Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Peak Oil at 2014?

12357

Comments

  • #202
    Waestrel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 557 ✭✭✭Waestrel


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Not yet, the Saudis are replacing their internal consumption of oil for things like electricity generation to gas to allow them to continue to export oil at current levels for much longer than originally predicted.

    With less oil available, everyone has to be smarter with its use.

    Interesting. Where do you get your sources?


  • #203
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Waestrel wrote: »
    Interesting. Where do you get your sources?
    Theoildrum.com was the main source of information, but that site is now just an archive
    peakoilbarrel.com is a blog from one of the principal contributors to the oil drum.

    Then there is peakoil.com, a great site but has a significant number of "doomers" who expect the decline of oil to destroy capitalism etc and some extreme environmentalists who see environmental disaster on the horizon. The site has a lot of very valuable information in between the extreme viewpoints.


  • #204
    carveone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,276 ✭✭✭carveone


    Depends on how much of your pay is used just to get to and from work, for some it would be better to take a lower paid job locally than to continue commuting to a job many miles away.

    That's me right now :( I use about 11% of my net income to get to work. I'd be better off with a lower paid job locally.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Theoildrum.com was the main source of information, but that site is now just an archive

    I used to read that every so often as it was quite interesting back in the day.
    Then there is peakoil.com, a great site but has a significant number of "doomers" who expect the decline of oil to destroy capitalism etc

    I think the doomers expect there to be a movie like calamity with war and looting in the streets. Things don't happen that fast (unless you are in Egypt, Syria, Libya etc). On the other hand, I could speculate that peak oil - in the sense of oil export availability, that amount of oil available to an importing country like ours - happened in 2006. As you say - "the Saudis are replacing their internal consumption of oil...". That's happening everywhere. Oil is still plentiful but exporting countries are starting to use more of it themselves.

    The price of oil in 1999 was, what, $14/bbl or something. Now it's $100? Some of that is, I think, due to speculative overpricing but IMHO the "fair" price of oil is still $85 or 6x higher. Needless to say, that price causes less people to buy oil and oil scarcity to extend. Which in turn caps the price. So when people start bawling about $150 oil, that's when shorting oil is a possible play :)
    With less oil available, everyone has to be smarter with its use.

    That seems to happen by default, without people really commenting on it. My feeling is that smarter use is, well, smarter than attempting to conjure up more energy from places like wind. I expected insulation and home working to have become much more of a feature than it has and I expect a 4 day week to become a feature of the future. You want to hit CO2 emissions? A 4 day week will do that properly :p Hell, they had a 3 day week in the UK in the 70s at some point (and still had no problem churning out awful cars!)


  • #205
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    From the article...



    We are experiencing a short term "glut" due to the success of the massive investments done in the mid 2000s brought on by the "oil crunch" that drove oil prices through the roof to almost $150 a barrel just before the economic collapse.

    We'll talk to you in 2018. ;)

    Peak oil is always 4 years away.


  • #206
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Peak oil is always 4 years away.
    We're already at peak!
    http://www.platts.com/news-feature/2014/oil/western-oil-production/index
    'Big oil' getting smaller as production keeps falling


    February 14, 2014 - Richard Swann in London

    * Top seven western majors all seeing liquids output fall
    * Supermajors' share of global market dropping every year
    * BP reports fastest decline of 30% from 2009-13
    * Production becoming more evenly split between oil and gas

    The biggest western oil companies are continuing to see their oil output decline, despite record investment in recent years spurred by sustained crude prices in excess of $100/barrel, according to data released by the companies.

    Furthermore, with total world oil output continuing to rise every year, the western majors are seeing their share of the global market fall even faster, with new volumes coming largely from their rivals in places like Russia and a host of smaller companies at the heart of the shale oil boom in the US.


    Combined output of crude and other liquids by the seven biggest western majors -- ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Chevron, Total, ConocoPhillips and Eni -- amounted to 9.517 million b/d last year, down 2.2% from 2012 and marking the fourth consecutive year of decline.

    Liquids output from the same group has been falling every year of late, having been as high as 10.865 million b/d in 2009.

    As a group, the seven have seen their combined liquids output fall by 1.348 million b/d, or 12.4% over the period from 2009 to 2013.


    ....




    While this group is seeing its production fall, others have clearly been heading in the opposite direction.

    The most obvious is Russia's Rosneft, which has grown at breakneck pace in recent years on the back of a debt-funded acquisition spree, including the purchase of former rival TNK-BP.

    Rosneft is now the world's biggest publicly listed oil producer with total crude and liquids output of close to 4.2 million b/d.

