Notices
Results 1 to 62 of 62

Thread: ABC's "Catalyst" presents Peak oil

  1. #1 ABC's "Catalyst" presents Peak oil 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    From their introduction....


    What would happen if the world were to start running out of oil? Conventional wisdom says we*ve got 30 years, but there*s a growing fear amongst petroleum experts it*s happening much sooner than we thought ñ that we are hitting the beginning of the end of oil now. So how soon will the oil run out, and can we stop our economy collapsing when it does? How prepared are we for the real oil crisis?
    You can read the transcript or watch the show online here.
    http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/search/Catalyst

    It's only 12 minutes — and is a fair introduction to the subject. What do people think? Have they seen anything on their national broadcasters to indicate that there could be an oil problem... the beginning of the end of the oil age? And if oil really is about to head permanently into decline (not "run out" but slow in production by about 2 to 5% per annum, permanently) what does it mean for the world economy?

    If you enjoyed Catalyst, there's a 50 minute ABC "Four Corners" documentary that pretty much concludes with the statement that I've taken as my signature.

    http://abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/

    ABC highlights that the whole non-OPEC world is about to go into peak oil, and the OPEC world is secretive and does not allow audits. We simply do not know how much oil they really have!

    Maybe if you could watch both the ABC's Catalyst science show and the 4 Corners piece above, it would save a lot of time in the discussion that follows.

    Cheers


    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    my grandfather answered this question in 1929, my dad in 1965 so I'll give it a try in 2006.

    WE ARE NOT RUNNING OUT OF OIL...........there is no way in 30 or 50 years this will happen and most feel, including increased usage, we have a 200 year supply and this will increase as new product is discovered, other energy supplies brought on line as substitute and the uses as energy
    are improved. if you want to talk about refining capacity, in the US, you have a point. But even here, refineries are being built around the world and this problem will diminish. now we will pay more and 1 or 2 dollar gas in the US, is a thing of the past. Government (national and state) will continue to tax and increase taxes, in the name of conserving. the gas furnished in most nations cost about the same, about 1.75-2.00 per gallon and there taxes already very high dwarf what we pay in the US, ave 2.50.

    the oil sand in the western US and Canada, have an estimated 100 years of supply alone, possibly more. also some feel crude is, not a billion year
    in formation product, that in fact is in a continuous resupply mode and these have and will continue to resupply. also oil is a substance and this substance can be reproduced by man, pretty costly, but it can be done.

    now if your still worried about getting you buggy to move in say 300 years; the science of nanotechnology is working on self producing forms of energy. in theory they will take a few cell of oil and by some means, get these cells to reproduce them selfs. actually they feel this could be from water, dirt or anything, but id rather you check out the subject and not make my view sound illogical.

    as for media or the few that think the world itself is coming to an end, i suggest there interest is not science, not oil, not factual and concern for ratings of interest, only...


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    my grandfather answered this question in 1929, my dad in 1965 so I'll give it a try in 2006.
    Strawman argument par excellence. The question is not whether we are running out of oil, but whether or not we are approaching a peak in production, after which the oil produced on a daily/montly/annual basis will decline.
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    ........there is no way in 30 or 50 years this will happen and most feel, including increased usage, we have a 200 year supply and this will increase as new product is discovered, other energy supplies brought on line as substitute and the uses as energy
    are improved.
    So, lets see. You are positing more efficient use of energy; introduction of renewable and nuclear power; and then suggesting a two hundred year supply.
    That sounds about right. And matches quite nicely what those who are warning about peak oil are saying. What you have failed to take into account is the economic pain that will be associated with the arrival of global peak oil. These pains will be massively increased if we continue to pretend that they are not coming.
    Note that peak oil is somewhere between a couple of years and two or three decades away. Don't you think it might be prudent to prepare for this?
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Government (national and state) will continue to tax and increase taxes, in the name of conserving. the gas furnished in most nations cost about the same, about 1.75-2.00 per gallon and there taxes already very high dwarf what we pay in the US, ave 2.50.
    The high tax levels are designed to disourage hydrocarbon consumption because of global warming - I suspect you don't believe about it either.
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    the oil sand in the western US and Canada, have an estimated 100 years of supply alone, ..
    You are, I think, referring to the tar sands. Would you like to share with us which company has developed an economic means of extracting this oil? I should certainly like to invest heavily in them!
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    also some feel crude is, not a billion year in formation product, that in fact is in a continuous resupply mode and these have and will continue to resupply.
    Some in this context means Tommy Gold and the Soviets. Gold is dead, and so are the Soviets. This idea has a glimmering of plausibility. However, even if it were wholly valid, the time frame of replacement would be measured in scores of millenia, not decades.
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    also oil is a substance and this substance can be reproduced by man, pretty costly, but it can be done.
    Another strawman. The concern about peak oil relates to in situ , producible, natual oil, not something made out of corn or recycled road kill. Such production is irrelevant to the argument that we are approaching the peak of oil production globally.
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    now if your still worried about getting you buggy to move in say 300 years; ..
    Again, quite irrelevant, and when coupled with your patronising tone, almost offensive. The concern is the unecessary economic and social disruption that will be caused if we fail to acknowledge the onset of peak oil, and take appropriate steps to ease the transition to alternative energy sources.
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    as for media or the few that think the world itself is coming to an end, i suggest there interest is not science, not oil, not factual and concern for ratings of interest, only...
    You really are the master of the strawman argument, aren't you jackson. The fact that some individuals and institutions and media outlets have become hysterical about peak oil, does not alter its reality, nor diminish its ultimate impact.

    It is strange. In the early 1950s, when Hubbert King observed the gaussian curve of production associated with fields and oil provinces in the US, and predicted from this that the US oil production would peak in 1971, he was ridiculed and decried by many. In 1973 the US oil production peaked and has been declining ever since.

    Now, half a century later, the current generation of ostriches is following the same well worn, deeply flawed, self destructive path of denial of reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    were to start??

    we are not running out of oil, we are not having problems or come close to reaching a peak in availability or ability to extract. we will not have problems in refining oil and all that with the understanding the world usage will surge and there will be no peak in this factor for some time.
    accepting all we are pumping from, sights being developed and sites we know of and ignore, oil sands or shale and geological surveys with untold potentials...we have a 300 year supply. PERIOD.

    now lets go on; the cost will go up and so more can participate, other forms of energy will come on line as the cost of energy increases. this will help keep the cost down and since you prefer the supply to consumer time line will increase, above 300 years.

    the subject, is a social and political toy to enhance a view of big business and not giving any credit to what these folks have done to generate the best overall living standards for all the people on the planet.

    the reason the US production is down, is well understood and to argue political correctness would be out of place. also you need to understand the cost of production inside the US, will not compete with foreign oil and there cost. you will probably buy the cheapest item of two products of identical quality, as would i and i hope oil companies do. now lets try refineries...we have only one company (Valero) that can even refine thick oil (as in Saudi Arabia) and all the others require sweet oil, found in off shore sites, UK, Gulf of Mexico, US mainland Canada, Mexico and Alaska, which do supply most of our product. we also refine in other countries and this adds to our import-export discrepancies, but keeps our supply up. these refineries also tend to let small groups rant on and not worry about adding additional refineries. they have actually tripled production in existing refineries over the last 30 years. called cost efficiency. as to the figures used in the 50's- we have today, the same figure available as we did in the fifties. you need to understand the quantities involved in some new finds and the sands potential of 100 year supply. Sun oil of Canada is the major player, producing about 300k barrel per day at about 40 dollars per, expecting to triple in 07 and cost down a bit. they own about 60 % of the total Canadian field or trying to acquire and about ten other small companies have started up or got into over the past five years. in the US there are many interested in the process, but the combination of, national lands and environmentalist. the process, by the way is not experimental and is happening. if required the program could grow 20 fold in two years.
    SON is the ticker symbol, but a little over valued.

    i am not apposed to clean air, good drinking water or the good health of my neighbors. however i am also happy the horses are off the street. you need to read some reports of what NYC, was like in the teens, twenties as this problem was solved. people died off in their 40's and no one questioned anything. we have today, cleaner air, cleaner water and my neighbors health is better, than any time back to the early 1800's, if you compare population to pollution. i will concede in some metropolitan areas for a period this was not true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    had to go off line for a bit, w/o finishing oil sands. in the markets its referred to as oil sands and over half of Canada's oil is supplied from these sands.

    investing is my thing, but would be careful advising investment, at this time and all i am listing are on the Toronto exchange. these stocks are subject to 15% tax, on all dividends paid and at this time not listed directly in the US. i invest in US firms that benefit from this, but none at this time. i do maintain a Canadian Coal Trust 15% dividend and traded on the NYSE....FDG

    COS-UN.TO, IS SUCH A TRUST IN OIL SAND PRODUCT PAYS 1.20 PER YEAR .30 PER QUARTER CD. 31.20 THIS AM QUOTE. NOT TO BAD BUT STILL 28-30 PE.

    OTHERS;
    COSWF.PK
    CLO.TO
    EOS-UN.TO
    OSM-UN.PK
    OISDF.PK
    SDOI.PK
    WTO.TO
    WTOIF.PK
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    399
    Apparently now is a really good time to get into the oil industry. But after doing my own research, it seems peak oil is just around the corner. So are people lying to us poor, gullible earth science students? I mean, surely if production is going to peak, jobs will be lost so really it would be an unwise career move; my fear is that they (big oil companies) are planning to use us and lose us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by billiards
    Apparently now is a really good time to get into the oil industry. But after doing my own research, it seems peak oil is just around the corner. So are people lying to us poor, gullible earth science students? I mean, surely if production is going to peak, jobs will be lost so really it would be an unwise career move; my fear is that they (big oil companies) are planning to use us and lose us.
    big oil, is really the biggest bunch of people, invested in one industry. am
    not sure of outside No America, but over 100 million individuals own part to a lot of big oil. directly or indirectly, its the biggest cash investment means for most of the 5k mutual funds and every single retirement fund of any US Company or government oriented retirement funds. if you would like, check institution ownership on any publicly owned company, big oil and related fields run 90-99%. even Haliburton, through many smaller companies including Pool Co. exist for the sole purpose of finding and recording new sources.

    yes, we will reach a peak and to deny this would be illogical. this however is a long way off and you could do well investing or participating in the field. as an earth science major, you could do research work for a term paper, receive post graduate expenses at some really nice places and be paid a handsome wage and retirement package.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    we are not running out of oil, we are not having problems or come close to reaching a peak in availability or ability to extract. we will not have problems in refining oil and all that with the understanding the world usage will surge and there will be no peak in this factor for some time.
    accepting all we are pumping from, sights being developed and sites we know of and ignore, oil sands or shale and geological surveys with untold potentials...we have a 300 year supply. PERIOD.
    You are hilarious mate!

