[yellowcanoe]

Can it be manufactured by countries with citizens so limited in their intellectual and manufacturing capability that they can't build automobiles for their people? And when America builds state of the art, top notch and mostly incomparable to anything else in the world military hardware, it doesn't tend to worry about cost.

Countries that export large amounts of natural resources have difficulty maintaining a manufacturing sector -- it's cheaper to import manufactured goods because the natural resource exports push up the value of the currency. Interestingly, Australia was planning to build French designed nuclear submarines, changed the plan to build cheaper conventional submarines and finally dropped the idea of building any submarines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack-class_submarine

The US has the advantage of maintaining a permanent naval warship construction capability. In Canada warships are constructed on a very irregular basis so the knowledge and infrastructure to build them has to be reacquired each time we start the cycle again. The political requirement to build new ships in Canada results in horrendously high costs compared to countries like the US. I would expect Australia to have the same problem if they had proceeded with a project to build submarines.

Some AIP systems such as fuel cell based units can provide quieter operation than a nuclear submarine which requires pumps in the reactor system to operate all the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-indep ... propulsion

Yup. I watched a story about some Scandavanian sub captain in war games against a US carrier task force that was able to penetrate its sub screen and score hits on the carrier, a non-nuke boat. There are alternatives out there, are you aware of any with the kind of global reach nuke boats have?

And if it isn't rude, is there a significance to your username? Just curious.

I don't see any alternative to nuclear for global reach. I would also suggest that the US and Canada should be acquiring nuclear powered icebreakers just as russia has been doing for quite a long time. Given the power requirement to punch through thick ice, nuclear is clearly better than fossil fueled and eliminates the potential need to be refueled in a remote Arctic/Antarctic location.

Yellowcanoe is a reference to my yellow coloured solo canoe.

[AdamB]

Yellowcanoe is a reference to my yellow coloured solo canoe.

Cool! I've never been much of a water guy. My uncle is famous in the family, plus got his story in the local paper when on the day he was supposed to be in Michigan getting his college diploma instead dropped a canoe into a small tributary of the Allegheny RIver in Pennsylvania. My grandparents picked him up early in the fall in New Orleans. I think adventures like that are just cool, bicycles, canoes, backpacking, Prudhoe Bay to Tierra del Fuego via motorycle, stuff like that.

[Tanada]

Any country that has built nuke subs knows this, the Neanderthal ones running around using silly diesel/electrics might not, lacking previously mentioned talents necessary to understand the power of the atom.

Just FYI, a number of Air Independent Propulsion systems have been developed that enable better submerged performance than a basic diesel/electric submarine. While not as good as a nuclear submarine it is certainly a cheaper option. Some AIP systems such as fuel cell based units can provide quieter operation than a nuclear submarine which requires pumps in the reactor system to operate all the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-indep ... propulsion

Actually the USN pioneered "Natural Circulation Reactors" starting with the Ohio class SSBN back in the early 1980's. They only use pumps in emergency conditions, the rest of the time they simply open and close valves to control the natural flow rate through the reactor to control the power levels. Great system for an SSBN boat, they really are a sonic hole in the ocean, they generate almost no noise and their foam rubber coating absorbs external sounds that run into them instead of letting them reflect back at high strength. COntrary to the popular understanding when an active sonar ping hits a submarine it isn't the metal hull that reflects the sound, it is the pocket of air with its extreme low density that reflects the noise. The foamed rummer coating absorbs and damps out the sound with thousands of tiny bubbles sort of the same way a crack in a bell sets up an interference pattern that damps out its ring.

[AdamB]

COntrary to the popular understanding when an active sonar ping hits a submarine it isn't the metal hull that reflects the sound, it is the pocket of air with its extreme low density that reflects the noise.

So upon submerging, and with pressure increasing to hundreds of pounds upon the sub diving, there is a layer of air coating the hull still hanging around? So, I presume air doesn't want to naturally follow the hull as it submerges, and most would float away because of buoyancy, bubbles stuck to the hull could then be swept away by forward motion of the boat, what little might stick through capillary pressure stick would certainly be compressed into a far smaller volume than it would be on the surface, and this is where the sonar reflectiveness of a sub comes from? As opposed to the sound wave smacking into the solid object the air bubble is stuck to? That is wild.

