it would have been possible to get a huge alternative energy infrastructure in place prior to the critical point of peak oil. But instead we elected an actor to the presidency.

Well let's see,

Peak oil has come and gone in most countries, Iran [that is why they want nuclear power they will be dry in 20 years] Saudi Arabia [has peaked they have plenty left but expensive remedial work is neccesary] Egypt [has good reserves but 50% of there production is saved for national consumption] The North Slope of Alaska [peaked 10 years ago and nothing new to jump up and down about] The rest of the world is marginal at best. Exploration does weakly continue as does new way's to interpret seismic data.
Russia is sitting in the drivers seat as far as reserves go. This is one of the reasons the Carlyl Group sent G.H. Bush and Henry Kissinger to Russia a couple of months ago with 18billion dollars to negotiate a deal for "Chevron" to acquire some oil. Small freak'in world at it Condolece Rice
Oh by the way, please convince me that this war is not about oil

Polar Bear

LMAO, can't convince anyone of that You seem very well informed in this matter, only recently have I revisited the question and found answers consistent with those from over two decades. In 1985, a successful consulting petroleum geologist, who at the time was teaching a portion of a university class, informed the students that we had fifty years of reserves (given the rate of extraction at the time). Then over the course of my career as a geologist, I gathered from older geologists that indeed, the supply was shortening rapidly. Of course, I've also seen various web presences become more emphatic as time passed.

One thing that is very bothersome is that some records from petro industries (logs, wireline readings, etc.) may not be accessed by the public. Such "confidential" documents are apparently common; I first encountered some when doing research at a state geologic survey library. But I remain convinced after getting solid opinions that reserves are past or near peak production. It seems the effects will be coming on shortly, if they're not already being seen. And over about a decade, the economy of the world will slide into a depression due to demand vs. supply issues, because economic expansion is coupled closely to oil usage. I'm not absolutely sure though, have you considered a timeframe?

I think what would be helpful is a practical discussion of how this is going to affect our lives. I've been going round and round with people now for months about whether this is a real issue or just paranoia.

There is so much misinformation floating around that it is hard to say what the truth is. The main problem is we don't have an accurate estimate of global reserves. Individual countries and corporations consider such info to be classified. Assuming that official Saudi and Russian press releases reflect reality is just whistling past the graveyard. My personal opinion is the Petroconsultant's report from a few years ago is probably the most accurate.

The questions I have at present are more practical.

Should I sell my house now at the peak of the market? If so, I would be able to buy later after the crash, and the extra money would come in handy.

How best to deal what is likely to be a severe economic depression coupled with inflation caused by energy price increases.

What happens psychologically to masses of people when they realise the lives they've planned for no longer exist?

Will the power grid remain functional? If it does break down will it do so selectively: blackouts in rural areas causing people to crowd into the cities? I assume that the government will attempt at all costs to keep the grid operational as long as it can. This may well mean converting to coal. But the mining and delivery of coal is a function of oil products. Coal will be expensive and may not be easily available.

At what point does farming with a plow and mule become more profitable than using a tractor? $10/gal .. $15/gal? Remember that pesticides and fertilizer are petroleum products.

How will people deal with the fact that there is no immediate bottom to this catastrophe? Things will get worse and then worse again. People can cope for a while, but what happens when the descent appears interminable? At some point a generation will hit bottom and begin to claw it's way back up; but the easily available resources will be gone ... forever.

I expect that 2004 and perhaps 2005 in retrospect will represent the peak of Western technological civilization. We need to prepare, but we also need to enjoy these last months too before the news becomes all doom and gloom and everything changes.

Many of us won't make it through the next couple of decades. I won't for sure. I am already old. But I've lived through the most incredible time in the history of the planet. All of us who experienced the last half of the last century and all it offered us should be thankful. It never happened before, and it will never happen again.

Does not the government pay farmers a subsidy NOT TO GROW crops on some of their land? Is that an urban myth? Seems to me there is alot of land unfarmed that could be used to grow crops that would provide the vegetable oil needed. Crops for vegetable oil could be grown hydroponically in warehouses. Not everybody NEEDS to drive an internal combustion vehicle. Hybrid vehicles and electrical vehicles are always an option. WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO STAKE OUR LIVES AND FUTURES ON GASOLINE?? There is also Bio-methane and wood methane as well as ethanol. Not to mention Bush's favorite HYDROGEN FUEL CELLS.