    Do you work for the "Denial Machine" as well?

    Here's the thing: the Australian Federal Senate inquiry into peak oil and mitigation concluded that cheap conventional oil will peak in the next 20 years — probably earlier than later in that 20 year window — and that we will then move into an era of depleting, vastly more expensive liquid fuels. This will have profound economic consequences. Basically you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Time for a little reality.

    Chapter 3 of the report says...

    3.132 The concept that oil production will peak and decline, and there will be a post-oil age, is well accepted. The argument turns on when the peak will come, and how serious its economic effects will be.

    3.133 'Early peak' commentators have criticised what they regard as overoptimistic official estimates of future oil supply with detailed and plausible arguments. The committee is not aware of any official agency publications which attempt to rebut peak oil arguments in similar detail.

    3.134 Affordable oil is fundamental to modern economies. The risks involved are high if peak oil comes earlier than expected, or if economies cannot adapt quickly enough to the post-peak decline. The 2005 ‘Hirsch report’ for the US Department of Energy argues that peak oil has the potential to cause dramatically higher oil prices and protracted economic hardship, and that this is a problem ‘unlike any yet faced by modern industrial society.’ It argues that timely, aggressive mitigation initiatives will be needed:
    Prudent risk management requires the planning and implementation of mitigation well before peaking. Early mitigation will almost certainly be less expensive that delayed mitigation.
    [113]
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by Eclipse
    we are not running out of oil, we are not having problems or come close to reaching a peak in availability or ability to extract. we will not have problems in refining oil and all that with the understanding the world usage will surge and there will be no peak in this factor for some time.
    accepting all we are pumping from, sights being developed and sites we know of and ignore, oil sands or shale and geological surveys with untold potentials...we have a 300 year supply. PERIOD.
    You are hilarious mate!

    Do you work for the "Denial Machine" as well?

    Here's the thing: the Australian Federal Senate inquiry into peak oil and mitigation concluded that cheap conventional oil will peak in the next 20 years — probably earlier than later in that 20 year window — and that we will then move into an era of depleting, vastly more expensive liquid fuels. This will have profound economic consequences. Basically you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Time for a little reality.

    Chapter 3 of the report says...

    3.132 The concept that oil production will peak and decline, and there will be a post-oil age, is well accepted. The argument turns on when the peak will come, and how serious its economic effects will be.

    3.133 'Early peak' commentators have criticised what they regard as overoptimistic official estimates of future oil supply with detailed and plausible arguments. The committee is not aware of any official agency publications which attempt to rebut peak oil arguments in similar detail.

    3.134 Affordable oil is fundamental to modern economies. The risks involved are high if peak oil comes earlier than expected, or if economies cannot adapt quickly enough to the post-peak decline. The 2005 ‘Hirsch report’ for the US Department of Energy argues that peak oil has the potential to cause dramatically higher oil prices and protracted economic hardship, and that this is a problem ‘unlike any yet faced by modern industrial society.’ It argues that timely, aggressive mitigation initiatives will be needed:
    Prudent risk management requires the planning and implementation of mitigation well before peaking. Early mitigation will almost certainly be less expensive that delayed mitigation.
    [113]
    I'm surprised Australians have such faith in government. (Iraq?) Here in Canada I'd give our government as much credibility into these types of 'prediction' studies as the tea-leaf reader down at the county fair.

    I live in Alberta, Canada: the hottest spot of fossil fuel exploration and production. I'm a geologist in paleontology but my wife, also a geologist, is involved in energy resevoir management. The opinion of geologists who do this for a living: 'We don't have a friggin clue'. If we knew we'd all be billionaires reaping the benefits of the futures market. We have geologist friends, technologists and so on over for a beer and to watch a movie, BBQ and so on. No one is part of any 'plot' of denial or control. The conversation usually is about hiking, hockey or cookie recipes. If I had any magic crystal ball predicting supplies I'd be god king of all geology and worlds beyond.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Not faith in government, but faith in counting!

    Most geologists don't count the oil mate.
    They are busy doing their jobs, not counting the barrels. They probably don't count how much we discover, how much we use, and how much we lose each day. Not many look at the bigger picture. They are doing their jobs.

    Example:
    I went to an oil presentation at Sydney's North Ryde CSIRO petroleum division. These guys and gals eat, breath, sleep petroleum. Better drill bits, new exploration techniques, new extraction techniques. They are very good at what they do.

    Ask them, "How much oil is in the world and when will production peak and begin to decline?" and they don't have a clue. It's not their field.

    Enter Bruce Robinson, a CSIRO scientist that works in a completely different field of science to do with the eyes. As a volunteer has been reading all he can about peak oil for the last decade. He's been counting the barrels. Would Petroleum scientists take him seriously? Why were geologists listening to him?

    He stands up, does a powerpoint presentation, and before long the geologists there are squirming in their seats and groaning... "Why the hell hasn't anyone told us all this before?" So they were impressed. Not only that, if we are to believe ABC's Catalyst (above), over half the geologists in Australia now believe we are roughly at or very near to peak oil!

    So unless you have any more real, technical information, I'll take your "doubt" and raise it by not only my Senate's certainty, but half the geologists in Australia, Dr Karl, Dr David Suzuki, a growing international consensus, and the fact that even a non-technical, maths-o-phobe like myself can count!


    If you really want to engage this topic and start counting barrels, please answer the following few questions.

    There are 2 halves of the oil world, OPEC and non-OPEC.

    1. How is oil discovery going? You logically have to find oil before you can develop and produce it.
    With the BILLIONS of dollars profit at stake,
    * a highly competitive oil market,
    * massive demand increases from China and India,
    * INCREDIBLE new 3d visualization techniques
    * AMAZING new deep sea drilling techniques of just the last decade
    ......how much more oil are they discovering than previous generations?

    With all this extra money, competition, technology, and demand, they must be finding more oil than 2 generations ago... but are they finding as much as we'd assume? Is it the same discovery rate, indicating that maybe there will be a problem in a generation or two, or are we finding 3 or 4 times as much oil? Just how much oil are we finding with todays technology and market?


    2. When does Exxon Mobile say that the non-Opec world is going to peak? (Exxon deny peak oil will hit for decades and decades, and so must be quite optimistic about the provinces they can "see" and have data to... surely?)

    3. Who has access to OPEC data? Who can verify the reports they generate?

    4. Will oil projects we know about in the next 5 years offset depletion from current fields?



    Answers below.


    *



    *



    *

    1. Exxon Mobile believe the non-OPEC world is going to peak in the next 5 years.

    2. No western nation is allowed to investigate and verify OPEC's claims, we are utterly blind. As my signature says, “...to trust somebody who won’t allow any audits is extremely risky. I personally don’t believe the numbers that are out there.” (ABC's 4 Corners)

    3. Discovery has been dropping for 40 years, down to pitiful finds in the deep sea. We have drilled most of the planet and are just not finding enough! We have found all the low hanging fruit. This graph illustrates that the last time we found more oil than we consumed was over 25 years ago! For 25 years we have been increasingly relying on oil we discovered prior to the 1980's. For 40 years discovery has been declining. There are no more super-giant fields to be found!




    4. No, according to UK petroleum reviews Chris Skrebowski.
    Not only that, watch this wikipedia entry on the 54 out of 65 oil producing nations that have already peaked!

    According to Chris Skrebowski, incoming projects will not be able to replace ACCUMULATED DEPLETION / Day by 2010 or before, let alone struggle to meet increased demand.

    We are at peak oil, give or take a few years.

    Do the math.
    Or as they say in your part of the world, "Go figure".

    Who would you rather trust, a bi-partisan government inquiry or an oil industry utterly dependent on the world staying addicted to their product for a few more years?
    Hmmmm, Exxon deny Global Warming with their Denial Machine and "Carbon is life" adds.... hmmm, that's tough. Who to believe?

    Wait a minute... we don't have to believe anyone. We can try counting the barrels and oil provinces ourselves!
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    We can make synthetic diamonds, can we not make synthetic oil ?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    We can, but we've left it too late to switch over to the other potential sources of liquid fuels easily. There will behttp://www.thescienceforum.com/posting.php?mode=editpost&p=59803 a profound lack of liquid fuels to meet market demand for many decades to come.

    The Hirsch report states
    * 20 years is required to transition without substantial impacts
    * A 10 year rush transition with moderate impacts is possible with extraordinary efforts from governments, industry, and consumers
    * Late initiation of mitigation may result in severe consequences.

    Another problem with "creating" energy fuels is that a high ERoEI is so important. This is a main factor, but there are many others.

    Click on my Home page at http://eclipsenow.org/ and then go to "Testing the alternatives" (down left hand column.) There I ask the main questions that alternatives to oil must meet.

    S.E.R.V.I.C.E.

    1. Sustainability
    2. Energy Return on Energy Invested.
    3. Rare materials
    4. Volumes
    5. Infrastructure — time to implement?
    6. Constant supply of energy
    7. Expense

    I expand on these issues a little, but am not an expert. The real experts scare me... they are basically saying there is nothing ready to replace oil... nothing that can be scaled up in time to the volumes we need, at the price we are used to, with the high energy return and east of transport. (EG: Oil is pumped through pipes, ethanol must be put on a specially designed train as it corrodes the pipes, etc.)

    If you have broadband the ABC's Catalyst above is a really good short watch, about 12 minutes... and then there's ABC 4 Corners on how we know we are near peak oil.
    http://abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20060710/

    On alternatives the Australian Senate INTERIM report ( have not read the whole final report yet) says....

