Peak Oil, What Happens When We Run Out Of Oil?

[Smithson]

Radical moves to remove oil from the equation will do nothing but disrupt the economy and cause inumerable human suffering, starvation and premature death. Your tome is more like straight out of the return to the stone age handbook than a scientific overview. What a bunch of chicken-little, scare tactic hokum.

The closer we are to peak oil the more radical the moves and the more suffering caused. If we let things run their course, oil will be removed from the equation in an extremely radically manner, which would cause the most radical suffering of all.

[wilko]

Why do people always associate fuel cells with cars? there are many other uses...they are ALREADY in use as back-up generators for large buildings such as hospitals etc....they are still not the most economical but as with old oils engines some are better used as static machines others as mobiles.

[Dakhar]

Exactly - the nostradamus type soothayers have been harpng on about the end of oil since the 70's.

And ppl in Texas never thought they would run out.

There is a very good podcast from the "National Economist Club" available by a oil analyst that I was listening too at lunchtime about oil demand and production.

An oil-analyst, is that someone in the oil industry telling us that oil won't run out (infinite supply?). If this is the case why has the oil industry been investing in alternatives for so long?

Where are the new oil fields? Oil exploration technolgies have improved greatly, but no huge reserves have been found.

Ppl can argue about global warming, but with oil it's not if but when.

I am from Texas, and I can assure you the oil is still there. Back when I was younger, the oil companies would go out to the forest near my home, blast for oil, find it, & cap it off. They just sit on it, waiting for hard times, then they mine the stuff and sell it off when oil prices are outrageous, thus getting the best bang for the buck.

Where I lived the sky would be bright orange through the nights as the oil companies would burn off pockets of natural gas. A total waste, but that is what they would do.

[steveromagnino]

Where I lived the sky would be bright orange through the nights as the oil companies would burn off pockets of natural gas. A total waste, but that is what they would do.

natural gas is mostly what you find when looking for oil, until more recently, you just yank it out at the same time as condensate or oil but it really wasn't what you wanted.

Times change.

Everything is bigger in Texas, or so I am told. Love the women's accents, well some of them, anyway that i met when living in USA.

If that is the result of oil, then bring on the flaring (burning off the gas).

[HS Mauberley]

I am from Texas, and I can assure you the oil is still there.

Yes, but rather less than there was. I don't think anyone doubts that - somewhere - oil will be being pumped in 50 years time; it's just too valuable a commodity. The question is whether enough will be pumped to prevent the wheels coming off industrial civilization. Given depletion rates of existing fields, the explosion in demand in Asia, the fact that the world now consumes four barrels for every one it discovers, the interconnectedness of the world economy, the lack of any realistic alternatives to oil, the length of our supply chains, the pressures of world population growth, ecological and climate stress, strife in world markets, etc., etc., etc., this is not the most likely outcome. It's of course a possibility that the world will be able to negotiate the end of the oil era without serious incident but for this to happen every unknown would have to fall out in our favour. This doesn't seem particularly likely. We're already witnessing one rather obvious resource war being fought out; you would have to be an optimist of such breathtaking extremes that you would make Pollyanna look like a suicidal nihilist to think that this is not going to be the first of many such wars.

[Spee]

Even Milton Friedman or George Soros may admit they were stretching the truth about 'what's best for everyone'.

Just putting these two people in the same sentence and implying that they are even remotely similar in views speaks volumes about the ridiculousness of any point you are trying to make. Milton Friedman is a hero of modern economic thought. Soros is little more than an extremely wealthy control freak hypocrite who would like government to control every detail of the lives of everyone ..... except for the very rich like himself.

[Spee]

Why do people always associate fuel cells with cars? there are many other uses...they are ALREADY in use as back-up generators for large buildings such as hospitals etc....they are still not the most economical but as with old oils engines some are better used as static machines others as mobiles.