    In other words, Rosneft alone now produces almost as much oil as ExxonMobil, BP and ConocoPhillips combined.

    The long term "old reliable's" are in (possibly terminal) decline while the short and sharp frackers are stealing the limelight for a few years, but they too will soon go into decline.......


    unless consumers are prepared to pay $2-300 a barrel, then, the next batch of more expensive oil becomes available, fracking in Alaska or in the North sea and the like.


  • #207
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    We're already at peak!



    The long term "old reliable's" are in (possibly terminal) decline while the short and sharp frackers are stealing the limelight for a few years, but they too will soon go into decline.......


    unless consumers are prepared to pay $2-300 a barrel, then, the next batch of more expensive oil becomes available, fracking in Alaska or in the North sea and the like.

    Or people move from oil to gas, or from oil to liquified coal. At the level of prices you are talking about lots of stuff comes online. In the US while "gas" prices are subject to international prices overall energy prices are collapsing. And there is 100's of years left in some of those fields. Saudi might be worried though.


  • #208
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Or people move from oil to gas, or from oil to liquified coal. At the level of prices you are talking about lots of stuff comes online. In the US while "gas" prices are subject to international prices overall energy prices are collapsing. And there is 100's of years left in some of those fields. Saudi might be worried though.
    If the price of fuel doubles consumption will fall, but at the same time because fuel is vital for economic activity, a recession will follow. As for gas (probably from fracking) in the US it's mainly a by-product of oil production, when the oil fields are fracked out of existence those gas fields will also go. In most parts of the world, fracking won't start until all other alternatives have been exhausted. Given the choice between fracking or freezing, many will choose fracking.

    The main reason that gas became cheap in the US was because there was a race to invest in as many wells as possible at a time when gas was expensive and supplies were dwindling, but unfortunately (for investors) they came on stream all at once and had to sell gas below cost to repay their debts incurred during exploration. As it is many went bust!

    The Saudi's have nothing to worry about, Chindia & Europe will be customers for a long time to come and will buy all the oil they can supply for as long as possible, the danger is that China is likely to outbid Europe in the future and get a larger percentage of the supply.

    It's also important to remember that the other fossil fuels that are replacing oil are finite as well, the UK almost used up most of their coal by the 1980s and abandoned the remainder as it was too expensive to mine. It took about 200 years to exhaust those resources, but if that coal was (by energy output) consumed at the same rate that all the current UK fossil fuels combined, it would probably have been gone in less than 30 years! So there may and indeed are vast quantities of coal in the world, it's just that consumption is increasing at an ever increasing rate to make up for the increasing shortfall in oil which is the preferred fuel.


  • #209
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Coal is nowhere near exhausted in the UK it was just too expensive relative to oil. And the figures I hear for the US reserves are in the hundreds of years.

    There is no point talking about peak oil, it's really peak energy, and that's nowhere near its peak.


  • #210
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Coal is nowhere near exhausted in the UK it was just too expensive relative to oil. And the figures I hear for the US reserves are in the hundreds of years.

    There is no point talking about peak oil, it's really peak energy, and that's nowhere near its peak.
    Yep! There's plenty of expensive energy out there, the problem is that we've built an economy on cheap energy and it isn't working very well as the cost of energy continues to rise relative to median incomes.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    Waestrel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 557 ✭✭✭Waestrel


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Coal is nowhere near exhausted in the UK it was just too expensive relative to oil. And the figures I hear for the US reserves are in the hundreds of years.

    There is no point talking about peak oil, it's really peak energy, and that's nowhere near its peak.

    What it really is, is peak cheap energy. There is plenty of expensive energy out there, hell, you could breed more hamsters and put them in bigger wheels, and get all the power you want, but it wont come cheap, so whats the point?


  • #212
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Peak oil is limiting growth and will ultimately mean that the current debt will never be repaid!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLCsMRr7hAg


    http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/energy/Kopits%20-%20Oil%20and%20Economic%20Growth%20%28SIPA%2C%202014%29%20-%20Presentation%20Version%5B1%5D.pdf (4.5MB file)
    Conclusions from the pdf


    Conclusions
    Demand-constrained models dominate thinking about oil demand, supply, prices and their effect on the economy

    •The data have not supported these models in recent years; the data do fit a supply-constrained model

    •A supply-constrained approach will not be applicable if China falters, US short term latent demand is sated, and oil supply growth is robust.

    •For a supply-constrained model to be valid, oil must be holding back GDP growth as an implicit element of model construct.

    •If the supply-constrained approach is right, then GDP growth depends intrinsically on increasing oil production.

    •Without such increases, OECD GDP growth will continue to lag indefinitely, with a long-term GDP growth rate in the 1-2% range entirely plausible, and indeed, likely.