    4.4 All of these possibilities come at a cost, economic or environmental, or have limitations. There is no universal panacea, no one perfect solution. This chapter gives a broad overview of the evidence received on each topic. The Committee has formed preliminary observations about each, but leaves in-depth analysis of each for the final report.
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Eclipse
    We can, but we've left it too late to switch over to the other potential sources of liquid fuels easily. There will behttp://www.thescienceforum.com/posting.php?mode=editpost&p=59803 a profound lack of liquid fuels to meet market demand for many decades to come.

    [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch_report]The Hirsch report states

    * 20 years is required to transition without substantial impacts
    * A 10 year rush transition with moderate impacts is possible with extraordinary efforts from governments, industry, and consumers
    * Late initiation of mitigation may result in severe consequences.
    Well how bleedin' stupid are we then ?

    We are living in the 21st century and we are behaving no better than the folk on Easter Island many years ago. Somebody MUST have realised that they were about to cut down the last bloody tree !!
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Mate, that's my feeling the whole time.

    I've been researching this bastard of a subject for 2.5 years.
    I've led a team, www.sydneypeakoil.com into the NSW Senate to do a presentation for the minority parties.

    I got permission from the "End of Suburbia" team to do a half hour cut of their great documentary on this subject, and we copied and distributed this 30 minute peak oil documentary to each and every member of the NSW Parliament and Senate.
    (Thanks again EOS team!)

    Please watch a 2 minute preview of their documentary here.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHr8OzaloLM

    After over 2 years research I can see how we got into this. There is no "oil cop" that has worldwide jurisdiction to monitor the reporting from an objective standpoint!

    So... I'm quite excited by the solution, which is simply to use less oil! It will solve pollution, global warming, and national security issues once we are less dependent on the bloody stuff!

    But... here's the catch. Instead of energy efficient cars, we should be thinking about energy efficient, walkable, public transport orientated (TODS.... Transit Orientated Districts) New Urbanism. While this will be a more beautiful and humane way to live, it will take roughly 70 years to build.

    Sounds like you've taken the "Red Pill" (From the Matrix.) The Great Depression starts by around 2010-2015... airlines going bankrupt, some towns deserted, etc... fun fun fun. So if you want to fly somewhere, do it now. Check these other documentary previews... and welcome to the end of the party.

    The irony is that the more I promote awareness and speak to politicians about this, the more likely a stock-market confidence collapse is going to kick in. But each year we fritter oil away on building more useless roads is another year wasted.

    Please, please watch these previews... they will speak to you in a way I cannot in this forum. Buy them. Watch them, share them with your friends. It's time to get serious!

    End of Suburbia — Canadian producer
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHr8OzaloLM

    Asleep in America — American Producer
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeHs-RDK1b4

    A Crude Awakening — European producer
    http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/index.html
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Eclipse
    Mate, that's my feeling the whole time.

    I've been researching this bastard of a subject for 2.5 years.
    I've led a team, www.sydneypeakoil.com into the NSW Senate to do a presentation for the minority parties.

    I got permission from the "End of Suburbia" team to do a half hour cut of their great documentary on this subject, and we copied and distributed this 30 minute peak oil documentary to each and every member of the NSW Parliament and Senate.
    (Thanks again EOS team!)

    Please watch a 2 minute preview of their documentary here.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHr8OzaloLM

    After over 2 years research I can see how we got into this. There is no "oil cop" that has worldwide jurisdiction to monitor the reporting from an objective standpoint!

    So... I'm quite excited by the solution, which is simply to use less oil! It will solve pollution, global warming, and national security issues once we are less dependent on the bloody stuff!

    But... here's the catch. Instead of energy efficient cars, we should be thinking about energy efficient, walkable, public transport orientated (TODS.... Transit Orientated Districts) New Urbanism. While this will be a more beautiful and humane way to live, it will take roughly 70 years to build.

    Sounds like you've taken the "Red Pill" (From the Matrix.) The Great Depression starts by around 2010-2015... airlines going bankrupt, some towns deserted, etc... fun fun fun. So if you want to fly somewhere, do it now. Check these other documentary previews... and welcome to the end of the party.

    The irony is that the more I promote awareness and speak to politicians about this, the more likely a stock-market confidence collapse is going to kick in. But each year we fritter oil away on building more useless roads is another year wasted.

    Please, please watch these previews... they will speak to you in a way I cannot in this forum. Buy them. Watch them, share them with your friends. It's time to get serious!

    End of Suburbia — Canadian producer
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHr8OzaloLM

    Asleep in America — American Producer
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeHs-RDK1b4

    A Crude Awakening — European producer
    http://www.oilcrashmovie.com/index.html
    Thanks, I will watch the presentation, but wont be able to do that until next week (when im getting broadband, finally)

    As for clean air transportation, would it not be possible to create a nuclear fission or fusion fueled craft, where by the heat energy is used to flash-heat air in a chamber which is then shot out of the rear of the plane in the form of a jet-stream ?

    As for safety concerns, well the black-box always seems to survive a crash, so simply house the nuclear fuel in a strong enough self-sealing container with an automatic locating device, so should the plane go down, authorities / local army units etc, etc can recover the nuclear fuel before it gets media coverage.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Hey, I'm not totally against nuclear power when it's done safely but flying nuclear jets?

    And again... nuclear power fails my "SERVICE" test.

    There's an oil crisis coming by 2010.
    Oil could cost $150 to $200 a barrel.
    It could triple at the pump... or just plain not BE there! (Most western nations have emergency fuel acts that make it legal to ban or ration oil to certain essential infrastructure sectors of the economy, such as agriculture... and I'm glad they do.)

    So... why is it that when people here we are at the end of the CHEAP oil era, they think that the most expensive form of ELECTRICITY ever (nuclear power) is going to solve the problem?

    Here's the thing... it takes oil to mine uranium, and nuclear power is one of the most expensive, government subsidized energy sources humanity has ever used. When wind power is becoming cheaper than coal power, surely we'd be better off just ... doing without air travel? Going back to boats? There's some amazing things happening with para-sails and international cargo shipping... solar sailors are also up and running..... imagine your cargo ship or passenger ship coated in giant solar PV sails, with a giant para-sail flying 1 to 2 km above the bow?



    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor Pendragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nederland
    Posts
    1,085
    I guess most of us can agree that we don't know how much oil we actually have left. That means we can be lucky or get in big trouble within a decade. So to assume that we can go on consuming oil as we've been doing until now is not a calculated risk, it's a gamble. We should prepare for the worst, and if it turns out we've been too pessimistic then that's great news for the next generation, they'll have a functioning low-carbon economy, with some unexpected oil to party on.

    The Catalyst film raised a point I, as a layman, hadn't thought about yet: the less oil there's left in a well, the harder it is to extract it. Like the last drops of Ketchup in a bottle: they're still there, but you have to cut it open and use a spoon to get them out. So even if we knew how much oil there's left, we'd have to discount for the extra cost of extracting the last remainders.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eclipse
    But... here's the catch. Instead of energy efficient cars, we should be thinking about energy efficient, walkable, public transport orientated (TODS.... Transit Orientated Districts) New Urbanism. While this will be a more beautiful and humane way to live, it will take roughly 70 years to build.
    Interesting point. In Europe the difference would be less spectacular than in the US (we don't really have suburbs on such a scale, but they exist), but it's good to think about such things. Same thing with big supermarkets outside the city, they'd stop functioning when it gets too expensive for freight truckers and consumers to reach them (again they're not as spectacular in Europe as in the US, although they seem to be on the rise here).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Eclipse
    Hey, I'm not totally against nuclear power when it's done safely but flying nuclear jets?

    And again... nuclear power fails my "SERVICE" test.

    There's an oil crisis coming by 2010.
    Oil could cost $150 to $200 a barrel.
    It could triple at the pump... or just plain not BE there! (Most western nations have emergency fuel acts that make it legal to ban or ration oil to certain essential infrastructure sectors of the economy, such as agriculture... and I'm glad they do.)

    So... why is it that when people here we are at the end of the CHEAP oil era, they think that the most expensive form of ELECTRICITY ever (nuclear power) is going to solve the problem?

    Here's the thing... it takes oil to mine uranium, and nuclear power is one of the most expensive, government subsidized energy sources humanity has ever used. When wind power is becoming cheaper than coal power, surely we'd be better off just ... doing without air travel? Going back to boats? There's some amazing things happening with para-sails and international cargo shipping... solar sailors are also up and running..... imagine your cargo ship or passenger ship coated in giant solar PV sails, with a giant para-sail flying 1 to 2 km above the bow?
    Well, I could imagine lightning strikes having an easy day with parasails.

    I would dread to think where the world would be without air travel.
    My wife's family lives in Japan. so instead of taking two weeks off to go and see them we'd have to take three months off work to make the round trip by boat. And I get sea-sick :?

    And what would the solar panels on a boat be powering may I ask ???? Lights and electronics equipment, sure, but huge propellors ?? Not a chance !!!

    Again, i'd go for nuclear powered ships. We already have nuclear powered submarines, and the US has nuclear powered aircraft carriers, and you only need to refuel these once every ten years.

    And yes, you need oil to mine for uranium, but then again you need oil to lubricate ANY moving parts.

    What we should think about doing instead, is stop burning oil (petrol, diesel etc) if we can help it.

    What would be wrong with a car running on LPG ?? Or even hydrogen fuel cells ?

    And What about cold fusion ?

    Also, IF Mars once had running water and oceans and life once existed; could we not have a look there for oil ?

    As for public transportation, I would do this:

    On the current over-ground railway routes that run from city-to-city, I would implement a high speed maglev system.

    I would choose possibly 10-15 cities and big towns within the UK to operate an underground network of electric trains, spanning from the cities centre outwards to its suburbs. Then from each of the suburbs, spanning outwards to those villages a little further afield, Id like to see monorail systems operating.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by Pendragon
    I guess most of us can agree that we don't know how much oil we actually have left. That means we can be lucky or get in big trouble within a decade. So to assume that we can go on consuming oil as we've been doing until now is not a calculated risk, it's a gamble. We should prepare for the worst, and if it turns out we've been too pessimistic then that's great news for the next generation, they'll have a functioning low-carbon economy, with some unexpected oil to party on.

