end of peak oil in 2015

IvaBigWun

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...l/roberts-text

In 2000 a Saudi oil geologist named Sadad I. Al Husseini made a startling discovery. Husseini, then head of exploration and production for the state-owned oil company, Saudi Aramco, had long been skeptical of the oil industry's upbeat forecasts for future production. Since the mid-1990s he had been studying data from the 250 or so major oil fields that produce most of the world's oil. He looked at how much crude remained in each one and how rapidly it was being depleted, then added all the new fields that oil companies hoped to bring on line in coming decades. When he tallied the numbers, Husseini says he realized that many oil experts "were either misreading the global reserves and oil-production data or obfuscating it."

Where mainstream forecasts showed output rising steadily each year in a great upward curve that kept up with global demand, Husseini's calculations showed output leveling off, starting as early as 2004. Just as alarming, this production plateau would last 15 years at best, after which the output of conventional oil would begin "a gradual but irreversible decline."

so bye bye cheap flights?

Wibbs

I really doubt we're near it yet. There is also the process of refining oil from coal. Yes it's expensive but the main reason oil is getting expensive now is not lack of stock it's that the banks are stockpiling it. Now they're buying oil futures to beat the band too. They want to keep the prices high. Good oul credit crunch. Coal into oil is a viable alternative and it's very plentiful.

Caoimhín

Wibbs wrote: »

I really doubt we're near it yet. There is also the process of refining oil from coal. Yes it's expensive but the main reason oil is getting expensive now is not lack of stock it's that the banks are stockpiling it. Now they're buying oil futures to beat the band too. They want to keep the prices high. Good oul credit crunch. Coal into oil is a viable alternative and it's very plentiful.

+1
Commodity bubble anyone?

suspectdevice

anyone concerned should follow this link. it gives a good insight into the oil reserves situation in a graphic that is easily understood. note that the allies are past their peak time and the countries they are attacking have their peak time yet to come. the stats on iraq are interesting too

http://www.lastoilshock.com/map.html

elmolesto

Wibbs wrote: »

I really doubt we're near it yet. There is also the process of refining oil from coal. Yes it's expensive but the main reason oil is getting expensive now is not lack of stock it's that the banks are stockpiling it. Now they're buying oil futures to beat the band too. They want to keep the prices high. Good oul credit crunch. Coal into oil is a viable alternative and it's very plentiful.

+2

I can't agree more

Wibbs

As I say coal into oil(among other options);

http://www.moneyweek.com/file/13377/could-coal-replace-oil.html

Nuf said really. While oil from conventional sources may be drying up that's the ticket. Enough for another 1000 years + at current rates. If we go nuclear worldwide then even more coal is up for grabs(and we get cheap leccy for cars too).

All this talk of peak oil is either inspired by the sandal wearing hippy brigade gleefully portending our doom or is politically and economically motivated. The banks are also ploughing money into oil from coal. Follow the money and see where it takes you.

Marcus.Aurelius

Wibbs wrote: »

I really doubt we're near it yet. There is also the process of refining oil from coal. Yes it's expensive but the main reason oil is getting expensive now is not lack of stock it's that the banks are stockpiling it. Now they're buying oil futures to beat the band too. They want to keep the prices high. Good oul credit crunch. Coal into oil is a viable alternative and it's very plentiful.

+3

Would be very suspicious of any oil-supply pessimists, just driving the price up. The only reason the oil costs so much is American investors buying oil instead of a weakening dollar with George W. Bush keeping the Iran scare-mongering going to keep Dick Cheney lubricated!

Funny image.....

IvaBigWun

Marcus.Aurelius wrote: »

Dick Cheney lubricated!

Jimbo

If the whole coal to oil thing transpires, will oil get very cheap again or stay at current rates?

MooseJam

I'm OK I've got a horse

Wibbs

The banks and governments will keep it artificially high for a start. At current barrel prices it's already cheaper than sucking it outa the ground. The middle east is looking even shakier though as their reserves are all outa the ground. It'll hit them bad, hence them getting their knicker in a bunch. The chinese have huge reserves of oil. In europe the germans and poland AFAIR are in the same boat. Interesting geopolitical times ahead.

Caoimhín

jimbo78 wrote: »

If the whole coal to oil thing transpires, will oil get very cheap again or stay at current rates?

Not sure it even needs that. Its not anywhere near its real price, a bubble not unlike our very own property bubble.