[Tanada]

COntrary to the popular understanding when an active sonar ping hits a submarine it isn't the metal hull that reflects the sound, it is the pocket of air with its extreme low density that reflects the noise.

So upon submerging, and with pressure increasing to hundreds of pounds upon the sub diving, there is a layer of air coating the hull still hanging around? So, I presume air doesn't want to naturally follow the hull as it submerges, and most would float away because of buoyancy, bubbles stuck to the hull could then be swept away by forward motion of the boat, what little might stick through capillary pressure stick would certainly be compressed into a far smaller volume than it would be on the surface, and this is where the sonar reflectiveness of a sub comes from? As opposed to the sound wave smacking into the solid object the air bubble is stuck to? That is wild.

For a layperson understanding check out the wikipedia on the technology.
Anechoic Tile

[theluckycountry]

Countries that export large amounts of natural resources have difficulty maintaining a manufacturing sector -- it's cheaper to import manufactured goods because the natural resource exports push up the value of the currency.

That's the text book theory, but in the early half, and latter parts, of the 20th century the US was a huge exporter of oil and at the same time had an expanding manufacturing sector.

Interestingly, Australia was planning to build French designed nuclear submarines, changed the plan to build cheaper conventional submarines and finally dropped the idea of building any submarines.

That whole business was political, we were never going to build them here, our small population, 25 million, simply doesn't have the the expertise. It would be stupid to tool up and build a small number of nuclear subs when existing industries in larger nations are already doing it.

We lost our native car manufacturing a couple of years ago, Holden (GM) and ford plants closed down. Personally I think it was smart, the cars were average and such industries are a drain on the economy because they can only survive with large government subsidies. The Japanese are the world leaders in car manufacturing, have been for decades, and most of my motorcycles and all my cars are Japanese. If you can swallow the BS national pride and all the tripe about how you're supporting you country by buying substandard products you can actually have a great driving experience.

[AdamB]

Interestingly, Australia was planning to build French designed nuclear submarines, changed the plan to build cheaper conventional submarines and finally dropped the idea of building any submarines.

That whole business was political, we were never going to build them here, our small population, 25 million, simply doesn't have the the expertise.

Yes. The world knows. Quarter of a millenia after Americans kicked out the monarchy with muskets and guts, those who "don't have any expertise with"...anything apparently... and lack the stomache? nerve? cajones? are still bootlickers of the Crown. While trying to bribe the Chinese with their natural resources to allow them to become a lackey to the ChiComs instead. Sheer genius down there south of the equator.

It would be stupid to tool up and build a small number of nuclear subs when existing industries in larger nations are already doing it.

In other words, you would have to grow more brains in your country, or import them because breeding stock locally ain't much, to figure out how to get a modern manufacturing base, and then apply it to said manufacturing, and your Chinese overlords probably wouldn't approve anyway. So instead, a country decides, hey! lets just keep being impotent.

[Plantagenet]

The Saudis are saying they have no spare capacity to keep with rising demand?

I wonder who does have spare capacity?

As China opens up now the demand for oil is going to go up….but where will more oil come from?

Does anyone have any ideas where the next big oil find will be?

CHeers!

[Plantagenet]

A new report in the WSJ says we approaching the peak in production of shale oil from the Permian and other tight oil reservoirs in the USA

u-s-shale-boom-shows-signs-of-peaking-as-big-oil-wells-disappear

The WSJ says that production from wells in shale reservoirs in the US just aren't as productive as they were a few years ago. The WSJ interprets this as meaning that the best and most productive shale acreage has already been drilled.

This data is consistent with the thesis of this thread, ie. that Peak production from the Permian will happen in the 2020s.


Peak Oil isn't here yet....BUT ....... the WSJ says shale oil production from the Permian basin and other shale oil deposits in the rest of the USA IS now nearing its peak....

Cheers!

