10 Basic Facts of Peak Oil

[pstarr]

EIA : US supply : 10,037.290 Kbpd for Dec 2010

Consensus measures production, not supply. (Whatever that is? And who cares anyway?)



(As you are apparently unwilling or incapable of using consensus formatting, perhaps you also are unable to view the entire chart. Hint: point your cursor (the little arrow on the screen) at the chart and press the right mouse button. Select "view image" and press the left mouse button. If you are an Apple Artiste, you are on your own)

[kublikhan]

All that matters is how people treat each other. People will kill each other to get the remaining oil. Every where, in every time, there has been mass murder, aggression, and constant war for resources.

It is cornucopian fantasy to believe that now, when things are about to go from the best they've ever been back to the stone age, that somehow this time things will be different.

So lets say you are right that we kill each other for the remaining oil. It is certainly possible, even probable, that resource wars will become more common in the future. But that still doesn't mean we are going back to the stone age. Some 30% of the electricity in this country comes from non-fossil fuel sources. Even were we to loose all 70% of that fossil fueled sources we still have a great deal of energy available to us. Certainly not enough for business as usual, but a hell of a far cry from the stone age. That's not even mentioning all of the other infrastructure the world has built up over the centuries.

[kublikhan]

Consensus measures production, not supply. (Whatever that is? And who cares anyway?)

Supply = Crude + refinery processing gain + other(liquids from gas, liquids from coal, and alcohols, ethers, petroleum product stock withdrawals, domestic sources of blending components, other hydrocarbons, and natural gas converted to liquid fuel.) Meemoe is looking at a source that tabulates all of this, and than comparing it to the crude only numbers from 1970 and going "AH HA! We hit a new peak!!" TheDude explained his error to him weeks ago, I did yesterday, yet he seems unable or unwilling to understand his error. Probably because the source he is using for the Total Supply numbers doesn't go as far back as 1970, and most other sources that do include 1970 don't list the Total supply numbers, they usually list crude only. But TheDude and I both gave him sources with Total Supply that included data for 1970:
The Petroleum Gap

Stop comparing all liquids to crude only Meemoe! When using numbers use EITHER all liquids or crude only, don't mix and match.

[Pops]

Feel free to start another thread if you'd rather talk about predictions but lets stay on topic here.

[Pops]

However, when they studied efficiency gains in mature systems, they generally did NOT cause Jevons paradox. This is particularly true for consumers rather than producers. Examples: Insulating your house, buying a more fuel efficient car, etc. They did notice some increase in use because of increased efficiency. But not enough to overwhelm the efficiency gain. In general, they found that for every 10 units of energy saved from efficiency gain, 1 unit is lost to increased use.

Thanks for that Kub.

[Pops]

Supply = Crude + refinery processing gain + other(liquids from gas, liquids from coal, and alcohols, ethers...

ummmm, etherrrr.

Funny, it was the very same "partisan" misinfo posted by misterno in another thread that caused me to say that the US peak is one of the 10 things everyone on this board should grasp and prompted me to start this thread!

Simply because every facts doesn't prove your belief doesn't mean you should make up your own or hedge the truth to make other people believe. Trying to figure out what is fact and what isn't is hard enough.


Anyway what about substitutes?
8. Scaling up substitutes for oil (i.e., electric cars), will take considerable time, after the need is recognized.

I'm having a hard time because obviously substitution does/will occur, even if it is walking instead of motoring. Right now we're are probably substituting some number of jobs lost for a lack of cheap oil.

Maybe we can't yet say anything - for a fact - about substitution simply because we've not done any substituting? The Primary Energy/capita chart I posted above shows a slight decline in oil for a couple of years now but it also shows a big drop in "Other"... the only thing rising is coal and gas.

[kublikhan]

Maybe we can't yet say anything - for a fact - about substitution simply because we've not done any substituting?