    •In turn, if this is true, then current national budget deficit levels and debt levels will prove unsustainable, and a second round of material and lasting adjustment will be necessary.


  • #213
    Waestrel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 557 ✭✭✭Waestrel


    excellent video, watched it through. However, how dos the model conclude that prices wont rise? Surely they will have to if supply is less than demand?


  • #214
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Waestrel wrote: »
    excellent video, watched it through. However, how dos the model conclude that prices wont rise? Surely they will have to if supply is less than demand?


    There appears to be a "glass ceiling" that prevents prices staying above a certain level without triggering another recession. The "west" has been configured to operate in a world of cheap and plentiful oil, just look at all the places people live that are totally car dependent. It's this type of person who is getting squeezed by high fuel prices and some are now moving into the towns from the country, you can see this in the "housing shortage" that is appearing in Dublin now. People are moving to where the jobs are rather than commuting long distances to work.

    Another key factor is the fact that for many people their wages have declined, so even if prices remain the same, they can afford less.

    Places like India & China don't have these legacy consumers, they are still converting from animal power to mechanised power in agriculture & industry, so one litre of extra oil to them is powering their economy directly instead of being used to take Paddy to the cinema.

    I think that the key point is that if the price rises, some consumers will cut back on consumption as they simply can't afford the rise thus releasing more fuel to those who can afford it.


  • #215
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Quiz: What will cause world oil supply to fall?
    1. Too little oil in the ground
    2. Oil prices are too low for oil producers
    3. Oil prices are too high for oil consumers leading to recession, debt defaults, and ultimately a cut back in credit availability and very low oil prices
    4. Oil exporters are subject to civil unrest and overthrow of governments, due to low prices and/or depleting reserves
    5. Lack of money (and physical resources that might be purchased with this money) to pull oil out of the ground.
    6. Pollution related issues–too much smog in China; too many problems with fracking; too many problems with CO2.
    7. The financial current system fails, and can only be replaced by one that allows much less debt. Oil prices remain too low under such a system.

    http://ourfiniteworld.com/2014/03/04/reasons-for-our-energy-predicament-an-overview/

    At the end of the day, running out of oil (in the ground) isn't going to be the reason for running out of oil (to run our economy).


  • #216
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,992 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    They seem to be saying that as the debt ridden western nations grind to a halt, and their economies collapse, the price of oil falls.
    But there is another system at play here; the debt free nations which are still growing, such as China. These exist in the same world oil market, so their effect would tend to act as a counterbalance, pushing the oil price back up, or at least keeping it stable. The problem for China would be if it lost its wealth in a general default organised by the western nations. That could put them in the same boat as us.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    recedite wrote: »
    They seem to be saying that as the debt ridden western nations grind to a halt, and their economies collapse, the price of oil falls.
    But there is another system at play here; the debt free nations which are still growing, such as China. These exist in the same world oil market, so their effect would tend to act as a counterbalance, pushing the oil price back up, or at least keeping it stable.
    That is what seems to be happening right now. the price has been remarkably stable over the past few years and it is this stability that will bring about a decline in supply. Oil companies will find that they can't produce sufficient oil at the price consumers are willing to pay and won't produce unprofitable oil.

    When the consumers start to scrabble for the dwindling supply, we'll have another price shock just like the one in 2008. Then there will be a new "price point" at a much higher level, this will result in more investment to extract oil that is now profitable at say $150 a barrel.

    This cycle will repeat again and again, each time whole groups of consumers will be priced out of oil.

    They will no longer be able to run a car that has a low mpg or heat a house with oil and hundreds of other examples. This process started in the 1970s (paused in the 80s & 90s) so is nothing new, just that this time it is speeding up.


  • #218
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Here's another spanner in the works.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26455763
    The world's financial markets could be creating a "carbon bubble" by over valuing the fossil fuel assets of large companies say MPs.

    Much of this coal and oil may have to be left in the ground to combat climate change, according to the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC)

    ...
    The problem stems from the fact that countries including the UK agreed at a UN meeting in Mexico in 2010 to limit global temperature rises to 2C.

    To achieve this, economists including Sir Nicholas Stern have calculated that between 60 and 80% of existing reserves of fossil fuels will need to remain in the ground, unburned.


  • #219
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    To achieve this, economists including Sir Nicholas Stern have calculated that between 60 and 80% of existing reserves of fossil fuels will need to remain in the ground, unburned.
    That would probably still be the case even without any carbon tax, due to the simple fact that they'll be uneconomic to extract, unless the consumer is willing to pay regardless of the price.