[jato0072]

Unless other parts of the world can pull off a tight oil revolution like the US did in 2010, I think this decade will be the global peak (if it wasn't in 2019). The big question will be; when do the aggregate global oil declines really kick in? My WAG is next decade the world economy will be starved of primary energy and in decline. The current Bretton Woods style monetary system will be in tatters once the decline is in the rear view mirror.

[AdamB]

Unless other parts of the world can pull off a tight oil revolution like the US did in 2010, I think this decade will be the global peak (if it wasn't in 2019).

Could be. There are three other countries with tight oil resource estimates even better than the States, but as Harold Hamm has said about what drives US production, it is all about the rigs, rednecks and royalties. Plus none of those 3 are free market countries in the sense of their resource development, and light tight oil development is entirely a different game than the old school stuff.

The big question will be; when do the aggregate global oil declines really kick in?

When price doesn't allow enough profit for continuing development work within existing fields, or is insufficient to capitalize new development. Same as always. But this won't define peak oil until the ES&G and environmental policies, and failed states not failing anymore issues work themselves out among the large resource holders.

The current Bretton Woods style monetary system will be in tatters once the decline is in the rear view mirror.

And why wasn't the monetary system in tatters post Bretton Woods during the 1979 global peak? Why didn't it notice the 2018 peak? Why didn't it notice the peak people claim happened in 2005 (after they picked and chose what oil they like and subtracted that from the total)?

I recommend buying an EV and stop worrying about it as much. It certainly worked like a charm during all those 15-20 year ago peak oils everyone was getting their panties in a bunch about.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Unless other parts of the world can pull off a tight oil revolution like the US did in 2010, I think this decade will be the global peak (if it wasn't in 2019). The big question will be; when do the aggregate global oil declines really kick in? My WAG is next decade the world economy will be starved of primary energy and in decline. The current Bretton Woods style monetary system will be in tatters once the decline is in the rear view mirror.

In the real world, there will be a hell of a lot more green energy produced in coming decades (backed up more and more by batteries as they get better and cheaper), and electric cars will be producing a LOT of the miles traveled.

Perhaps just in time. But given how much crude oil is consumed by global transport, that has to help with total global crude oil demand over time. Plus, as Adam points out, tight oil and gas isn't unique to the US. Financial incentives and capital helped Americans get to producing it quicker than most.

I think it's a HELL of a lot smarter to use our remaining oil for things like plastics and petrochemicals generally, vs. stupidly burning it and causing pollution, cancer, and of course AGW anyway.

[Plantagenet]

I think it's a HELL of a lot smarter to use our remaining oil for things like plastics and petrochemicals generally, vs. stupidly burning it and causing pollution, cancer, and of course AGW anyway.

I agree with you 100%....and so do the current governments in the USA and just about all of the EU.

Nonetheless out there in the real world the data shows that global oil consumption continues to grow each year. So why is more and more oil being used literally decades after the UN started a climate treaty process to reduce the use of oil and other fossil fuels?

The reason that global oil consumption continues to go up is that China, India, and other developing countries continue to increase their use of oil and other fossil fuels......and it's unlikely that this will change in the near future. China made a separate agreements with Obama before the Paris Accords that guaranteed there would be no limits on their use of fossil fuels for the next 30 years. India then demanded the same deal. And now other developing countries are also demanding the same deal....these developing countries are planning to continue to increase their consumption of oil and other fossil fuels.

cop27-fossil-fuels-energy-developing-countries-coal-oil-gas-africa-asia

Given the fact that China, India, and other developing countries plan on using more and more oil and fossil fuels, chances are global consumption of oil and fossil fuels will continue to grow, unless we reach some kind of geologic peak in the supply of these fossil fuels.

Perhaps you and Adam are right, and global oil production will continue to grow in areas outside the US in coming decades so that China and India can continue to increase how much oil they use. Time will tell......



CHEERS!

[AdamB]

Perhaps you and Adam are right, and global oil production will continue to grow in areas outside the US in coming decades so that China and India can continue to increase how much oil they use. Time will tell......

So now "scientifically accurate" is making up claims you would like to be true and assigning them to random folks? Did the same backwater folks who taught you that it is "scientifically accurate" to misrepresent articles convince you of this one, or did you come up with this one?

[Plantagenet]

...."scientifically accurate" is making up claims ...