You touch upon a really interesting point, namely the use of fuel cells as an energy source for back-up generators. Other than cars (and possibly home heating), I think it's fairly safe to say that most energy needs are for the generation of electricity. Coal, oil and nuclear energy are used not only because they are the most enconomical, but also because they are the most reliable.

Pushing large amounts of electricity, such as that for neighborhoods, towns, cities and larger electrical grids, requires massive amounts of electromotive force. Without that force, line voltage gets dragged down and eventually starts causing overcurrent trips, destroying transformers, destroying circuits and devices. The consumer market simply won't stand for it. Electrical production has to be reliable and sustainable, and it has to be able to provide sufficient current and voltage for peak demand or very expensive things start breaking.

So in the case of something like the small scale case of a back-up generator, a fuel cell could work fine so long as the external load is manageable. Turn on the cell, get the gennie up to speed and gradually transfer the load. As long as the fuel cell energy production can be maintained to keep the generator at proper revolutions, there shouldn't be an issue.

This is the same kind of scenario as with a large data centre or a telco central office or a hospital. Electrical power must be sustainable and reliable with no single point failures. Your fuel cell example if similar to battery cells which are commonly used in failures to sustain loads until diesel generators can spin up. But have you every seen battery rooms for one of these places. The rooms can be huge. Something like 10mx10mx4m would not be uncommon, and filled with nothing but batteries. Same for fuel cells. They take up a lot of space and you need a lot of them to be able to sustain the load.

But as far as being a reliable source for day to day steady state and peak energy needs, fuel cells (like batteries) just don't make the grade. Solar and wind power are even less worthy. Not only are they dependent upon the weather and daily climate, they simply do not have the "oomph" to drive electricity through larger populated areas, reliably and for sustained periods of time.

Whether people like it or not, oil, coal, gas and nuclear energy are both economical and ideally suited for large scale electrical production. Barring the perfection of sustained fusion reactor technology, there simply is nothing better. This is why it has been used throughout the modern era. This is why it will continue to be used for generations and generations to come.

[Spee]

I am from Texas, and I can assure you the oil is still there.

Yes, but rather less than there was.

Can't see the forest because of all the trees.

Oil production is down in American because of excessive governmental control and intrusion, not because the sources aren't known or plentiful. There are more energy reserves in US and Canadian territory than anyone can possibly imagine. Unfortunately the government will either not allow it to be harvested because of the tree hugger lobby, or forces companies to run the gauntlet of 1000 bureaucrats before getting very expensive permission to proceed.

Now, if someone wants to look at things differently and raise concerns about refining capacity, then there's the rub, IMHO. It's no mystery that Iran is one of the world paradoxes, being one of the largest exporters of raw crude and also one of the largest importers of refined petroleum products. Why? They have no refining capability.

The US has related problems. Refining capacity is decreasing and no new refineries have been built for decades. All the crude in the world is meaningless without the ability to refine it into something useful.

[Robski]

Milton Friedman is a hero of modern economic thought.

ZzZzZzzzzzzz.......

[HS Mauberley]

Oil production is down in American because of excessive governmental control and intrusion, not because the sources aren't known or plentiful.

That's a new one. Government interference is responsible for Hubbert's peak? Any evidence at all for saying this? There's lots of shale and tar sands in North America but that's a very long from being the same thing as oil. And there's undoubtedly oil in Alaska but we're looking at a 50% decline from peak. Are you seriously suggesting that there are actually billions of barrels of oil out there in Texas just waiting to be exploited and the only reason it isn't is because of the action of 'tree-huggers'? That doesn't sound much like the Bush government to me. (After all, why send an expeditionary force half way round the world to seize another country's oil, if it's actually just sitting under a parking lot in Dallas?) Just how much are the 'tree-huggers' responsible for holding back US production? Presumably everything. Are you saying that, if it weren't for these nasty little greenies, US production would have continued to grow in the 1970s, through the oil crisis? And if so would we now be looking at production rates now of something like 20 million barrels per day (or over twice what the Saudis are pumping out), assuming a 2% annual growth (which is probably a bit less than that the US experienced pre-peak)? The fact of the matter is that oil is in finite supply and production rates, despite the best efforts of geologists, universally peak and then decline. This is a historical fact in the States. Geology and Physics will, I'm afraid, always trump Economics.

