Peak Oil

nobodythere

I'm looking to put up posters at petrol stations about Peak Oil and am looking for some people to help. If you're in a different county I'll email you the poster.

PM me if interested

Edit: For those of you who are uninformed: http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

It just pisses me off to see the whole world pretending that this is something temporary, particularly the news channels and the bush administration when the whole world has a right to be PISSED OFF that the big corporations profits have been chosen over the long-term wellbeing of the human race.

shoegirl

How come I read an article just the other day that stated that the UAE (United Arab Emirates) has sufficient reserves to pump at the current rate for another 100 years? And Qatar has enough gas to pump it for 257 years?

Sure I've read some of Matthew Simmons controversial works, but the figures being released contradict each other totally.
Also I remember when I was around 13 or so reading in an environmental magazine that oil reserves were expected to be severely depleted within 20 years. Yet many fields are not even yet pumping to capacity.

So who is correct?

nobodythere

To the best of my knowledge (and I feel far from qualified to tell you) it's about passing the halfway point of global production, not oil being depleted. I have zero confidence that humanity will adapt to using less and less. I for one have grown up in a world where things just seem to get better and better, where we constantly consume more and more and become consistantly richer. I'm 17 and I have no memories of an unwealthy Ireland. I was born into the Celtic Tiger.

See this graph of oil price history: http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif Oil prices have continuously gone up since 9/11 to a world record, even higher than in the Iran/Iraq war.

I don't think I'm informed enough to debate this with you, but going on sites like Lifeaftertheoilcrash and unbiased articles such as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_peak , I have concluded that it's worth making people aware of it and letting them come to their own conclusions.

From wiki article:

The United States Geological Survey estimates [3] that there are enough petroleum reserves to continue current production rates for 50 to 100 years. A year 2000 USGS study of world-wide oil reserves predicted a possible peak in oil production around the year 2037. That is countered by an important Saudi oil industry insider who says the American government's forecast for future oil supply is a "dangerous over-estimate."[4] Campbell argues that the USGS estimates are methodologically flawed. One problem, for example, is that OPEC countries overestimate their reserves to get higher oil quotas and to avoid internal critique. Population and economic growth may lead to increased energy consumption in the future.

Capt'n Midnight

Peak Oil depends on the cost of production. Canada's oil sands and oil from coal would keep us going for quite a while. There were even plans at one stage to nuke some types of underground deposits to release oil or chemically convert stuff into it with the high temp of the explosion.

Also most petrol cars could be easily be converted to run on Methane from the ocean floors.

RedPlanet

Claiming oil reserves is one thing, extracting it is another (and more important).

Dades

Grasshoppa,

What are you hoping to achieve? Awareness?

I agree there's negligible chance we will adapt to using less and less oil - the only way that will happen is when the price becomes prohibitive. And as has been already said - there are too many conflicting figures out there to know when this will be.

TBH people are for the most part aware there's a long term problem with oil supplies. I just can't see what plastering posters around Dublin will do to help.

Our consumption compared to second-world megacities like Sao Paulo or Cairo is nothing. Hence it's an impossible situation.

nobodythere

If it doesn't open up some sort of discussion on peak oil and a more realistic outlook on things, at the very least I have found that I am much more energy aware than I was when I didn't know about the oil peak.

In a way, if it wasn't happening now, I'd be slightly disappointed, because the further we go on eating oil for breakfast the more the population grows and the more people that would suffer if it's really going to be as bad as some think.

saibhne

The Atheist wrote:

Grasshoppa,

What are you hoping to achieve? Awareness?

Grasshoppa -well done, even if awareness is all you achieve it will be well worth the time. Rigt now, awareness is perhaps the single most valuable asset society can have in overcoming this problem - a well informed populace would be willing and able to adopt the changes that will be necessary in the coming years.
I disagree with the Atheist about people being aware for the most part that there is a problem with our long term oil supplies. If that was true and because of the potentially dangerous ramifications of an absence of affordable oil, I would expect to see a reflection of that awareness in our day to day existence. Instead we in Irish society "for the most part" continue to operate as if the problem doesn't exist.

The Peak Oil scenario is a complex question further complicated by climate change, there are solutions but they are all contentious - to find an acceptable solution for Ireland it is imperative that the debate is intensified and brought into the mainstream. Any increase in general awareness will help that to occur. Again, well done Grasshoppa.

Dades

saibhne wrote:

I disagree with the Atheist about people being aware for the most part that there is a problem with our long term oil supplies. If that was true and because of the potentially dangerous ramifications of an absence of affordable oil, I would expect to see a reflection of that awareness in our day to day existence.

What would be a reflection of awareness in your view? Cycling? Getting the bus? Or are there more radical measures short of simply watching your energy consumption you'd expect to see?

saibhne wrote:

Instead we in Irish society "for the most part" continue to operate as if the problem doesn't exist.