Thats a truly dumb idea you've come up with this time.

Please listen closely

Science has nothing to do with "making up claims" as you are suggesting.

Please shake that idea right out of your head. It make absolutely no sense.


Adam...your suggestion that "scientifically accurate" is making up claims is ridiculously dumb. Please don't post that again, OK. Thinking that way is just total waste of time for you and posting it just wastes the time of everyone else

AND Before you get even more wee-wee'd up and get mentally stuck in a loop and spend another year posting the same thing over and over again, I suggest you read your own post just before this last one. In your post you refer to there being ...and I quote you directly here....

"....three other countries with tight oil resource estimates even better than the states."

Thats what you said.

Those are your own words.

AND thats the precise idea I was referring to in my post. I was referring to what you yourself said...

Why are you so upset that I referred to your point in this post of yours where you pointed out that other countries had significant tight oil deposits??

Did you forget what you posted?? Is that why you are so angry that I referred to this idea in your post.....did you forget what you had said?

Or are you now disagreeing now with your own post about three other countries with significant tight oil deposits?? Are there voices in your head that disagree with each other???

OR Perhaps you made up that claim and you are angry because I believed you and referenced your claim???.....

I have absolutely no idea what you are wee-wee'd up about now....but it clearly makes no sense.

What can I say.....I thought you were right for once in what you posted that and thats why I referred to this statement in your post.

And lets zero in on this a bit more.

What exactly did I say about your post?

I said perhaps you are right.

No wonder you are so mad.

Clearly you didn't understand what the entire discussion was about....you didn't understand what I posted and perhaps you didn't even understand what you posted....

Clearly I made a mistake in thinking that for once you knew what you were talking about.

I stand corrected.

You are NOT right.

As per usual.

Cheers!

[jato0072]

Maybe if the price goes high enough, we can surpass the 1845 peak! Adam asks; which peak? I count 7 peaks! Do you mean the 1838 peak? The 1845 peak? The 1851 peak? The 1855 peak?

Maybe if the price goes high enough, we can surpass the 1845 peak! Well, we almost did in 1855, but there was a war and recession.

There are more whale reserves out there. It is a huge, mostly unexplored ocean! It is just a matter of price!

[AdamB]

Science has nothing to do with "making up claims" as you are suggesting.

Those of us who's science career wasn't learned in a backwater know this.

Would you prefer I had simply said "Plant is so stupid he/she/it can't be bothered to read their own provided references prior to lying about what they said" when you were pretending that Dem's were bailing dead people out of the morgue?

Clearly I made a mistake in thinking that for once you knew what you were talking about.

Clearly you made a mistake indeed. More interestingly, you can't even admit it. Based on what passes for scientifically accurate in your world, and your proven inability to even check your own sources prior to misrepresenting them, I'll continue to rely on what real scientists think about my work. You keep up your political trolling and super polluting, and don't worry about making it out of the scientific Little League. The schedule and skillset in the Majors is difficult, you have to read references you use, politics don't matter in the least, based on your demonstrated inabiity to learn it could take decades to improve your skill set to even make the Minors.

[Plantagenet]

Would you prefer I had simply said "Plant is so stupid he/she/it can't be bothered to read their own provided references prior to lying about what they said" when you were pretending that Dem's were bailing dead people out of the morgue?

You've totally lost your mind now.

That makes no sense at all.

Cheers!

[Peak_Yeast]

A few questions:
345 billion barrels technically recoverable.
How much does historically get recovered from such an estimate?

What is the EROEI?

And 345 billion sounds like scraping the bottom sludge in the bucket when thinking about the allotment of conventional oil available in 1950s especially when taking into account improved extraction methods and newer finds.

[jato0072]

What is the EROEI?

While the answer is very important to the proper management of our industrial systems, EROEI measurement will never be agreed upon due to boundary issues. I would argue EROEI has been declining since 1970 or so. It is pretty clear economic growth slowed around that time coinciding with the conventional oil peak in the lower 48 United States.

Every organism must obtain more energy than it expends in order to grow. Nate Hagens' "Superorganism" is the best model for our current human industrial civilization.