[Robski]

I was hoping that Spee might respond to that excellent post, I guess he must be busy double checking his facts.

[Spee]

I was hoping that Spee might respond to that excellent post

Anything that turns into an anti-Bush rant is not worth responding to. As we already know your political leanings, this is just a case of two peas in a pod, eh? HS may choose to believe that oil supply has peaked and the supply will do nothing but dwindle into the future. Chicken Little also believes the sky is falling. But neither are facts, regardless of what people may choose to believe. The FACTs are there are huge known reserves in Alaska, the Gulf and elsewhere and for a variety of reasons, they aren't being exploited. As for all the Hubbert nonsense, well its all based upon the belief that peak oil is a hard proven fact, which makes it well ..... nonsense.

[Robski]

I didn't see it as an anti Bush rant, rather as an educated and informative reply.

After all, you are the one who brought up the claim of government intervention.

So what is to be?; 'Oil production is down in American because of excessive governmental control and intrusion' (your words) or it's not,

either way Bush is the leader of the government.

Let's face it Spee you've never been known for giving in to a better informed opinion, you just change the focus of the question,

and just keep on putting your faith in GWB, the man that gave us the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq.

Please show us what an informed and independant thinker you are by challenging the points made in HS Mauberley's post, I bet you don't.

That's a new one. Government interference is responsible for Hubbert's peak? Any evidence at all for saying this? There's lots of shale and tar sands in North America but that's a very long from being the same thing as oil. And there's undoubtedly oil in Alaska but we're looking at a 50% decline from peak. Are you seriously suggesting that there are actually billions of barrels of oil out there in Texas just waiting to be exploited and the only reason it isn't is because of the action of 'tree-huggers'? That doesn't sound much like the Bush government to me. (After all, why send an expeditionary force half way round the world to seize another country's oil, if it's actually just sitting under a parking lot in Dallas?) Just how much are the 'tree-huggers' responsible for holding back US production? Presumably everything. Are you saying that, if it weren't for these nasty little greenies, US production would have continued to grow in the 1970s, through the oil crisis? And if so would we now be looking at production rates now of something like 20 million barrels per day (or over twice what the Saudis are pumping out), assuming a 2% annual growth (which is probably a bit less than that the US experienced pre-peak)? The fact of the matter is that oil is in finite supply and production rates, despite the best efforts of geologists, universally peak and then decline. This is a historical fact in the States. Geology and Physics will, I'm afraid, always trump Economics.

Edited January 23, 2008 by Robski

[HS Mauberley]

Anything that turns into an anti-Bush rant is not worth responding to. As we already know your political leanings, this is just a case of two peas in a pod, eh? HS may choose to believe that oil supply has peaked and the supply will do nothing but dwindle into the future. Chicken Little also believes the sky is falling. But neither are facts, regardless of what people may choose to believe. The FACTs are there are huge known reserves in Alaska, the Gulf and elsewhere and for a variety of reasons, they aren't being exploited. As for all the Hubbert nonsense, well its all based upon the belief that peak oil is a hard proven fact, which makes it well ..... nonsense.

Sorry, what - exactly - did I write which constituted its being called an 'anti-Bush rant'?

