Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 27 Nov 2014, 08:09:08

MonteQuest wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote: You are a bit cynical you know.


I read a lot of history. It makes you cynical.

I don't think you can ignore the economics or the EROEI.


But yet we do with all manner of subsidies and more to come.

Ethanol is barely positive with an EROEI of 1.24 to 1. Some argue it is an energy sink. How desperate is it when a country like the US feeds 40% of it's corn crop to it's machines, and that is only 9% of the 135 billion gallons of gas we consume each year.

I totally agree with you on the corn ethanol. I'd like to see it abandoned but the Iowa corn growers have way too much influence on Presidential elections. The day we see someone step up and tell the corn lobby no and survives it to the nomination will be the first time the leadership has taken peak oil/population/everything seriously. Until then keep your pantry well stocked as it will probably get a lot worse before it gets any better.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 27 Nov 2014, 23:11:44

dashster wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:That is the epitome of a lack of "critical thinking."


This is the epitome of a worthless reply.


Not if you use it to really consider what you wrote.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 27 Nov 2014, 23:20:12

Tanada wrote:But look on the bright side, because there are so many idea arrows in the quiver we have so far delayed world terminal decline for 6-9 years depending on where you place conventional peak. BAU has managed to stumble along years past where I thought it would end.


Demand destruction has played a large role in that delay. If growth had continued, the US would be consuming 23 mbpd instead of just under 19 mbpd. With Europe's depression, their demand is down as well. Without this, even with shale oil, demand would be outstripping supply.

The economics is where this all lies. Can we keep the price of oil high enough to make arrows?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby MonteQuest » Thu 27 Nov 2014, 23:49:31

I took a look back at the World Energy Outlook for 2006.

"Globally, fossil fuels will remain the dominant source of energy to 2030 in both scenarios. In the Reference Scenario, they account for 83% of the overall increase in energy demand between 2004 and 2030. As a result, their share of world demand edges up, from 80% to 81%."

It's now 87%.

"Primary oil demand grows by 1.3% per year over 2005-2030 in the Reference Scenario, reaching 99 mb/d in 2015 and 116 mb/d in 2030 –up from 84 mb/d in 2005."-EIA

Today it is 91.3 mbpd.

"The global demand forecast was revised downward by 0.2 million bbl/d to average 92.5 million bbl/d in 2015, based on weaker global economic growth prospects for next year."-EIA

That's 6.5 mbpd less in 2015

"The IEA crude oil import price is assumed to average slightly over $60 per barrel (in real year-2005 dollars) through 2007 – up from $51 in 2005 –and then decline to about $47 by 2012. It is assumed to rise again slowly
thereafter, reaching $55 in 2030.'-EIA

It rose to $147/barrel, hovered over $100, then declined to $80.

"Other renewable energy technologies, including wind, solar, geothermal, wave and tidal energy, see the fastest increase in demand, but their share of total energy use still reaches only 1.7% in 2030 – up from 0.5% today.-EIA

Today, they are at 1.2%. That's the only projection on track.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby toolpush » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 00:13:35

MonteQuest,

If you plug in $147 and $100 into those 2006 formulas, what would the consumption be then? The IEA may not have been that far off the mark, they just used the wrong price assumptions.
Garbage in garbage out, as they say.
toolpush
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon 06 Jan 2014, 09:49:16

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 00:20:38

toolpush wrote:MonteQuest,

If you plug in $147 and $100 into those 2006 formulas, what would the consumption be then? The IEA may not have been that far off the mark, they just used the wrong price assumptions.
Garbage in garbage out, as they say.


This is why I say peak oil is an economic crisis and not an energy crisis.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby toolpush » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 01:43:52

MonteQuest,

I feel I am being spun in circles.
Why did the price rise in the first place? Depletion of old fields and lack of new finds at $30 per barrel, so the price went up. The first reaction, decrease in economic activity, and drop in demand. Longer term, people found ways to use less oil, by efficiency or substitution, and new supply can on line.
Now that is the picture of what has happened in the oilfield. What has happened in the financial world I will leave to others, but junks bonds to drill shale oil? I fell will have a fall out very soon, those wells will have their steep decline, demand will increase to due to cheaper fuel, and the price will spike again. They call it the boom, bust cycle.
And we continue to go around in circles?
toolpush
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Mon 06 Jan 2014, 09:49:16

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 09:44:18

MonteQuest wrote:
Tanada wrote:But look on the bright side, because there are so many idea arrows in the quiver we have so far delayed world terminal decline for 6-9 years depending on where you place conventional peak. BAU has managed to stumble along years past where I thought it would end.


