[princegio]

Maybe if the sheeple don't go bonkers over having to conserve oil and change their way of life.

As everyone seems to commute in the UK in the long term no one will be able to go to work and I guess we will have to go farm instead. We will probably be working for the big land owners for a 50p an hour plus accomodation.

But then again Laura (the tart) next door doesn't do 'manual work' .

People will change. In Italy nobody was used to put the seat belt and use the helmet driving motorcycles, but then they became bounded and now you cannot see anyone without (except in the South! )

[NEOPO]

Hmmm ok so natural gas is used to make ammonia and ammonia is used to make fertilizer so oil is not involved in the production of fertilizer.......

I needed a laugh today

How much do those blue pills cost anyways?
Which one do you recommended?
Perhaps XANAX or ZOLOFT?
Maybe oxycontin or other near death medicine can help me understand.

Hey wait a minute !! if not for oil alot of us wouldnt be here would we?

I am feeling more and more inclined to not utter another word about peak oil and let nature take its course!!!!

[Starvid]

It was nice to hear oil does not influence fertilizer so much. All the doomer blogs always say a different thing.

Resuming what I read from this thread:

1) Electricity production will survive peak oil (it depends from natural gas which will peak much after).

2) Food production will survive as well (bread will cost just 5% more).

3) The only sector that will be deeply affected is transportation.

That sounds to me as there is more probability for a soft landing.

Do you agree?

Yes I agree, except I want to point out that the "5 % more expensive bread" is not a fact. I came up with the numbers myself and I think they sound pretty good. But they aren't neccessarily correct. We could both get 1 % more expensive bread or 20 % more expensive bread for example.

But yes, electricity will survive and so will food. Transportation is THE issue, since Peak Oil is a liquid fuels problem.

Edit Fertilizer use natural gas because it is hydrogen rich. Electrolysis works just as well but is more expensive, hence more expensive food. Food prices need rise very much though, since I figure the cost of fertilizer is only a small part of the price of food.

[themotie]

I have an audio file of the seminar that I may be persuaded to make an mp3 of if people are interested.

[Starvid]

I have an audio file of the seminar that I may be persuaded to make an mp3 of if people are interested.

That would be most excellent.

Also, according to www.peakoil.net : "The seminar will be awail as streamed in June."

[themotie]

I have an audio file of the seminar that I may be persuaded to make an mp3 of if people are interested.

That would be most excellent.

Also, according to www.peakoil.net : "The seminar will be awail as streamed in June."

Is it possible to put the mp3s on peakoil.com? In that case, can anyone in charge of these things tell me where to e-mail the files? I'll cut them into reasonable pieces, by speaker if my patience lasts

[Starvid]

The slides from the seminar are available here. http://www.peakoil.net/PeakOilUppsala.html

[GD]

Can anybody please shed some light on the history of the protocol and the reasons behind the various names that it has had?

Cheers,
GD

[DantesPeak]

A Crash Program Scenario for the Canadian Oil Sands Industry
Bengt Söderbergh, Fredrik Robelius and Kjell Aleklett
Contact: Kjell Aleklett
Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group
Uppsala University, Box 535, SE-751 21, Sweden
Contact e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
The report Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management, by Robert L. Hirsch et al., concludes that Peak Oil is going to happen and that worldwide large-scale mitigation efforts are necessary to avoid its possible devastating effects for the world economy. These efforts include accelerated production, referred to as crash program production, from Canada’s oil sands. The objective of this article is to investigate and analyse what production levels that might be reasonable to expect from a crash program for the Canadian oil sands industry, within the time frame 2006-2018 and 2006-2050. The implementation of a crash program for the Canadian oil sands industry is associated with serious difficulties. There is not a large enough supply of natural gas to support a future Canadian oil sands industry with today’s dependence on natural gas. It is possible to use bitumen as fuel and for upgrading, although it seems to be incompatible with Canada’s obligations under the Kyoto treaty. For practical long-term high production, Canada must construct nuclear facilities to generate energy for the in situ projects. Even in a very optimistic scenario Canada’s oil sands will not prevent Peak Oil. A short-term crash program from the Canadian oil sands industry achieves about 3.6 mb/d by 2018. A long-term Crash program results in a production of approximately 5 mb/d by 2030.

Peakoil.net
Warning: 46 page PDF

[pedalling_faster]

check out pages 25, 26, & 36.

[FatherOfTwo]

A Crash Program Scenario for the Canadian Oil Sands Industry
Bengt Söderbergh, Fredrik Robelius and Kjell Aleklett
Contact: Kjell Aleklett
Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group
Uppsala University, Box 535, SE-751 21, Sweden
Contact e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
The report Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management, by Robert L. Hirsch et al., concludes that Peak Oil is going to happen and that worldwide large-scale mitigation efforts are necessary to avoid its possible devastating effects for the world economy. These efforts include accelerated production, referred to as crash program production, from Canada’s oil sands. The objective of this article is to investigate and analyse what production levels that might be reasonable to expect from a crash program for the Canadian oil sands industry, within the time frame 2006-2018 and 2006-2050. The implementation of a crash program for the Canadian oil sands industry is associated with serious difficulties. There is not a large enough supply of natural gas to support a future Canadian oil sands industry with today’s dependence on natural gas. It is possible to use bitumen as fuel and for upgrading, although it seems to be incompatible with Canada’s obligations under the Kyoto treaty. For practical long-term high production, Canada must construct nuclear facilities to generate energy for the in situ projects. Even in a very optimistic scenario Canada’s oil sands will not prevent Peak Oil. A short-term crash program from the Canadian oil sands industry achieves about 3.6 mb/d by 2018. A long-term Crash program results in a production of approximately 5 mb/d by 2030.

Peakoil.net
Warning: 46 page PDF

"Canada must construct nuclear facilities to generate energy..."
and
"It is possible to use bitumen as fuel and for upgrading, although it seems to be incompatible with Canada’s obligations under the Kyoto treaty"

Will Canadian Oil sands prevent PO? No. But Please! If these guys are going to make such absolute statements they need to do more research, and then they would see they can't make such absolute statements.

All it will take is a technology such as THAI to prove both of those statments that I quoted wrong, wrong, wrong.

THAI would radically reduce the need for natural gas and makes nuclear a non-starter (not that I'm against nuclear). THAI would also help immensely with Kyoto goals, as the majority of CO2 is trapped underground, it would reduce emissions 50%.

To learn more about THAI:
www.petrobank.com
Click on "WhiteSands Insitu" and there's lots of good stuff to read.

Disclaimer: I own stock in PBG, but for a very good reason.

[khebab]

Will Canadian Oil sands prevent PO? No. But Please! If these guys are going to make such absolute statements they need to do more research, and then they would see they can't make such absolute statements.

I was looking for your comments. Do you think you could post a rebuttal to some of their arguments?



______________________________________________________
http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com

[seahorse]

Fatheroftwo,

I have followed your arguments about THAI, but keep noting its not replacing natural gas yet. So, when or at what rate will THAI replace natural gas and at what costs? By 2012, for example, how many barrels of oil per day will be produced using THAI?

[strider3700]

All it will take is a technology such as THAI to prove both of those statments that I quoted wrong, wrong, wrong.

You've been pushing THAI since I signed up on this board. Is it in use anywhere yet? If not why not?

[thor]

Like Simmons said: "We're turning gold into lead".

[FatherOfTwo]

All it will take is a technology such as THAI to prove both of those statments that I quoted wrong, wrong, wrong.

You've been pushing THAI since I signed up on this board. Is it in use anywhere yet? If not why not?

Early operations at the WHITESANDS project began in March 2006 with steam injection into the first vertical injection well followed by steam injection with early fluid production from the horizontal well in April. This steam injection phase is the Pre Injection Heating Cycle ("PIHC") and is necessary to condition the reservoir prior to air injection and the initiation our patented THAITM technology. The PIHC is programmed to last approximately three months, creating bitumen mobility in the area around the vertical air injection well, and bitumen flow and production in the horizontal well. We are targeting to initiate air injection into the first well pair later in June. Once we have commenced air injection in the first well pair we will begin the PIHC in the second well pair incorporating knowledge of reservoir response characteristics and operational efficiencies from the first well pair. We plan to have all three well pairs on air injection by the end of the year.

[FatherOfTwo]

Will Canadian Oil sands prevent PO? No. But Please! If these guys are going to make such absolute statements they need to do more research, and then they would see they can't make such absolute statements.

I was looking for your comments. Do you think you could post a rebuttal to some of their arguments?



______________________________________________________
http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com

What needs to be done to post a rebuttal?

[FatherOfTwo]

Fatheroftwo,

I have followed your arguments about THAI, but keep noting its not replacing natural gas yet. So, when or at what rate will THAI replace natural gas and at what costs? By 2012, for example, how many barrels of oil per day will be produced using THAI?

When it comes to traditional in-situ, natural gas is used to heat water to turn it into steam. End of story. There is nothing intrinsic in natural gas that makes it a must. Oilsands players have been using NG because of cost and because its readily available. If either the cost or availability changes, there are other options to generate steam. MSAR (multiphase super atomized residue) from bitumen is one, there are others.

I don't know how many barrels of oil will be produced in 2012 by THAI. If I did, I wouldn't be here on peakoil.com
All I know is the technology is very promising and helps on all fronts: total amount of oil recoverable, emissions, water use and it partially upgrades the oil too.

[seahorse2]

I'm linking the following report here. It has captured the attention of several here, including Rockman, a reserve geologist in Texas who has 30 years experience in the oil industry. Hopefully, he will continue to review and post comments about this report.

In all scenarios, peak oil occurs at about the same time as the giant fields peak. The worst-case scenario sees a peak in 2008 and the best-case scenario, following a 1.4 % demand growth, peaks in 2018.

Oil Report

[ROCKMAN]

Here's the link from another thread that got our attention. It's the most up todate, accurate and well documented report on the technical side of PO I've seen.


Giant Oil Fields?

Below is a short bit but my all means read the entire thesis if you want to see some serious (and very supportive) number crunching.

"Notably, in all scenarios, future oil production is governed by the the giant fields and when they start to decline the rest of the liquids follows at the same time or a few years later (figure 9.3).
The main difference in the different scenarios is the peak production
level, where the worst case scenario peaks at just above 83Mbpd in 2008 while the best case scenario reaches a peak level of 94Mbpd in 2013 (figure 9.4). Thus the time span is only 5 years but the production level span is 11 Mbpd."

And to add some credibility (from another PO site):

"Fredrik Robelius, member of the Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group, UHDSG, Uppsala University in Sweden, defended on March 30 his thesis “Giant Oil Fields – Highway to Oil”. The university had appointed Dr. Robert Hirsch to be the official opponent in the oral defense of the thesis.

In the final remarks Dr Hirsch concluded that the peak oil debate now reached a new level. The fact that the forecast openly can be studied in detail and that limits are given it’s now up to CERA and other to explain in details why they end up in other forecasts. If not, the forecast from Uppsala Hydrocarbon Depletion Study Group is the one that the world should use for future planning"