Peak Oil experts, please comment:

[Toronto Ron]

In an article that is actually about corporate social responsibility, this week's (Jan 22-28) issue of The Economist has the following (page 19):

Natural resources are not running out, if you measure effective supply in relation to demand. The reason is that scarcity raises prices, which spurs innovation: new sources are found, the efficiency of extraction goes up, existing supplies are used more economically, and substitutes are invented....

....Or take energy. Oil reserves in 1970: 580 billion barrels. Oil consumed between 1970 and the turn of the century: 690 billion barrels. Oil reserves in 2000: 1,050 billion barrels.

[RPM]

1. that's a very market based answer...

but if you assume that all energy comes from the sun (which allows plants and animals to live, decay and become fossil fuels - or for trees to grow, be cut down and burned for fuel, the rate at which we consume fuel (total harvested and mined calories burned) may well exceed the rate at which we recieve those from the sun directly. Thus, as we are not getting enough solar energy, we dig into the piggy bank of the ground - when that runs out, we are limited to what the sun brings us.


on edit: very ineloquent recapitulation of what Heinberg more lucently wrote in "The Party's Over" - check it out...

[Deja Q]

2. Isn't that a repuke rag?

If so, why are we fighting in all of these oil laden countries?

[Toronto Ron]

6. Not a repuke rag

They definitely push free markets and small-government, so while they may be labeled "fiscal conservative", they are "liberal" in most informed senses of the word. Note that they (somewhat hesitatingly) endorsed John Kerry over *.

[yankeedem]

10. Economist is for real CONSERVATIVE thinking

not the Neo-con type. They did beat the drums of war, however. It is thoughtful, though.

I never learned so much about the world as when I subscribed. I let my subscription go when the Iraq buildup was happening, they believed the WMD lies, IIRC.

[arcos]

3. Oil reserves in 2000: much lower than what they claim...

And no one knows for sure how much there is, because in the early 80s, OPEC decided to allow production levels from each country dependent on the reserves each country had. So, suddenly what each member country claimed as their reserves skyrocketed.

Also, private companies do this... Just a year ago Shell had to admit their reserves were nearly 20% less than what they originally claimed.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Everyone: arcos has made the vital point

An article on OPEC reserves

"In the late 1980s there were huge and abrupt increases in the announced
proven reserves for several Opec countries. Between 1982 and 1988 proven reserves jumped suddenly from 467.39bn barrels to 760.50bn barrels. These sudden reserves additions coincided with Opec’s decision – informally in 1982 and then formally in 1983 – to adopt a production quota system in defence of the oil price, which was coming under heavy pressure. Members suddenly added huge amounts of reserves in order to secure for themselves a bigger production share."

[spooked911]

4. I think this is basically true

I don't think oil will dramatically run out in the near future because of this dynamic.

[Solon]

14. First off, Peak Oil has NOTHING to do with "running out"

of oil. Many untapped fields, like ANWR, are economically not feasible to develop at this time(18 months worth of oil for the U.S. alone, assuming the optimistic estimates are correct and we don't consume more than what we do now per day for the decade it takes to get it out of the ground), and many, like the polar fields, will probably never be touched. This includes tar sands, which are energy sinks, in other words, you have to put 2 BTUs worth of energy into it to get 1 BTU out, so worthless to even develop, you also have the same problem with hydrogen.

The problem comes in with this, oil demand and supply have been "neck to neck" for years, and that is not going to change. We are not talking about a gradual decline in oil supply alone, but rather the catastrophic effects a supply shortage, even short term, will have on the economy. First thing that needs to be made clear, we do not have a sustainable economy, it is predicated on growth, and unfortunately, that growth is fueled by more energy consumption. Even with a "magic bullet" technology, it will take time and energy we don't have to convert painlessly. The biggest problem is not so much the oil itself, but the energy density of it. No other fuel source has more joules per gallon than oil, and by refining it, we can concentrate it much more.

To give an excellent example, what are we going to do about air travel? The only reason jets and traditional props were economical at all was because of the energy density of oil. What are we going to do, change to electric or steam engine airplanes? Batteries are too heavy for the application, steam is laughable, and even alternatives like hydrogen are not viable as an alternative. This also can apply to cars, compare the ranges between electric/hydrogen cars and gasoline/diesel vehicles, and you can see I'm telling the truth.