Wibbs

It may be a loooong bubble though. There was the theory that it would burst mid summer when all the reserve tanks filled up as production had nada to do with it. That happened last week. Still climbing. Naturally as the banks don't want to flood the market and drive down the price. A bigger worry is the banks getting into food futures too. Scary stuff.

rossie1977

when i was in school in the 1980s we learned then that oil would definitely
run out in 15-20 years time (should be gone now); i bet they were saying the same thing in the 70s too

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

Coal into oil is a viable alternative and it's very plentiful.

CTL produces massive amounts of CO2, far more than is released in the extraction and refinement of liquid fuel from oil; major obstacle right there.

gixerfixer

Wibbs wrote: »

As I say coal into oil(among other options);

http://www.moneyweek.com/file/13377/could-coal-replace-oil.html

Nuf said really. While oil from conventional sources may be drying up that's the ticket. Enough for another 1000 years + at current rates. If we go nuclear worldwide then even more coal is up for grabs(and we get cheap leccy for cars too).

All this talk of peak oil is either inspired by the sandal wearing hippy brigade gleefully portending our doom or is politically and economically motivated. The banks are also ploughing money into oil from coal. Follow the money and see where it takes you.

Cant believe coal is an opition.What would the greens think?

EamonnKeane

Every oil reserve figure is a lie; countries overstate the figures so they can claim to be matching the limit (e.g. pump 3% of reserves per annum) when they are exceeding it.

utick

EamonnKeane wrote: »

Every oil reserve figure is a lie; countries overstate the figures so they can claim to be matching the limit (e.g. pump 3% of reserves per annum) when they are exceeding it.

why would they do that, if anything they will understate it to give the impression of low supply and drive up prices

silverharp

utick wrote: »

why would they do that, if anything they will understate it to give the impression of low supply and drive up prices

all the opec countries doubled their reserves in the 1980s without finding new oil, they did this to increase their qutoas. also in saudi they need more rigs to pump the same amount of oil, this indicates the easy stuff has been pumped.
peak oil is real, it just depends how smart we are at adapting.

Wibbs

djpbarry wrote: »

CTL produces massive amounts of CO2, far more than is released in the extraction and refinement of liquid fuel from oil; major obstacle right there.

Realistically not much of an obstacle on past experience. Do you honestly think that if a new source of easy oil came about with loads of CO2 attached it wouldn't be exploited? Even so we could scrub the CO2 if we had a mind to. Add in the oul nuclear and CO2 would be offset by that.

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

Do you honestly think that if a new source of easy oil came about with loads of CO2 attached it wouldn't be exploited?

Well, yes, I do; that's what worries me!

Wibbs wrote: »

Even so we could scrub the CO2 if we had a mind to.

By "scrub", I presume you mean "sequester"? It'll be some time before that sort of technology is commercially viable.

Wibbs wrote: »

Add in the oul nuclear and CO2 would be offset by that.

I'm not sure what you mean here; how does nuclear "offset" CO2 emissions?

Sherifu

IvaBigWun wrote: »

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/20...l/roberts-text



so bye bye cheap flights?

Michael O'Leary will find a way. Trust in him.

Wibbs

djpbarry wrote: »

Well, yes, I do; that's what worries me!

Agreed.

By "scrub", I presume you mean "sequester"? It'll be some time before that sort of technology is commercially viable.

Coal into oil only became commercially vaible recently. Again follow the money, when normal oil becomes too expensive then the sequestering technology which already exists will follow.

I'm not sure what you mean here; how does nuclear "offset" CO2 emissions?

Massively. If we all went nuclear(hydro/wave/solar) tomorrow, then electricity production and it's concomitant current CO2 emissions would drop away to sweet f all by comparison. So even if oil productions output of CO2 went up that would well compensate for it. Plus without the power stations eating coal and the delivery trucks for that coal not pumping out CO2 the drop would be even bigger. Add in very cheap electricity and electric/fuel cell cars would become much more viable and we wouldn't be just moving theCO2 production up the line as is the case today.

'Ol Jack Chance

nuclear cars ftw

farva

'Ol wrote:

nuclear cars ftw

Already been done, by Ford in 1958:eek:!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

citytillidie

So when can we expect America to attack Canada

BobTheBeat

farva wrote: »

Already been done, by Ford in 1958:eek:!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

Imagine the reports on an accident involving one of these:-

"Last night, the entire province of Leinster was wiped out after a ford nucleon collided with a milk truck, just outside Kildare. May god help us all".

'Ol Jack Chance

citytillidie wrote: »

So when can we expect America to attack Canada

You mean when can we expect America to annex Canada while the European Union dissolves into quarrelling bickering states

'Ol Jack Chance

farva wrote: »

Already been done, by Ford in 1958:eek:!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

Gotta get me one of those!!

gurramok

There is a race on now for cars to be alternative fuels with compressed air models coming on stream for India in a years time for example.