  • #220
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Looks more and more likely that the original claim of this thread that oil production will peak in 2014 will be proven to be correct.
    http://crudeoilpeak.info/world-crude-production-2013-without-shale-oil-is-back-to-2005-levels

    Unnoticed by the mainstream media, US shale oil covers up a recent decline of crude oil production of 1.5 mb/d in the rest of world (using data up to Oct 2013). This means that without US shale oil the world would be in a deep oil crisis similar to the decline phase 2006/07 when oil prices went up. The decline comes from many countries but is also caused by fights over oil and oil-related issues in Iran, Libya and other countries which can be seen on TV every day.

    World_without_US_shale_oil_Jan2001_Oct2013.jpg


  • #221
    Waestrel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 557 ✭✭✭Waestrel


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Looks more and more likely that the original claim of this thread that oil production will peak in 2014 will be proven to be correct.
    http://crudeoilpeak.info/world-crude-production-2013-without-shale-oil-is-back-to-2005-levels


    World_without_US_shale_oil_Jan2001_Oct2013.jpg

    That matches what that video you posted above says. That current production has been leveraged complelty onto non conventionals. How long can we frack ourselves away from the peak oil?


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    Frank Lee Midere
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,780 ✭✭✭Frank Lee Midere


    Waestrel wrote: »
    That matches what that video you posted above says. That current production has been leveraged complelty onto non conventionals. How long can we frack ourselves away from the peak oil?

    Fracking is just another technology to get energy. Technology advances are an argument against peak oil.


  • #223
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Frank Lee Midere wrote: »
    Fracking is just another technology to get energy. Technology advances are an argument against peak oil.
    The exact opposite actually, technology has advanced due to the necessity of maintaining production by using additional methods to extract oil.

    Without those additional tools in the oil companies arsenal, peak oil would by now be an historical event. The biggest risk involved in the ever increasing use of enhanced,secondary,fracking and other methods of oil extraction outside of simple pumping is that when all those methods are exhausted, the decline rates are likely to be very steep.

    The shark fin could be a reality. but nothing like as drastic as shown in the diagram below.

    SharkFin-1.jpg


  • #224
    Waestrel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 557 ✭✭✭Waestrel


    Seems nonconventionals, like hope, are springing eternal.

    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/North-American-Oil-Glut-to-Keep-Prices-Low-IMF-says.html


  • #225
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Following on from the stories of extreme oil exploration and dirty coal extraction, the reason why these measures are needed!
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27435624
    in just over five years Britain will have run out of oil, coal and gas, researchers have warned.
    A report by the Global Sustainability Institute said shortages would increase dependency on Norway, Qatar and Russia.
    There should be a "Europe-wide drive" towards wind, tidal, solar and other sources of renewable power, the institute's Prof Victor Anderson said.
    The government says complete energy independence is unnecessary, says BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin.
    The report says Russia has more than 50 years of oil, more than 100 years of gas and more than 500 years of coal left, on current consumption.

    By contrast, Britain has just 5.2 years of oil, 4.5 years of coal and three years of its own gas remaining.
    France fares even worse, according to the report, with less than year to go before it runs out of all three fossil fuels.

    Run out is a bit of an alarmist statement, but the key point is that the oil needed to keep things as they are now will only get ever more expensive and sourced from more remote and challenging locations. Adapting the current BAU and lifestyle choices will ultimately be the only solution to avoid an "energy starved" future.


  • #226
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Business analysts are getting worried about lack of increasing supply of oil to support growth.
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/d738b160-dc17-11e3-8511-00144feabdc0.html#axzz31yKt5cKH
    Opec “will need to increase production significantly in the second half of the year in order to meet world demand, according to the west’s energy watchdog.”
    “While production gains of about 400,000 barrels a day in April have gone some way towards easing tight global markets, the International Energy Agency says a bigger increase will be needed in the second half of the year when consumption picks up after the northern hemisphere summer.
    “In order to balance forecast demand, Opec countries would need to hike third quarter production by another 900,000 b/d from April levels,” the agency said in its latest monthly report.
    But the Paris-based organisation said it was not clear if Opec, which controls about a third of world oil production, would be able ….A series of problems have hampered crude supply from Opec members.
    ….As a result of these problems, the IEA has cut its estimate for non-Opec supply growth by 100,000 b/d to 1.5m b/d.


  • #227
    Waestrel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 557 ✭✭✭Waestrel


    as always Dolan Baker some great insight. Where do you collate this info from, would be very interested in keeping an eye on all this myself.