    The Catalyst film raised a point I, as a layman, hadn't thought about yet: the less oil there's left in a well, the harder it is to extract it. Like the last drops of Ketchup in a bottle: they're still there, but you have to cut it open and use a spoon to get them out. So even if we knew how much oil there's left, we'd have to discount for the extra cost of extracting the last remainders.
    Yes, sort of. The problem is that there is no reliable prediction on how many ketchup bottles are in the cupboard. 100 or 1. Anybody with any claim to some accurate prediction is in the field of voodoo and not geology. we don't know.

    We also aren't confined to getting our ketchup from that original style bottle. There is nothing magical about the hydrocarbons in shallow wells or 'conventional' crude sources. There is no need to cut open the old ketchup bottle that held 8 ounces from 1960 when you can drill multiple times deper into new reserves. That's what is done everyday.

    There is this myth that there is a 'pool' of liquid oil that sits in an underground bathtub and it's pumped out. Oil isn't found in bathtub like reserves in the earth but in rock. Within the pores of the rock there is oil. If you were to hold an oil-bearing rock in your hand you might probably wouldn't recognize it. Not being a resevoir geologist, I'd have a hard time to recognize it. There is no oil dipstick that has some reading on it.

    Yes, we are definitely running out of what was easily obtained oil in 1960. But this isn't 1960 but 2007 and our technology is vastly superior for both finding oil and transfering that hydrocarbon into end use.

    It's good in science to explore multiple sources of information. I can google the word alien abduction and find tens of thousands of hits giving me 'rock solid scientific proof' of alien abduction. Unfortunately, 'Peak Oil' has become this. There are many legitimate discussions on hydrocarbon reserves, what is peak production and so on but, unfortunately, an equal number of the alien abduction quality that are cited as 'proof' of this or that hysterical scenario.

    There are no answers but only educated speculation. Anyone who strays from objective science to trying 'to prove' their point on 'Peak Oil' is to be patted on the head and sent away. Science isn't about agenda.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    scientifically, energy exist in all matter. the conversion to usable is related to cost only. the cost relates to infrastructures, processes to make dependable-usable and available. oil is the most abundant and cheapest form to supply a world demand, at this time.

    i have said, a few years back oil will be no more than 75.00 a barrel in 2010 and will hold to this. frankly w/o being a traded commodity and involved with world politics, oil would be at 40.00 now, maybe less.
    many factors go into this cost, as well as your pump price. the actual cost per gallon to your local station is about 1.40-1.60 per gal, pending on transportation. all else are taxes, profits and cost to offer, primarily labor, station taxes and so on...

    oil based products, there usage of oil totals, would interest you as well.
    fertilizers, road materials, chemical plants and roofing materials alone use massive amounts, which are or will be eliminated by alternatives (available now) as cost go up. old used tires already make up many of the roads you drive on today. Ford Motor, is building or has planned, an infrastructure for alternative fuels stations from Chicago to LA. this is currently based on ethanol, with any %, but could convert to any substance.

    the questions is the peak availability which cannot be known, because we have no idea where technology can take our ability to obtain this element. every day, many finds are reported, more expected to be found and some suspected. in many countries around the world, we have not even attempted to look, for one reason or another. however we are not peaking anytime soon, in my opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Jellyologist wrote:
    Yes, sort of. The problem is that there is no reliable prediction on how many ketchup bottles are in the cupboard. 100 or 1. Anybody with any claim to some accurate prediction is in the field of voodoo and not geology. we don't know.
    There is a margin of error because the world has no "oil cop" stationed in the middle east, ensuring they are putting out correct data, but if you can't count the data in millions of barrels a day and see that a problem is coming then I can't help you. Even I can do it!

    We also aren't confined to getting our ketchup from that original style bottle. There is nothing magical about the hydrocarbons in shallow wells or 'conventional' crude sources. There is no need to cut open the old ketchup bottle that held 8 ounces from 1960 when you can drill multiple times deper into new reserves. That's what is done everyday.
    No we are not — but the "ketchup bottle" we are talking about is the cheapest oil there is. You're talking about getting "ketchup" from tar-sands or shale oil, which — to really stretch our kitchen condiments analogy — is like driving 5 miles to the store and buying a tiny condiments packet (used in fast food or McDonalds) for $4 and then driving 5 miles back home, just to get a spurt of tomato sauce! Peak oil is the end of CHEAP, easy to drill, low sulfur oil. You are saying there's no problem by defining the problem! Yes there's dirty, expensive oil in them tar sands! It takes enormous volumes of natural gas to extract, and North America is about to reach peak gas at the same time as World Peak oil. Yes there's a few new oil finds in the deep sea... 5 or 6k down. Doesn't it tell you something that there are no new cheap land finds? These deep sea finds are very expensive to pump! And they are TINY! Where are the super-giant elephants of the 40's and 60s! Look again at the "Growing Gap" graph above!

    Yes, we are definitely running out of what was easily obtained oil in 1960. But this isn't 1960 but 2007 and our technology is vastly superior for both finding oil and transfering that hydrocarbon into end use.
    Tar-sands are looking at massively raising their production by 2015, but will still only be producing a tiny fraction of the oil the world needs. Check this out....

    Canada is already the top exporter of oil to the American market, exporting the equivalent of one million barrels a day — the exact amount that the oilsands industry in Alberta currently produces.

    A fivefold increase would mean the export of five million barrels a day, which would supply a quarter of current American consumption and add up to almost half of all U.S. imports.
    http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2007/01/17/oil-sands.html

    Now, tell me, do the Canadians sell their product directly to America? That is, is their oil special and somehow not on the stock exchange? It somehow avoids the WORLD market? Because let me tell you a dirty little secret.... very soon, we know that we will be losing 1mbd/year in production from those many, many countries that have already peaked. Canada's tar sands are looking at producing 5mbd by 2015 (and personally, I doubt that because peak gas in North America will be biting by then!)

    IN a world market of 84 mbd NOW, with depletion rates at about 1mbd/year after 2010, will you please do the math and tell me how many barrels of oil we'll be up from tar sands? And let me tell you that 1mbd / year depletion is "soft" calculations, the more realistic have us losing 30 mbd by 2010, on which basis the following documentary claims we will hit peak oil sometime this year, meaning the fun and games can start when the depletion really wrecks the world economy in about 2008, 2009... or at the latest, 2010.
    http://www.crudeimpact.com/page.asp?content_id=9852

    Then we'll be in the recession that does not go away... that gets worse... until we realize that we are in the Greater Depression.

    It's good in science to explore multiple sources of information. I can google the word alien abduction and find tens of thousands of hits giving me 'rock solid scientific proof' of alien abduction. Unfortunately, 'Peak Oil' has become this. There are many legitimate discussions on hydrocarbon reserves, what is peak production and so on but, unfortunately, an equal number of the alien abduction quality that are cited as 'proof' of this or that hysterical scenario.
    Sure something like this is going to attract end of the world nutters! But I do think we are in for a Great Depression which may last a few decades until we sort this thing out — and can't stand how reluctant our politicians are to talk about what a growing consensus of geologists are now telling us. Watch the ABC's Catalyst show again — did you see the stuff about half the geologists in Australia now believe we are at peak oil? They are the professional!

    So if you don't like nutty websites, don't go there!
    Stick with some credible sources!

    For an introduction, try wikipedia
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

    Try Chevron, who says: "oil production is in decline in 33 of the 48 largest oil producing countries".
    http://www.willyoujoinus.com/

    Try the Australian Federal Senate report:
    http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committ...port/index.htm

    Try Australia's "Dr Karl" — our leading celebrity scientist — who simply states that we are at peak oil, give or take a year! On ABC's "JJJ" national youth radio station, Dr Karl said this...
    "..we are on the peak... there's nothing left for our children... Oil as a raw material... yes! For burning and using as a fuel, NO!"
    And before you go scrounging the net to prove me wrong somehow with some counter-quotes from the USGS or some other "late peakers", try reading Chapter 3 of the Australian Senate report which — from memory — debunks the USGS methodology, largely because the USGS relies on OPEC data that cannot be scientifically confirmed!

    When the Australian Senate is going out of it's way to debunk USGS methodology, somethings up.

    But back to your nasty "alien abduction" quote above.

    Do you know how insulting this is to a guy who's arranged government briefings on this? I admit I'm a campaigner, not a geologist. But do I earn money from this? No. Do I enjoy this? No. I do this in my spare time. Why? I'm scared for my kids.

    I'm like Al Gore... I nearly lost my kid in 2004. He had Leukemia. He nearly died. I realized that you really can lose everything you value. You obviously haven't woken up to the adult world where we deal with the consequences of the reality we face, instead of burying our heads in the sand! So I arranged a bunch of Sydney people to get together and start arranging government briefings while my kid was still on chemo... back in 2004. He's fine now, and I'm feeling more positive than I was back then.

    Some amazing new alternative energy technologies have arrived since 2004 and I don't think this is the end of civilization or Mad Max! But I DO think that governments had better start listening to the scientists!