Actually, I'm not certain due to the complexity of the 'systems collapse' and the manifold failures over time. But the timeframe, over which most major changes are likely to occur, probably will be a decade.
However, this is unlike most shocks that culture has experienced. Perhaps the oil crises of the 1970's provide the best analog, if extrapolated. Though I was a young teen in a small town, I noted a few effects. Time for me to study a little more history.

You're right IMHO, that the last several decades have been the finest ever. There have been times over the last several years that I've felt, and told people, that "this is the golden age." Looks like it will stretch out out a little more. And hopefully people will learn to work together. Being that the process of system failures may be gradual, that might give people time to accept it and change. Of course I'm not holding my breath...

I completely agree that alternatives have to be used in a big way, now. Such items and operations (a vast infrastructure) need to be in place prior to failures caused by expensive oil. But I still find fault in the vegetable oil alternative for the same reason that ethanol is inefficient. It takes more energy to produce it than can be derived from it. The only way such ideas could be put into use would be if there were someone willing to bankroll the entire, huge operation without getting any profit.

Our entire economy is based on cheap petroleum. Even one of the most critical commodities to the functioning of every aspect of the culture we rely on, electricity, is primarily derived from petroleum. Sure, retrofitting all plants to coal would get things going, but how much more will coal cost? (The equipment used to mine, process and deliver it run on... you guessed it.) And the pollution produced by coal is horrendous, even in the Middle Ages, London passed a ordinace banning the burning of it. Then in modern times, acid rain caused the limiting of it's use.

The hydrogen fuel cell seemed promising but I don't think Bush did his homework (surprise). As I understand it now, the gas is merely an energy carrier. Perhaps I am betraying my ignorance, but I'm not sure how efficient it could be as compared to petrocarbons. Besides, how many people can (or will) get alternative-fueled vehicles soon enough? While we are not facing a single apocalyptic event, it appears that the pressures of much higher costs are beginning.

I think the forced (and the dwindling supplies will force) conversion from a hydrocarbon-powered industrial world will, in fact, cause extreme geopolitical machinations.

I also think we should view it as the next great industrial revolution. It is only at the point that the "dope" the world's populace is dependent on is no longer attainable (either physically or economically) that the conversion to new energy sources will take place.

Long story short, oil and hydrocarbon-byproducts are going to continue to increase in price. The conversion is going to be expensive. But there will be a whole new group of resource masters that some one will get call the NWO.

The debate about cooking up hydrocarbons keeps getting hotter.

Some scientists insist that all petroleum comes from abiogenic processes, with hydrocarbon development occurring in the Earth's mantle.

Most geochemists and petroleum geologists remain convinced that crude oil and natural gas have organic origins.

Look for this dispute to intensify in 2003, with new heat coming from an unexpected venue. In June, AAPG's typically sleepy Hedberg Conference could be the spark that sets off scientific fireworks.

Hedberg conferences address topics proposed by AAPG's Research Committee. They take place in informal settings, with attendance limited to 80-100 persons.

On June 9-12, however, a Hedberg Conference will be held in London with the theme "Origin of Petroleum -- Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production."

"The timing is right," said Barry Katz, a ChevronTexaco Fellow in Houston and a member of the conference's program committee. "Historically, what has been the big issue is that there's essentially a Western and an Eastern school of thought.

"On the Western side, we've gone through what you've typically done in the scientific method," he noted. "The Russian arguments have been just that, arguments. We have yet to get them in a room to see what they have on the table."

Katz said he hopes the leading theorists from both sides will attend, so "we can have a balanced view and get everybody to talk to each other. That's what the Hedberg conferences are all about."

more www.aapg.org...


Guess who this is for?

If abiogenic oil were discovered in commercial quatities as vast as they may be, gasoline would go to a nickel a gallon and the ecology would go to hell !