  • #228
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYyugz5wcrI


    Updated Chris Martinson "crash Course" video. Peak oil is only a (key) part of the story.
    A must see as it ties up the economy, energy and the environment all together and discusses the risks to prosperity & growth.
    It explains why we will soon have to choose either growth or prosperity but will be unable to have both.

    PS @ Waestrel, there are a number of "peak oil " websites that do some good analysis on the subject. eg. peakoil.com

    Many of the doomer "end of the world type sites have discredited the peak oil predicament by skipping the "wind down" phase and going straight to total collapse.


  • #229
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    We have plenty of carbon based fuels.

    It's just that liquid hydrocarbons are so handy to transport and store and use.




    It's easy to gasify coal, wood, and other organics to something like producer gas. But it's a gas and extremely toxic so can't be stored easily.


    There are other more expensive ways to produce liquid fuels. They will get cheaper with economies of scale. At present a rough guesstimate is about four times the cost of fossil fuel, which sets a peak price for fossil fuel prices.

    So the worst case scenario isn't as bad as it might be , because there are alternatives.


    IndyCar (USA version of Formula One except you only turn left) has been using methanol since 1965. It moved to ethanol for PR reasons in 2007.

    Even petrolheads can get their fix from alternative fuels.



    And again a reminder. Peak oil means Peak Cheap Oil.

    In the US gas is very cheap, but once they can start exporting it the domestic price will rise. Then again since the EU would be a large importer our costs should drop a little.

    http://www2.nationalgrid.com/uk/services/grain-lng/
    Grain LNG is National Grid’s Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility at the Isle of Grain, near London. The UK’s first truly commercial LNG importation terminal, we are the largest, by capacity, in Europe and eighth largest in the world - with the ability to supply 20 per cent of the UK’s forecast gas demand.


    no you can't use natural gas in cars, but it displaces other fuels used for heating and power generations and so reduces the cost of liquid fuels.


  • #230
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The main thrust of the video is that the current economy is built up on abundant cheap fossil fuel it is this that is now in ever declining quantities, I agree that there is probably a (human) lifetime’s supply remaining, but realistically there is insufficient supply to allow the current economic & financial model working for much longer in its current form. The seeds of the next financial meltdown are germinating in the Middle East right now, if there is a real risk of a cut in supply, then the price will certainly rise and rise enough and remain high for long enough to trigger another recession.

    Economic growth is totally dependent on increasing the supply of energy to the economy, most of the efficiency improvements, the "economics of scale" (giant ships/ factories/multinational companies) have already been done. There is little more that can be done to keep the wheels on.

    Many of the "alternative" fuels are robbing Peter to pay Paul types of substitutes, bio-fuels for example displace food crops for fuel crops. LNG is a by-product of oil extraction that was until recently simply burned off, it will only be available to the UK while there is little demand elsewhere for it, if the Chinese joint ventures with Saudi Arabia are completed then China is likely to lock up the entire LNG supply and the UK will have none. The US "shale boom" is only a short lived event and will most likely be spent within five years (peak then decline) along with the extra gas. The US is more likely to sell it to Canada for use in the "tar sands" oil extraction.


  • #231
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The main thrust of the video is that the current economy is built up on abundant cheap fossil fuel it is this that is now in ever declining quantities, I agree that there is probably a (human) lifetime’s supply remaining, but realistically there is insufficient supply to allow the current economic & financial model working for much longer in its current form.
    Yes we've reached peak oil in the sense that the price of oil won't be going down.

    No, the prophets of doom are wrong about the collapse of civilisation because.

    But they might be right about another 1973 oil shock


    A lot of the price of oil is caused by there being more middlemen and transactions in the past. Simply more speculators with fingers in the till.


    oil is used as a raw material, a transport fuel, an electricity fuel and for heating

    We know that we can drastically reduce the heating demand with insulation and we can use electricity to make hydrogen from water which can extend the gas that is replacing oil for heating. So very long term heating costs won't go up that much.

    We are already getting 20-25% of our electricity from renewables, and this figure could easily double.
    with weather forecasts and the way the job market is at the moment you could nearly imagine having part time workers who only come in when it's windy. In 20 years or so we may have accurate forecasts a week ahead and that's when it gets really interesting for shift workers.

    diesels can rival hybrids on fuel economy and at a fraction of the price increase vs. a petrol hybrid. the fun thing is working out if most hybrids recover the energy used n manufacture , when we know that high mileage diesels certainly do

    real electric cars are sill rare , and at present are still expensive but there's hope.