I think you have more faith in society than I.
I see it quite possible the issue is being ignored just so we can continue to operate as if it doesn't exist.

saibhne

The Atheist wrote:

What would be a reflection of awareness in your view? Cycling? Getting the bus? Or are there more radical measures short of simply watching your energy consumption you'd expect to see?

The advocation of Cycling, Getting the bus etc.. and general energy consumption are related but not a solution, they have more to do with alleviating the production of greenhouse gases than peak oil at the moment.
The danger of Peak oil is that it will result in an absence/shortage of energy that will shut down our way of life. The only solution, if this way of life is to be maintained, is to find the energy to replace the shortfall. As I've said there are some suggestions as to how to do this but all are contentious and none seems to be able to fill the role entirely. There is too much uncertainty.

Because of this I would like to see the subject taken seriously by all sectors of society but in particular by our politicians. Put the resources/legislation necessary behind research and come up with answers. That would be radical indeed.

The Atheist wrote:

I think you have more faith in society than I.
I see it quite possible the issue is being ignored just so we can continue to operate as if it doesn't exist.

that, unfortunately, could well be true.

bonkey

shoegirl wrote:

How come I read an article just the other day that stated that the UAE (United Arab Emirates) has sufficient reserves to pump at the current rate for another 100 years? And Qatar has enough gas to pump it for 257 years?

They do indeed. Unfortunately, they don't have the technology (nor does it exist) to continue to do so for that period. Once roughly 1/2 of an oilfield is depleted, continuing pumping rates becomes more and more difficult. Also, the OPEC nations don't (currently) have anywhere near the extraction tech that the likes of Shell do, so their falloff would be even more dramatic.

Incidentally, UAE exports a total of below 3 million barrels a day. Whilst that puts it about 6th in the world, its not that big a deal in the overall picture. If we lost half the Saudi output, we'd need the UAE to increase its output 2.5x or more to make up the shortfall.

Also, the reality that with China and India are rapidly growing economies, coupled to traditional growth in the western world makes the notion of basing anything on current production levels somehwat doubtful. It leaves us facing a massive shortfall from increasing demand, or requires a massive increase in production levels over coming years.

The former kinda negates the usefuless of there still being oil in the ground - not a lot of comfort to know that you can get 1/2 the oil you need, but can continue to get it for a century.

The latter renders utterly pointless the concept of measuring production in years.

So who is correct?

I recall reading articles in my youth about how the link between cancer and smoking wasn't in any way establioshed. Hell, with a quick google I could probably find some still going on.

Most of these (the older ones) were sponsored or pushed by the tobacco companies.

Bush, up until recently insisted global warming wasn't conclusively shown to be linked to human activity.

You'll always read both sides of the story. Where the answer lies is generally in looking at who funds the research, as well as what each side has to say about the other's arguments.

If someone is pushing the UAE as our oil saviour, then they're pulling the wool over your eyes. Look at Saudia Arabia, and how long it can continue at current rates. Look at how much their yields are falling off, and how much water they're already pumping in to extract oil. If Saudi goes, we're screwed, no matter how long UAE can keep trickling out its supply.

Hell - Norway produces and exports more oil than the UAE.

jc

bonkey

I should also ask whether the reserves were listed as proven or estimated.

bonkey

The Atheist wrote:

TBH people are for the most part aware there's a long term problem with oil supplies.

I'd hazard that most of them put that long-term event outside their lifetimes, which decreases/removes the need for them to do anything about it.

As per usual, the general public will obediantly close their eyes as they are told to until a crisis is reached, at which point we will be utterly dismayed that there isn't a McSolution and that our leaders didn't prepare us slowly and gradually, decades in advance, for the eventuality.

jc

Capt'n Midnight

bonkey wrote:

I should also ask whether the reserves were listed as proven or estimated.

"You can be sure of Shell" LOL

If someone develops a cheap lightweight battery or a cheap lightweight fuel cell powered by something that isn't hydrogen or a practical way of storing hydrogen then apart from the economics and the lead in time we would not be dependent on mineral oil.

nobodythere

bonkey wrote:

Most of these (the older ones) were sponsored or pushed by the tobacco companies.

To make the analogy, it works better for oil companies to keep this under their hats because scared investors makes oil go up. If you find a list of companies that sponsored bush's campaigns you'll find all the oil guys amongst them. Also a lot of connections with the bush family and oil.

This is no conspiracy theory. Money runs the world.

Yoda

grasshopa wrote:

I for one have grown up in a world where things just seem to get better and better, where we constantly consume more and more and become consistantly richer. I'm 17 and I have no memories of an unwealthy Ireland. I was born into the Celtic Tiger.