The fact of the matter is that oil production in the states peaked in 1970 and has been in decline ever since. This has nothing to do with 'tree-huggers' and everything to do with geology. If you have facts which disprove this, please post; otherwise, accept that you are wrong. I have posted below an excerpt from the link at my earlier post. As is clear, production in the states is in decline (the first column) and worldwide has been stuck on a plateau for the last three years (second column). As I also said earlier, by definition, we can't be sure that this is peak until some years after the event but there are good reasons for thinking that we may be at or near to peak. As to your comments about "huge known reserves in Alaska, the Gulf and elsewhere" (very good..huge reserves 'elsewhere'), so what? Since the start of the industrial era we've probably used about one trillion barrels of oil. We've probably got about one trillion barrels of oil left to burn (though this is contentious and OPEC would have us believe that there is a lot more but there's little doubt that they're telling porkies. If you want, I can explain why. Similarly with the USGS figures and the BP Statistical Review). That puts us at half way through our supply, which, by well-known processes of depletion, would put us at around peak. The point about peak oil is that it doesn't really matter how much oil is in the ground (obviously it does matter, but it's something of a red herring). What really counts is how fast it can be got out. By way of an analogy - if you have an ocean of water but you can only drink one drop a day, you're going to die. If you really want, I can give you some links so that you can understand the issues properly. Anyway, production figures for the last decade in the US and worldwide (and remember that this is against a background of exploding demand and price):

1997 Average 9,461 74,158

1998 Average 9,278 75,654

1999 Average 8,993 74,840

2000 Average 9,058 77,762

2001 January 8,453 78,181

February 8,825 78,053

March 8,978 78,765

April 8,963 77,766

May 9,058 77,264

June 8,940 75,867

July 8,966 77,866

August 8,913 78,106

September 9,002 77,626

October 9,130 77,577

November 9,241 77,864

December 9,012 77,257

2001 Average 8,957 77,684

2002 January 9,014 76,395

February 9,077 76,521

March 9,116 76,314

April 9,144 75,878

May 9,312 76,724

June 9,154 76,527

July 8,973 76,995

August 9,151 76,796

September 8,686 77,336

October 8,553 78,764

November 8,921 78,867

December 8,902 76,795

2002 Average 9,000 76,995

2003 January 8,901 77,316

February 8,936 79,057

March 8,928 79,535

April 8,781 78,491

May 8,746 78,673

June 8,677 78,028

July 8,550 78,903

August 8,719 79,455

September 8,971 80,360

October 8,774 81,294

November 8,769 81,464

December 8,830 82,751

2003 Average 8,797 79,615

2004 January 8,780 82,206

February 8,810 82,206

March 8,868 81,992

April 8,779 81,841

May 8,790 81,595

June 8,584 83,582

July 8,708 84,178

August 8,731 83,222

September 8,283 83,795

October 8,470 84,601

November 8,818 84,402

December 8,780 83,850

2004 Average 8,700 83,124

2005 January 8,687 84,060

February 8,792 84,438

March 8,854 84,566

April 8,880 84,958

May 8,917 85,379

June 8,727 84,897

July 8,353 84,533

August 8,399 84,847

September 7,060 84,151

October 7,365 84,146

November 7,918 84,894

December 7,930 84,702

2005 Average 8,322 84,631

2006 January 8,272 84,560

February 8,220 84,501

March 8,107 84,060

April 8,281 84,417

May 8,360 84,241

June 8,388 84,128

July 8,384 85,467

August 8,407 85,197

September 8,354 84,745

October 8,373 85,046

November 8,339 84,576

December 8,472 84,205

2006 Average 8,331 84,597

2007 January E 8,462 84,113

February E 8,351 84,338

March E 8,460 84,083

April E 8,506 84,570

May E 8,566 84,250

June E 8,520 84,379

July E 8,526 84,816

August E 8,360 83,838

September E 8,324 84,753

October PE 8,474 85,605

2007 10-Month Average PE 8,456 84,475

[wilko]

Exactly - the nostradamus type soothayers have been harpng on about the end of oil since the 70's.

And ppl in Texas never thought they would run out.

There is a very good podcast from the "National Economist Club" available by a oil analyst that I was listening too at lunchtime about oil demand and production.

An oil-analyst, is that someone in the oil industry telling us that oil won't run out (infinite supply?). If this is the case why has the oil industry been investing in alternatives for so long?