    Of course if someone can figure out how to store sunlight cheaply ( in cucumbers ?) then all bets are off. aluminium - air is very light and aluminium is a great way to store surplus electricity


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Many of the "alternative" fuels are robbing Peter to pay Paul types of substitutes, bio-fuels for example displace food crops for fuel crops.
    don't get me started on "bio-fuels"
    There's the German Bio-diesel study that showed it was only economic because the lower excise duty and subsidies which means you can use a litre of regular diesel (including fertilizer and other inputs) to produce it and still make money.
    US bio corn ethanol is another one that's barely break even from an energy point of view , nevermind the ridiculous corn subsidies (just be thankful that you live in the EU because corn syrup is about as cheap and nasty as food sweeteners come)

    and then there's Palm Oil
    nearly nutrition free it's the cheapest oil you can use in food.
    the destruction of habitat to setup a plantation means it could take 120 years to become carbon neutral, all funded by a reduction in excise duty


    yes competition for food can be a bad thing, you can even get grain here for maybe €100 a tonne which makes it cheaper than wood pellets if you have a stove


    The US is more likely to sell it to Canada for use in the "tar sands" oil extraction.
    thought they were using "distillate" for that. AFAIK there's a dual pipeline being build from vancouver to the tar sands on the other side of the rockies . Pumping the distillate in to mix/dissolve the viscous tar and pump the mix back

    LNG would be too fizzy wouldn't it ?

    and it being Canada any moisture would result in methane hydrates if there was moisture and coldness


  • #233
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    don't get me started on "bio-fuels"
    There's the German Bio-diesel study that showed it was only economic because the lower excise duty and subsidies which means you can use a litre of regular diesel (including fertilizer and other inputs) to produce it and still make money.
    US bio corn ethanol is another one that's barely break even from an energy point of view , nevermind the ridiculous corn subsidies (just be thankful that you live in the EU because corn syrup is about as cheap and nasty as food sweeteners come)

    and then there's Palm Oil
    nearly nutrition free it's the cheapest oil you can use in food.
    the destruction of habitat to setup a plantation means it could take 120 years to become carbon neutral, all funded by a reduction in excise duty


    yes competition for food can be a bad thing, you can even get grain here for maybe €100 a tonne which makes it cheaper than wood pellets if you have a stove
    What about sugar cane? In regions where it grows such as Brazil is sugar cane viable without subsidies?


  • #234
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Yes we've reached peak oil in the sense that the price of oil won't be going down.

    No, the prophets of doom are wrong about the collapse of civilisation because.

    But they might be right about another 1973 oil shock

    The more I look into peak oil the more I am forming the opinion that it will not be doom but a change of direction, but the financial system in its current form is doomed due to the lack of growth required to create money to repay debt (or is that the other way round), unless debt repayments are pushed into the century after next!

    As for the "real economy" changes will be more subtle, wages will fail to rise in line with fuel costs and commuters will be squeezed out of their individual cars and either take up car sharing or move closer to their place of work. Changes like this are already happening as can be seen by the explosion in rents in Dublin and empty houses in the Midlands. As the (eventual) decline in oil supply becomes apparent to all, these trends will be "encouraged" by governments such that fuel shortages are unlikely. Construction of new rural "one offs" are already discouraged and potential builders are goring through hoops to be allowed to build, it won't be too long before they're banned completely. Doing this will reduce the future energy footprint of the population as people will be more concentrated in towns & cities and the countryside will be depopulated over time. Medium density living in an urban environment with a tram (or similar) public transport system would consume only a fraction of the energy required by the same people living in rural Ireland and commuting to the City each day. Large family sized flat (apartment) verses a detached house and public transport verses a long (single occupancy) car journey, the savings will be huge.

    It's easy to forget that it is not that long ago that most people lived close to where they worked, it will become that way again.

    So peak oil (energy) brings challenges but I can't see it being a "mad max" unless you are a small population on a remote island that loses it regular supply shipment of fuel.


  • #235
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    robp wrote: »
    What about sugar cane? In regions where it grows such as Brazil is sugar cane viable without subsidies?
    It's maybe 8:1 - 10:1

    figures which compare well to some fossil fuels and nuclear


  • #236
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    According to the author, peak oil at 2014 is still on track!
    This is despite increased production from the US via fracking.

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/david-archibald-lto-plus-net-imports/#more-4629
    Looking at his second chart it looks like he is predicting the peak of world oil production to be this year, 2014. That falls within my prediction of a peak in 2015, give or take one year.


    David-New-4.png


  • #237
    Macha
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 6,376 Mod ✭✭✭✭Macha


    The more I think about this concept, the less useful I think it is. We know that if we burn all the fossil fuel reserves we have identified, we're screwed so what does it matter if there's more or less out there to be discovered?

    Obviously, this isn't how oil companies see it but it is how policy makers should think.