    There is no alternative liquid fuel that can do what oil does, period! Most high ERoEI sources of alternative energy produce ELECTRICITY, not oil. We need to convert trillions of dollars of transport infrastructure over to electricity. So this is unbelievably serious — and if we REALLY stuff it up could lead to war with China — so we'd better start having the conversation now hey?
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    scientifically, energy exist in all matter. the conversion to usable is related to cost only. the cost relates to infrastructures, processes to make dependable-usable and available. oil is the most abundant and cheapest form to supply a world demand, at this time.
    Interesting point. Guy Caruso from the US DOE says that the reason the price jumps so high over the slightest rumour of a terrorist attack or sneer from Iran is that demand is so close to supply already, and there is very little wiggle room. See "Crude Impact" documentary above.

    oil based products, there usage of oil totals, would interest you as well.
    fertilizers, road materials, chemical plants and roofing materials alone use massive amounts, which are or will be eliminated by alternatives (available now) as cost go up. old used tires already make up many of the roads you drive on today. Ford Motor, is building or has planned, an infrastructure for alternative fuels stations from Chicago to LA. this is currently based on ethanol, with any %, but could convert to any substance.
    Yep, read my home page.
    It's got an article I had published in a church magazine to get the more conservative side of Australian thought addressing this. It takes 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to make 1 calorie of food energy! We could be in a world of pain if we don't reform agriculture before peak oil gets too bad... this is where the Mad Maxers come in. Fortunately, Australian legislation already exists to prioritize oil to agriculture when this hits. What about your country?

    the questions is the peak availability which cannot be known, because we have no idea where technology can take our ability to obtain this element. every day, many finds are reported, more expected to be found and some suspected. in many countries around the world, we have not even attempted to look, for one reason or another. however we are not peaking anytime soon, in my opinion.
    You got some figures on that oil we are finding "every day?"

    If you didn't like the ASPO graph above, I'll show you a nice Exxon Mobile one I found...



    This is not controversial, it's simply a fact. It's been 25 years since we found enough oil to replace the oil we consume. It's been 40 years since the downward trend in oil discovery really kicked in. Discovery has peaked. Production & consumption will therefore also peak... and according to the math, very soon. For a change of pace, Listen to this JJJ interview with Dr Karl (among others) — at least JJJ and Dr Karl are funny.
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321


    Does the shiny side of the aluminum foil go on the inside or outside of the hat?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Does the sand get up your nose when you bury your head in them tar-sands?

    Mate, what have you actually contributed to this discussion? Where are your scientific sources!? What are you quoting?
    Nothing, nadda, zip from you except scorn and sneering.
    You see, when someone just comes into a forum thread and sneers without any credible back-up data, it's called being a troll. I don't know if you are a regular troll on these forums, but you certainly are in this thread. I get the impression you know some stuff, but basically got caught with your pants down in this thread. You "thought" you knew that peak oil was just another tinfoil theory, and mouthed off. Then you discovered that peak oil had gone mainstream, and now you are sulking.

    So where's your quotes and supporting data? I've quoted everything from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's leading science and investigative journalism programs through to the Australian Federal government, from independent geologists with a lifetime of experience through to CEO's of oil companies. What have you supplied?

    Here you are... I'll help you out.

    Try counting the mega-barrels mate, it will help you stop embarrassing yourself. I know you don't like being wrong, I know saying "tinfoil hat" is easy... but if you read the Australian Government report you'll find that a STACK of geologists are against you....

    Here's a range of the opinion they quote, from lifetime geologists taking a punt at when peak oil is going to hit (and screaming blue murder that this is serious but governments are ignoring them!) through to Volvo trucks also taking it seriously. Are you really trying to tell me that half of the geologist world has gone "tinfoil hat"? It's really easy to shout accusations... it's not so easy to grow up and admit you were wrong. I mean, just look at some of the names below! From Chapter 3.86 of the Australian Federal Senate taskforce.
    http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committ...report/c03.htm

    2005 - T. Boone Pickens (oil and gas investor)

    2005 - K. Deffeyes (retired Princeton professor and Shell geologist)

    at hand - E.T. Westervelt et al (US Army Corps of Engineers)

    now - S. Bakhtiari (Iranian National Oil Company planner)

    close or past - R. Herrera (retired BP Geologist)

    very soon - H. Groppe (oil/gas expert and businessman)

    by 2010 - S. Wrobel (investment fund manager)

    around 2010 - R. Bentley (university energy analyst)

    2010 - C. Campbell (retired oil company geologist)

    2010+/- a year - C. Skrebowski (editor of Petroleum Review)

    around 2012 - R.H.E.M Koppelaar (Dutch oil analyst)

    a challenge around 2011 - L.M. Meling (Statoil oil company geologist)

    within a decade - Volvo Trucks

    within a decade - C. de Margerie (oil company executive)

    2015 - S. al Husseini (retired executive vice-president of Saudi Aramco)

    around 2015 - Merrill Lynch (brokerage/financial)

    2015-2020 - J.R. West, PFC Energy

    around 2020 or earlier - C.T. Maxwell, Weeden & Co., brokerage

    within 15 years - Wood Mackenzie, energy consulting

    around 2020 - Total, French oil company

    mid to late 2020s - UBS (brokerage/financial

    well after 2020 - CERA (energy consulting)

    no sign of peaking - ExxonMobil (oil company)

    impossible to predict - J. Browne (BP CEO)

    deny peak oil theory - OPEC [70]
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    charts, general consider the oil sands an alternative, when mentioned at all. disregarding this is a major error as oil sand are found in many landscapes around the world. the US is nearly equal to Canada and is not considered anyplace. south Asia has many and new finds in ground are being discovered daily. oil discoveries in the gulf of Mexico, off shore Mexico and off Cuba are all major finds of the past year.

    with regards to the chart. w/o trying to verify, i would suggest these announced finds are connected to prices paid for oil or the indirect influence for explorations. that not a small uptrend in the late 90's, is not an accidental move...

    half the energy used in Canada is currently from the oil sands. this is however thick or not sweet oil, refined in Canada. they also have large deposits of in ground oils, which is sweet and could be refined in the US. how much of which is transported to the US, i do not know. with in the past few months Shell US bought the Canadian oil rights to much of northern Canada. i assume they feel new finds are expected.

    i have not touched on old wells that are thought to have refilled to small degree or pumped to slow to be practical in the 60's to today. at one time the minimum productive wells were 20 barrels per day and many 1000's were shut down, covered up and nearly forgotten. in Oklahoma, think One Oak Oil, is involved in redeveloping these wells and with some success. i do know Haliburton, via a couple small companies in NM and W Texas are doing this with great success.

    near Cheyenne Wy, in Sinclair Wy, we have one of the oldest and largest refineries. there capacity is one of the best and are connected to some pipe lines, south. i am guessing but would think they receive Canadian raw oil, via pipe lines as well, but would be sweet or not oil sand product.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    I don't know if this has been mentioned (no time to look early start at work tomorrow) but what about bio fuels. If and when our oil does run out why can't we simple replace it with this (bio fuel).

    Nuclear energy is a wonderful, clean and very safe way of generating energy. Goodnight.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    charts, general consider the oil sands an alternative, when mentioned at all. disregarding this is a major error as oil sand are found in many landscapes around the world. the US is nearly equal to Canada and is not considered anyplace. south Asia has many and new finds in ground are being discovered daily. oil discoveries in the gulf of Mexico, off shore Mexico and off Cuba are all major finds of the past year.

    with regards to the chart. w/o trying to verify, i would suggest these announced finds are connected to prices paid for oil or the indirect influence for explorations. that not a small uptrend in the late 90's, is not an accidental move...

    half the energy used in Canada is currently from the oil sands. this is however thick or not sweet oil, refined in Canada. they also have large deposits of in ground oils, which is sweet and could be refined in the US. how much of which is transported to the US, i do not know. with in the past few months Shell US bought the Canadian oil rights to much of northern Canada. i assume they feel new finds are expected.

    i have not touched on old wells that are thought to have refilled to small degree or pumped to slow to be practical in the 60's to today. at one time the minimum productive wells were 20 barrels per day and many 1000's were shut down, covered up and nearly forgotten. in Oklahoma, think One Oak Oil, is involved in redeveloping these wells and with some success. i do know Haliburton, via a couple small companies in NM and W Texas are doing this with great success.

    near Cheyenne Wy, in Sinclair Wy, we have one of the oldest and largest refineries. there capacity is one of the best and are connected to some pipe lines, south. i am guessing but would think they receive Canadian raw oil, via pipe lines as well, but would be sweet or not oil sand product.
    Some good insights. Just one correction. Shell doesn't have the rights to one-thousandths of 'northern Canada'. Shell has interests and joint interests in reserves in 'parts' of Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Peace District of BC.

    Shell's a big player in the Alberta oil sands. Along with other companies about 100 billion dollars of investment on the books....the largest industrial development in the world.

    Re Alberta oil flowing through Wyoming. Things have changed a lot over the years but I'd 'guess' about a 1.5 million barrels flows through a day. I have no idea, however, if any of this is refined in Wyoming. I'd also assume that natural gas is the biggest flow through commodity. My wife has worked on reserves and pipelines for over 20 years and I do know that when we've travelled in parts of Wyoming she points out various pipeline projects. I've done some paleontology work in that state but mostly up through the middle from Baggs in the south up to Worland. I like the remote feel in 'pronghorn' country. Wyoming, like Montana, is a treasure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Re-pumping old closed wells with new extraction technologies is important, and will contribute some of the oil we need... it's called "Reserve Growth" and is covered extensively in the peak oil literature.

    To see how the leading geologists in the field are treating tar sands, shale oil, reserve growth, indeed, any energy related field such as future technologies like fusion, please go to...

    WHERE TO GO FOR INFORMATION

    http://energybulletin.net/

    and click on the search function there.
    It's a fair website and includes all energy news, including when CERA (listed above in the Australian Federal Senate) try to debunk early peakers. It is a clearinghouse for any new energy news from any reputable news sources around the world, and even includes the occasional blog entries that might contain extensive referencing to interesting links.



    TAR SANDS

    EG: I typed in "tar sands" — which might help America somewhat, but will not prevent world peak oil at all — and this is just the latest news sources that came up.

    Canada National post

    Mixing oil and water
    Jon Harding in Fort McMurray and Claudia Cattaneo In Calgary, Financial Post
    Published: Saturday, February 03, 2007
    This is the first in a two-part Series Examining The Growing Debate Between Industry And the province of Alberta over The Use Of Water For The Surging oilsands sector. Today, Calgary bureau reporters Claudia Cattaneo and Jon Harding look at how the Issue Is Splitting The Province, and how one company, Imperial Oil Ltd., came out ahead in the oil Industry's First Major Water Fight 12 years ago. On Monday, we'll Show How Two Of The Province's major rivers -- the Athabasca and the North Saskatchewan -- are Being Affected By Oil Development, And The Strategies Companies Are Putting In Place To Deal With Their Water Challenges.
    Water and natural gas are the 2 limiting factors in the production of tar sands. And the estimates of the amounts of tar sands include all "probable" oil... but not the proven, economically and energetically extracted oil! ERoEI is everything in this game.