Where are the new oil fields? Oil exploration technolgies have improved greatly, but no huge reserves have been found.

Ppl can argue about global warming, but with oil it's not if but when.

I am from Texas, and I can assure you the oil is still there. Back when I was younger, the oil companies would go out to the forest near my home, blast for oil, find it, & cap it off. They just sit on it, waiting for hard times, then they mine the stuff and sell it off when oil prices are outrageous, thus getting the best bang for the buck.

Where I lived the sky would be bright orange through the nights as the oil companies would burn off pockets of natural gas. A total waste, but that is what they would do.

sounds bloody AWFUL!

[wilko]

By definition Bushites see any criticism of Bush as a "rant" largely because when it comes to a valid argument they haven't got a leg to stand on

Edited January 24, 2008 by wilko

[davendallas]

Yep - a bunch of doomsdayers - LOL -- well I agree some may be looking at the glass as empty already -- but those who think it is full are almost as bad.

I see the glass as half empty (or close to it) and whatever it takes to refill it will not be the same as what we have in there right now.

Not one of the EXPERTS who think this peak oil thing is a myth -- thought oil would reach $100 a barrel back in 2005!!! The peak oilers DID! So what makes anyone think those who challange peak oil know what they are talking about - Right now the evidence is on the side of the peak oilers and their credibility has held up pretty well -- as has THEIR predictions.

While I do not totally agree with them -- I am leaning that way as a sane person who believes in being ready and pro-active and not "Hoping" everything works out. We need to be doing something and right now we are doing little, at a snails pace!

Our biggest problem is that this is not the ONLY problem - there are a list of them and the cumlative effect IS a problem - while one may not get us - a couple of them may get us in the long run.

I am speaking of socio as well as economical issues - on top of natural resourses/globel warming issues

Our civilization seems to be headed for a change one way or the other and with all these problems and the lack of cooperation from everyone involved - we are in trouble

Just my 2 cents worth!

[the highlander]

Oil is at 100 bucks a barrel because the dollar is weak and oil is traded as a commodity and is being used by traders to hedge against a US recession not because there is any shortage!!

Gold was at 1000 bucks an oz!!

You will be telling me that this is because we have reached peak gold production and we are buying to much jewellery for our Mia nois!!

[howtoescape]

Not one of the EXPERTS who think this peak oil thing is a myth -- thought oil would reach $100 a barrel back in 2005!!!

There is no "Peak Oil" myth every sane person agrees oil reserves will run eventually, the debate is when we will reach "Peak Oil".

[lannarebirth]

Not one of the EXPERTS who think this peak oil thing is a myth -- thought oil would reach $100 a barrel back in 2005!!!

There is no "Peak Oil" myth every sane person agrees oil reserves will run eventually, the debate is when we will reach "Peak Oil".

Maybe a little longer away than previously thought.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-e...-news2.13s.html

[howtoescape]

Not one of the EXPERTS who think this peak oil thing is a myth -- thought oil would reach $100 a barrel back in 2005!!!

There is no "Peak Oil" myth every sane person agrees oil reserves will run eventually, the debate is when we will reach "Peak Oil".

Maybe a little longer away than previously thought.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-e...-news2.13s.html

That link was written on 13 feb 2008 and it say in 30 days there will be a wonderful announcement by the USGS about this oil, has there been?

[lannarebirth]

Not one of the EXPERTS who think this peak oil thing is a myth -- thought oil would reach $100 a barrel back in 2005!!!

There is no "Peak Oil" myth every sane person agrees oil reserves will run eventually, the debate is when we will reach "Peak Oil".

Maybe a little longer away than previously thought.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-e...-news2.13s.html

That link was written on 13 feb 2008 and it say in 30 days there will be a wonderful announcement by the USGS about this oil, has there been?