Demand destruction has played a large role in that delay. If growth had continued, the US would be consuming 23 mbpd instead of just under 19 mbpd. With Europe's depression, their demand is down as well. Without this, even with shale oil, demand would be outstripping supply.

The economics is where this all lies. Can we keep the price of oil high enough to make arrows?


Its not just the price of oil, it is the willingness of the fiat bankers to invest the money needed, at least in the USA and EU. WTI was under $69.00 overnight and not much higher as I type this right now. In the USA that is destroying the value of oil companies left and right, stock prices are in freefall. In Russia where the government is a major player the oil companies will survive the storm because the government knows they are vital to the future of Russia. In the USA the government has the international philosophy that if the oil companies here fail them too bad so sad for them. Globalization is killing the domestic oil industry right now, today. The national oil companies will come out of this peachy keen in places like KSA and Oman. For Mexico it is anybody's guess, the infrastructure to weather low prices does not exist because the profits were all spent on other programs outside the oil industry.

How long will it take for the already contracted wells in Fracking locations in the USA to be drilled and completed? How many of them will be cancelled at $69.00/bbl? I suspect the first answer is, those places where work is already under weigh will be finished to recoup as much capital as possible. The second answer is a LOT to preserve whatever capital remains unspent.

If the USA government had an ounce of sense, something lacking in all politicians, they would be buying a million bbl/d of oil and putting it in the Strategic Reserve. That would immediately balance the oil production and consumption rates and restore prices to a level where Fracking would continue to receive financing from investment banks. President Obama ended the royalty payment in kind system that was slowly filling the reserves years ago, but all the capacity built for that oil we never took in still exists. Buying 300,000,000 bbl at a rate of 1,000,000 per day would take most of a year to fill existing capacity.

All of the above is kind of off the main tack of this thread however, every arrow does have its own price point. Right now I think we are below the price point for many but not all of the Fracking projects that have been planned. At the current price consumption is likely to rise which will take out some of the 'glut', and a slow down in the Fracking red queen race will also cut USA production. LaHere predicted Bakken would peak out in the middle of 2015,
Image

I am predicting he was eight months too optimistic and Bakken peaked in November or December 2014 because at these prices drilling is going to collapse. The oil that is still there could still be drilled, especially in the sweet spots that have been identified, but between the massive depletion rate and the slow down in drilling rate the peak is here now.

Of course I am just some person on the internet who knows enough to sound like I might know what I am talking about too the uninformed, but I am making the best guess I know how to make.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17056
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby dashster » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 12:29:10

MonteQuest wrote:
dashster wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:That is the epitome of a lack of "critical thinking."


This is the epitome of a worthless reply.


Not if you use it to really consider what you wrote.


No, it's worthless. So is this one.

When you incorrectly stated that wind and solar were increasing faster than other forms of power generation, but their share was not increasing, I tried to argue how that could not be true. After multiple exchanges, you eventually conceded that both things couldn't be true (although you later said it again). The point being, I argued against your statement. That is what a forum is for. Posing as the Oracle at Delphi is not beneficial.
dashster
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri 28 Dec 2012, 08:39:24
Location: California

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 13:13:55

toolpush wrote: The first reaction, decrease in economic activity, and drop in demand. Longer term, people found ways to use less oil, by efficiency or substitution, and new supply can on line.


They didn't find ways to use less oil, less was consumed by society as discretionary income went into the gas tank causing a continued recession here in the US and a continuing depression in Europe. Efficiency gains lead to greater consumption, not less, Jevons' Paradox. Substitution?

I fell will have a fall out very soon, those wells will have their steep decline, demand will increase to due to cheaper fuel, and the price will spike again.


An undulating plateau of oil production. It's an economic game of price, decline rate, and production costs.

Too high a price implodes the economy. Too low a price inhibits production. When the decline rate rules the game, that plateau will quickly turn into a cliff.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 13:17:14

dashster wrote: The point being, I argued against your statement. That is what a forum is for.


Not with anything that showed you had given it much thought. That's my point.

Perhaps I wish to engage a higher level of critical thinking.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Fri 28 Nov 2014, 13:28:04, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 13:22:52

Tanada wrote: I am predicting he was eight months too optimistic and Bakken peaked in November or December 2014 because at these prices drilling is going to collapse. The oil that is still there could still be drilled, especially in the sweet spots that have been identified, but between the massive depletion rate and the slow down in drilling rate the peak is here now.