  • #238
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Macha wrote: »
    The more I think about this concept, the less useful I think it is. We know that if we burn all the fossil fuel reserves we have identified, we're screwed so what does it matter if there's more or less out there to be discovered?

    Obviously, this isn't how oil companies see it but it is how policy makers should think.
    Most of the oil is still in the ground.

    Because it costs too much to extract it all. So as technology improves old wells could get a new lease of life. The limiting factor is the energy needed to recover it and I think renewables could play a big role there.

    Certainly we need to rethink carbon tax so that it includes the fuel used to extract fuel as in some cases it's up to 1/3rd of the nett energy recovered.



    And again I'll point out that the hard limit of fuel prices is set by the costs of the alternatives , like using renewables to produce fuel from hydrogen and such like. At present that's about four times the cost of fossil fuel but the gap will close.


  • #239
    Waestrel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 557 ✭✭✭Waestrel


    Are we worried about nothing? Is everything good now, for ever?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/07/us-oil-markets-inflection-analysis-idUSKCN0HW09L20141007


  • #240
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Waestrel wrote: »
    Are we worried about nothing? Is everything good now, for ever?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/07/us-oil-markets-inflection-analysis-idUSKCN0HW09L20141007

    Certainly in the short term, it looks good, but if prices fall below the profit margins for producers, then they'll simply stop drilling! The drilling frenzy over the past 8 years or so have produced results. But to maintain that increased output they need to constantly drill as the depletion rates of the shale fields is as much as 60% in the first year. A lot of money is needed to develop a well before it produces anything, if the price drops then they'll just wait until the prices rise again. Just like what happened in the run up to the "oil price superspike" in 2008.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Longer term the cost of renewables keep dropping. the long term trend is solar to drop by 7% a year and wind by 14% every time global capacity doubles.

    electricity usage for lighting is dropping as we move to CFL's and LED's. The savings from them are greater than the electricity supplied by nuclear power.

    if we could super-insulate our buildings we'd save far more fossil fuel than all of the above.

    all of these have an effect on demand for fossil fuel and hence it's price.


    Then again cheaper fuel will lead to more demand so don't get too excited.

    Scottish research might mean easier to store hydrogen for the grid
    http://phys.org/news/2014-09-hydrogen-production-breakthrough-herald-cheap.html


  • #242
    Sam Kade
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,313 ✭✭✭✭Sam Kade


    brendansmith wrote: »
    This is quite worrying, a good documentary on this is 'A crude awakening'.

    I still think that an alternative fuel will be invented before we get in trouble though. What o ye think on this subject?
    I wouldn't worry too much about it, we were told back in the 70's that oil was running out fast lot's of it burnt since.


  • #243
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    I wouldn't worry too much about it, we were told back in the 70's that oil was running out fast lot's of it burnt since.
    Peak Oil is actually about Peak CHEAP Oil

    there is plenty of oil, only a small fraction of it economically accessible

    BTW there's loads of Coal in Antarctica


  • #244
    Waestrel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 557 ✭✭✭Waestrel


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Longer term the cost of renewables keep dropping. the long term trend is solar to drop by 7% a year and wind by 14% every time global capacity doubles.

    electricity usage for lighting is dropping as we move to CFL's and LED's. The savings from them are greater than the electricity supplied by nuclear power.

    That i think is important, highoil prices may not cause a transition to fracked oil, but rather to renewables. There is a price people will not pay for oil at the pump, and wil instead take publin transport,but an ecar, work from home, try to cycle, etc. May not be feasible for everyone, but it will be a trend. Oil demand is not infinity elastic.


  • #245
    celtic_oz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,618 ✭✭✭celtic_oz


    See this thread on Physics here

    See latest (Sept 2014) third party results here , here and here

    Then the analysis of the price of oil v tests, here.


    4t4QIAM.jpg


  • #246
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    http://www.businessinsider.com/one-of-the-worlds-biggest-oil-projects-is-a-total-fiasco-2014-10
    WHEN it was discovered in 2000, the Kashagan oilfield in Kazakhstan’s waters in the northern Caspian Sea was the world’s biggest oil find in three decades. By now it was supposed to be pumping out 1.2m barrels a day (mbd), enough to meet Spain’s entire consumption.

    But the project, whose name sounds unfortunately like “cash all gone”, went spectacularly awry. A year ago, when the first trickle of crude briefly flowed, it was already eight years behind schedule. Having cost $43 billion, it was $30 billion over budget. And production lasted only a few weeks before leaks of poisonous gas forced its suspension. Earlier this month a government minister admitted it would not restart until at least 2016.