Bought your own house amidst all that wealth, have you?

nobodythere

Getting there

Stephmurph

I personally think this looming end-of-oil-era is a blessing. Its going to sort out a lot of issues that humans cant seem to manage, such as global warming and globalization (apparently 1 flight from Eire to Oz uses the equivalent of 3 peoples life-time oil comsumption). Everything will have to be down-scaled, food growed locally, without pesticides and herbicides, practical trades such as shoemaking and carpentry, and medicine will be in high demand. Specialised skills will fade away. We will live in communities again. I was at a peak oil conference in Kinsale during the summer, and eventhough the subject topic was quite doom and gloom, we all left after the weekend feeling positive about the future. Future generations and the planet will be a lot healthier once the industrial revolution ends. of course its not all going to happen once peak is reached (maybe it already has). But it will happen gradually, as oil will not get cheaper - simply because the cost of extraction increases and oil quality decreases

Theres 2 great books by Richard Heinberg - 'The Party's Over' and 'Powerdown'

Also check out fuellingthefuture.org and the dvd 'The End of Suburbia'

OfflerCrocGod

Indeed we will all go back to being farmers........ye right :rolleyes: An other way to power our industrial society will be found most people don't want to go back in time and if we are really hard pressed we will simply absorb increased costs and move to other power generation methods also efficiency will become massively important. Do you think there would be much stopping a nuclear power plant being built here if it was the only way for us to keep our standard of life? Potato farming or Pebble bed reactor? You wouldn't see the builders they'd be moving so fast to build it.

ivuernis

Following on from the last 2 posts...

Uranium is also subject to depletion and any large scale up of nuclear power to replace depleting oil and gas energy reserves will further deplete the world's uranium stock even faster (possibly even before the end of the 21st century).

Neither is nuclear power carbon neutral as the processes of mining & processing uranium, construction & decommissioning of reactors and subsequent containment of waste all contribute large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere not to mention the other hazards.

Also worth checking out is the book "The Final Energy Crisis" by Andrew McKillop and the DVD from the recent Fuelling The Future conference in Kinsale last June.

OfflerCrocGod

ivuernis wrote:

Uranium is also subject to depletion and any large scale up of nuclear power to replace depleting oil and gas energy reserves will further deplete the world's uranium stock even faster (possibly even before the end of the 21st century).

If only you had looked at the link in my sig......
Here is a nice explanation.

At present the cost of Uranium ore is a trivial component in the price of electricity generated by Nuclear Power. At a price of $US50 per pound of Uranium-oxide (a few times the current price) the known reserves amount to about 50 years supply at the current level of consumption with an expected further 150 years supply in additional or speculative reserves. The price of Uranium would have to increase by over a factor of 10 before it would have an impact of the cost of electricity generated from Nuclear Power. Such a price rise would stimulate a substantial increase in exploration activities with a consequent increase in the size of the resource (as has been the case with every other mineral of value).

There are as mentioned in the article also newer Tech that use Thorium and that's more plentiful then Uranium so there is no need to worry about supplies for at least another 100 years.

ivuernis wrote:

Neither is nuclear power carbon neutral as the processes of mining & processing uranium, construction & decommissioning of reactors and subsequent containment of waste all contribute large amounts of carbon to the atmosphere not to mention the other hazards.

All true but if you compare it to all the other possible sources of energy Nuclear still wins. From the above link. (scroll down to Greenhouse Emisions the link doesn't go directly.)

To estimate the total CO2 emissions from Nuclear Power we take the work of the Swedish Energy Utility, Vattenfall, which produces electricity via Nuclear, Hydro, Coal, Gas, Solar Cell, Peat and Wind energy sources and has produced credited Environment Product Declarations for all these processes.

Vattenfall finds that averaged over the entire lifecycle of their Nuclear Plant including Uranium mining, milling, enrichment, plant construction, operating, decommissioning and waste disposal, the total amount CO2 emitted per KW-Hr of electricity produced is 3.3 grams per KW-Hr of produced power. Vattenfall measures its CO2 output from Natural Gas to be 400 grams per KW-Hr and from coal to be 700 grams per KW-Hr. Thus nuclear power generated by Vattenfall, which may constitute World's best practice, emits less than one hundredth the CO2 of Fossil-Fuel based generation. In fact Vattenfall finds its Nuclear Plants to emit less CO2 than any of its other energy production mechanisms including Hydro, Wind, Solar and Biomass although all of these processes emit much less than the fossil fuel processes.

Anyway once Oil gets to expensive our friend Uranium will come into play. You can already hear some EU goverments thinking about it and Finland is building a new one so it can meet Kyoto. The more it's fought againts the bigger the damage an economy takes by the time it finally built.

Capt'n Midnight

There is 3 times as much natural Thorium as Uranium.
It can be converted into U233 in a breeder reactor.

The canadians looked at weapons grade plutonium as a fuel for their reactors - even if it was donated free by US / USSR's very roughly it would work out at 6 times the price as Uranium ore becuse of the difficulties in handling it.

http://www.ccnr.org/aecl_mox_plans.html


The scary thing about Plutonium was that you could convert depleted Uranium into something that could be made into weapons once you got the explosive lens technology figured out. Thorium is more abundant and U233 could easily be separated from it and you could make a low tech gun weapon from it. Really really scary.