Well, there are examples of substitution due to artificial shortages. France switched their electrical generation from oil to nuclear power in less than 2 decades. Cuba retooled much of their economy to use much less oil in about a decade. Hirsch Report says we will need at least a decade. I am leaning towards leaving the rule in but don't have strong feelings either way.

As a direct result of the 1973 oil crisis, on March 6, 1974 Prime Minister Pierre Messmer unexpectedly announced what became known as the 'Messmer Plan', a huge nuclear power program aimed at generating all of France's electricity from nuclear power.[11] At the time of the oil crisis most of France's electricity came from foreign oil, and while it was strong in heavy engineering capabilities, France had few indigenous energy resources. Work on the first three plants, at Tricastin, Gravelines, and Dampierre started the same year and France installed 56 reactors over the next 15 years.

Nuclear power in France

Cubans were accustomed to cars as a convenient mode of transportation. It was a difficult shift during the Special Period to adjust to a new way of managing the transportation of thousands of people to school, to work and to other daily activities. With the realization that food was the key to survival, transportation became a secondary worry and walking, hitch-hiking, and carpooling became the norm.

Before the crisis, Cuba used more pesticides than the U.S.. Much of their land was so damaged (de-mineralized and almost sand-like) that it took three to five years of intensely "healing" the soil with amendments, compost, "green manure", and practices such as crop rotation and inter-planting (mixed crops grown in same plot) to return it to a healthy state. Bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides have replaced most chemicals. Today, 80% of Cuba's produce is organically grown. Another reason Cuba survived this crisis is the shift in their thinking from machine to manual labour.Abandoning their previous industrialized agricultural methods, tractors and other machinery were replaced with human and animal labor. Older farmers familiar with raising and training oxen trained others to increase those involved in food production. Chemical fertilizers were replaced with organic farming techniques which require more labor but less fossil fuels.Initially, this was a very difficult situation for Cubans to accept; many came home from studying abroad to find that there were no jobs in their fields. It was pure survival that motivated them to continue and contribute to survive through this crisis. The documentary states that today, farmers make more money than most other occupations.

Due to a poor economy, there were many crumbling buildings that could not be repaired. These were torn down and the empty lots lay idle for years until the food shortages forced Cuban citizens to make use of every piece of land. Initially, this was an ad-hoc process where ordinary Cubans took the initiative to grow their own food in whatever piece of land was available. The government encouraged this practice and later assisted in promoting it. Urban gardens sprung up throughout the capital of Havana and other urban centers on roof-tops, patios, and unused parking lots in raised beds as well as "squatting" on empty lots. These efforts were furthered by Australian agriculturalists that came to the island in 1993 to teach permaculture, a sustainable agricultural system, and to "train the trainers".The Cuban government then sent these teams throughout the country to train others

Special Period

[Expatriot]

Some 30% of the electricity in this country comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

ZERO % of the electricity in this country (or the world) comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

[pstarr]

Some 30% of the electricity in this country comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

ZERO % of the electricity in this country (or the world) comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

Theoretically yes, but practically no. While Hoover Dam was built (and maintained today) with diesel-powered equipment, the payback is proportionally huge as to make the energy cost inconsequential.

[Expatriot]

Some 30% of the electricity in this country comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

ZERO % of the electricity in this country (or the world) comes from non-fossil fuel sources.

Theoretically yes, but practically no. While Hoover Dam was built (and maintained today) with diesel-powered equipment, the payback is proportionally huge as to make the energy cost inconsequential.

There is no theory involved. Use of the word "theoretically" implies "not actually."

Actually, yes, even the Hoover Dam uses fossil fuels to produce electricity. You may dicker and claim that only a fraction of the HD electricity is actually converted FFs, and you'd be correct, but you may not claim that some of the electricity coming out of the HD depends on FF use. For example, I'm fairly certain that the HD has electric lines coming out of it and I'm fairly certain they need tending. I'm further certain that diesel powered equipment tends them. The guys coming to work there drive cars burning gasoline. The turbines require maintenance that is done using FFs. And on and on and on.