    According to Simon Dyer, researcher for the University of Alberta’s Pembina Institute and co-author of the report, Death by a Thousand Cuts, Alberta is facing a serious environmental crisis due to oil sands development in the northern part of the province.
    The Gateway



    BIOFUELS, BIOMASS, ETHANOL, BIODIESEL

    Many biofuels are not even an energy source because they take so many fossil fuel inputs into their fertilizer, pesticides, harvesting, and processing. Some are very definitely a negative ERoEI, but some are positive — yet even those biofuels that have a postive ERoEI will not replace the CUBIC MILE OF OIL that we burn each year. There simply is not enough land to grow enough fuel!

    Lester Brown on CNN Money said...

    "We are facing an epic competition between the 800 million motorists who want to protect their mobility and the two billion poorest people in the world who simply want to survive. In effect, supermarkets and service stations are now competing for the same resources.

    This year cars, not people, will claim most of the increase in world grain consumption. The problem is simple: It takes a whole lot of agricultural produce to create a modest amount of automotive fuel.

    The grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol, for instance, could feed one person for a year. If today's entire U.S. grain harvest were converted into fuel for cars, it would still satisfy less than one-sixth of U.S. demand."
    The Australian Medical Association wrote to the Senate they were so concerned about the potential humanitarian crisis if we turned all our food into fuel (just to get say 10% of our fuel!) See submission 88 here, PDF

    THIS IS HOW MUCH OIL WE BURN EACH YEAR



    THIS IS HOW MANY ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES IT WOULD TAKE TO REPLACE THAT AMOUNT OF "ENERGY" —*but if it's not a liquid fuel, we still have to change a trillion dollar world transport system over to electricity and there go the airlines!

    Note: the graphic below is how many of each alternative we would need to build EACH YEAR FOR 50 YEARS TO WORK UP TO 1 CUBIC MILE OF OIL!

    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Tinfoil on the inside?

    Do you spend all your time cruising the web in frenetic cherry picking need to validate yourself?

    If you can't sleep, breathing exercises and warm milk may help. Something tells me, however, you'll be in a cut and paste mode. :P

    We await your next 'proof'. Remember Ctrl /C to copy. :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Trolling all the way are you?

    Insult ctrl-c and ctrl-v if you like — but you're just trying to hide that you're firing blanks.

    Let's calm down a bit and look at the data shall we?

    I admit you'll know more about the "ins and outs" of tar sands because of your partner.

    But can I ask you to try and step back from that a bit, and seriously prove that tar-sands will meet world oil demand? Because I have quoted Chevron, celebrity scientists, the Australian Federal government, a host of geologists... and you have quoted?

    I don't have time for trolls... this is your last chance to reply with substance, otherwise you'll be on my ignore list.
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Deep breathing and warm milk. Much more relaxing than Ctrl/C and all your 'data'.


    Deleted
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Its so nice to see two grown men behaving like little children ! :?

    Maybe both of you should buy chemistry sets and have a play with them ?

    * Boy on the box is making a clock powered by a potatoe....

    * Boy in his bedroom is making a device that will lead to the evacuation of Greater London.

    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Guest
    And if MI5 is reading this, he lives in croydon, 32 Atomic Gardens, Shelter 1B (with the blue padlock).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Hey, at least I've provided a little data. 8)
    What has he supplied? I've taken a chill pill and — after giving him a few chances to say something substantial — have simply put him on my ignore list. "Don't feed the trolls" as they say.

    Back onto the subject.... remember I told you I've met with some politicians on this? The following is one guy we are working with in raising awareness.


    Andrew McNamara is the Queensland member for Hervey Bay. He has a background as a lawyer, is a Labor MP in Queensland, and is a fairly "solid" and real world sort of guy.

    He read "The Party's Over" by Richard Heinberg while on holidays. He was so utterly convinced about the trouble we're in, he went into Queensland Parliament after his holidays and started raving about peak oil in much the same language that I have been using.

    This is how Andrew McNamara sums up a 60 minutes story
    ANDREW MCNAMARA: If we don't plan for it, the impact can be catastrophic.

    TARA BROWN: Andrew McNamara believes our future may lie in the past. Cities must be redesigned into smaller communities where we grow our own food. We'll walk and cycle instead of driving and we'll work close to home.

    ANDREW MCNAMARA: We are going to get there by using less energy, by laying out our cities far more intelligently and in the end by understanding that society is going to change.

    TARA BROWN: So what you're saying is the suburban sprawl, the way we live today, is unsustainable?

    ANDREW MCNAMARA: I have not the slightest doubt that the suburban sprawl, which took place after World War II and which continues to this day, will be seen as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the planet.
    and later....

    ANDREW MCNAMARA: No-one that I have spoken to privately in the industries suggests that there's some magic bullet here and that we're suddenly going to find Saudi Arabia again. It's not going to happen. The issue here is that if we don't deal with this, then we start living a 20th century, then a 19th century, then an 18th century lifestyle. It doesn't have to be that way but that's where we're headed if we do nothing.

    TARA BROWN: And we're doing nothing right now?

    ANDREW MCNAMARA: At the moment, zip.
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Megabrain
    And if MI5 is reading this, he lives in croydon, 32 Atomic Gardens, Shelter 1B (with the blue padlock).
    Oh crap ! They've found me!

    And if MI5 or SIS is reading this, please let the "I" actually mean something !
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    So what are your thoughts Leo? I'll be good, I promise.
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Eclipse
    So what are your thoughts Leo? I'll be good, I promise.
    They are chemical neural responses trigered by certain areas of the brain.
    Why, what are yours ?

    Seriously though, who knows when we will run out for sure; who knows when the environment will eventually kill us, who knows exactly when our solar system will become unhospitable? One thing I do know for sure is that if we are to survive as a species or as an eco-system, we need to start developing effective contingency plans.

    Becuase if we dont and we run out of black gold, economies will collapse and we WILL plunge into a third world war. Im sure of that.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    (gafawfs)

    What is this? Happy hour at the Atomic Gardens?
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Maybe.
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Getting back onto the subject....
    I hate it when I am right (on this subject anyway.)

    *****************

    Published on Thursday, March 1, 2007 by Platts
    US Congressman says GAO report points to arrival of peak oil

    A draft US Government Accountability Office report finds that, though it is difficult to assess whether the world has reached "peak oil," a large number of experts surveyed for the report believe the world may have reached the peak for conventional petroleum supplies, said Representative Roscoe Bartlett, Republican-Maryland.

    Bartlett, who has raised concerns that the world has produced more oil than remains in reserves, ordered the report from GAO -- the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress -- and will release it within the next month.

    He said the report authors did not get a fix on how much oil is left in the world because principal oil suppliers would offer no information about how much oil they have left.

    "They have no reason to tell us and little reason to be truthful," Bartlett said, so it is "very difficult to determine a date specific" when the world will reach peak oil.

    But he added that the GAO report found that "the largest number of [experts] believe that it has occurred, that conventional supplies have peaked."


    See original article at Platts for the rest of the article.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    This could be big. Already we've been contacted by a reporter from the national media about it.

    For background on the GAO report, see Tom Whipple's columnn from November 16, 2006: The Peak Oil Crisis: The Studies (also posted at EB.)

    Thanks to Douglas Low of the Oil Depletion Analysis Center (ODAC) for pointing to this article in today's ODAC newsletter.

    UPDATE: Comment from westexas (Jeffrey Brown):

    For me, the most compelling observation is that the average monthly Brent spot crude oil price in the 20 months prior to 5/05 was $38 per barrel, while the average monthly Brent spot crude oil price in the 20 months after 5/05 was $62 per barrel.

    So far, based on EIA data, 5/05 is the record month for crude + condensate.

    The cumulative shortfall between what the world would have produced at the 5/05 rate and what we actually produced (through 11/06) is in excess of 300 million barrels of crude + condensate.

    However, as have discussed, I think that Net Oil Exports are falling much faster than overall world crude oil production is falling.

    When we get the EIA data for December, I'll do another oil export estimate, for all of 2006.

    -BA
    Article found at :
    http://www.energybulletin.net/newswire.php?id=26644

    Original article :
    http://www.platts.com/Oil/News/63602...energybulletin


    http://www.energybulletin.net/26644.html
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Leo, when you say we WILL plunge into war (if we are at peak oil already), are you visualizing the stuff that the new documentary "A Crude Awakening" presents?

    Because.... this report from all the official energy agencies seems to indicate that Saudi Arabia may have peaked.... and that means the world has peaked. Depending on who you read, SA has lost 1mbd production in 2006. We are hoping for more time, and just hoping that this is some kind of infrastructure change-over and that they will be able to ramp it up again soon. Hoping. But we don't know do we, because they won't let us in to verify their reserves of the world's most important natural resource.