The biggest problem is the belief that our lifestyles, with big, wasteful houses, and a car for every citizen is not sustainable. We need to gear down on our energy consumption. This is never addressed by economists, because no one would think that actually cutting back on our energy consumption, and shrinking the economy as good things. But it will be neccessary.

[Strelnikov_]

26. You Would Think 'The Economist' Would Realize That Peak Oil Is An Economic

event. Have they already forgotten the 70's.

The deep energy shortages will come later when the effect of EROEI for extracting the remaining oil, or development of alternate energy sources, kicks in.

As Heinberg presented in "The Party's Over", economists always think that the dynamics of free markets will find a solution. They view energy as a manufactured product of unlimited supply. Problem is, powerdown is subject to the laws of thermodynamics, not market economics.

And no one seems to be talking about the apparent peak of North American natural gas production, which has an even better EROEI than petroleum.

[Solon]

27. Yes, NG is ignored, but may be much more immediate...

Last winter(Not this one), a few NG electric generators in the Northeast had the "low fuel" light turn on. They damn near ran out of NG for those plants, and barely squeaked by with what they had. Considering the delicate balance needed to maintain the power grid, this can be a major problem in the coming year or two. Think of what happened in the NE during the blackout, caused by ONE falling branch. Now imagine the same scenario, but instead, its a power generators shutting down due to lack of fuel, and the grid shorting out because it couldn't keep up with "peak time". This can get very bad, very quickly, and we have little to no solutions for it.

[Renew Deal]

5. That's one way to look at it.

Many people believe that oil will be instantly replaced with something else as soon as it's needed. Others believe that it's impossible.

I don't get what that last statement is trying to make. It doesn't make sense. I believe that there's a difference between reserves and the oil still in the ground. Also, the fact that there were 1,050 billion barrels in 2000 is meaningless. The oil supply will increase with the demand until the peak hits (a peak on a slope). I'm not sure why they are stretching so far to refute peak oil.

Start going through these links. Also search google for the "die off".

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=peak+oil

[Deja Q]

8. They're stretching to delay the disintegration of society once it

dawns on everybody that *ding* their lives are over.

[NeoGreen]

7. Two critical points...

First Point
While it is true that there will always be lots of oil in the ground, the important point is that the ease to which it is extracted will decrease, on a curve which has not yet passed the point of inflection (i.e. quickly), to where it is NOT economical to extract it.

Second Point
There is no known subsitute, other then the dream of fusion or off-world mining (think Titan and methane rain), that would give the current 50 to 1 return on energy expenditure that oil currently gives. Ethanol, at best, gives an 8 to 7 return: that is it takes 7 units of ethanol to make 8 units (and I stress the "at best" part).
Nuclear (fision ), has it own "peak" and also is not sustainable for more then 25-years (prjecting only linear growth in energy demand not the exponential growth the world has been exhibiting for the last 100-years)

[Deja Q]

9. Great post AND welcome to DU!!!

:party: :toast: :bounce:

Okay, it's a depressing topic, but it's a great post nonetheless.

[NeoGreen]

11. Not that depressing...

Since, I hope it has the potential to thwart the worst end stage scenarios of Global Warming.

What I worry about is a return to coal by the US and an increase in its use by China.

Sure, oil and gas were clean and nice and will be saved for the military, the rest of use have to "roll with the lumps".

Peak Oil is a challange that would have been embraced by President Gore and defeated to the betterment of the US. Unfortunately ** will ignore it so he and his buddies can get rich and have an excuse to shoot their guns off.

Global Warming could make Neanderthals of us all.

PS
Thanks for the welcome.

[NeoGreen]

13. If you want depressing...

Just remember this...

On a long enough timeline,
everythings survival rate is zero.

(to paraphrase the author of "Fight Club")

Think about it.

[bpilgrim]

25. that's life

but it certainly is scary when you think that the neoCONs may put all of it, as we know it, on the same SHORT time-line :scared:

peace

[Massacure]

15. Nuclear has more than 25 years.

Breeder Reactors are much more efficient than light water reactors, and the ocean has large amounts of uranium that can be seperated from the water at about $200-500 a tonne. Current uranium is about $40 a tonne.

Without the sea, I've seen a couple hundred years with uranium, and thorium is also a source that can be used after that.