This new race will wean our dependence of oil.

djpbarry

Wibbs wrote: »

Again follow the money, when normal oil becomes too expensive then the sequestering technology which already exists will follow.

Carbon capture technology exists; carbon storage technologies are still in their infancy.

Wibbs wrote: »

If we all went nuclear(hydro/wave/solar) tomorrow, then electricity production and it's concomitant current CO2 emissions would drop away to sweet f all by comparison.

That is highly debatable. Carbon dioxide emissions resulting from nuclear power production depend on various factors, one of the most important being available ore quality. Most of the world's known uranium reserves have an ore grade of between 0.1 and 0.02. If ore grades at the lower end of this scale are used in producing nuclear power, then the emissions resulting from the full energy chain (FENCH) approach those of a gas-fired power plant.

IvaBigWun

citytillidie wrote: »

So when can we expect America to attack Canada

When the fcukwits are done with the rest of the world that has stuff they want to rob. Its coming though. Its decades away but I dont doubt that'll happen.

Capt'n Midnight

rossie1977 wrote: »

when i was in school in the 1980s we learned then that oil would definitely
run out in 15-20 years time (should be gone now); i bet they were saying the same thing in the 70s too

betcha they say the same thing in 15-20 years

kowloon

Pine root FTW!

Thrill

Peak oil, as I've always understood it, has nothing to do with how much oil is under the ground.

From listening to economists over the last few years, they describe peak oil as supply being able to meet demand. Only so much oil is able to be produced a day while the demand constantly grows. Peak oil is when demand for oil reaches the ability to produce it.

Even if there were trillions upon trillions of barrels of oil still underground, peak oil would still occur, as the ability to extract and refine it will soon be too slow to meet the rising demand.

If you can only produce 100 barrels a day at full production and the demand for oil reaches 100 barrels a day, your at peak oil.

Ross_Mahon

Its alright, theres more oil in Iraq.

Thrill

Jaysus lads, at this rate we wont be able to afford to take the bus into town, let alone be able to afford to fly to exotic locations for a holiday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7440536.stm

The price of oil has made a record jump to nearly $139 a barrel, amid reports it could reach $150 by July because of rising demand and political tension.

Crude in New York gained more than $10 - its biggest-ever one-day rise.

Some analysts have suggested that prices would reach as high as $200 a barrel during the next 18 months.

djpbarry

rossie1977 wrote: »

when i was in school in the 1980s we learned then that oil would definitely
run out in 15-20 years time (should be gone now); i bet they were saying the same thing in the 70s too

While global 'peak oil' is difficult to predict (for obvious reasons), 'national peak oil' predictions are generally more accurate. For example, in 1956 M. King Hubbert accurately predicted that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.

Thrill wrote: »

Peak oil, as I've always understood it, has nothing to do with how much oil is under the ground.

Not exactly. Peak oil is the point when the maximum rate of global production is reached; in other words, all available wells have been tapped and are running at maximum production capacity.

IvaBigWun

Is it true oil is a needed element for hundreds of every day items? If so then cheap flights is the least of our worries.

IvaBigWun

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Is it true oil is a needed element for hundreds of every day items? If so then cheap flights is the least of our worries.

Well yes, those items in the shops don't float there from where they are grown.

IvaBigWun

Myth wrote: »

Well yes, those items in the shops don't float there from where they are grown.

you know what I mean.

hey, let this simple diagram explain!

http://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/uses/uses_home.html

DublinWriter

gurramok wrote: »

There is a race on now for cars to be alternative fuels with compressed air models coming on stream for India in a years time for example. This new race will wean our dependence of oil.

Sure...and what about the far greater worldwide industrial need for petro-chemicals?

Honestly lads, we're fecked. The superpowers should have been seriously adopting alternative energy in the 80's and we as a nation should have gone nuclear. Any attempt at trying to rectify the problem now is so-much deck-chair rearrangement.

If you don't believe me, take a trip down to your local petrol station. You cannot base unlimited economic expansion based on a finite resource.

Capt'n Midnight

Thrill wrote: »

Jaysus lads, at this rate we wont be able to afford to take the bus into town, let alone be able to afford to fly to exotic locations for a holiday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7440536.stm

Some analysts have suggested that prices would reach as high as $200 a barrel during the next 18 months.

Because of taxes the current price of oil to the UK consumer is $300 a barrel. So economies can work with prices that high. Also with current technology we could reduce our consumption by half for transport and heating purposes. many industires already use heat recovery so I'm not sure how more could be saved there.

jayok

djpbarry wrote: »

... carbon storage technologies are still in their infancy.

Funny, I thought trees have been around a very long time?