Point is, while the HD may have an extremely low FF input, it, like all other electrical production, has a FF input.

Windfarms and PV stations are so FF dependent so as to be laughable "nonFF" sources of electricity.

I hear tell that some wind farms actually burn electricity keeping the turbines spinning in low wind situations because the shafts will deform if they come to rest.

POer cornucopian fantasy includes cherry picking one of the few installations with a relatively small FF input.

Go figure out how much oil you need to burn to dig, purify, burn, and store U. Then let me know what % of nuclear is indirect oil. Same for PV.

[kublikhan]

Pops, sorry to hijack your thread. Feel free to split this discussion into a separate thread.

Point is, while the HD may have an extremely low FF input, it, like all other electrical production, has a FF input.

Windfarms and PV stations are so FF dependent so as to be laughable "nonFF" sources of electricity.

I hear tell that some wind farms actually burn electricity keeping the turbines spinning in low wind situations because the shafts will deform if they come to rest.

POer cornucopian fantasy includes cherry picking one of the few installations with a relatively small FF input.

Go figure out how much oil you need to burn to dig, purify, burn, and store U. Then let me know what % of nuclear is indirect oil. Same for PV.

What is laughable is the assertion that humanity cannot harness/generate energy without the use of fossil fuels. That fact that we don't today points more towards the incredible bounty of energy fossil fuels provide rather than some kind of technological impossibility. Windmills and water wheels have been used for thousands of years. Are you trying to say that once fossil fuels are completely gone, humanity will no longer be able to harness/generate energy? Our primitive ancestors licked that problem thousands of years ago. And humanity has learned a thing or 2 since then.

[Keith_McClary]

I hate to confuse you further on this issue, but total supply can be misleading because it includes things like ethanol.

Which is not petroleum.

[Keith_McClary]

A fact I found most striking is that a significant increase the URR only moves the peak of the production curve a few years into the future.

I can't remember a good exposition of this.

[meemoe_uk]

Hi All, after looking at your links and posts in relation to US crude oil production, I've decided your right, so I'll have to retract this statement.

>Ok. But we're still waiting for the US to significantly deplete it's oil reserves. The US is today pulling just below 1970\1 record amounts of crude.

I assumed the EIA was crude, but it was all liquids. Must have been skimming over the detail and made this mistake.

Now, can you find fault with my critic of the other 9 entries in the top 10 PO list?

1. "Peak Oil" is the point of maximum production followed by long term decline.
Ok
2. Oil is a finite resource on a human time scale.
ok
2. Discovery of new oil fields peaked 40 years ago and very large fields earlier still (?)
No, discovery is too ambiguous to be sure of the numbers. 1st, Most middle east supergiants discovered before 1970, the ones that make up the peak of discovery in doomer charts, would have run dry long ago if it wasn't for later much more oil being 'discovered' in those same reserviors. 2nd taking just a modest outlook of oilfinders recent discovery list suggests that oil discovery is setting new records right now, in this new golden age of oil discovery that we're living in, that all doomers ignore because it's inconvienient to their ideals.
And don't forget, if you chuck in tar-sands and shale, it sends the reserves waaaay off the top of the chart.

3. Easily extracted (inexpensive) oil will be depleted faster than difficult and expensive oil.
Ok
4. As oil exporting nations deplete reserves and consume more oil internally, their exports fall.
Ok. But we're still waiting for the US to significantly deplete it's oil reserves. The US is today pulling just below 1970\1 record amounts of crude.
5. Increasing oil prices can increase reserves by making once unprofitable oil profitable
Ok.
6. Increasing oil prices decrease demand by reducing the amount consumers can purchase
Ok
7. Increasing oil prices reduce discretionary income available for other uses depressing the economy.
No necessarily. It just means you stop working for some frivilous consumer\media\luxury company, and get a job with an energy company. So it's just the useless economy that takes a hit, no bad thing!