    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2325
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    we are not privy to all mid east oil reserve data. many feel SA has much more then we or they will acknowledge and in many places extracted oil is down for lack of maintenance. even Russia could produce more with better and updated technology, which is in progress. Southern Asia literally hand pumps oil and the oil sands just a spectacle for locals.

    yes, there is talk of who will do what if a peak were ever approached or demands of some dictator leads to confrontation. likewise food and water are suggested for reason for aggression. most however realize that oil is plentiful, those that have will gladly sell and the prices are still under the supply and demand principles.

    its more likely when and if this idea is ever given stature, alternatives will become cheap enough by demand to accommodate much of the worlds need. i will hold to the idea that with cheap oil and it is, many products although available, for lack of demand are to expensive to produce in limited quantities. any successful producer of an item will tell you where the cost efficiency of their item is. ie, the first 1000 will cost X and the next 1000 1/2X, then 1/4X and so on. production of items with out a place to sell or market, limits production. example, Ford and GM could make 5 times the cars they do today, but demand has been limited by competition. there combined loss, many billions just to stay in business, while Toyota cannot produce enough to feed there demand and make billions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    we are not privy to all mid east oil reserve data. many feel SA has much more then we or they will acknowledge and in many places extracted oil is down for lack of maintenance.
    So we are down to what some geologists — without access to the middle east — feel?

    even Russia could produce more with better and updated technology, which is in progress. Southern Asia literally hand pumps oil and the oil sands just a spectacle for locals.
    Russia has already peaked and was in steady geological decline until the USSR collapsed, then they hit a BIG decline. They are now working upwards to a second peak, recovering from the USSR collapse but which will ultimately be a smaller peak than their original geological maximum. This peak will occur somewhere around 2010. However, gains in crude production from Russia will be offset by existing depletion.

    yes, there is talk of who will do what if a peak were ever approached or demands of some dictator leads to confrontation. likewise food and water are suggested for reason for aggression. most however realize that oil is plentiful, those that have will gladly sell and the prices are still under the supply and demand principles.
    No, most do not realize that oil is plentiful because it isn't, and the risks of international tension spilling over into something nastier are a "clear and present danger".

    its more likely when and if this idea is ever given stature,
    What more do you need? The Australian Senate, ABC's 4 Corners and Catalyst, umpteen new documentaries that are going to scare the crap out of people, even churches are now showing peak oil movies (meaning the conservative right wing are almost on board with all this).... I don't think you understand. Peak oil just went mainstream. The general public are only just catching up.

    alternatives will become cheap enough by demand to accommodate much of the worlds need.
    Have you got a source?

    The DOE sponsored the "Hirsch Report". I have written to Robert Hirsch and asked for a summary of his 96 page report. This is what he said:

    "No one knows with certainty when the world production of conventional oil will peak, but a number of experts think it will happen in the next 5-15 years. Our work illustrates that the oil peaking problem can be mitigated with available technologies, but the time required for implementation is measured on a 15-20 year time line, at best.

    The character of the oil peaking problem is like none other; without timely mitigation, the impacts will be dire, worldwide, and long-lasting. Prudent risk management dictates serious attention and massive action soon, which is difficult for most people and many decision-makers, who tend to wait until a problem is obvious before taking action.
    Use this as you see fit.
    Bob"
    See Jackson, I want to agree with you. But I just cannot until I see a massive societal debate, and then an action plan implemented. I admit there are unknowns.

    The great unknown to me that could save a lot of oil are reports of new super-batteries that could run EV's. But I have resource questions there as well.... how much Lithium is in the world? Even if there is enough Lithium, how quickly can the Lithium mining and processing sector be scaled up? How much lead time do they need? How much will it cost? Where is the Lithium? Are there geopolitical issues in mining it? How will a massive increase in demand for Lithium for EV's affect the Laptop market that also needs Lithium batteries? What about Lithium as a medicine for bi-polar disorder?

    Society needs to start talking about this stuff!
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    An engineering mate of mine has plotted what Saudi Arabia SAID they were going to do with what actually happened last year. The results are stark!

    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Eclipse;

    economics; i very carefully laid out the supply/demand and cost/efficiency systems of business, even throwing in a little of the competition components. if you would like go to Yahoo, business and check out Evergreen Solar. they produce the solar receiver used in most units that transform the energy into electricity. they do sell most of there product in Europe, primarily French and Germany but can produce many more units than could sell worldwide. next year they will introduce a unit which will generally 10 times the current unit. if interested they are listed on NASD, as ESLR and i do own some. they however do not make money, pay no dividends and may be years from doing so.

    i am not getting into charts. i have seem them on a number of sites reflecting 30 to 75 years to any peak. the idea of of 3% per year increased usage the rule and very questionable.

    no, Russia, is not said to be near a peak, much less past it. on par there equipment is obsolete, in need of repair and productions are down. some feel and i understand being checked out, that Siberia is flush with deposits.
    having said this, adding Canadian reserves; studies and surveys for deposits have generally been where allowed and then in certain areas where conditions were thought favorable for formations. much of Asia, India, near all of China or So Asia and all of Antarctica have not been studied.

    as to debates; having seen the results of Global Warming debates, the great Gas shortage of the 70's and the frenzy of so many issues, i feel its best left to the people who have interest in the outcome. BP, Exxon/Mobil,
    with all the rest have vested interest in the issue and issue monthly reports.

    as for remedies; there are so many plans in progress to limit oil dependency, increase efficiencies and commercial uses of alternatives, it would take a week to just list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Eclipse;

    economics; i very carefully laid out the supply/demand and cost/efficiency systems of business, even throwing in a little of the competition components. if you would like go to Yahoo, business and check out Evergreen Solar. they produce the solar receiver used in most units that transform the energy into electricity. they do sell most of there product in Europe, primarily French and Germany but can produce many more units than could sell worldwide. next year they will introduce a unit which will generally 10 times the current unit. if interested they are listed on NASD, as ESLR and i do own some. they however do not make money, pay no dividends and may be years from doing so.
    1. No alternative energy unit is going to replace oil in the timeframes we need. This is a liquid fuel crisis! As much as I love renewable energy, Evergreen Solar will not solve this crisis! They generate electricity, not oil. I refer you again to the DOE's Robert Hirsch.


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    i am not getting into charts. i have seem them on a number of sites reflecting 30 to 75 years to any peak. the idea of of 3% per year increased usage the rule and very questionable.
    2. The data is devastating to your case. If you can't read graphs, then read these statements by Chevron.


    1 While supplies are currently abundant, they won't last forever.2 Oil production is in decline in 33 of the 48 largest oil producing countries,
    Chevron's "Will You Join us?" oil crisis website.

    It then goes on a whole "emergency" rant... "We need your help!"

    Now more than ever we need to work together.

    Energy will be one of the defining issues of this century, and one thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over. What we all do next will determine how well we meet the energy needs of the entire world in this century and beyond.

    The trends are in motion.

    Energy demand is soaring as never before and driving economic growth. And improved standards of living are requiring increasing amounts of energy. In fact, some say that in 20 years the world will consume 40% more oil than it does today.1

    The facts are compelling.

    Many of the world’s oil and gas fields are maturing.2 And new energy discoveries are mainly occurring in places where resources are difficult to extract—physically, technically, economically, and politically.3 When growing demand meets tighter supplies, the result is more competition for the same resources.


    The only energy we have in abundance: Human energyTM.

    We can wait until a crisis forces us to do something. Or we can commit to working together, and start by asking the tough questions: How do we meet the energy needs of the developing world and those of industrialized nations? What role will renewables and alternative energies play? What is the best way to protect our environment? How do we accelerate our conservation efforts? Whatever actions we take, we must look not just to next year, but to the next 50 years.

    We need your help.

    At Chevron, we believe that innovation, collaboration and conservation are the cornerstones on which to build this new world. But we can’t do it alone. Corporations, governments and every citizen of this planet must be part of the solution as surely as they are part of the problem.
    http://willyoujoinus.com/vision/

    This is an oil company begging like little Oliver, "Please sir, i want some more".

    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    no, Russia, is not said to be near a peak, much less past it. on par there equipment is obsolete, in need of repair and productions are down. some feel and i understand being checked out, that Siberia is flush with deposits.
    having said this, adding Canadian reserves; studies and surveys for deposits have generally been where allowed and then in certain areas where conditions were thought favorable for formations. much of Asia, India, near all of China or So Asia and all of Antarctica have not been studied.
    I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Yes there is a lot of oil in Russia!

    Russia, the world's No 2 oil producer, sits on some of the biggest untapped oil and gas fields in the world. No big wonder that Moscow closely monitors developments in the Middle East, which accounts for roughly two thirds of the world's crude reserves, as any kind of transformation there could change the global oil business landscape.
    http://energybulletin.net/4215.html

    But will it scale up to offset depletion from the 33/48 significant oil nations that have already peaked and are in terminal decline? (Meaning always producing less oil each and every year post-peak.) Will Russia's maximum rate of daily extraction prevent the end of cheap oil, or are we destined for an international bidding war over the remaining crude?

    Russia has announced that their oil production will peak by 2010!!!!!
    Russian oil output could peak at more than 510 million tons annually in 2010, or 10.2 million barrels per day, Russian Industry and Energy Minister Victor Khristenko said on Monday, Oct. 24.
    “It will reach a certain plateau of production within the time frame of 2010,” Khristenko, quoted by the Reuters agency, told reporters. That plateau would be about 510 to 520 million tons a year, he said, or the equivalent of about 10.2 to 10.4 million barrels per day.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    as to debates; having seen the results of Global Warming debates, the great Gas shortage of the 70's and the frenzy of so many issues, i feel its best left to the people who have interest in the outcome. BP, Exxon/Mobil,
    with all the rest have vested interest in the issue and issue monthly reports.
    Exxon is funding The Denial Machine and "Carbon is Life" adds. They engage in misinformation on behalf of their product with as much vigor as the tobbacco companies tried to fight the "Smoking gives you cancer" campaigns, and if you watch the free online CBC documentary on the Denial Machine, you'll see that they even hired some of the same suspicious scientists! But I don't want to get into a big thing on Global Warming because you are just trying to distract from the main topic... we can count the barrels, we can know that there is a crisis coming, half the geologists in Australia can now see it coming, and even lay-people like myself can count the megabarrels.

    There simply isn't enough new production that we know about coming online to prevent a major oil crisis by about 2009, 2010. This can be known, don't imply that it's too hard to "count" by throwing in Global Warming as an example of scientific discord (which it isn't, anyway).

    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    as for remedies; there are so many plans in progress to limit oil dependency, increase efficiencies and commercial uses of alternatives, it would take a week to just list.
    The Hirsch report says otherwise. There are plans, but they will take decades to implement. There is legislation to allocate oil to the right places and ensure society keeps ticking along, but it's going to hurt. We can get through this, but my point is that it's a debacle that we've left it so long to adjust to an oil-free world. Forget "Watergate" because "Oilgate" is coming, and it's going to bankrupt the world for decades to come. Expect a Greater Depression.