I think there is going to be a lot of eyes watching the drill rig count on the fracking wells.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 13:36:37

While corn to ethanol and soybeans to biodiesel occurs here in the US, rapeseed oil, soy oil and palm oil are growing worldwide, displacing forests and farmland that grow food. An EU study showed that rapeseed oil, palm oil and soy oil are the three biofuels that produce more greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels once emissions from indirect land use change are taken into account.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby dashster » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 21:31:27

MonteQuest wrote:
dashster wrote: The point being, I argued against your statement. That is what a forum is for.


Not with anything that showed you had given it much thought. That's my point.

Perhaps I wish to engage a higher level of critical thinking.


I don't think you have given it much thought. If you can build train tracks before oil, you can build train tracks with oil, even if it comes at a point when people must forgo commuting. Perhaps you wish to engage at a similar level of thinking or broad brushing.
dashster
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri 28 Dec 2012, 08:39:24
Location: California

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 22:14:27

dashster wrote:I don't think you have given it much thought.


Didn't have to. There is a concept called being scalable.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 28 Nov 2014, 22:49:08

MonteQuest wrote:I think there is going to be a lot of eyes watching the drill rig count on the fracking wells.


As of Nov 26, the US rig count is -12
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby dashster » Sat 29 Nov 2014, 01:12:08

MonteQuest wrote:
dashster wrote:I don't think you have given it much thought.


Didn't have to. There is a concept called being scalable.


Give me what you estimate is the cost to build track. This site says 1 to 2 million per mil. Let's use 2 million per mile. To build an extra track we get:

Code: Select all
                                               miles  cost
New York   San Francisco           2910   $5,820,000,000.00
Charleston, SC   Los Angeles   2495   $4,990,000,000.00
Seattle          San Diego           1254   $2,508,000,000.00
Minneapolis   San Antonio   1223   $2,446,000,000.00
Portland, MA   Miami, FL           1602   $3,204,000,000.00
Portland, MA   Seattle, WA   3155   $6,310,000,000.00
                               12,649 $25,278,000,000.00


The issue is complicated by the fact that there are already double tracks in areas and there are also certain spots where putting an extra track would be very expensive (new bridge, new tunnel, new right of way in built-up area). And you can get a big gain from an extra track, even if it is single track through a tunnel or over a bridge in spots.

But for cost comparison, the military spends in a $30,000,000,000.00 dollars in a 10 year period on just the DDG 51 Burke-class Aegis Destroyer. That is more than the cost to do 12,649 miles of railroad track at $2 million per mile. A lot of steel would be freed up as well if we stopped building DDG 51 Burke-class Aegis Destroyers.
dashster
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Fri 28 Dec 2012, 08:39:24
Location: California

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 29 Nov 2014, 13:13:25

dashster wrote:Give me what you estimate is the cost to build track.


Scalability is the ability of a system, network, or process to handle a growing amount of work in a capable manner or its ability to be enlarged to accommodate that growth.

Here's current demand. 2 billion tons of freight/yr. The dots represent the hubs. Bigger image here: http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/intermodalrail2011.htm
Image

Now, increase that by 88% by 2030, and then add this along with new rail/truck hubs every, what, 200 miles? This represents 13 billion tons of truck freight/yr versus 2 billion tons on rail. To add it would be a 650% INCREASE.
Image

Still want to debate this?
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Solving the Problem of Liquid Fuels

Unread postby DesuMaiden » Sat 29 Nov 2014, 16:59:49

I think the only real solutions will arise from addressing the demand rather than the supply side of things. We need to reduce petroleum consumption around the world. There is no way in hell any biofuels will replace liquid petroleum at the rate we are consuming petroleum. Even if you were to convert all of the corn grown in the USA into ethanol, you would still only be able to satisfy only 12% of USA's liquid fuels demand. There really isn't anything that can replace the 90 million barrels a day of global oil consumption...the only solution is to gradually decrease our consumption of petroleum, so that we might able to find a substitute for it. If we can't find a substitute for petroleum, I guess that means we need to go back to hard manual labor for agriculture again rather than having machines do all of the work for us.
History repeats itself. Just everytime with different characters and players.
DesuMaiden
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 886
Joined: Mon 06 Oct 2014, 16:00:31

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 277 guests

cron