8. Scaling up substitutes will take considerable time, after the need is recognized.
Not significantly. Not on the time-scale of loss of energy due to PO. 5 years max if tommorrow the leaders got on TV and told everyone they were at war against PO, and we have to drop everything to go out and set up alternatve energy supplies. Alternate energy is currently massively suppressed by the oil cartel.

9. Oil production data is proprietary making long range planning by governments difficult.
No

10.The amount of energy used to produce oil steadily increases reducing energy available for useful economic work.
Yes, but the ERORI is so very high for oil, that ERORI concerns don't become significant till at least next century. Or alternatively when the real costs of obtaining a barrel of oil are around $10000 in todays money. Your own PeakOil leader Matt Simmons always used to propound this, and he was right.
For all intents and purposes, ERORI isn't a concern today. It's the MROMI ( money returned on money invested ). Money is spose to represent potential energy, but it's been heavily defiled from this ideal. To think that the direct link between money and energy still holds true, means you don't understand monetary history or current affairs. Of course, peakers love to insist this link is perfectly intact wrt ascribing the huge world debt due to supposed perilously low oil ERORI.

[Pops]

Again, we are talking about peak oil, not no oil - see rule number one. if you want to talk about life after no oil start a new thread.

Hi All, after looking at your links and posts i..[/i]

Thanks

2. Discovery of new oil fields peaked 40 years ago and very large fields earlier still (?)
No, discovery is too ambiguous to be sure of the numbers.

I talked about these earlier

7. Increasing oil prices reduce discretionary income available for other uses depressing the economy.
No necessarily. It just means you stop working for some frivilous consumer\media\luxury company, and get a job with an energy company. So it's just the useless economy that takes a hit, no bad thing!

That useless economy is someone's job

8. Scaling up substitutes will take considerable time, after the need is recognized.
Not significantly. Not on the time-scale of loss of energy due to PO. 5 years max if tommorrow the leaders got on TV and told everyone they were at war against PO, and we have to drop everything to go out and set up alternatve energy supplies.

The statement is speculative but not as speculative as your point.

Alternate energy is currently massively suppressed by the oil cartel.

I'd be interested to hear where you read that.

9. Oil production data is proprietary making long range planning by governments difficult.
No

Look, if you want to be taken seriously you need to be serious, "no" is not an argument.

10.The amount of energy used to produce oil steadily increases reducing energy available for useful economic work.
For all intents and purposes, ERORI isn't a concern today. It's the MROMI ( money returned on money invested ).

I agree eroei is not a concern while production is increasing and energy is cheap but it could be important when energy is priced closer to it's actual value. ?

[Quinny]

WTF is ERORI?

[pstarr]

WTF is ERORI?

dribble from a lazy mind?

[AgentR11]

I think there's an odd factor in play, but I don't know how to characterize it.

Most producer / exporters; are energy exporters and food importers; and a lot of how we think of their "wealthiness" is really dependent upon how cheap that grain import is. Just this year, a few heads are getting lopped off because of the balance in vs out, it caused some unpleasant people to go hungry, and they turned around and did some unpleasant things.

The higher the price of oil, the more sense it makes for grain exporters to turn grain into liquid fuel, the more ethanol is made, the higher the delivered price of the remaining exported grain becomes, and the less wealthy the oil exporter becomes. But its a slow and laggy response, you don't just up and say, "ooh, lets turn all this corn into a few million barrels of ethanol..."

If the price of oil can spike and sucker punch an economy; imagine what the bidding on grain could do if there were only enough available to feed 80% of the population, especially if the buffer of grain storage approaches zero...

[Armageddon]

Since I was a kid I have read that world oil production has peaked and is going to decline. Back then, world production was about 20 MB per day. Since 2004, world oil production has been flat at about 80 MB per day. Will I see PEAK OIL in my lifetime, or is this just a theory?

Conventional oil has already peaked

[Serial_Worrier]

Cornucopia is right around the corner. Really!