[NeoGreen]

20. Granted...

I admit I was "winging it" on the duration of Nuclear, however, is it truely an option?

An order of magnitude higher cost just for the fuel, doesn't sound all that good to me.

Not to mention the security aspect of having that many potential "dirty bomb" respositories spread throughout the country.

[Solon]

17. Welcome to DU!!!

Hah, basically the same points as mine, but much more concise, I have the problem of being a little too wordy to get the point across.

[lastknowngood]

12. Your checking account isn't running out either. If you need more

money you just work more hours or jobs so there is an infinite amount of money in your bank account. That's the logic, so if your working 4 jobs and 24hours a day and you want a new car there is no limit on the amount on money only in the hours you work or what the job pays. If you want the new car you just work double jobs or find a job which pays more. If this makes sense to you, you have serious problems and that is the "logic".

[JohnyCanuck]

16. And for the less optimistic view

Oil Supply Shortages Likely After 2007, New Report Shows

Global oil supplies could start to have difficulty meeting growing demand after 2007, according to a recent analysis (PDF) of existing and planned major oil-recovery projects published this month in Petroleum Review.

While a flood of new production is set to hit the market over the next three years, the volumes expected from anticipated new projects thereafter are likely to fall well below requirements, the report says.

"There are not enough large-scale projects in the development pipeline right now to offset declining production in mature areas and meet global demand growth beyond 2007," said Chris Skrebowski, author of the report, editor of Petroleum Review and a recently appointed Board member of the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre (ODAC) in London.

"Since it takes, on average, six years from first discovery for a mega project to start producing oil, any new project approved today would be unlikely to come on stream until the end of the decade," Mr Skrebowski noted.

www.ems.org/nws/2004/01/28/oil_supply_short



FINDING 10 NEW NORTH SEA FIELDS… SOMEWHERE

By 2015, global oil demand is expected to increase by over two-thirds, that is 60 Mbpd beyond current global consumption of 75 Mbpd. To meet that demand we will have to find the equivalent of 10 new North Sea oil fields within a decade.30 Yet we are hard pressed to discover even another mega-sized field, let alone one reserve equaling the size of the North Sea deposits which are now in serious decline.

We cannot go on ignoring these problems for much longer. By 2007, all of us will be affected by the North American NG shortage. And not very long after 2007, we will begin experiencing the first global energy shortages. To quote former British environmental minister Michael Meacher, we are facing… "the sharpest and perhaps the most violent dislocation (of society) in recent history."31

www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/022304_lng_shortages.html

[bpilgrim]

18. "existing supplies are used more economically" - lol

it's not about running out now, it's about reaching the HALFWAY point and going DOWNHILL/SOUTH from there, errevokably...

just an elementary, exponential graph demonstrates the predicatability/certainty of the eventuality.

the only question that remains is, when do we reach the halfway point?

most folks think within this decade, if not already... but we won't know for sure till we're a few years out and we can MESURE/PLOT the decline of production (which we've been experiancing since 2001 - i believe

here, is a good break down of the math behind PEAK OIL...

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/Al_Bartlett-PeakOil.mp4

psst... pass the word

peace

[NeoGreen]

21. And don't forget...

Some of those countries that still have oil will realize very quickly that:
"oil in the ground" = "money in the bank".

Why sell a barrel for $100 today when tomorrow it will be worth $200.

This will counteract any improvements in efficiency once we are on the wrong side of the curve.

[poe]

19. go to richard heinberg's website

www.museletter.com

read his book THE PARTY'S OVER

resources are running out rapidly and not only oil. take a look at how the world's silver supply is doing and the world's uranium supply and the world's water. the economic cornucopians believe the market will take care of the sun if it disappears. it is not only the quantity but the quality. take the world's largest oilfield Ghawar in saudia arabia as an example. supposedly a dying field right? well why has production gone way up? they are pumping tons of saline water into to increase the rate and the oil coming out now isn't the 'sweet' crude therefore requiring more refining therefore more energy therefore more costs. same thing at Cantarell in mexico the world's second largest oilfield. that method of extraction is an indicator of a dying field. the sulfur content will also indicate the 'health' of the field. THE PARTY'S OVER. rejoice.

[JohnyCanuck]

22. Check out Math Prof Al Bartlett's lecture on exponential growth

and it's effect on resource consumption/depletion. Very instructive and not at all math intensive for those who might consider themselves to be mathematically challenged.