    Can you get around your neck of the woods on a bike? Can all your friends get to work and church and the movies and do their shopping and get their kids to school on a bike? Can companies get their components? What about agriculture? We have decades of work to do... and as Republican Roscoe Bartlett (Pentagon adviser on scientific matters) says in the preview to this new documentary

    "If you ask the question, do we have a plan for when we reach peak oil, the answer is certainly, NO!"
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    I always thought the reason we used oil was because of its ease of use not because of cost, coal i thought was the cheapest way of producing energy/motion. I understand that it would take time to change from oil to the alternatives, but there are alternatives. We have the ability to produce huge amounts of clean electricity, more than enough for land based transport and electrical goods. The only question would be with air and sea transport, this i think could be replaced with bio fuel. Although i don't know how much land it would need to produce the amount of fuel required by just those two industries, or even if they can use that type of fuel.

    As i see it we are already changing away from oil. And if/when we do start to have shortages the price of oil will go up, so naturally governments, companies and people will start looking at alternatives, which we are already doing for different reasons.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    YES! I completely agree with everything you said. There are alternative methods of generating power. We have the potential to produce vast amounts of electricity from renewable energy... just 1% of the Sahara desert would run all the world's electricity in today's solar thermal technology, let alone the cheap electricity promised by nano-solar technology.
    And there may well be niche fuels for airlines and cargo-ships... although much of this will be coal-to-liquids and very dirty and CO2 polluting. But that doesn't matter if we are not producing as much co2 for oil and electricity in other sectors hey?

    But as much as Robert Hirsch and the vast majority of "peakniks" agree with you in that alternatives WILL become more economically attractive after peak oil, again I have to emphasize the enormous difficulty of getting from here to "there"... a successful post oil world.

    A leading peak oil researcher and Sydney Engineer just emailed me this letter he has been sending to all our politicians... here's the summary.


    As a leading peak oil researcher in Australia, I cannot recommend to plan, let alone start construction of any big tunnel projects, whether road or rail. This is because global crude production has already peaked in 2005 and, at best, we are on an undulating production plateau for a couple of years, followed by permanently declining oil production thereafter. Decline rates can be 30% in 10 years, may be even more. Not only will oil prices skyrocket, but there will be physical petrol and diesel shortages, making any project involving the movement of large volumes of rock an almost impossible task
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    eclipse; all ins Cats post, i also agree with and the point of my efforts.

    also i agree no one item, will replace oil. each however will prolong the life span of oils availability or if you prefer "peak".this combined with my view of future oil fines and in my opinion places this peak at 100 to 300 years pending factors. since i realize i am in the minority, i will pre-submit the accepted differences.

    on the charts; i recall charts in the 70's showing natural gas availability and all the industry and public went through. according to those charts we ran out in 1981 or so. i also recall charts and from oil companies, indicating 100, 200 years of oil supply. this before most current finds and well before oil sands production. even if well intended, all have taken there place in idea heaven.

    as in any discussion of any issue pertaining to capitalism, i find the facts and figures most used are those by the parties with an agenda or motive to crush an industry. personally you do not seem to fit this mode, so i will end by saying we will disagree to agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Guest
    I think they should spend the [research] money on inproving alternate forms of energy, just ploughiing it into extracting every last drop of oil from the earth is downright laughable, and will lead to a hell of a fight over the last barrel. It's an inefficient, antiquated, and evironmentally damaging product.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    in the US, we have currently being aired TV commercials from an environmentalist group using little kids telling oil companies they should do this. find alternatives, Mr. Big Oil...

    if i run a grocery store, my advertising and window signs will not tell my customers to shop at Wal-Mart, that they are cheaper.

    however;
    oil companies, do spend great deals of money on alternative fuels. as a company they need a product available and in use as long as possible and would very much like to be part of any real effective means for energy.

    w/o getting to deep in this, what ever produces oil from natural elements did not start and stop in one day. where we find oils and the forms and components indicate some process. this process is on going and some how oil is still being produce today by nature. its not likely equal to our daily usage, but is ongoing and will continue long after were done using the stuff, whether next week or in 1k years. by the way, some of the old or early 1900 wells that ran out years ago are found to have been substantially replenished.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Jeremy Leggett's "Half Gone" is good on this.

    There were 2 periods of massive oil formation hundreds of millions of years ago. It takes millions of years to produce. So no, oil will not form in any quantity of value in the human lifetime, in the lifetime of this civilization, and maybe even in the lifetime of this species. It's why it's not called renewable.

    There is a very minority theory — tiny really — called a-biogenic, but it's laughable and no oil company explores for oil based on this theory.

    A good introduction is the formation of oil at Wikipedia.

    Again, if you can, watch Catalyst to get a glimpse of how serious this is. We have simply left it too late. Our very food depends on oil!

    Or watch some of the previews to the documentaries above. We have about 3 years according to the figures I see, some are saying we peaked last year!!!! and are about to see the economic fallout begin this year and next year.
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    getting into oil formations, where and why, what period, organic life availability and time are in general hypothetical guesses based on assumption. this would also entail biology, breakdowns of matter and the hypothetical conditions of soils and depths millions of years in the past, much less the hypothetical placements of continents which are also not firm in scientific views.

    i am sure you can explain in theory, why large amounts of oil are found 2 miles deep in the Gulf of Mexico and all the life that must have existed in Siberia 65 million years ago. even the pressures and other elements thought to have been involved which could not have existed in places where some oil is found today. i could and based on the same assumptions go either way in a discussion.

    my arguments on peak oil or continuous formations are not based on either the fossil theory or the abiogenic theory. if you wish my guess, i would say the idea that oil is a natural combination of elements found deep in the earths mantle (where pressures are the norm) and seeps upward from pressure much like lava does in nature. the sand and shale covered probably from the early days, even before any massive life (fossil) formed lakes in where this item is found. the process on going and by going deeper are just beginning to close in on the secrets of formation.
    by the way, i have heard no one suggest that any large amounts (by weight) of life was on earth hundreds of millions of years ago...

    once again; where a long way from peak. we may never peak as the hysteria on the subject increases and alternative take hold. i suspect before long someone someplace will find a single deposit deeper than previously looked (from some new technology) and estimate the deposit near the total previous consumptions of mankind.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    321
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    in the US, we have currently being aired TV commercials from an environmentalist group using little kids telling oil companies they should do this. find alternatives, Mr. Big Oil...

    if i run a grocery store, my advertising and window signs will not tell my customers to shop at Wal-Mart, that they are cheaper.

    however;
    oil companies, do spend great deals of money on alternative fuels. as a company they need a product available and in use as long as possible and would very much like to be part of any real effective means for energy.
    Well said.

    In western democracies we have talked about alternative energy for years. Elected government after government. What exactly have the elected officials of the people done to achieve this goal? The citizens have DEMANDED what? Nothing. Elected whom? Demanded the U.S. government raise taxes 10% and invest it in energy alternatives? No. Demanded that the governmnet put a $2/gallon tax to gas to go towards energy research? No.

    But the same citizens expect private companies to invest shareholder equity when those same citizens have demanded nothing of their leaders and refuse to invest with their taxes.

    A gallon of gas goes up 50cents and everyone screams. Everyone demands private companies do something when the People themselves have done nothing since this first reared it's head in 1973...34 years ago.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Production by "peaked" status


    Sydney Peak Oil and ASPO Australia Engineer, Matt Mushalik developed this graph to illustrate bands of "peaked status". Just visually look at the volumes already in decline compared to those still increasing.... it becomes clear that there is a problem.


    Saudi plans compared to Saudi reality



    The red line indicates what Saudia Arabia claimed they would pump but now we see their production is dropping?


    Saudi Arabia — drastically increasing rigs while production plummets


    Finally, this one really does it for me. The graph shows how Saudi Arabia are running faster just to stand still. Look how the rig count is going through the roof while their production is falling. It reminds me of the preview to Asleep in America where Professor Kjell Aleklett of ASPO explains,
    "When the big Russian oil field went into decline, they needed 200 smaller oil fields to replace it."
    The biggest field in the world is Ghawar in Saudi Arabia. If Ghawar has peaked, then the world has peaked, pure and simple. More on Saudi Arabia at "The Oil Drum".
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    Check this quote by the former head of exploration for Saudi Arabia!

    “The worst thing that could happen is to confuse ourselves and the public with too much spin about unlimited energy supplies at cheap prices, alternative fuels on a global scale, or energy independence in a matter of years. That kind of thinking simply dilutes our focus, defers the tough solutions that are needed today, and sets us all up for more future shocks and economic disruptions.”

    -- Sadad al Husseini, former head of exploration and production for Saudi Aramco, in a January, 2007 interview with the Journal of Petroleum Technology

    Link here
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    How are we all doing with $110 barrel oil? Anyone spot the trend yet?
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    31
    How are we all doing with $120 oil by the way? Ready for $200? Financial Times had an interesting article.
    I can imagine an industrial system that runs and repairs itself without oil. Yet because of the Export Land Model, I don't think we have enough time to build it. I hope I'm wrong.

    Welcome to the End of the Oil Age!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Eclipse; Many things have changed in the year, I last posted on this thread, not all having to do with an 'Election Year'. Many large finds in reserves, Chavez and political chaos in African Countries, just a few...

    If Bush/Congress would simply announce, all restrictions are now lifted on US territory (off shore/national lands) both to exploration and actual drilling, the speculation price given oil could drop and possibly to 70.00, with the knowledge, time would be needed to achieve results.

    The political climate in the US, is not helping. Each of the three people who could become President has demonstrated no desire to establish a 'energy policy' based on 'Independence', at least for crude supply...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    How are we all doing with $120 oil by the way?
    So far so good. My bus fares haven't gone up yet, and with many more people riding the buses and trains they may be able to hold fares down for a while.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Regarding public consumption, there are some interesting numbers in this article, pertaining primarily to the US:

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/7283...wth-stagnation

    Example:

    2007 was the first year since 1980 that the annual average vehicle miles traveled fell rather than grew.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    annual average vehicle miles traveled fell rather than grew.
    That's good news, but it's not quite clear what this average refers to. Since the population increased during the period I assume total miles driven still increased.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •