[Graeme]

Three Necessary Strategies Mitigating Peak Oil

“First is conservation. That’s the missing piece in most proposals for dealing with peak oil. The chasm into which so many well-intentioned projects have tumbled over the last decade is that nothing available to us can support the raw extravagance of energy and resource consumption we’re used to, once cheap abundant fossil fuels aren’t there any more, so—ahem—we have to use less. Too much talk about using less in recent years, though, has been limited to urging energy and resource abstinence as a badge of moral purity, and—well, let’s just say that abstinence education did about as much good there as it does in any other context.

The things that played the largest role in hammering down US energy consumption in the 1970s energy crisis were unromantic but effective techniques such as insulation, weatherstripping, and the like, all of which allow a smaller amount of energy to do the work previously done by more. Similar initiatives were tried out in business and industry, with good results; expanding public transit and passenger rail did the same thing in a different context, and so on. All of these are essential parts of any serious response to the end of cheap energy. If your proposed bargain makes conservation the core of your response to fossil fuel and resource depletion, in other words, you’ll face no criticism from me.

Second is decentralization. One of the things that makes potential failures in today’s large-scale industrial infrastructures so threatening is that so many people are dependent on single systems. Too many recent green-energy projects have tried to head further down the same dangerous slope, making whole continents dependent on a handful of pipelines, power grids, or what have you. In an age of declining energy and resource availability, coupled with a rising tide of crises, the way to ensure resilience and stability is to decentralize intead: to make each locality able to meet as many of its own needs as possible, so that troubles in one area don’t automatically propagate to others, and an area that suffers a systems failure can receive help from nearby places where everything still works.

p2pfoundation

[Tanada]

Sadly none of these things are being done. In fact if anything the elites around the world may give them lip service, but in real terms they are pushing the opposite direction.

[onlooker]

Sadly none of these things are being done. In fact if anything the elites around the world may give them lip service, but in real terms they are pushing the opposite direction.

Also as per the Hirsh report, society needed to have transitioned to a different energy regime 15 to 30 years before the down slope of peak oil to avoid dislocations and chaos and effectively transition. Well it seems we are on the cusp of serious peak oil effects with NO viable mass scaled energy replacements

[AdamB]

Sadly none of these things are being done. In fact if anything the elites around the world may give them lip service, but in real terms they are pushing the opposite direction.

Also as per the Hirsh report, society needed to have transitioned to a different energy regime 15 to 30 years before the down slope of peak oil to avoid dislocations and chaos and effectively transition. Well it seems we are on the cusp of serious peak oil effects with NO viable mass scaled energy replacements

Define "viable". Certainly these are quite viable since the peak oil scare of a decade back.



And these:



Utility scale solar and wind, just in time to see the cusp of serious peak oil effects. (true peak oilers, confused by the direction of the price of oil over the last few years, are invited to do what they normally do when confronted with a reality contradicting their favorite theory...just flip the graph upside down and be happy, having "fixed" reality in the way you want!

[onlooker]

Yes Adam and tell what percentage of our total energy in the US is being attained with Alternative Renewable Energy? You will find a very small percentage. Oh but of course you resort to cried wolf 10 years ago and no wolf came so obviously wolves cannot exist. We had our chance to diversify and transition 10 years ago but we blew it. So with 10 years of further depleting oil fields not enough FF energy to simultaneously keep the Economy afloat and construct an alternate energy infrastructure on a mass scale period

[StarvingLion]

The Energy Transition was always bullshit.

The Shale Oil Crisis will happen within 5 years. The End.

[Tikib]

The Energy Transition was always bullshit.

The Shale Oil Crisis will happen within 5 years. The End.

Yea I figured that the day I read Preato and Hall.

[dashster]

Sadly none of these things are being done. In fact if anything the elites around the world may give them lip service, but in real terms they are pushing the opposite direction.

Also as per the Hirsh report, society needed to have transitioned to a different energy regime 15 to 30 years before the down slope of peak oil to avoid dislocations and chaos and effectively transition. Well it seems we are on the cusp of serious peak oil effects with NO viable mass scaled energy replacements

Define "viable". Certainly these are quite viable since the peak oil scare of a decade back.

The post you responded to said "transitioned". Since oil is primarily for transportation, if we are going to transition away from it we need lots of electrical cars and trains, in addition to renewables. At this point wind and solar are 6% or less of our electrical production. I don't know why Hirsh felt the transition had to take place 15 to 30 years before a peak, but we are not going to hit that. I would be happy for a transition that took place the same day as the peak, but we are unlikely to hit that either.

But the auto industry is being pushed by Tesla (and their customers) and states with zero emissions mandates to produce electric vehicles, so that is a positive. And renewables at 6% is better than renewables at 0.5% where they were not too long ago. So there is reason for some hope, if not optimism.

[Tanada]

Sadly none of these things are being done. In fact if anything the elites around the world may give them lip service, but in real terms they are pushing the opposite direction.

Also as per the Hirsh report, society needed to have transitioned to a different energy regime 15 to 30 years before the down slope of peak oil to avoid dislocations and chaos and effectively transition. Well it seems we are on the cusp of serious peak oil effects with NO viable mass scaled energy replacements

Define "viable". Certainly these are quite viable since the peak oil scare of a decade back.

The post you responded to said "transitioned". Since oil is primarily for transportation, if we are going to transition away from it we need lots of electrical cars and trains, in addition to renewables. At this point wind and solar are 6% or less of our electrical production. I don't know why Hirsh felt the transition had to take place 15 to 30 years before a peak, but we are not going to hit that. I would be happy for a transition that took place the same day as the peak, but we are unlikely to hit that either.

But the auto industry is being pushed by Tesla (and their customers) and states with zero emissions mandates to produce electric vehicles, so that is a positive. And renewables at 6% is better than renewables at 0.5% where they were not too long ago. So there is reason for some hope, if not optimism.

Actually the Hirsch report said we need to START transitioning 20 years before peak to avoid serious economic damage and at least 10 years before peak to be sure we can transition smoothly. By not preparing the transition will be much more difficult to do in an orderly and painless manner. IOW it will be painful and difficult instead of smooth and painless.

[vtsnowedin]

If you want to get serious about conserving oil and transitioning away from it as a transportation fuel all you have to do is raise the gas/fuel tax and apply the raised funds to the deficit. A $1.00/ gallon increase in the gas tax would raise 200 billion at current consumption rates and the 2016 deficit is estimated to be 544 billion.
Raise it $2.75 and wipe out the deficit and watch both the pressure to cut spending to grow and gas consumption to fall.

[careinke]

If you want to get serious about conserving oil and transitioning away from it as a transportation fuel all you have to do is raise the gas/fuel tax and apply the raised funds to the deficit. A $1.00/ gallon increase in the gas tax would raise 200 billion at current consumption rates and the 2016 deficit is estimated to be 544 billion.
Raise it $2.75 and wipe out the deficit and watch both the pressure to cut spending to grow and gas consumption to fall.

Washington State has an imitative on the ballot this year to add a simple carbon tax this year (I-732). It starts out at $15/ton the first year then $25/ton the second year, then a raise of 3.5% above inflation every year until a max of $100/ton is reached.

It is written to be revenue neutral with the money raised offsetting some of the sales tax, basically eliminating the hated B&O tax, and adding $100 to the earned income credit to offset taxing the working poor.

The Dims are against it because it is revenue neutral, same with the Sierra Club. Go figure.

[Outcast_Searcher]

If you want to get serious about conserving oil and transitioning away from it as a transportation fuel all you have to do is raise the gas/fuel tax and apply the raised funds to the deficit. A $1.00/ gallon increase in the gas tax would raise 200 billion at current consumption rates and the 2016 deficit is estimated to be 544 billion.
Raise it $2.75 and wipe out the deficit and watch both the pressure to cut spending to grow and gas consumption to fall.

Washington State has an imitative on the ballot this year to add a simple carbon tax this year (I-732). It starts out at $15/ton the first year then $25/ton the second year, then a raise of 3.5% above inflation every year until a max of $100/ton is reached.

It is written to be revenue neutral with the money raised offsetting some of the sales tax, basically eliminating the hated B&O tax, and adding $100 to the earned income credit to offset taxing the working poor.

The Dims are against it because it is revenue neutral, same with the Sierra Club. Go figure.

Agree 100%. Let's do SOMETHING productive in this direction, for crying out loud.

Unfortunately even if it passed (despite the lack of support from those who SHOULD want this at a minimum -- (so the libs can't even put the quest for ever more taxes aside to try to save the planet? And they call the GOP intransigent. Go figure.)), it's far too little. Since burning a gallon of gasoline produces roughly 20 lbs. of CO2, the final result is only a tax of about $1 per gallon of gasoline. Also, if inflation is moderate, it sounds like it would take MANY years to get there. Say a 3.5% inflation rate, so a 7% rise a year total. So using the rule of 72, that's a little over 20 years to go from $25 to $100, so a little over 22 years total (unless I misunderstood the increase concept beyond year 2).

I want to hit $2000 a ton in 12 years. (Yeah, the deniers would just LOVE me, along with probably everybody else). And I'd be all for either making it revenue neutral, or with making it somewhat revenue positive to do things like fix the infrastructure, pay down our debt, etc. Whatever politically would help get it done.

[ROCKMAN]

What a sad joke that Washington state is "biting the bullet" to save the world from climate change. LOL. The state that's the fifth largest US oil refiner. The state that satisfies CA appetite for driving. The state that refines Alaska's oil production. And will refine any US production from the Arctic. Production that's shipped by tanker, such as it was by the Exxon Valdez, through those pristine waters. A state with so little total energy consumption per capita it already ranks #32. A state that burns 3.6 million tons of coal to produce electricity. A state that no longer exports coal from Seattle but allows almost 2,000 trains per year to transit carrying western coal to export terminals in Canada.

And the pain that the state's citizens may be embracing. From Slate:

"The burden of a carbon tax for Washington state residents is relatively low—Washington ranks toward the bottom of all U.S. states in energy costs. The average natural gas bill of $26 per month would increase by about $1, though a good number will undoubtedly pay more. Most Washington state residents would not pay extra for electricity, as the state derives about 70 percent of its electricity from dams. But even small increases in energy prices become serious for those living at or below the poverty level, who may have no disposable income. So, to reduce the impact on poor and lower-income individuals and households, I-732 recycles the carbon tax revenues by reducing Washington’s high and regressive state sales tax rate by 1 percent. This is the largest budget item for I-732, effectively transferring back to Washington taxpayers about 65 percent of what the carbon tax is supposed to collect, in the form of sales tax relief. The bill also provides a match of the federal Earned Income Tax Credit up to $1,500 for low-income working families, accounting for another 10 percent of the collected revenues."

[Pops]

The Hirsch report is history.
It was timely and prescient in 2005. But you all keep spouting the same old stuff as if it's still 2006 and we haven't followed the recommendations.

Have you ever read the Hirsch report? It is here http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/ot ... g_NETL.pdf or http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/hirsch.htm

At root it is a call for increased FF production (pg 5, point 7):

While greater end-use efficiency is essential, increased efficiency alone will
be neither sufficient nor timely enough to solve the problem. Production of large
amounts of substitute liquid fuels will be required. A number of commercial or
near-commercial substitute fuel production technologies are currently available
for deployment, so the production of vast amounts of substitute liquid fuels is
feasible with existing technology.

Essentially the recommendations were followed to a T.
• Increase fuel efficiency standards
• substitute/switch where possible
• massively increase oil production from x-heavy, tar sand, CTL, LNG, IOR & EOR

--
Here's the picture of the actual (not idealized) "crash program":




--
Here's what happened in RL—note that the changes began right on schedule:






--
So in fact the plan panned out exactly as predicted: conventional peaked in 2005, CAFE was lifted, and unconventional liquid FF production increased— LTO is the EOR and it preempted GTL & CTL for now. I'd assume those will return as supply/demand tightens and price rises.

What the report wasn't was a call for some grand scheme of renewables, or donkey carts or Mr. Fusion hoverboards - just more FFs. Hirsch was a stopgap. At least Hubbert called for switching to nukes.

--
What we need is to figure out where to go from here. The OP says "rehumanization" - replacing machines with humans.

That's pretty funny. It may happen eventually but it won't be voluntary
.

[onlooker]

I second what Tanada said. Despite sanguine claims of a transition having occurred, the statistics and figures do NOT bear that out.
Share of energy supply from renewable sources
(2013)
World
.....................................................13.5%
OECD countries only
................................................9.0%
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan ... ng_Web.pdf

[Pops]

Hi Pete,
Obviously Hirsch didn't say anything about LTO because it wasn't developed to the extent it is today. Regardless, LTO certainly qualifies as improved/enhanced production I'd say, that it took half the time to develop as some options is neither here nor there.

My point is they urged a crash program of developing unconventional oil production to increase liquid fuels and postpone peak and that has occurred. Citing the report's timeline over and over today misses the point that it was a timeline for increasing FF production.

The more I study PO the less I think I know what might happen...

[ROCKMAN]

Pops - "Obviously Hirsch didn't say anything about LTO because it wasn't developed to the extent it is today." Perhaps Hirsch didn't notice LTO until the latest surge, but LTO in the US has been extensively developed for more the half a century. In fact some of the largest/oldest fields in the Permian Basin were LTO. Just consider one of the more prolific plays...the Spraberry Formation:

"The Spraberry Trend (also known as the Spraberry Field, Spraberry Oil Field, and Spraberry Formation) is a large oil field in the Permian Basin of west central Texas. Discovery and development of the field began in the early 1950s. The oil in the Spraberry, however, proved difficult to recover. The oil in the Spraberry, however, proved difficult to recover. After about three years of enthusiastic drilling the area was dubbed "the world's largest unrecoverable oil reserve." After about three years of enthusiastic drilling, during which most of the initially promising wells showed precipitous and mysterious production declines, the area was dubbed the world's largest unrecoverable oil reserve. In 2007, the U.S. Department of Energy ranked The Spraberry Trend third in the United States by total proved reserves, and seventh in total production. Estimated reserves for the entire Spraberry-Dean unit exceed 10 billion barrels and by the end of 1994 the field had reported a total production of almost 1 billion barrels.

In May 1952, there were over 1,630 wells in the Spraberry trend most recently drilled, but local enthusiasm had ended. In the following years, each operator developed their own methods of dealing with the unusual reservoir, and began to employ a technique known as "hydrofracturing" – forcing water down wells at extreme pressure, causing the rocks to fracture further, resulting in increased oil flow. This was moderately successful, and development of the Spraberry continued, albeit with greatly diminished expectations for massive output. Yet another method of fracturing the rocks to increase production was to pump a mixture of soap and kerosene, followed by a coarse-grained sand, also under intense pressure.

The field grew in the 1960s with the annexation of several adjacent oil pools, and overall production increased with the implementation of enhanced recovery technologies, such as waterflooding. In the 1970s, as the price of oil went up, drilling and production proceeded; while Spraberry wells were never abundant producers, during periods of high prices they could provide dependable profits for oil companies, and the local economy entered its strongest period. In the 21st century, newer technologies such as carbon dioxide flooding and have been used to increase production. Even with these advances, the Spraberry retains about 90% of its original calculated reserves, largely due to the difficulty of recovery. As of 2009, there were approximately 9,000 active wells in the Spraberry Trend."

And of course the latest production in this 50+ yo LTO play has come about thanks to horizontal drilling. And the Spaberry Trend isn't the only old LTO trend in the basin...just one with some

[Pops]

which is why, Rock, I said "not developed to the extent it is today"
At the time of the report total US production was 4-5mmbd and falling, today nearly twice that, mostly from fracked an H. drill LTO
Same with Canadian tar, which was plugging along at low levels since what, the 60s?

Again, the point is, Hirsch called for increasing FF production to combat the physical limitations on FF production.

[ralfy]

Perhaps the goal is to increase production while maintaining production costs. Given diminishing returns, that will be difficult to accomplish.