Tut Tut

Probably because a gallon of vegetable oil would cost $3-$4. That is not very cost effective. What about all of the regular gasoline engines? They would still need to run on petro.

[Edited on 3-17-2004 by nyarlathotep]

There is a trucking company in Phoenix Az. and run all there equipment on recycled veg oil from resturants deep fry'ers.
Wish I had a link for you, your just gonna have to trust me on this one.

Tut Tut

DON'T FORGET THE GREAT WHITE HOPE.........ZERO POINT ENERGY!!

That makes sense. I didn't think about that. No need for the link. Thanks.

Solutions are much needed, there were also Welsh diesel-owners who did the same but received citations from law-enforcement (source: NPR, 2002). Apparently, the material is a highly polluting fuel. And unfortunately it is doubtful that such hydrocarbons could ever replace even a small percentage of petrocarbon usage. How efficient is it to grow cereal using petroleum-intensive farming methods, transport it, then extract the oil? Certainly, a much more energy-efficient means must be developed or nothing will come of the idea. The only way it is in operation to a tiny degree now is that recycled oils are obtained "free" from deep fryer waste. And besides the pollution and awful smell, it is dubious that the fuel does much for the long-term operation of an engine designed for diesel.

QUOTE (groingrinder): "Does not the government pay farmers a subsidy NOT TO GROW crops on some of their land? Is that an urban myth? Seems to me there is alot of land unfarmed that could be used to grow crops that would provide the vegetable oil needed."

True, there are subsidies to farmers for fallow land. Of course, the overwhelming bulk of arable acreage is in production for profitable crops. While often they are scarcely worth the effort to harvest due to commodity markets, large operations (READ: burning much fuel) and using petroleum-derived pesticides can make profits. In order for them to maintain profit, hence viability to operate, they must sell crops at a sufficient price. Are farmers expected to foot the bill for cheap fuel? You can bet the farm that those ol' boys would want to take you hunting twice and bring you back once.

QUOTE (tutenkamen): "On June 9-12, however, a Hedberg Conference will be held in London with the theme "Origin of Petroleum -- Biogenic and/or Abiogenic and Its Significance in Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production."

Certainly it would be an industrial age wet dream for the Earth to produce all the hydrocarbons we could ever pump. But all it amounts to is gaseous exhalations. Sure, the crystalline basement rock is producing hydrocarbons, though all gas, with the inclusion of helium. The latter material is noble and is useless for energy unless fusion can be developed. Other materials are also outgassed from the crust in huge amounts, mercury for one. And if such vast processes are ongoing, why aren't the presently tapped reserves filling back up? After all, they are ideal places for oil to accumulate, beneath impervious geologic structures.

The sources cited earlier are indicative of worldwide peak oil production occuring in 2000. Despite rising demand and prices, why doesn't all the postulated petrocarbon production just fill 'er up? The organic origin of commercial reserves is very well established not only by fossils but also geologic sequences. As noted from the AAPG reference, "However, even the Russian scientists he has worked with accept the organic origin of petroleum found in large, commercial accumulations." And, as Lewan eludicadtes,
"Significant scientific advances over the last 40 years have tested, modified and refined the organic theory for petroleum formation in the Earth's crust," Lewan said.

"It is unfortunate that Kenney et al. have chosen to ignore these efforts of other competent scientists, and elevate their inorganic theory on the misconception that the organic theory is based on carbohydrates being the source of petroleum."

And why would oil companies pour lots of money down a hole, literally, on a theory, one that ignores volumes of findings and research? Perhaps once oil is $100/bbl, it may be profitable for such explorations, that is if the theory is validated.

Reluctantly, I'm finding that an energy crisis of worldwide proportions soon will begin. Though I am generally optimistic, there are no alternatives widespread enough to be viable, IMHO, that can prevent our economy from suffering greatly. Because petroleum is literally the lifeblood of all facets of westernized society, expensive oil means expensive everything. Though inflation is not now a problem, it would be symptomatic of these petroleum concerns.

Just think if the billions of dollars the US is currently spending was for researching and building the alternative energy infrastructure of the future and not wasted on fighting over the last few drops of oil in the world.