Professor Bartlett explains to his audience how even small constant yearly growth rates in consumption of any commodity lead to exponential growth patterns with consequently rather startling increases in consumption coming over much shorter time periods than what the non mathematically inclined might intuitively suspect would be the case.

Exponential growth is related to the example of water lily pads doubling in number from from 1 lily pad to cover an entire lily pond in 30 days. On day 29 the pond is still only half full, but there's only capacity for one more day's worth of growth. If on day 29 the lily pads become aware of their predicament and make a desperate search for new lily ponds and were to miraculously find 3 more empty ponds of the same size as their original pond, they might be tempted to wipe their brow and figure they had bought themselves some breathing space. However in effect they've only bought themselves 2 more days worth of growth. On day 31 they double in number once more and now use up all the space in the original pond and new pond #1, and the following day, day 32, they double once more and use up the space remaining in newly discovered ponds #2 and #3.

Real Player required (can't guarantee it will work on dial up, but it works great on DSL)

http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.ram

[bpilgrim]

23. here's an ----------------------------------> mp4 version

http://news.globalfreepress.com/movs/Al_Bartlett-PeakOil.mp4

peace

[JohnyCanuck]

30. Thanks for posting that link to the mp4

Playable with Apple Quick Time for the non Real Player fans.

[bpilgrim]

24. Asian Times, Jan 26, 2005: When oil peaks ...

By Tony Wesolowsky
Jan 26, 2005

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GA26Dj04.html

"Fifty percent of all the oil we are using today is just from something like 150 oilfields, and there are something like 40,000 in the world," said Aleklett of Upsalla University.

But if discoveries are down and supplies dipping, demand is up. Driving it is population growth led by China, with 1.3 billion people. Buoyed by an economic boom, China has overtaken Japan as the world's second oil-consuming country after the United States.

The US Department of Energy predicts that through 2020, energy consumption in China will rise about 4.3% a year, and by at least 3% in three other large developing countries: India, Brazil and Mexico.

Aleklett and other peak oil analysts warn that meeting future demand without seriously drawing down reserves is impossible. Aleklett said China is aware that oil will be scarcer in the future and is scrambling to buy up or contract for as much oil as it can - even negotiating with Canada, America's top energy supplier.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/GA26Dj04.html

:hi:

peace

discuss here as well...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x100853

thank GORE he 'INVENTED' the INTERNETs ;->

[Texifornia]

28. The thing is....

You have to look at it in terms of energy accounting, rather than dollar accounting.

The Int'l Energy Association has, for the first time, acknowledged the concept of Peak Oil. They place it at about 2035, others (as mentioned above) place it this decade. But the energy density argument above applies, what is critical is how much energy is expended in the extraction and processing vs how much is acquired.

Nuclear is a sink. It takes more energy to mine the uranium, enrich the uranium, build the power station, transport and dispose of the fuel than that power station can ever deliver.

The only "elephant" field discovered in the last decade is the Kashagan field in Khazakstan. It will delive 1 to 2 million barrels per day when fully operational (5 to 10% of U.S. consumption). There will not be many more elephant fields found. The USGS estimates for reserves and future production(from which the IEA's estimates are derived) are, in my opinion, wildly optomistic. The former Saudi Oil Minister agrees. The USGS estimates that Saudi Arabia will be producing twice as much oil in 2025 as they are now. I do business with Saudi Aramco specifically pertaining to oil and gas production. This aint going to happen. A 30% increase in Saudi production is the most that we will see.

This is all a long winded way of saying that peak oil is real. Energy cost will continue to rise in the long term, although there may be short term declines.

There is hope in wind. Modern winf turbines can produce electricity as low as $.03/KWH, which is better than coal (thank God). There is hope on the solar front too.

[rman]

29. discovery has peaked in the 70's

ever since discovery of new oil fields has declined and has fallen behind consumption since the 80's. this in spite of ever improving technology.

estimates of total global reserves range from 1 to 1.5 trillion barrels.
global consumption is some 30 billion barrels per year.

you do the math.

it'd be just a few decades before we run out completely IF both consumption and production remain constant - which they don't: consumption is increasing and production will decline as fields get depleted.

so it'll be a while before we run out completely, but long before that we will notice the effects of production not being able to keep up with demand. expectations are this will start in 2007 or 2008.