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20080407/r...al-expected.htm

[davendallas]

What worries me are figures like this - the world oil consumption in 2007 was about 85 million barrels a day or 31 billion/year -- the US uses about 20-25% of that oil per day/year -- 2007 we used aout 21 million barrels a day or 7.7 billion barrels a year - that is a lot of oil -- it went down some in the 1st Q of this year!! some say the demand was lower do to weather conditions but unsure of that

bottom line: when I look at the estimates of oil reserves in Alaska - High of 16 Billion (oil company est) to a lower est by USGS at 8 Billion and some other oil "experts" saying it is as low as 5 Billion and I compare that with annual usage in the US and I consider the only large recent oil find in the gulf is a little more than the Alaskan reserve and knowing that Iraq is supposed to be one of the biggest oil reserves at 112 Billion - and we the number of major oil finds (even with improved technology) is declining to single digits

And I consider how fast the usage has increased in China (about a 6% increase) /India and other rapidly developing nation

We are in trouble -- I am not a math major and these stats can be questioned for sure --but the trends and amounts are in the ball park - so it looks like to me - we are using up those est reserves pretty dang fast!

I would be interested in what others come up with.

does it worry anyone else that right now today the US reserve in Alaska that we depend on and refer to so freely is only a one - two year supply!

and that the only major oil find in the last few years is only a little more than that

Guys it looks like to me at the rate we are using oil given yearly usage figures and estimated reserves by even the oil companies themselves! we don't have more than a few decades left to resolve this situation at best.

Hope I am wrong but I think that is what the facts show - there is a problem -- sure some fixes but how fast are we moving to do that - at a snails pace with a ton of denial.

Why aren't the oil companies building more oil to meet the increased demand?? to keep prices high - maybe or maybe they realize the money put into refineries (at least these conventional ones) will not provide a return on the investment -- probably a combo of both

again food for thought -- I am really enjoy this forum and the responses you have all contributed and for the most part without getting personal!

[solent01]

Great thread, enjoyed reading through it all, and hope much more is to come.

My input is, I'm going to buy a superbike and enjoy the thrill it gives me riding the sucker hard, while I can still buy the fuel to run it

Edit.....

But I'm sure there will always be a way for speed freaks to get a fix......

Edited April 8, 2008 by solent01

[howtoescape]

Great thread, enjoyed reading through it all, and hope much more is to come.

My input is, I'm going to buy a superbike and enjoy the thrill it gives me riding the sucker hard, while I can still buy the fuel to run it

Edit.....

But I'm sure there will always be a way for speed freaks to get a fix......

Now that was funny

[solent01]

Well howto, I see both sides of the argument, but I sure as h3ll don't know which is right, so as an individual that can't change a thing about it, I'm going to get my kicks from it. I just hope my children can get it all sorted out, thats if mother nature hasn't wiped us all out herself by then.

PS, Why does everyone worry so much, its just a ride, what is to be will be.

[howtoescape]

Agreed, i dont know who is right or wrong, but dont you think saving the planet is a bit too much responsibility to put on your kids, cant you just be a sports dad or something?

Edited April 8, 2008 by howtoescape

[altman]

Agreed, i dont know who is right or wrong, but dont you think saving the planet is a bit too much responsibility to put on your kids, cant you just be a sports dad or something?

wouldn't it have been better not to have had kids at all if you were unwilling to leave the planet in a condition that they wouldn't have to save?

it is not necessary to have children. you can make a choice. if you are unwilling to make the sacrifices that you expect them to make later, perhaps it would be best to not have them at all.

[Thaiboxer]

With the advent of cold fusion, the future generations could be buzzing around in nuclear powered vehicles and those shouldn't have a problem with speed!

[JohnL]

Not one of the EXPERTS who think this peak oil thing is a myth -- thought oil would reach $100 a barrel back in 2005!!!

There is no "Peak Oil" myth every sane person agrees oil reserves will run eventually, the debate is when we will reach "Peak Oil".

There's just too much oil being discovered for it to have come from fossile carbon. I'll go with the other theory, thank you.