All that research money wasted on bunker-busting bombs.

Don't be surprised if we end up in Venezuela soon with Haiti as a launching point. And anywhere else where there is enough oil to kill for.


And to think, they're only worried about being in control of the remaining oil so that they can sell it at outrageous prices to a dying world.

It's all about profit. Short term goals.

The war is most certainly about oil and about making sure that we in
the U.S. have access to it. As was stated earlier world oil production
peaked in 2000, While U.S. production peaked in 1970 meaning that while
there is still a lot of oil (about 1/2 of the worlds known reserve) but the rate that we can pump it from the ground is decreasing and at the same time becoming more expensive as it costs more and more to drain a well to the point that that it requires more energy to extract a barrel of oil then the energy that the same barrel can produce. At which point the well is considered dead. The prices will continue to rise as production slows.

Add to this the fact that world demand for oil is exploding (see China,
whose demand for oil increased 40% in 2004 alone)

Check out Hubberts peak
www.hubbertpeak.com...

At first he was ridiculed and after being proven right his system
is considered the standard

Also consider that the U.S. DOE openly admits that they
reverse engineer There energy estimates!! meaning that
they take the projected demand and then they work the numbers
to show that we can meet that demand.
If you believe the Saudis claim that they cannot increase production
by more than 100,000 barrels a day. (an insignificant amount BTW)
then Iraq happens to be the only country on earth who immediatly
and significantly increase production.

We know why we're there and we might not like the way the U.S.
is trying to secure freindly oil for us to consume, but the alternatives
are frightning, look around you right now. How much plastic do you
see?? The crisis isn't coming. The crisis is on us now!!
As we slowly cross over the peak of the "bell curve" just like a roller
coaster about to make that big drop.

Since this thread was begun in March of 2004, how much have gas prices increased? And by what percentage was that increase? It appears that price hikes are on the order of about 60% since that time only seventeen months ago.

Of course, this is a result of simplistic economics - supply and demand. Increasing pressure on diminishing supplies, to further state the painfully obvious, is driving the cost ever higher. Unfortunately, the entire economy is very closely linked with the combustion of petrocarbons. As a result, inflation is inevitable. Barring massive intervention(s), inflationary pressures could soon bankrupt millions.

The only question now is what to do about it. Certainly maintaining the present course is absurd. And yet that is exactly what is happening. SUVs and trucks suck gas as if there were no tomorrow and cars do little better. Nuclear power remains a minor source and hydrogen fuels cells only a technical feasibility. But the infinite wisdom of the US Congess results in an energy policy that ignores fuel economy standards. To digress, a quote is appropriate here, "Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress... But I repeat myself." --Mark Twain

Competition for the remaining petroleum reserves will be fierce, already wars are fought for such control. Because demand is so much higher now than when the first oil well was drilled in 1859, the now-highly depleted supply certainly can not last long. Also there are now manifold uses for this unique raw material besides fuel, including: pharmacuticals; farm, industrial and household chemicals, and; plastics. So the demand by the various industries increasingly subtracts more from the remainder.

Alternatives are being developed, but there is of course no guarantee. As mentioned, little is in the pipeline, so to speak. In order to develop alternative energies, it takes energy itself. Not only does the development take energy, but much more so does the building of production facilities and infrastructure, etc. Wouldn't it be better to develop such technologies while there is a relative abundance of petroleum? It will only became more costly with time, indeed, each day. Should we leave ourselves with only expensive petroleum and more expensive alternatives?

Even if one thinks that petroleum will not become scarce within a short time, does anyone care about the future of their children? Or is the popular idea of a legacy only waste and ignorance?

The impact of Peak Oil is enormous; ignorance of this phenomenon will prove cataclysmic. Enough information is referenced on this thread and others here as well as many sources existing for decades. Though here we tend to "deny ignorance," society at large seems determined to ultimately perish in ignominity. If so, that appears deserved.

The mainstream is beginning to accept our conundrum. The BBC today reports on the current and future problems of Peak Oil effects.

Hmmm, wonder if it's time to do something?

Looks like it could become worse, given certain aggressive policies.