    Undeterred by the Kashagan fiasco, this week the government said it would approve a plan to expand the onshore Tengiz oilfield, another huge budget-buster. Tengiz was first expected to cost $23 billion but the government said this week that the bill had risen to $40 billion.

    Each of the two oilfields is owned by a different consortium of foreign firms and the state oil company, KazMunaiGaz. In Kashagan’s case they include Exxon, Shell, Total and ENI. In part the project’s setbacks are due to unexpected technical problems. Corrosive and poisonous hydrogen sulphide gas, pumped up from the seabed along with the oil, has eaten through pipes bringing it onshore.

    This was one of the fields that was expected to maintain production levels into the future, a few more failures like this and production could go into decline quicker than expected.


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29594761
    Brent crude fell to a near four-year low of $87.74 a barrel earlier, before recovering some ground to $88.46.
    ...
    Oil prices have fallen 20% since June.

    Kuwait's oil minister, Ali al-Omair, was quoted by state news agency KUNA as saying over the weekend that a price of $76-$77 a barrel might be the floor price.

    That is what it costs to produce a barrel of oil in Russia and the US, so any lower could mean producers mothballing production or running at a loss.

    http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept
    Navy researchers at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Materials Science and Technology Division, demonstrate proof-of-concept of novel NRL technologies developed for the recovery of carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen (H2) from seawater and conversion to a liquid hydrocarbon fuel.
    ...
    The predicted cost of jet fuel using these technologies is in the range of $3-$6 per gallon, and with sufficient funding and partnerships, this approach could be commercially viable within the next seven to ten years.
    A barrel of oil is about 31.5 us gallons. so synthetic fuel could cost as little as $95-$190 a barrel , take that with a pinch of salt, and add the cost of renewables to harvest the energy to make the fuel. But like I've said before synthetics means is a hard limit to the upper price of oil in the long term.


  • #248
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 31,118 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    OK it's zerohedge, but lower prices do make the high priced extraction of shale oil uneconomic in the medium term and will bankrupt many producers in the longer term.
    19 US Shale Areas That Are Suddenly Endangered, "The Shale Revolution Doesn't Work At $80´´


    Despite the constant blather that lower oil prices are "unequivocally good" for America, we suspect companies working and people living these 19 Shale regions will have a different perspective...

    20141125_shale.jpg

    Drilling for oil in 19 shale regions loses money at $75 a barrel, according to calculations by Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Those areas pumped about 413,000 barrels a day, according to the latest data available from Drillinginfo Inc. and company presentations.



    "Everybody is trying to put a very happy spin on their ability to weather $80 oil, but a lot of that is just smoke," said Daniel Dicker, president of MercBloc Wealth Management Solutions with 25 years' experience trading crude on the New York Mercantile Exchange. "The shale revolution doesn't work at $80, period."

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-26/19-us-shale-areas-are-suddenly-endangered-shale-revolution-doesnt-work-80


  • #249
    omicron
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 837 ✭✭✭omicron


    Brent is $77.60 at the moment. Amazing how quickly it fell when for a long time it looked like sub $90 would never happen again.


  • #250
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 92,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Deleted User wrote: »
    OK it's zerohedge, but lower prices do make the high priced extraction of shale oil uneconomic in the medium term and will bankrupt many producers in the longer term.
    Technology marches on.

    There are costs to extract fuel.

    With fossil fuels energy is probably the biggest and should be carbon taxed imho. But new tech will reduce the energy needs and paradoxically the more fuel costs the more fuel you can use to extract it because the margins are bigger

    I can see renewable energy being used to harvest fossil fuel , those large Bagger bucket wheel excavators are hooked up to the electricity grid, so in effect it's acting like a kinda sorta battery in a usage displacement view ,harvesting fuel while the sun shines

    one cost that will go up is the environmental ones as more laws are passed to control this aspect


    Most of these points also apply to nuclear especially now most of the easy ores have been mined and while there is a lot of uranium in some granite it takes a lot of energy to process hard rocks

    EROEI is an important metric, we've all heard of the bio-diesel analysis in Germany where they found that it took nearly a litre of fossil fuel to provide all the extra fertilizer, transport and processing to produce a litre of bio-diesel and was only financially economic because of rebates, subsidies and lower vat/excise duty.


  • #251
    Lucena
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,304 ✭✭✭Lucena


    Sam Kade wrote: »
    I wouldn't worry too much about it, we were told back in the 70's that oil was running out fast lot's of it burnt since.

    So basically we're ok because somebody make a wrong prediction in the 70s??

    By that reasoning, if I predict that I'll get cancer in the next five years, and that turns out to be false, I'll be sure I'll NEVER have cancer. Sounds good, sign me up!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement