Discussion:
Is Saudi Arabia Running Out of Oil?
(too old to reply)
Josh
2004-08-11 03:33:52 UTC
Permalink
At what price per barrel will these alleged reserves be profitable?
Or is there another reason they are not utilized?
If oil was to stay above $40 per barrel, i'd imagine that many more
sources would become economically viable.
G. R. L. Cowan
2004-08-11 13:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
At what price per barrel will these alleged reserves be profitable?
Or is there another reason they are not utilized?
If oil was to stay above $40 per barrel, i'd imagine that many more
sources would become economically viable.
Oh, Absolutely! But it becomes more expensive and more expensive. I have
children, so, I'm concerned.
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2004-daily/10-08-2004/business/b6.htm


--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
Dan Bloomquist
2004-08-11 15:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Post by Josh
At what price per barrel will these alleged reserves be profitable?
Or is there another reason they are not utilized?
If oil was to stay above $40 per barrel, i'd imagine that many more
sources would become economically viable.
Oh, Absolutely! But it becomes more expensive and more expensive. I have
children, so, I'm concerned.
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2004-daily/10-08-2004/business/b6.htm
Thanks. I've read about it a while ago. And I've mentioned that there is
a an 8 to 12? million barrel a day potential if Iraqi fields are
properly developed. There could be stable prices for many years.

I've also mentioned that I've read china's demand could increase some 20
to 30 million barrels a day over the next two decades.

By the time my kid is my age, I don't think it will be business as
usual. We will have put a pretty good dent in the easy oil while demand
exceeds 100 million barrels a day.
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
william mook
2004-08-16 17:59:28 UTC
Permalink
Sunlight on a clear day has 2.2 giga-watts of power per square mile.

At 40% conversion efficiency, and 70% fill factor, this translates to
616 mega-watts per square mile.

Thus, 110,000 square miles of land can generate 67.6 tera-watts of
power when the sun is shining.

Since the sun shines about 1/5th the time, this translates to 13.5
trillion watts of power on a continuous basis. This is 2.5 times the
rate humanity uses energy today.

This implies energy in the amounts of 118,800 trillion watt-hours per
year. This is an amount of energy to provide 2.4 billion tons of
hydrogen each year. This amount of hydrogen can absorb 13.2 billion
tons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year and produce 4.8 billion tons
of methane. This methane can be converted to synthetic oil via
zeolite conversion, to produce 60 billion barrels of oil each year.
If too much CO2 is absorbed in this way, this can be balanced with
production of oil from hydrogen and coal increasing the amounts of
synthetic oil from this area of land.
Rodney Kelp
2004-08-30 22:27:16 UTC
Permalink
All electrical generation should be wind, solar, nuclear and hydro.
All automobiles run on either fuel cells or batteries. )new one have 300
mile or greater range. Grow more cotton to make clothes. Find a replacement
for plastic. All homes get electric heat. Move most freight back to the
train and go back to steam power. Then and only then can you kiss Saudi and
other oil goodbye. We could do it rather fast in one giant leap. We could
stop the cash flow to these terrorists oil countries like dropping a hammer.
If oil goes to 80 or 100 dollars a barrel we will probably go financially
belly up anyway.
Post by Dan Bloomquist
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Post by Josh
At what price per barrel will these alleged reserves be profitable?
Or is there another reason they are not utilized?
If oil was to stay above $40 per barrel, i'd imagine that many more
sources would become economically viable.
Oh, Absolutely! But it becomes more expensive and more expensive. I have
children, so, I'm concerned.
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2004-daily/10-08-2004/business/b6.htm
Thanks. I've read about it a while ago. And I've mentioned that there is
a an 8 to 12? million barrel a day potential if Iraqi fields are
properly developed. There could be stable prices for many years.
I've also mentioned that I've read china's demand could increase some 20
to 30 million barrels a day over the next two decades.
By the time my kid is my age, I don't think it will be business as
usual. We will have put a pretty good dent in the easy oil while demand
exceeds 100 million barrels a day.
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/2004
Say not the Struggle nought Availeth
2004-08-31 15:40:34 UTC
Permalink
what about coal, we are the opec of coal?

I presume you plan to run the steam trains on coal.

what about wood for home heating, it is a renewable resource?

cotton is very energy intensive.

j.
Post by Rodney Kelp
All electrical generation should be wind, solar, nuclear and hydro.
All automobiles run on either fuel cells or batteries. )new one have 300
mile or greater range. Grow more cotton to make clothes. Find a replacement
for plastic. All homes get electric heat. Move most freight back to the
train and go back to steam power. Then and only then can you kiss Saudi and
other oil goodbye. We could do it rather fast in one giant leap. We could
stop the cash flow to these terrorists oil countries like dropping a hammer.
If oil goes to 80 or 100 dollars a barrel we will probably go financially
belly up anyway.
Post by Dan Bloomquist
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Post by Josh
At what price per barrel will these alleged reserves be
profitable?
Post by Dan Bloomquist
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Post by Josh
Or is there another reason they are not utilized?
If oil was to stay above $40 per barrel, i'd imagine that many more
sources would become economically viable.
Oh, Absolutely! But it becomes more expensive and more expensive. I have
children, so, I'm concerned.
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2004-daily/10-08-2004/business/b6.htm
Thanks. I've read about it a while ago. And I've mentioned that there is
a an 8 to 12? million barrel a day potential if Iraqi fields are
properly developed. There could be stable prices for many years.
I've also mentioned that I've read china's demand could increase some 20
to 30 million barrels a day over the next two decades.
By the time my kid is my age, I don't think it will be business as
usual. We will have put a pretty good dent in the easy oil while demand
exceeds 100 million barrels a day.
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/2004
G. R. L. Cowan
2004-08-11 15:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Post by Josh
At what price per barrel will these alleged reserves be profitable?
Or is there another reason they are not utilized?
If oil was to stay above $40 per barrel, i'd imagine that many more
sources would become economically viable.
Oh, Absolutely! But it becomes more expensive and more expensive. I have
children, so, I'm concerned.
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2004-daily/10-08-2004/business/b6.htm
From 11th August 2004, oil will see US$15/bbl before it sees US$50/bbl.


--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
H. E. Taylor
2004-08-12 02:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Post by Josh
[...]
At what price per barrel will these alleged reserves be profitable?
Or is there another reason they are not utilized?
If oil was to stay above $40 per barrel, i'd imagine that many more
sources would become economically viable.
Oh, Absolutely! But it becomes more expensive and more expensive. I have
children, so, I'm concerned.
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2004-daily/10-08-2004/business/b6.htm
From 11th August 2004, oil will see US$15/bbl before it sees US$50/bbl.
Your prediction is noted.
I have been around long enough that I am less interested in
any given assertion than I am in the logic &/ facts behind it.
Care to elucidate?

<regards>
-het


--
"We need a wake up call. We need it desperately. We need basically
a new form of energy. I don't know that there is one."
-Matthew Simmons, energy adviser for President Bush, May 23rd 2002

Energy Alternatives: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/energy/energy.html
H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/
G. R. L. Cowan
2004-08-12 18:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by H. E. Taylor
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Post by Josh
[...]
At what price per barrel will these alleged reserves be profitable?
Or is there another reason they are not utilized?
If oil was to stay above $40 per barrel, i'd imagine that many more
sources would become economically viable.
Oh, Absolutely! But it becomes more expensive and more expensive. I have
children, so, I'm concerned.
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2004-daily/10-08-2004/business/b6.htm
From 11th August 2004, oil will see US$15/bbl before it sees US$50/bbl.
Your prediction is noted.
I have been around long enough that I am less interested in
any given assertion than I am in the logic &/ facts behind it.
Care to elucidate?
Oil's recent run-up has been tremendously encouraging for
government types (http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/WhoGetsWhat/2001.pdf).
I seem to see them doing everything they can to stretch it out.
One way of doing this is by example.
So for instance, President Bush's chauffeurs recently
whipped him through a 45-mph zone at 75 mph.
Asked what their hurry was, they said, Hurry?
We weren't in any particular hurry.

It's also possible I pay too much attention to that
very contemptible Usenet subspecies, the oil-crash dieoff
enthusiast. They say prices must rise and rise until
a barrel of oil costs more than it's worth.
Looking only at the "must rise and rise" part,
one can suspect an attempt at market manipulation,
i.e., hoping to flush out a bigger fool.

Operating cost for turning Alberta tar into oil
are expected to average less than US$14/bbl this year
(http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040721/to073_1.html).
Expansion can continue for many years,
with economies of scale.

Some of these economies evidently having already been achieved,
I think the price of oil won't be able to spike low enough
to shut these operations down again as I seem to recall happened once.
Plus some are in the works that will make their own gas,
and avoid that dependency
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/59628)

A billion barrels of new supply began flowing
yesterday for a capital cost of US$3.40 each.
The trick is repeatable and will be repeated
(http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3326988).

Could that be done so vigorously as to squash the oil sands
people again? Well, I don't *think* so ...
and if I'm wrong, I suppose their remains will contribute
on the next cycle ...


--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
H. E. Taylor
2004-08-13 07:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Post by H. E. Taylor
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Post by Josh
[...]
At what price per barrel will these alleged reserves be profitable?
Or is there another reason they are not utilized?
If oil was to stay above $40 per barrel, i'd imagine that many more
sources would become economically viable.
Oh, Absolutely! But it becomes more expensive and more expensive. I have
children, so, I'm concerned.
http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2004-daily/10-08-2004/business/b6.htm
From 11th August 2004, oil will see US$15/bbl before it sees US$50/bbl.
Your prediction is noted.
I have been around long enough that I am less interested in
any given assertion than I am in the logic &/ facts behind it.
Care to elucidate?
Thanks for the cogent reply. It is becoming rare in these parts.
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Oil's recent run-up has been tremendously encouraging for
government types (http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/WhoGetsWhat/2001.pdf).
I seem to see them doing everything they can to stretch it out.
One way of doing this is by example.
So for instance, President Bush's chauffeurs recently
whipped him through a 45-mph zone at 75 mph.
Asked what their hurry was, they said, Hurry?
We weren't in any particular hurry.
While this is true, for example I notice R. Klein salivating over high
energy prices, I don't see it as driving the 15 vs 50 dynamic.
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
It's also possible I pay too much attention to that
very contemptible Usenet subspecies, the oil-crash dieoff
enthusiast. They say prices must rise and rise until
a barrel of oil costs more than it's worth.
Looking only at the "must rise and rise" part,
one can suspect an attempt at market manipulation,
i.e., hoping to flush out a bigger fool.
The supply & demand dynamic I can accept. The rest is emotionalism.
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Operating cost for turning Alberta tar into oil
are expected to average less than US$14/bbl this year
(http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040721/to073_1.html).
Expansion can continue for many years,
with economies of scale.
Somebody, Syncrude I thought, was claiming $12/barrel a year or
two ago, but I notice they claim $19/barrel now (Q22004).
<hmmmm>
Again I don't see this as driving the 15 vs 50 dynamic.
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Some of these economies evidently having already been achieved,
I think the price of oil won't be able to spike low enough
to shut these operations down again as I seem to recall happened once.
Plus some are in the works that will make their own gas,
and avoid that dependency
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/energyresources/message/59628)
A billion barrels of new supply began flowing
yesterday for a capital cost of US$3.40 each.
The trick is repeatable and will be repeated
(http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3326988).
A billion barrels sounds like a lot, but at 80+ mbd
it won't make much difference. Even at 250,00 b/d,
it is only 4,000 days.
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Could that be done so vigorously as to squash the oil sands
people again? Well, I don't *think* so ...
and if I'm wrong, I suppose their remains will contribute
on the next cycle ...
Well this is not what I was expecting from you, but so it goes.

I would finger political uncertainty, the terrorist factor.
There is a vote coming up in Venezuela and the possibility of trouble.
The Middle East is fubar for the foreseeble future.
Africa is a 'soft target' and liable to draw unwanted attention.
Putin seems to be doing the best he can turn Yukos into a wreck.

Both America and China have been expanding their SPRs, but I don't
think this is a major factor.
The growth of demand in China/India is changing the world market.
A lot depends upon what happens to the global economy in the next while.
With supply tight, the market is vulnerable to disruption at all of
the political hotspots listed above.

Meanwhile, we'll see what transpires...
<regards>
-het
--
"When two elephants fight it is the grass that gets trampled."
-African proverb

Name your Poison: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/catastrophes.html
H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/
cyril
2004-08-14 22:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Profitant de la d'expression qui, pour quelques semaines encore,
Post by H. E. Taylor
Your prediction is noted.
I have been around long enough that I am less interested in
any given assertion than I am in the logic &/ facts behind it.
Care to elucidate?
We can be almost sur that the $50 line will be reached at least once
in 2004.

We're already @ $45, and there is no spare production capacity
anywhere, and stocks are very low.

Any supply disruption, even a small one, can trigger a price leap.



--
« Si quelqu’un a une crise de paludisme, il suffit qu’il prenne une
pioche et aille creuser la terre au soleil pour être guéri grâce à
sa conscience politique élevée. »
POL POT
Chris Torek
2004-08-13 06:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
From 11th August 2004, oil will see US$15/bbl before it sees US$50/bbl.
Just to be clear (and I am not taking one side or the other on this
one; I know I do not know what will happen with commodities prices
-- I sure never saw this summer's soybean prices coming, for
instance): which oil price do you mean? Spot or futures contract?
Which exchange and what grade? Note that today (Wednesday) the
September contract closed at $45.50 for light sweet crude on the
NYMEX, but about $42 for North Sea Brent -- about an 8% difference.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
G. R. L. Cowan
2004-08-13 11:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Torek
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
From 11th August 2004, oil will see US$15/bbl before it sees US$50/bbl.
Just to be clear (and I am not taking one side or the other on this
one; I know I do not know what will happen with commodities prices ...
Me neither ...
Post by Chris Torek
-- I sure never saw this summer's soybean prices coming, for
instance): which oil price do you mean? Spot or futures contract?
Which exchange and what grade? Note that today (Wednesday) the
September contract closed at $45.50 for light sweet crude on the
NYMEX ...
That is the price I was thinking of.


--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.doc --
How individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
Chris Torek
2004-08-18 02:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Post by Chris Torek
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
From 11th August 2004, oil will see US$15/bbl before it sees US$50/bbl.
Just to be clear (and I am not taking one side or the other on this
one; I know I do not know what will happen with commodities prices ...
Me neither ...
Yet you made a prediction... I think I will too, just for fun. :-)
Post by G. R. L. Cowan
Post by Chris Torek
... Note that today (Wednesday) the
September contract closed at $45.50 for light sweet crude on the
NYMEX ...
That is the price I was thinking of.
OK. It is now up to $46.75 (Tuesday Aug 17).

My own prediction, just for fun: we will see $46.93 before we see
$37.41. How come everyone else always predicts nice round numbers? :-)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
Chris Torek
2004-08-20 06:13:57 UTC
Permalink
[NYMEX light sweet] is now up to $46.75 (Tuesday Aug 17).
My own prediction, just for fun: we will see $46.93 before we see
$37.41. How come everyone else always predicts nice round numbers? :-)
The price went over that yesterday intraday, but closed lower; but
today it closed at $48.75. I guess I win, sort of. :-)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
LongmuirG
2004-08-11 17:22:25 UTC
Permalink
Josh made a common mistake:
<snip>
Post by Josh
If oil was to stay above $40 per barrel, i'd imagine that many more
sources would become economically viable.
Maybe. Maybe not. The real issue is the Energy Amplification of the various
energy sources -- do they produce enough more energy over their life than it
takes to get that energy source up and running in the first place? Coal, oil,
& gas do, by a very healthy margin. If alternative sources had a healthy
Energy Amplification, they would be economic today. If they don't provide
adequate Energy Amplification, higher oil prices will not help.

We use money as the only convenient way to put very different inputs on a
common basis. But money itself is a measure of energy.

A real world example was Marathon Oil Company's Maraflood process, which they
developed back in the 1970s (+/-). Maraflood was a complex mixture of
chemicals which increased the recovery of oil when injected into a reservoir.
Although it was technically successful, Maraflood was uneconomic at the low oil
prices of that time. However, when oil prices went up in the later 1970s and
early 1980s, Maraflood was still not economic. The cost of the chemicals
(largely derived from oil) went up along with the price of oil.
cyril
2004-08-15 14:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Profitant de la d'expression qui, pour quelques semaines encore,
Post by LongmuirG
<snip>
Post by Josh
If oil was to stay above $40 per barrel, i'd imagine that many more
sources would become economically viable.
CO2-EOR, a technology that drives more oil out of an old field using
CO2 injection (widely used in Texas), is likely to become economic in
several areas.

We can find on the net several feasability studies for CO2-EOR in
various US and Canada fields. Most of this studies concludes that the
project would barely breakeven - but they are a few yeas old, and they
use 20-25 $ per barrels prices !
Post by LongmuirG
A real world example was Marathon Oil Company's Maraflood process, which they
developed back in the 1970s (+/-). Maraflood was a complex mixture of
chemicals which increased the recovery of oil when injected into a reservoir.
Although it was technically successful, Maraflood was uneconomic at the low oil
prices of that time. However, when oil prices went up in the later 1970s and
early 1980s, Maraflood was still not economic. The cost of the chemicals
(largely derived from oil) went up along with the price of oil.
lol.


--
« Si quelqu’un a une crise de paludisme, il suffit qu’il prenne une
pioche et aille creuser la terre au soleil pour être guéri grâce à
sa conscience politique élevée. »
POL POT
william mook
2004-08-13 04:27:31 UTC
Permalink
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/energy/saudi-energy-reserves.html

Reserves and Future Potential:

Saudi Aramco's oil and gas reserves conform to industry standards.
Reserves attributable to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes are
excluded, underscoring the conservative nature of the Company's
reserves. Year-end 2003 proved oil reserves totaled 260 billion
barrels. Incremental probable and possible reserves (over and above
the 260 billion barrels) are estimated to be 103 billion barrels.
Exploration, delineation and development efforts have increased Saudi
Aramco's oil initially in place from 600 to 700 billion barrels during
the past 20 years. Vast unexplored acreage exists in the Rub' al Khali
desert region, the northern basin (along the border with Iraq) and the
offshore Red Sea Basin. US Geological Survey 2000 projections point to
additional recoverable oil resources ranging from 29 to 161 billion
barrels to be discovered in Saudi Arabia by 2025. The Company projects
its oil initially in place volume to reach 900 billion barrels by the
same date.


* * *

If I read this right we're about 2 years away from reaching the
Hubbert hump. (with 3.5 billion barrels per year produced)
Eric Gisin
2004-08-13 15:06:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by william mook
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/energy/saudi-energy-reserves.html
Saudi Aramco's oil and gas reserves conform to industry standards.
Reserves attributable to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes are
excluded, underscoring the conservative nature of the Company's
reserves. Year-end 2003 proved oil reserves totaled 260 billion
barrels. Incremental probable and possible reserves (over and above
the 260 billion barrels) are estimated to be 103 billion barrels.
Exploration, delineation and development efforts have increased Saudi
Aramco's oil initially in place from 600 to 700 billion barrels during
the past 20 years. Vast unexplored acreage exists in the Rub' al Khali
desert region, the northern basin (along the border with Iraq) and the
offshore Red Sea Basin. US Geological Survey 2000 projections point to
additional recoverable oil resources ranging from 29 to 161 billion
barrels to be discovered in Saudi Arabia by 2025. The Company projects
its oil initially in place volume to reach 900 billion barrels by the
same date.
If I read this right we're about 2 years away from reaching the
Hubbert hump. (with 3.5 billion barrels per year produced)
How do you figure that? Production has been 3.5 billion/year since 1980 (only
data I have), which is 84 billion. It was less prior to that. So less than 200
out of 700. It takes a hundred years at 3.5/year to reach peak.
william mook
2004-08-14 03:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Gisin
Post by william mook
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/energy/saudi-energy-reserves.html
Saudi Aramco's oil and gas reserves conform to industry standards.
Reserves attributable to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes are
excluded, underscoring the conservative nature of the Company's
reserves. Year-end 2003 proved oil reserves totaled 260 billion
barrels. Incremental probable and possible reserves (over and above
the 260 billion barrels) are estimated to be 103 billion barrels.
Exploration, delineation and development efforts have increased Saudi
Aramco's oil initially in place from 600 to 700 billion barrels during
the past 20 years. Vast unexplored acreage exists in the Rub' al Khali
desert region, the northern basin (along the border with Iraq) and the
offshore Red Sea Basin. US Geological Survey 2000 projections point to
additional recoverable oil resources ranging from 29 to 161 billion
barrels to be discovered in Saudi Arabia by 2025. The Company projects
its oil initially in place volume to reach 900 billion barrels by the
same date.
If I read this right we're about 2 years away from reaching the
Hubbert hump. (with 3.5 billion barrels per year produced)
If the original complement of oil is less than 900 billion barrels,
and they've got 463 billion left - then they're 13 billion from the
halfway point - that is the point where production rates start to
fall. And at 3.5 billion per year that's 4 years until things start
to fall - and 2 years until the slowdown (approaching the peak)
begins to spike prices.
Post by Eric Gisin
How do you figure that? Production has been 3.5 billion/year since 1980 (only
data I have), which is 84 billion. It was less prior to that. So less than 200
out of 700. It takes a hundred years at 3.5/year to reach peak.
Rodney Kelp
2004-09-05 20:16:47 UTC
Permalink
I have no problem going back to coal or wood fired steam boiler power. I'm
not in a great deal of a hurry.
Post by william mook
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/energy/saudi-energy-reserves.html
Saudi Aramco's oil and gas reserves conform to industry standards.
Reserves attributable to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes are
excluded, underscoring the conservative nature of the Company's
reserves. Year-end 2003 proved oil reserves totaled 260 billion
barrels. Incremental probable and possible reserves (over and above
the 260 billion barrels) are estimated to be 103 billion barrels.
Exploration, delineation and development efforts have increased Saudi
Aramco's oil initially in place from 600 to 700 billion barrels during
the past 20 years. Vast unexplored acreage exists in the Rub' al Khali
desert region, the northern basin (along the border with Iraq) and the
offshore Red Sea Basin. US Geological Survey 2000 projections point to
additional recoverable oil resources ranging from 29 to 161 billion
barrels to be discovered in Saudi Arabia by 2025. The Company projects
its oil initially in place volume to reach 900 billion barrels by the
same date.
* * *
If I read this right we're about 2 years away from reaching the
Hubbert hump. (with 3.5 billion barrels per year produced)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/2004
william mook
2004-09-06 02:05:47 UTC
Permalink
That's easy to say, but harder to do. Petroleum products contribute
significantly to our standard of living. Not only with respect to the
benefits of low cost energy, but also with respect to low cost
fertilizers, insecticides, plastics, fabrics, you name it. If we had
to go back to wood we'd return to the living standards of the 19th
century. The rub of that is the technology of the 19th century
probably cannot support more than 10% of the people alive today using
all the surface of the Earth. Reduced food output, increased use of
natural fibers, and so forth, account for much of this change - all
things directly related to low-cost petroleum products.

So, its easy to say you can go back to coal or wood fired steam
boilers - its far more costly than you realize. The boilers
themselves are made of steel. The steel requires carbon sources to be
made. The steel requires energy itself to be extracted and reduced.
Increase the cost of energy and the cost of everything increases.

In face of these spiraling costs output of foods, drugs, fabrics, you
name it is seriously constricted. Already a significant number of
people are living on the edge throughout the world. This will throw
2/3 of the world's population over the edge - into mass starvation.

People will not sit idly by and starve to death. There will be
repurcussions. These include, widespread diseases uncontrolled by the
medical community since the no longer have the resources to combat
diseases, and this will be on the scale of a pandemic. Also,
widespread political unrest. Marshall law is likely. War even more
likely. The use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons will take
their toll.

What you say is easy to say. The consequences of going back to wood
are huge. After the die off, after the wars, after the pandemics,
yes, the survivors may be able to burn wood and use it to live in some
sort of post collapse world. But it won't be you and it won't be easy
for everyone who passes through the eye of the die-off needle.

That's why we need to get to work to expand low-cost synthetic oils as
a stop gap measure toward a wealthier happier planet for everyone.
Post by Rodney Kelp
I have no problem going back to coal or wood fired steam boiler power. I'm
not in a great deal of a hurry.
Post by william mook
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/energy/saudi-energy-reserves.html
Saudi Aramco's oil and gas reserves conform to industry standards.
Reserves attributable to enhanced oil recovery (EOR) processes are
excluded, underscoring the conservative nature of the Company's
reserves. Year-end 2003 proved oil reserves totaled 260 billion
barrels. Incremental probable and possible reserves (over and above
the 260 billion barrels) are estimated to be 103 billion barrels.
Exploration, delineation and development efforts have increased Saudi
Aramco's oil initially in place from 600 to 700 billion barrels during
the past 20 years. Vast unexplored acreage exists in the Rub' al Khali
desert region, the northern basin (along the border with Iraq) and the
offshore Red Sea Basin. US Geological Survey 2000 projections point to
additional recoverable oil resources ranging from 29 to 161 billion
barrels to be discovered in Saudi Arabia by 2025. The Company projects
its oil initially in place volume to reach 900 billion barrels by the
same date.
* * *
If I read this right we're about 2 years away from reaching the
Hubbert hump. (with 3.5 billion barrels per year produced)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/27/2004
quasarstrider
2004-09-06 14:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by william mook
That's easy to say, but harder to do. Petroleum products contribute
significantly to our standard of living. Not only with respect to the
benefits of low cost energy, but also with respect to low cost
fertilizers, insecticides, plastics, fabrics, you name it. If we had
Fertilizers require cheap hydrogen, not hydrocarbons. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

About plastics and similar things like some fabrics, yes you do need
hydrocarbons AFAIK. Regarding some insecticides and medicine, yes some
do need hydrocarbons, like benzene, to manufacture. However, using the
wonders of genetic engineering, you could probably convert most medicine
and insecticide (toxin) requirements to production via bacterial farms.
For e.g. several bacteria produce toxins which could be harvested.
Post by william mook
to go back to wood we'd return to the living standards of the 19th
century. The rub of that is the technology of the 19th century
Not quite. Lack of oil wouldn't uninvent computer and airplane technology.
You might have to do alternate designs, using alternate materials, but basic
knowledge would still hold.
Post by william mook
probably cannot support more than 10% of the people alive today using
all the surface of the Earth. Reduced food output, increased use of
natural fibers, and so forth, account for much of this change - all
things directly related to low-cost petroleum products.
So, its easy to say you can go back to coal or wood fired steam
boilers - its far more costly than you realize. The boilers
themselves are made of steel. The steel requires carbon sources to be
made. The steel requires energy itself to be extracted and reduced.
Coal has carbon. Regarding energy for production, plants most often than
not use electricity to power their machinery. Electricity is not
significantly produced from petroleum.
Post by william mook
Increase the cost of energy and the cost of everything increases.
In face of these spiraling costs output of foods, drugs, fabrics, you
name it is seriously constricted. Already a significant number of
people are living on the edge throughout the world. This will throw
2/3 of the world's population over the edge - into mass starvation.
I don't think so.
Post by william mook
People will not sit idly by and starve to death. There will be
repurcussions. These include, widespread diseases uncontrolled by the
medical community since the no longer have the resources to combat
diseases, and this will be on the scale of a pandemic. Also,
Actually I think there would be less epidemics rather than more. Lack of
oil would mean travelling would be more expensive, reducing the spread rate.
Post by william mook
widespread political unrest. Marshall law is likely. War even more
likely. The use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons will take
their toll.
What you say is easy to say. The consequences of going back to wood
are huge. After the die off, after the wars, after the pandemics,
yes, the survivors may be able to burn wood and use it to live in some
sort of post collapse world. But it won't be you and it won't be easy
for everyone who passes through the eye of the die-off needle.
That's why we need to get to work to expand low-cost synthetic oils as
a stop gap measure toward a wealthier happier planet for everyone.
Yes, low-cost synthetic oil (I prefer to call it hydrocarbons) will be
good for several things. Plastics, airplane fuel, etc.
cyril
2004-09-06 15:59:11 UTC
Permalink
Profitant de la liberté d'expression qui, pour quelques semaines
Post by quasarstrider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
And fertilizers aren't the only industry that requires H2.

Oil refining, extra-heavy oil upgrading, petrochemicals, all consumes
large volumes of H2.

Almost all of it is made from fossil fuels : natural gas mainly,
sometimes naphta, petcokes or coal.

In 2002, some 500 billions cubic meters (18 Tcf) were made in the
world, 96% of it from fossil fuels (and 4% from electricity). Almost
none of it is used as a fuel (space launchers are the exception, but
they are marginal)

H2 has an energy content (HHV) of 12.1 MJ/m3.
Let's assume that H2 production from fossil fuels is 65% efficient.

0.96 * 500e9 * 12.1e6 / 0.65 = 8.935 e18 Joules
almost 9 exajoules!!
This means that some 1.5% of world's fossil fuels are used to make
"feedstock hydrogen "

That's why technologies to make hydrogen from nukular or solar energy
could help cut fossil fuel consumption significantly, even if hydrogen
is not used as an energy vector.

Or, feedstock hydrogen could be a cradle for "nuke-to-h2" or
"sun-to-h2" technologies, before H2 can be used as a real fuel.





--
« Si quelqu’un a une crise de paludisme, il suffit qu’il prenne une
pioche et aille creuser la terre au soleil pour être guéri grâce à
sa conscience politique élevée. »
POL POT
william mook
2004-09-06 18:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by quasarstrider
Post by william mook
That's easy to say, but harder to do. Petroleum products contribute
significantly to our standard of living. Not only with respect to the
benefits of low cost energy, but also with respect to low cost
fertilizers, insecticides, plastics, fabrics, you name it. If we had
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
???? This reference described the Haber process. The input that
energizes this process is methane derived from natural gas which is a
fossil fuel which I count as a hydrocarbon product along with crude
oil.

So, I would suggest you actually read the references you site.
Post by quasarstrider
About plastics and similar things like some fabrics, yes you do need
hydrocarbons AFAIK. Regarding some insecticides and medicine, yes some
do need hydrocarbons, like benzene, to manufacture. However, using the
wonders of genetic engineering, you could probably convert most medicine
and insecticide (toxin) requirements to production via bacterial farms.
For e.g. several bacteria produce toxins which could be harvested.
The harvesting of bacteria doesn't change my central point which is
the cost of doing all things today rest upon the price points we have
achieved for fossil fuels. Take those away, reduce them, or increase
their prices, and the whole industrial paradigm changes. What is easy
and cheap today is not likely to be easy and cheap in the absence of
hydrocarbon fuels like crude oil and natural gas.
Post by quasarstrider
Post by william mook
to go back to wood we'd return to the living standards of the 19th
century. The rub of that is the technology of the 19th century
Not quite. Lack of oil wouldn't uninvent computer and airplane technology.
No, it would just make operating them very expensive propositions,
which is my point. You won't uninvent airplanes for example, but if
it cost 100x more to operate them due to fuel price increases they
would be removed from the market as important economic factors.
Computers are little more difficult to assess. Directly operating them
in an environment of high super-high fuel prices wouldn't be an issue.
What would be an issue is their cost of manufacture. Look at the
names of the nations stamped across the ICs in your laptop. Parts
come from all over the world. If long distance travel is largely
removed from human experience then these little parts become
unavailable or very costly. If they're unavailable, parts will be made
here. But factories take energy to run, so the parts will be
expensive. And local labor will also be more expensive. That's why
the parts are arriving from Taiwan, Indonesia, Korea, China, Costa
Rica, etc., in the first place. Low labor costs. With far higher
transport costs and manufacturing costs labor won't be such an issue,
and so local labor is likely to be used more. But the point is, in
any case, costs will be far higher as a result. Higher costs,
combined with less disposable income (higher food prices remember
because of higher fertilizer costs and higher costs to operate
tractors and so forth) mean fewer computers get built and sold, which
tends to remove them from being an important part of human experience.

You fail to consider the difference between a world where computers
and airplanes are common and a world where computers and airplanes
exist, but are rarely seen or used. The cost of energy makes the
difference.
Post by quasarstrider
You might have to do alternate designs, using alternate materials, but basic
knowledge would still hold.
You are making a false argument. I was talking about the cost of
hydrocarbons. You are attempting to argue around knowledge. Knowledge
exists certainly, but that knowledge changes in value based on the
cost of energy, or any strategic resource.
Post by quasarstrider
Post by william mook
probably cannot support more than 10% of the people alive today using
all the surface of the Earth. Reduced food output, increased use of
natural fibers, and so forth, account for much of this change - all
things directly related to low-cost petroleum products.
So, its easy to say you can go back to coal or wood fired steam
boilers - its far more costly than you realize. The boilers
themselves are made of steel. The steel requires carbon sources to be
made. The steel requires energy itself to be extracted and reduced.
Coal has carbon.
Yes it does. When combined with low-cost hydrogen you can make
low-cost hydrocarbons. This is a viable alternative to extracted
hydro-carbons. Absolutely.

But, again, you're making a false argument. I was considering the
effects of removing hydrocarbons from our economy and the results of
that. Any massive use of coal requires the addition of hydrogen to
make it into usable hydrocarbons. This hydrogen can be added by
Fischer-Tropsch and similar processes of partial oxidation. But,if we
rely on coal alone we'll dramatically increase our CO2 emissions and
quickly burn through the coal we have.

I propose doing something different, but again - this isn't the point
of my earlier post, so your commentary opposing it misses the mark.
That different thing is to cheaply produce hydrogen from sunlight and
water and use coal with renewable sources of hydrogen to make
hydrocarbon fuels where 2/3 of the energy in the fuel comes from
sunlight. That way there are no emissions during hydrocarbon
manufacture (except oxygen) and we build up capacity to make hydrogen
on a massive scale, which will ultimately be used directly.
Post by quasarstrider
Regarding energy for production, plants most often than
not use electricity to power their machinery. Electricity is not
significantly produced from petroleum.
Coal is an important but not dominant source of energy in the US. Oil
and natural gas is an important but not dominant source of fossil fuel
energy.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/rea_data/table5.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/ipp/html1/t4p01.html

According to the department of energy in 2000 there were 812 GW of
total generating capacity in the US, of this 500 GW were fossil fuel
powered. Of those 360 GW is coal fired. That's less than half,
around 44% of the total. Hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) constitute
around 160 GW - nearly a third or 30% of the total produced by fossil
fuels - nearly half or 44% of the amount of capacity available from
coal alone.

Most importantly is the character of what's being built and what's
being retired - so for 2000 we had a total added capacity of 9 GW of
which nearly 8 GW was natural gas, very little was coal.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/ipp/html1/t2p01.html

So, as far as future construction is concerned, people are building
generator capacity that has very little emissions - which doesn't
include coal.
Post by quasarstrider
Post by william mook
Increase the cost of energy and the cost of everything increases.
In face of these spiraling costs output of foods, drugs, fabrics, you
name it is seriously constricted. Already a significant number of
people are living on the edge throughout the world. This will throw
2/3 of the world's population over the edge - into mass starvation.
I don't think so.
Well, increasing costs for primary energy haven't happened as a
routine thing for the modern industrial world. In fact, the modern
world is built on low-cost energy. So, if costs continue to decline,
we can expect continued improvements.

This isn't the issue. The issue I'm discussing, and which you are not
responding to in any meaningful way, is what would life be like if
hydrocarbons were removed from our inventory tomorrow, what would life
be like? The answer is, harder and more costly, and fewer people
would be around at the end of the day.

You've say you don't think so, and don't give any cogent reasoning to
support your view. You have yet to show why you don't think so.

On the other hand I have fully addressed why it is certain that higher
hydrocarbon prices mean huge economic difficulties leading to
starvation. With increased energy prices food won't be grown as
easily or as cheaply or in as great abundance. Products won't get to
market as easily. Supply chains will increase in cost and change
dramatically losing much of their capital efficiency. This means
prices will rise availability will fall, and people on the edge now
will be lost.

This is a reason to keep energy prices low, and bring them lower
still.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/fact_sheets/retailprice.html

The department of energy shows that adjusted for inflation, the price
over the past 44 years has suffered one spike. That spike was the
result of the oil crisis of the 1970s. This crisis came about due to
a massive and sudden increase in oil prices. This effect spread
through the economy in the subsequent decade and stabilized at a new
higher price point. Once that price increase was absorbed, prices went
back to their long term trend due to improvements in efficiency.

During the price spike, which is mild by comparision to one we would
have if we had a total lack of hydrocarbons in our economy, many
people suffered around the world.

Here's the data on oil price shocks. They're easily correlated with
the retail price of electricity increases.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chron.html

Meanwhile the Center for Disease Control keeps track of famine and
human migration;

http://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000113/p0000113.asp

While no cumulative mortality rate for all of humanity over time is
being kept, we can see from the tables below that the major famines of
the 20th century occurred at the time of major oil price shocks. This
suggests a correlation. Since a mechanism is easily seen as well, it
shows that in the absence of hydrocarbons - the present industrial
infrastructure will be less efficient, more costly, and lead to
millions and more than likely billions of deaths worldwide.
Post by quasarstrider
Post by william mook
People will not sit idly by and starve to death. There will be
repurcussions. These include, widespread diseases uncontrolled by the
medical community since the no longer have the resources to combat
diseases, and this will be on the scale of a pandemic. Also,
Actually I think there would be less epidemics rather than more. Lack of
oil would mean travelling would be more expensive, reducing the spread rate.
The CDC information shows that lack of fresh water and sewage
treatment,which require a functioning industrial infrastructure,lead
to epidemics.

Other CDC information shows that travelling contributes very little to
overall disease rates in the world. That's because migratory birds
keep the world pretty well stocked in diseases from far away places.
It is only travel across pathways that migratory birds don't travel -
like from China to North America - that lead on occasion to flu
outbreaks and similar diseases. While they make news when they happen,
SARS and similar disease won't kill tens of thousands or more as
cholera for example does in Africa.
Post by quasarstrider
Post by william mook
widespread political unrest. Marshall law is likely. War even more
likely. The use of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons will take
their toll.
What you say is easy to say. The consequences of going back to wood
are huge. After the die off, after the wars, after the pandemics,
yes, the survivors may be able to burn wood and use it to live in some
sort of post collapse world. But it won't be you and it won't be easy
for everyone who passes through the eye of the die-off needle.
That's why we need to get to work to expand low-cost synthetic oils as
a stop gap measure toward a wealthier happier planet for everyone.
Yes, low-cost synthetic oil (I prefer to call it hydrocarbons) will be
good for several things. Plastics, airplane fuel, etc.
Yep. On this we agree.
william mook
2004-09-06 19:42:51 UTC
Permalink
World's mortality rate

Year Mortality
Rate %

1950 1.97 .23
1955 1.74 .18
1960 1.56 .22
1965 1.34 .18
1970 1.16 .07
1975 1.09 .06
1980 1.03 .07
1985 .96 .02
1990 .94 .04
1995 .90 .02
2000 .88 -

This data is interesting in that there are three distinct periods in
it. The first is the period from 1950 through 1970 - where mortality
decreases averaged .0405% per year. Then, from 1970 through 1980
where mortality averaged .0133% per year. A slowing in the decrease
in overall mortality. Finally, from 1980 through 2000 - where the
average dropped to .0053% per year.

This correlates with the two dramatic price increases in oil. The
first in 1973-74 and the second in 1979-80.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chron.html

Which is pretty conclusive that oil prices have an impact on human
mortality.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/fact_sheets/retailprice.html

Electricity prices correlate rather well too with petroleum price
increases - despite the fact that electricity is derived largely from
non petroleum sources.
Chris Torek
2004-09-06 20:33:17 UTC
Permalink
In article <news:***@posting.google.com>
william mook <***@mokindustries.com> wrote:
[URLs snipped -- see original article]
Post by william mook
Electricity prices correlate rather well too with petroleum price
increases - despite the fact that electricity is derived largely from
non petroleum sources.
It is *now*; this was not the case in the 1970s, when those oil
shocks occurred. (The high price of oil was part of the reason
oil stopped being used as a heat source for electricity.)

At least, this is the case in the US; I am not sure about Europe.
Apparently China is now going through electricity availability
crises in various locations, and may well be burning oil (as well
as anything else available) for electricity.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
cyril
2004-09-06 21:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Torek
It is *now*; this was not the case in the 1970s, when those oil
shocks occurred. (The high price of oil was part of the reason
oil stopped being used as a heat source for electricity.)
At least, this is the case in the US; I am not sure about Europe.
Most european countries stopped using oil as a bulk fuel for
electricity generation, the only exception is Italy (Italy is a large
oil receiving and refining center).

We still have some old oil fired plants in France, but these power
plants are only used ocasionnaly, during the highest demand peaks. And
these plants will be close a few years from now.

electricity generation in France:
Loading Image...
note that almost all of our electricity is CO2-neutral.
Post by Chris Torek
Apparently China is now going through electricity availability
crises in various locations, and may well be burning oil (as well
as anything else available) for electricity.
Yes, china burns lot of oil for electricity. They even use crude oil.

Oil is used from electricity :
- In large oil exporting countries (Saudi arabia, Mexico, and so on).
But most of them are switching their power generation to cheaper
natural gas in order to keep more oil for export and get cleaner air.
- In remote places like caribbean islands where liquid fuels are the
easier to deliver.
- In Japan : it's an island, so natural gas is delivered via LNG and
is not cheaper than oil for the buyer.
- In China, and Italy.


--
« Si quelqu’un a une crise de paludisme, il suffit qu’il prenne une
pioche et aille creuser la terre au soleil pour être guéri grâce à
sa conscience politique élevée. »
POL POT

william mook
2004-08-13 04:30:20 UTC
Permalink
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P87339.asp

Is Saudi Arabia running out of oil?

The Saudis claim to have plenty of reserves, but a top energy expert
disputes that. Without any independent data, the world is dangerously
in the dark, he says.

$80 per barrel by 2009?
Damon Hill
2004-08-13 07:16:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by william mook
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P87339.asp
Is Saudi Arabia running out of oil?
The Saudis claim to have plenty of reserves, but a top energy expert
disputes that. Without any independent data, the world is dangerously in
the dark, he says.
$80 per barrel by 2009?
Might be good news for me, in a sense. I own 120 acres in Texas
oil country; hasn't pumped crude since the late 80s but it might get
started again. Sure isn't good for anything else; it's all mesquite,
prickly pear and isolation.

--Damon
Eric Gisin
2004-08-13 14:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by william mook
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P87339.asp
Is Saudi Arabia running out of oil?
The Saudis claim to have plenty of reserves, but a top energy expert
disputes that. Without any independent data, the world is dangerously
in the dark, he says.
The "top energy expert" is Simmons.

He suggest that proven reserves of 260 billion are too high. Instead, he
suggest we believe the Exxon/Chevron prediction from 1980 of only 108 billion.
What a kook, over 80 billion have been produced since then. Production would
have declined after 1995 if it were true.

If they increase production to 10.5 million/day, Simmons argument falls to
pieces.

Be sure the note who the MSN author quotes as references: There are tens of
small and large Web sites devoted to peak-oil concerns, including Life After
the Oil Crash, Die Off, From the Wilderness, Hubbert Peak, the blog
Mobjectivist, the blog Peak Oil Center and the British site Wolf at the Door.

All certified enviro-loonies.
william mook
2004-08-14 03:12:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Gisin
Post by william mook
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P87339.asp
Is Saudi Arabia running out of oil?
The Saudis claim to have plenty of reserves, but a top energy expert
disputes that. Without any independent data, the world is dangerously
in the dark, he says.
The "top energy expert" is Simmons.
He suggest that proven reserves of 260 billion are too high. Instead, he
suggest we believe the Exxon/Chevron prediction from 1980 of only 108 billion.
What a kook, over 80 billion have been produced since then. Production would
have declined after 1995 if it were true.
If they increase production to 10.5 million/day, Simmons argument falls to
pieces.
Be sure the note who the MSN author quotes as references: There are tens of
small and large Web sites devoted to peak-oil concerns, including Life After
the Oil Crash, Die Off, From the Wilderness, Hubbert Peak, the blog
Mobjectivist, the blog Peak Oil Center and the British site Wolf at the Door.
All certified enviro-loonies.
You have not supported your contention that the author of the article
is an "enviro-loonie" - you have merely made ad-hominem attacks and
provided no hard evidence at all.

Do you have any? I'd be interested to know.
Gary Tulie
2004-08-13 16:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Have you considerer the other side of this question. Is the world
running out of CO2 sinks? In many ways, the question of Saudi reserves
is irrelevant, as we will be forced by climate change to shift a large
proportion of our energy production away from fossil fuels, and onto
renewables in the very near future simply in order to prevent
environmental catastrophy.
Bob Ehrlich
2004-08-13 20:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Tulie
Have you considerer the other side of this question. Is the world
running out of CO2 sinks? In many ways, the question of Saudi reserves
is irrelevant, as we will be forced by climate change to shift a large
proportion of our energy production away from fossil fuels, and onto
renewables in the very near future simply in order to prevent
environmental catastrophy.
I agree. However the magnitude of the problem and the short time fuse
tends to make me pessimistic with respect to a societal adjustment at
large scale. In that regard I am in Matt Simmons camp, sadly
despairing. If we can't effect a wide scale fix, then a small group
will effect a local fix--probably an unpleasant fix. So if we
professionals are aware of the problem and despair of the government and
large multinationals, what would one do as an individual to shelter ones
children and grandchildren? Find and own reserves that may produce for
a few decades? Depend on the Wall Street councilers? With Simmons, I
have little faith in photo-voltaics and / or the hydrogen ecomony for a
fix within 20 years.
quasarstrider
2004-08-15 02:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Ehrlich
tends to make me pessimistic with respect to a societal adjustment at
large scale. In that regard I am in Matt Simmons camp, sadly
despairing. If we can't effect a wide scale fix, then a small group
will effect a local fix--probably an unpleasant fix. So if we
professionals are aware of the problem and despair of the government and
large multinationals, what would one do as an individual to shelter ones
children and grandchildren? Find and own reserves that may produce for
a few decades? Depend on the Wall Street councilers? With Simmons, I
have little faith in photo-voltaics and / or the hydrogen ecomony for a
fix within 20 years.
People will start living at walking distance to their jobs, reducing
energy use, pollution and actually doing exercise instead of sitting
on their fat asses to work. Cities will have cleaner air. Less crime
because people will live, work in that street 24h, not just sleep there.
Parents will be closer to their children. Electric mass transport for larger
distances (train, subway, etc). Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels will provide
storable energy in a useable form for transport for the things that actually
need or can afford to be transported that way. Less people will die from road
accidents because there will be less assholes on the road with a license to
kill.

And you think this is bad?! So what if there is some temporary confusion. :-)
Gary Reichlinger
2004-08-15 04:09:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by quasarstrider
People will start living at walking distance to their jobs, reducing
energy use, pollution and actually doing exercise instead of sitting
on their fat asses to work. Cities will have cleaner air. Less crime
because people will live, work in that street 24h, not just sleep there.
Parents will be closer to their children. Electric mass transport for larger
distances (train, subway, etc). Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels will provide
storable energy in a useable form for transport for the things that actually
need or can afford to be transported that way. Less people will die from road
accidents because there will be less assholes on the road with a license to
kill.
And you think this is bad?! So what if there is some temporary confusion. :-)
I do not know whether to laugh or cry. It always amazes me that
people sophisticated enough to use computers are so totally ignorant
of what actually sustains their lives. Energy does more than just
move you around the city (which you evidently have never been outside
of). For starters, it is required to produce and transport the food
that you seem to think just magically appears in the grocery store.
While I am not in the apocalyptic camp (at least not due to any
"limits of nature" shortages), I still tend to view death and
destruction as things to try to avoid. On the other hand, you seem to
be blissfully hoping for them.
quasarstrider
2004-08-15 13:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Reichlinger
Post by quasarstrider
People will start living at walking distance to their jobs, reducing
energy use, pollution and actually doing exercise instead of sitting
on their fat asses to work. Cities will have cleaner air. Less crime
because people will live, work in that street 24h, not just sleep there.
Parents will be closer to their children. Electric mass transport for larger
distances (train, subway, etc). Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels will provide
storable energy in a useable form for transport for the things that actually
need or can afford to be transported that way. Less people will die from road
accidents because there will be less assholes on the road with a license to
kill.
And you think this is bad?! So what if there is some temporary confusion. :-)
I do not know whether to laugh or cry. It always amazes me that
people sophisticated enough to use computers are so totally ignorant
of what actually sustains their lives. Energy does more than just
move you around the city (which you evidently have never been outside
of). For starters, it is required to produce and transport the food
that you seem to think just magically appears in the grocery store.
While I am not in the apocalyptic camp (at least not due to any
"limits of nature" shortages), I still tend to view death and
destruction as things to try to avoid. On the other hand, you seem to
be blissfully hoping for them.
Don't be disingenuous. Food can be transported using electric railroad
over long distances just fine. Synthetic hydrocarbons can take care of
short term distances. Yes, food prices should rise due to transport costs,
but it isn't that big a deal. Even if we didn't have synthetic hydrocarbon
fuels, how the heck do you think humanity survived before we had automobiles?
We'll survive just fine thank you. Just don't expect to go to/from work several
dozen miles away everyday on your SUV anymore.

Oil is not the sole source of energy we have. In fact, most of our mainline
electricity generation does not come from oil, if any. It comes from things
like coal, hydro, nuclear, natural gas (which should also be going the way
of the dodo soon), and others. Oil is too expensive for generating electricity
at a low cost.

I am not blissfully unaware. If there is one thing that will be a problem is
the transition. Most people aren't getting ready for it and neither are the
governments. The transition could either be very hard (severe fuel shortages
leading to those food shortages you mentioned, plus people who cannot get to
work anymore and a stalled economy) or soft. There may be fighting over the
remaining scraps of oil, which may lead to a WWIII.

Anyway, that is the worst case scenario. IMHO saner heads will prevail and
there will not be a WWIII. Why?

I'll tell you why. The main powers of this world have a strategic nuclear
missile deterrent which will be unaffected by the fuel shortages: nuclear
powered subs. They will be too scared of someone else nuking them to oblivion to
do such rash decisions.

So that leaves food riots etc. Well, as long as the armed forces can move at
will, those will be supressed. The US Army for e.g. has been wasting money
lately in things like all electric tanks, biodiesel, and fuel cells.
Coincidence? Or perhaps the Armed Forces have a bit more longed range vision
than the government?
Richard Gibson
2004-08-15 15:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by quasarstrider
Oil is not the sole source of energy we have. In fact, most of our mainline
electricity generation does not come from oil, if any. It comes from things
like coal, hydro, nuclear, natural gas (which should also be going the way
of the dodo soon), and others. Oil is too expensive for generating electricity
at a low cost.
To be exact:

from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html

Electricity generation in the US, by source, for 2003:

Coal = 51%
Petroleum liquids and Petroleum coke = 3%
Natural gas and other fossil fuel gasses = 16.3%
Nuclear = 20%
Hydro = 7%
wood, landfill gas, tires, geothermal, wind, solar thermal,
photovoltaic = 2%
Batteries, chemicals, hydrogen, sulfur, pitch = 0.1%
--
_____________________________________
Richard I. Gibson, Gibson Consulting
Gravity-Magnetic-Geologic Interpretations
Educational Geological Tours
http://www.gravmag.com


Remove Roman 1993 to reply
Tim O'Flaherty
2004-08-15 16:20:05 UTC
Permalink
"quasarstrider" <***@yahoo.com.br> wrote in message > Anyway, that
is the worst case scenario. IMHO saner heads will prevail and
Post by quasarstrider
there will not be a WWIII. Why?
I'll tell you why. The main powers of this world have a strategic nuclear
missile deterrent which will be unaffected by the fuel shortages: nuclear
powered subs. They will be too scared of someone else nuking them to oblivion to
do such rash decisions.
All it takes is one irrational finger on a button. Hitler came to power in
the same sort of scenario we can expect when fuel becomes scarce;
hyperinflation, large scale unemployment, lost savings, hunger etc.

Before the start of WWI , the aftermath of which gave us Hitler, it was
widely believed that a large scale war was not going to happen simply
because all would lose so much. The reality is that govts. don't always act
in the best interests of the governed or themselves. Once a war begins a
whole new OS seems to take over.

Regards,

Tim O
a***@logwell.com
2004-08-15 21:04:18 UTC
Permalink
No, you are not blissfully unaware; you are a raving lunatic!

I suppose you imagine the world's food supply can now be grown with animal
power? Fuel for transportation is not the real issue.
Post by quasarstrider
Post by Gary Reichlinger
Post by quasarstrider
People will start living at walking distance to their jobs, reducing
energy use, pollution and actually doing exercise instead of sitting
on their fat asses to work. Cities will have cleaner air. Less crime
because people will live, work in that street 24h, not just sleep there.
Parents will be closer to their children. Electric mass transport for larger
distances (train, subway, etc). Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels will provide
storable energy in a useable form for transport for the things that actually
need or can afford to be transported that way. Less people will die from road
accidents because there will be less assholes on the road with a license to
kill.
And you think this is bad?! So what if there is some temporary confusion. :-)
I do not know whether to laugh or cry. It always amazes me that
people sophisticated enough to use computers are so totally ignorant
of what actually sustains their lives. Energy does more than just
move you around the city (which you evidently have never been outside
of). For starters, it is required to produce and transport the food
that you seem to think just magically appears in the grocery store.
While I am not in the apocalyptic camp (at least not due to any
"limits of nature" shortages), I still tend to view death and
destruction as things to try to avoid. On the other hand, you seem to
be blissfully hoping for them.
Don't be disingenuous. Food can be transported using electric railroad
over long distances just fine. Synthetic hydrocarbons can take care of
short term distances. Yes, food prices should rise due to transport costs,
but it isn't that big a deal. Even if we didn't have synthetic hydrocarbon
fuels, how the heck do you think humanity survived before we had automobiles?
We'll survive just fine thank you. Just don't expect to go to/from work several
dozen miles away everyday on your SUV anymore.
Oil is not the sole source of energy we have. In fact, most of our mainline
electricity generation does not come from oil, if any. It comes from things
like coal, hydro, nuclear, natural gas (which should also be going the way
of the dodo soon), and others. Oil is too expensive for generating electricity
at a low cost.
I am not blissfully unaware. If there is one thing that will be a problem is
the transition. Most people aren't getting ready for it and neither are the
governments. The transition could either be very hard (severe fuel shortages
leading to those food shortages you mentioned, plus people who cannot get to
work anymore and a stalled economy) or soft. There may be fighting over the
remaining scraps of oil, which may lead to a WWIII.
Anyway, that is the worst case scenario. IMHO saner heads will prevail and
there will not be a WWIII. Why?
I'll tell you why. The main powers of this world have a strategic nuclear
missile deterrent which will be unaffected by the fuel shortages: nuclear
powered subs. They will be too scared of someone else nuking them to oblivion to
do such rash decisions.
So that leaves food riots etc. Well, as long as the armed forces can move at
will, those will be supressed. The US Army for e.g. has been wasting money
lately in things like all electric tanks, biodiesel, and fuel cells.
Coincidence? Or perhaps the Armed Forces have a bit more longed range vision
than the government?
Fred B. McGalliard
2004-08-16 15:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@logwell.com
No, you are not blissfully unaware; you are a raving lunatic!
I suppose you imagine the world's food supply can now be grown with animal
power? Fuel for transportation is not the real issue.
Now you are carrying your paranoia to extremes. Most of the worlds food is
grown with very little fuel input. Fuel has been and can and probably will
be manufactured from coal, perhaps even some biomass. The tractors will run,
the food will cost about the same (since the market takes around 60 cents on
the dollar, and the tractor takes only a fraction of a cent, even triple the
cost of fuel would hardly affect our food costs). None of this seems all
that catastrophic.
LongmuirG
2004-08-16 19:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Fred B. McGalliard claimed:
<snip>
Post by Fred B. McGalliard
Most of the worlds food is
grown with very little fuel input.
<snip>

Let's assume that you are not doing the Clintonian "thang", and splitting hairs
over the meaning of "fuel input". If fertilizers are made with natural gas and
transported to the field in trucks using diesel, let's count that as the
equivalent of a "fuel input".

Now, what is the evidence for the claim that "most of the worlds food is grown
with very little fuel input"?
Fred B. McGalliard
2004-08-16 22:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by LongmuirG
...
Let's assume that you are not doing the Clintonian "thang", and splitting hairs
over the meaning of "fuel input". If fertilizers are made with natural gas and
transported to the field in trucks using diesel, let's count that as the
equivalent of a "fuel input".
The USA massively fertilizes and automates it's farms. This produces lots of
food at low cost, as long as the fuel oil for the farm equipment and the
methane for the fertilizers are cheap. And no, they are not that close
together. Fuel oil is more likely to run out very rapidly as consumption
rises exponentially and production starts to drop exponentially. Should be
interesting. Natural gas and fertilizer production are not going to follow
that curve because the demand and supply curves are different. The rest of
the world uses a lot less fertilizer and a lot less automation in their
farming. Not zero, but a lot less. And frankly I am not at all that sure
that better methods might not work without any added unnatural fertilizers.
A lot of farming methods have been examined over the years and what we use
now is only the cheapest, given really cheap fossil fuels. My impression is
that most of our concern has already been addressed and we are just mostly
ignorant of the details. My interests in organic gardening touched some of
this stuff briefly, so I am providing a very slightly educated opinion
without much hope to really back it up with current knowledge. It has been
years.
quasarstrider
2004-08-17 18:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by LongmuirG
Let's assume that you are not doing the Clintonian "thang", and splitting hairs
over the meaning of "fuel input". If fertilizers are made with natural gas and
transported to the field in trucks using diesel, let's count that as the
equivalent of a "fuel input".
Now, what is the evidence for the claim that "most of the worlds food is grown
with very little fuel input"?
The point is it doesn't need to be done with oil & gas. It it just
done like that right now because it is cheaper. If those things get
too expensive they will be replaced by something cheaper.
Tractors and most agricultural machines simply need mechanical energy.
The energy does not necessarily need to come via petroleum. It could
just as well be biodiesel or any other synthetic hydrocarbon (e.g.
you could produce fuel from coal like the Germans did in WWII), or even
something totally different. Surely we can produce enough fuel just for
the agricultural machines?

For fertilizers, you can reduce use of chemical nitrogen fertilizers
via crop rotation with plants which naturally extract nitrogen from
the air, like alfalfa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfalfa

Or cross-breed traditional crops (using genetic engineering) with those
plants so they can extract nitrogen from the air as well.

Regarding chemical fertilizer production using ammonia from the Haber
process, its requirement is actually cheap hydrogen, not cheap natural
gas. It is just that currently fossil natural gas is the cheapest way
to produce hydrogen. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

The hydrogen could just as well have come from electrolysis of water,
or from other non-fossil sources of methane like biogas (methane from
manure fermentation) or swamp gas, so you will still be able to
manufacture chemical fertilizer, but it will be more expensive to do so.
LongmuirG
2004-08-18 01:34:41 UTC
Permalink
quasarstrider almost got the point:
<discussion on energy inputs to food supply snipped>
Post by quasarstrider
you will still be able to
manufacture chemical fertilizer, but it will be more expensive to do so.
Exactly -- it will be more expensive. Now, what does "more expensive" mean in
human terms?

Cut through all the economists' jargon, and more expensive means that people
would have to work longer simply to pay for food. That means people will not
be able to afford other things -- maybe welfare payments to pregnant teenagers,
or environmental lawsuits? It would be a different world -- not necessarily a
worse world, but quite definitely a different world.

Only about 100 years ago, about half the workers in the US worked on the land.
The big issue for social reformers was stopping children from working in
Pennsylvania coal mines. Cheap energy has changed the face of society --
improved it, in many ways. Expensive energy would change society too.
quasarstrider
2004-08-18 14:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by LongmuirG
Exactly -- it will be more expensive. Now, what does "more expensive" mean in
human terms?
Cut through all the economists' jargon, and more expensive means that people
would have to work longer simply to pay for food. That means people will not
be able to afford other things -- maybe welfare payments to pregnant teenagers,
or environmental lawsuits? It would be a different world -- not necessarily a
worse world, but quite definitely a different world.
Only about 100 years ago, about half the workers in the US worked on the land.
The big issue for social reformers was stopping children from working in
Pennsylvania coal mines. Cheap energy has changed the face of society --
improved it, in many ways. Expensive energy would change society too.
Well, yeah. Personally I am convinced prices of the alternative production
structure will start high, but eventually come down as well, as know-how
improves and economies of scale are made. Wind power is a pretty good example
of this. Everyone said wind power was too expensive some years ago, and now
even ExxonMobil say it can be as cheap as gas power and less expensive than
nuclear power. IMHO nuclear power would also be cheaper if plants were serial
produced like in France instead of being so damn unique. The question is, after
this process, how high will be prices still be?

Mind you, I think cheap energy is a good thing. But if oil gets too expensive
what can we do but find other, cheaper sources? I am convinced such a thing as
cheap energy beyond oil must exist, because how did oil get formed in the first
place? From biomass generated by solar power, heated and compressed by
geothermal and geocompression forces. Well, those forces are still going to be
there for several million years even if the oil isn't, and damn if we can't
find a way to harness them cheap enough, with better efficiency than what
nature can do. Yes, I am an optimist.
Tim O'Flaherty
2004-08-18 18:56:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by quasarstrider
Mind you, I think cheap energy is a good thing. But if oil gets too expensive
what can we do but find other, cheaper sources?
We can live less wasteful lives. We can accept that a good life doesn't
require all the crap we presently consume and all the resources we presently
waste. Without that fundamental change of thinking our desire will just
lead us ever on after *more*.

I am convinced such a thing as
Post by quasarstrider
cheap energy beyond oil must exist, because how did oil get formed in the first
place? From biomass generated by solar power, heated and compressed by
geothermal and geocompression forces. Well, those forces are still going to be
there for several million years even if the oil isn't, and damn if we can't
find a way to harness them cheap enough, with better efficiency than what
nature can do. Yes, I am an optimist.
Just wait for (x) million years and you'll have all the oil you want. Saudi
Arabia wasn't built in a day ;-)
quasarstrider
2004-08-19 16:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim O'Flaherty
We can live less wasteful lives. We can accept that a good life doesn't
require all the crap we presently consume and all the resources we presently
waste. Without that fundamental change of thinking our desire will just
lead us ever on after *more*.
That will happen if we do not have cheap enough energy. In fact, it
is happening now with the help of improved technology. Notice how CRT
screens are increasingly being replaced by lower power consumption
devices (LCDs, etc). It made economic sense to have low power monitors,
so once the technology improved people began switching.
Light bulbs being replaced by fluorescent lamps and LEDs, is another
example of this.

But cheap energy will always be useful. With cheap energy we can do
nearly anything. Turn salt water into drinkable water, transmute
nuclear waste, even reach for the stars themselves.

Do not fear the desire for growth. Historically those who have shunned
the desire for growth, be it resources or science, have always fared
worse than those which did not. The benefits vastly outweigh the
disadvantages. Careful attention to solving problems as they present
themselves is required, but such is life.
Post by Tim O'Flaherty
Just wait for (x) million years and you'll have all the oil you want. Saudi
Arabia wasn't built in a day ;-)
Ah, but we will need the energy long before that.
LongmuirG
2004-08-19 17:11:21 UTC
Permalink
quasarstrider wrote:
<snip>
Post by quasarstrider
It made economic sense to have low power monitors,
so once the technology improved people began switching.
Light bulbs being replaced by fluorescent lamps and LEDs, is another
example of this.
<snip>

Please take your analysis to a higher level.

Energy is involved in the operating cost side (the electricity to run a lamp)
and in the capital cost side (the energy to make the lamp in the first place).
Fluorescent lamps have lower energy opex, but higher energy capex. That is why
most of us continue to use incandescent bulbs instead of (supposedly more
efficient) fluorescent fixtures.

True energy costs are not the same thing as the immediate energy operating
costs.

Meaningful energy analysis can become very complex -- this will become an
increasingly important topic as the cost of energy goes up. For example, a
major benefit of LCD computer screens for business is that they reduce the
required floor-space per worker -- less energy capex per worker for the
building, less energy opex per worker for heating/cooling and illumination.
The energy opex difference between LCDs and CRTs may not be important for the
decision to switch.
quasarstrider
2004-08-20 02:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by LongmuirG
Please take your analysis to a higher level.
Energy is involved in the operating cost side (the electricity to run a lamp)
and in the capital cost side (the energy to make the lamp in the first place).
Fluorescent lamps have lower energy opex, but higher energy capex. That is why
most of us continue to use incandescent bulbs instead of (supposedly more
efficient) fluorescent fixtures.
I dunno where you live, but fluorescent is pretty cheap here vs incandescent
given a certain required lighting level. No fair comparing with something
that gives less light, otherwise I could just use a LED to light a room.
Fluorescent's main problem is that it is just too big to fit in tiny
fixtures, besides, it takes a bit to get to regular performance. There is still
a gap between LEDs and fluorescents which incandescent fills.
Post by LongmuirG
True energy costs are not the same thing as the immediate energy operating
costs.
True, but I hardly think this applies for most lighting cases. If you just
wanted a low capex you could strike a match or burn your trash.
Post by LongmuirG
Meaningful energy analysis can become very complex -- this will become an
increasingly important topic as the cost of energy goes up. For example, a
major benefit of LCD computer screens for business is that they reduce the
required floor-space per worker -- less energy capex per worker for the
building, less energy opex per worker for heating/cooling and illumination.
The energy opex difference between LCDs and CRTs may not be important for the
decision to switch.
Dan Bloomquist
2004-08-20 04:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by LongmuirG
Energy is involved in the operating cost side (the electricity to run a lamp)
and in the capital cost side (the energy to make the lamp in the first place).
Fluorescent lamps have lower energy opex, but higher energy capex. That is why
most of us continue to use incandescent bulbs instead of (supposedly more
efficient) fluorescent fixtures.
You must have a mouse in your pocket. Have you ever run the numbers? I
have. That's why most of my lamps are FCs from costco for a couple of
bucks a piece.

Best, Dan.
--
http://lakeweb.net
http://ReserveAnalyst.com
No EXTRA stuff for email.
Tim O'Flaherty
2004-08-18 18:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by LongmuirG
<discussion on energy inputs to food supply snipped>
Post by quasarstrider
you will still be able to
manufacture chemical fertilizer, but it will be more expensive to do so.
Exactly -- it will be more expensive. Now, what does "more expensive" mean in
human terms?
Cut through all the economists' jargon, and more expensive means that people
would have to work longer simply to pay for food. That means people will not
be able to afford other things -- maybe welfare payments to pregnant teenagers,
or environmental lawsuits?
Or stupid wars like Vietnam and Iraq and the vast expenditures for the
corps. that feed off them.

It would be a different world -- not necessarily a
Post by LongmuirG
worse world, but quite definitely a different world.
It certainly is likely to trim the fat. Less junk designed to be thrown
away. Less time wasted staring at the tube.

It's the period of rapid downgrading of expectations that will be hell.
Lots of opportunities for demagogues.
brianb
2004-08-15 15:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Reichlinger
Post by quasarstrider
People will start living at walking distance to their jobs, reducing
energy use, pollution and actually doing exercise instead of sitting
on their fat asses to work. Cities will have cleaner air. Less crime
because people will live, work in that street 24h, not just sleep there.
Parents will be closer to their children. Electric mass transport for larger
distances (train, subway, etc). Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels will provide
storable energy in a useable form for transport for the things that actually
need or can afford to be transported that way. Less people will die from road
accidents because there will be less assholes on the road with a license to
kill.
And you think this is bad?! So what if there is some temporary confusion. :-)
I do not know whether to laugh or cry. It always amazes me that
people sophisticated enough to use computers are so totally ignorant
of what actually sustains their lives. Energy does more than just
move you around the city (which you evidently have never been outside
of). For starters, it is required to produce and transport the food
that you seem to think just magically appears in the grocery store.
While I am not in the apocalyptic camp (at least not due to any
"limits of nature" shortages), I still tend to view death and
destruction as things to try to avoid. On the other hand, you seem to
be blissfully hoping for them.
You didn't read the part where he specifically said "Synthetic
hydrocarbon fuels will provide storable energy in a useable form for
transport for the things that actually need or can afford to be
transported that way".

You cut coal usage in half in this country and replaced it by doubling
nuclear. Then with that coal you could make billions of barrels of
synthetic oil which would actually be cleaner than the stuff we have
now.

Overall oil in the US could drop by 1/2 as people drove higher mpg
cars, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, electrics, and lived closer to work
etc.

Less oil would be used in plastics, etc. as it would cost too much.
There would be a return to less oil intensive products. Foods
requiring high transport costs would be priced out of the market more.
All this would happen somewhat automatically as the price of oil
rises.

High oil prices don't imply "death..destruction"...that's just your
assumption. From the early 1960s to late 1970s the price of oil went
up 10 fold. Was there alot of "death and destruction"? If the price
of oil doubled from substitutes and conservation would displace oil
usage and the price would probably fall.
Bob Ehrlich
2004-08-15 17:25:34 UTC
Permalink
The responses to this subthread have been quite interesting.

The majority (I'll call them the idealists) feel that given the power of
science and the ingenuity of our business and governmental forces, a
bright healthier hydrocarbon free future awaits us.

A smaller group (I'll call them the pragmatists) argues that the will to
accomplish a humane transition will not be strong enough and the
thermodynamics underlying the problem is essentially pessimistic.

I tend to fall in group 2. Having said that, assume that the Group 2
people are correct and that the transition will occur in the next 5-15
years. Many of us will be alive in that time interval.

My original quest might be reformulated as follows:

Given that we as a society may be powerless to avoid disruptive
transmission, how do we as individuals with some oil patch savvy plan
plan to focus our careers to minimize the effects on us as individuals.
The time span will at least be relevant to your children if not to
you. Thus, despairing of the capability of government or the
multi-national corporations, are we doomed to the same fate as, for
instance, dry wall installers?
Gary Reichlinger
2004-08-15 20:51:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 11:25:34 -0600, Bob Ehrlich
Post by Bob Ehrlich
The majority (I'll call them the idealists) feel that given the power of
science and the ingenuity of our business and governmental forces, a
bright healthier hydrocarbon free future awaits us.
A smaller group (I'll call them the pragmatists) argues that the will to
accomplish a humane transition will not be strong enough and the
thermodynamics underlying the problem is essentially pessimistic.
The problem is actually somewhat simpler than you describe.
There are many different ways that the current energy situation could
be resolved. Oil and gas exploration could be increased (which would
certainly happen under a free market as the rate of return on drilling
is excellent at $40+per barrel in many drilling regions). Large
increases in the use of coal, nuclear, and LNG could be made without
taxing known supplies. Fusion power would certainly be on the roadmap
within the lifetime of current oil reserves.
The question is not one of what is technically possible, but
rather one of what is politically feasible. There are those, such as
at least one participant in this thread, who are willing to risk their
survival just so their neighbor loses his SUV. The debate is between
freedom and primitivism. There are the old line primitives in the
Middle East who never participated in the renaissance and the new
primitives (the environmentalists) who want to roll back civilization.
Post by Bob Ehrlich
Given that we as a society may be powerless to avoid disruptive
transmission, how do we as individuals with some oil patch savvy plan
plan to focus our careers to minimize the effects on us as individuals.
Buy a piece of property in the San Juan Basin (southwest
Colorado, northwest New Mexico), drill a gas well, and build yourself
a hideout with a permanent energy supply.
quasarstrider
2004-08-16 14:25:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Reichlinger
The problem is actually somewhat simpler than you describe.
There are many different ways that the current energy situation could
be resolved. Oil and gas exploration could be increased (which would
certainly happen under a free market as the rate of return on drilling
is excellent at $40+per barrel in many drilling regions). Large
No major oil wells have been found in the last 20 years. Deal with it.
Oil is getting increasingly scarce and more expensive to extract. Sure
we will use it as long as it is financially viable to do so, but I doubt
it will be like this for the remainder of my lifetime.
Post by Gary Reichlinger
increases in the use of coal, nuclear, and LNG could be made without
taxing known supplies. Fusion power would certainly be on the roadmap
within the lifetime of current oil reserves.
I doubt fusion power will be working properly in time. I actually have
more confidence in our mid term (20 years) solar power prospects than
fusion. Solar power is fusion power anyway, it is just that the reactor
is free, huge and far away.
Post by Gary Reichlinger
The question is not one of what is technically possible, but
rather one of what is politically feasible. There are those, such as
at least one participant in this thread, who are willing to risk their
survival just so their neighbor loses his SUV. The debate is between
freedom and primitivism. There are the old line primitives in the
Middle East who never participated in the renaissance and the new
primitives (the environmentalists) who want to roll back civilization.
Do not be silly and cling to your SUV like it is the pinnacle of
technology. It will be as backwards in the future as clinging to a steam
locomotive today. The trend is to use less expensive means of locomotion.
It is futile to ignore the reality that oil will be a scarce, expensive
resource in our lifetime. You can hide your head in the sand all you want.

Did you actually notice I think using fossil fuels and nuclear power is
ok? The problem is the faster we squander fossils, the harder the
transition will be. So try to read more carefully before randomly
attaching labels on everyone.

The difference is, in a crisis, I try to see the positive aspects that can
move us forward. While you cling desperately to our glorious and oily past.
At a time, the pitch black smokestacks of a coal fired plant were a sign of
progress too.
Post by Gary Reichlinger
Post by Bob Ehrlich
Given that we as a society may be powerless to avoid disruptive
transmission, how do we as individuals with some oil patch savvy plan
plan to focus our careers to minimize the effects on us as individuals.
Buy a piece of property in the San Juan Basin (southwest
Colorado, northwest New Mexico), drill a gas well, and build yourself
a hideout with a permanent energy supply.
Sticking your head in the sand as usual. The problem will not be solved by
individual seclusion. If you really are that pessimist and think the
transition will be that hard, get a house close to a transportation system
unaffected by an oil shortage or to a food and water supply. You can
certainly live without oil, but not without water or food.
Gary Reichlinger
2004-08-16 14:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by quasarstrider
No major oil wells have been found in the last 20 years. Deal with it.
Oil is getting increasingly scarce and more expensive to extract. Sure
we will use it as long as it is financially viable to do so, but I doubt
it will be like this for the remainder of my lifetime.
The success rate for drilling has about tripled during the last
20 years. Last year, about 1 in 3 wells found recoverable quantities
of oil or gas compared to about 1 in 10 in the earlier period. In any
drilling region, large fields tend to be found first, if for no other
reason that they are larger targets on the map. However, technology
has improved and many more smaller fields are being found. If we were
really up against the limits of nature, it would only be reasonable to
expect drilling success to be declining.
quasarstrider
2004-08-16 19:03:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Reichlinger
The success rate for drilling has about tripled during the last
20 years. Last year, about 1 in 3 wells found recoverable quantities
of oil or gas compared to about 1 in 10 in the earlier period. In any
drilling region, large fields tend to be found first, if for no other
reason that they are larger targets on the map. However, technology
has improved and many more smaller fields are being found. If we were
really up against the limits of nature, it would only be reasonable to
expect drilling success to be declining.
More oil wells with less oil at harder to reach places. Read: more
expensive. Meanwhile demand is increasing to fuel the growth of the
Chinese and Indian economies. The USA has already reached its peak
oil production decades ago, soon the rest of the world will reach
it as well.

What matters is extractable oil reserves. The number of wells or
discoveries is irrelevant.
cyril
2004-08-16 19:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Profitant de la liberté d'expression qui, pour quelques semaines
Post by quasarstrider
More oil wells with less oil at harder to reach places. Read: more
expensive. Meanwhile demand is increasing to fuel the growth of the
Chinese and Indian economies. The USA has already reached its peak
oil production decades ago, soon the rest of the world will reach
it as well.
It is noteworthy than before 1985, only a handful of countries had
peaked, if "political" peaks (where production decreased because the
politics decided it, not because half of the oil was gone) in the
middle east are excluded : the United States, Canada, and a bunch of
countries whose production was marginal : Austria, Romania, Peru,
Albania, Bahreim, and so on.


Since 1988, a lot of countries peaked.


*Egypt 1997.
*Indonesia 1996.
*Colombia 1999.
*Oman 1997.
*Argentina 1998
Chile 1986
Benin 1986
Cameroon 1986
*Malaysia right now??
France 1989.
*Norway 2003 ??
*China right now??
*United Kingdom 1999
*Soviet Union 1988

The "*" marks countries with a peak production above half a million
barrels a day.


Another significant fact it that most of the incremental production in
the last few years (and in the next few years as well) comes from
offshore fields, especially deepwater ones.

And in offshore, fields are depleted much faster. Production ni
deeapwater areas is increasing at a spectacular speed, but the decline
rates will be enormous too.

North sea is now a classic case study. See Uk's historic and projected
production : http://www.peakoil.net/OilGasUK.html

It will be the same in deepwater areas. Depletion rates are often
huge. Take Kizomba, off Angola.

Excerpt from www.offshore-technology.com

"In 2001, the company [Exxomobil] started construction on the Kizomba
A deepwater development. Kizomba A is expected to recover
approximately 1 billion barrels of oil from the Hungo and Chocalho
fields at a target production rate of 250,000bbl/day. First oil from
Kizomba A is scheduled for late 2004."

Since production has to collapse when most (say 80%) of the oil is
gone, this mean that the plateau production here will at best last 8-9
years !






--
« Si quelqu’un a une crise de paludisme, il suffit qu’il prenne une
pioche et aille creuser la terre au soleil pour être guéri grâce à
sa conscience politique élevée. »
POL POT
H. E. Taylor
2004-08-17 00:52:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Reichlinger
Post by quasarstrider
No major oil wells have been found in the last 20 years. Deal with it.
Oil is getting increasingly scarce and more expensive to extract. Sure
we will use it as long as it is financially viable to do so, but I doubt
it will be like this for the remainder of my lifetime.
The success rate for drilling has about tripled during the last
20 years. Last year, about 1 in 3 wells found recoverable quantities
of oil or gas compared to about 1 in 10 in the earlier period.
How do you know this?
Who tracks everybodies drilling?
Do you have a citation or a web site?
Post by Gary Reichlinger
[...]
<curious>
-het
--
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary
depends upon his not understanding it." -Upton Sinclair

Energy Alternatives: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/energy/energy.html
H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/
Gary Reichlinger
2004-08-17 02:14:10 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:52:26 -0700, "H. E. Taylor"
Post by H. E. Taylor
Post by Gary Reichlinger
The success rate for drilling has about tripled during the last
20 years. Last year, about 1 in 3 wells found recoverable quantities
of oil or gas compared to about 1 in 10 in the earlier period.
How do you know this?
Who tracks everybodies drilling?
Do you have a citation or a web site?
I was referring specifically to the article, "Global Drilling
Better Than Expected During 2003 - Nearly 40% of exploration and
wildcat drilling projects located hydrocarbons" that appeared on page
31 in the February, 2004 issue of The American Oil and Gas Reporter.
Data was compiled by IHS Energy (http://www.ihsenergy.com).
H. E. Taylor
2004-08-17 07:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Reichlinger
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 17:52:26 -0700, "H. E. Taylor"
Post by H. E. Taylor
Post by Gary Reichlinger
The success rate for drilling has about tripled during the last
20 years. Last year, about 1 in 3 wells found recoverable quantities
of oil or gas compared to about 1 in 10 in the earlier period.
How do you know this?
Who tracks everybodies drilling?
Do you have a citation or a web site?
I was referring specifically to the article, "Global Drilling
Better Than Expected During 2003 - Nearly 40% of exploration and
wildcat drilling projects located hydrocarbons" that appeared on page
31 in the February, 2004 issue of The American Oil and Gas Reporter.
Data was compiled by IHS Energy (http://www.ihsenergy.com).
Thanks for that.
I see AOGR have a web site.
AOGR: American Oil & Gas Reporter
<http://www.aogr.com/indust_stat.asp>

Anyone else have relevant sources?

<fwiw>
-het
--
"We need a wake up call. We need it desperately. We need basically
a new form of energy. I don't know that there is one."
-Matthew Simmons, energy adviser for President Bush, May 23rd 2002

Energy Alternatives: http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/energy/energy.html
H.E. Taylor http://www.autobahn.mb.ca/~het/
Gary Reichlinger
2004-08-17 14:32:44 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 00:36:54 -0700, "H. E. Taylor"
Post by H. E. Taylor
Anyone else have relevant sources?
I would think that a lot of sources could be found. I just
mentioned the most recent one that came to mind. It is well known in
the industry that success rates have been improving. However, the
"limits of nature" posters in most of these recent threads seem to be
unaware of that situation. 3D seismic is finding new oil fields in
many very old,heavily drilled areas in the US (eg central Kansas). If
it were widely applied in places like Iraq or Saudi Arabia, we would
soon be back to $9 per barrel.
quasarstrider
2004-08-17 21:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Reichlinger
I would think that a lot of sources could be found. I just
mentioned the most recent one that came to mind. It is well known in
the industry that success rates have been improving. However, the
"limits of nature" posters in most of these recent threads seem to be
unaware of that situation. 3D seismic is finding new oil fields in
many very old,heavily drilled areas in the US (eg central Kansas). If
it were widely applied in places like Iraq or Saudi Arabia, we would
soon be back to $9 per barrel.
Seems business as usual to me...
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec5_4.pdf

And production goes down, down:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec3_4.pdf

Of course, more useful data would be welcome.
Fred B. McGalliard
2004-08-16 15:53:50 UTC
Permalink
"Gary Reichlinger" <***@navix.net> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
...
Post by Gary Reichlinger
freedom and primitivism. There are the old line primitives in the
Middle East who never participated in the renaissance and the new
primitives (the environmentalists) who want to roll back civilization.
Gary. I have to live in this environment. This makes me a conservative
technocratic environmentalist. Roll back civilization? I think not.
dan
2004-08-16 22:12:03 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 15:51:35 -0500, Gary Reichlinger
Post by Gary Reichlinger
The question is not one of what is technically possible, but
rather one of what is politically feasible. There are those, such as
at least one participant in this thread, who are willing to risk their
survival just so their neighbor loses his SUV. The debate is between
freedom and primitivism. There are the old line primitives in the
Middle East who never participated in the renaissance and the new
primitives (the environmentalists) who want to roll back civilization.
You seem to be confusing the incredibly stupid waste of energy from
equipping everyone with a private automobile and building every place
a person needs to go dozens of miles from where they live with
"civilization".
We travel 30-40 miles average per car per day and almost always end up
exactly where we started every evening. At any other time in history
if someone was going to travel 30-40 miles it was called a voyage and
they brought provisions.
Fred B. McGalliard
2004-08-16 15:50:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Ehrlich
The responses to this subthread have been quite interesting.
The majority (I'll call them the idealists)
...
Post by Bob Ehrlich
A smaller group (I'll call them the pragmatists)
Pragmatists, or knee jerk catastrophists? Idealists or practical engineers?
And you missed the third group. This view recognizes that most of the world
is so badly managed that they won't notice the catastrophe because they were
never able to take advantage of our incredibly cheap energy to begin with.
Part of the world is reasonably well run and they will hardly notice because
they have long term plans in place to compensate with alternative fuels, and
will quickly cooperate to revise their business processes to accommodate.
Part of the world will run blindly into the brick wall, failing to prepare,
failing to compensate, and failing to cooperate in resolving the issues. The
king wants his ripe strawberries in mid winter, no matter what the cost. For
those foolish folks, times will indeed be hard. This is both pragmatic and
idealistic by your choice. The engineering solutions are available. The
political solutions may not be.
dan
2004-08-16 16:37:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 23:09:30 -0500, Gary Reichlinger
Post by Gary Reichlinger
Post by quasarstrider
People will start living at walking distance to their jobs, reducing
energy use, pollution and actually doing exercise instead of sitting
on their fat asses to work. Cities will have cleaner air. Less crime
because people will live, work in that street 24h, not just sleep there.
Parents will be closer to their children. Electric mass transport for larger
distances (train, subway, etc). Synthetic hydrocarbon fuels will provide
storable energy in a useable form for transport for the things that actually
need or can afford to be transported that way. Less people will die from road
accidents because there will be less assholes on the road with a license to
kill.
And you think this is bad?! So what if there is some temporary confusion. :-)
I do not know whether to laugh or cry. It always amazes me that
people sophisticated enough to use computers are so totally ignorant
of what actually sustains their lives. Energy does more than just
move you around the city (which you evidently have never been outside
of). For starters, it is required to produce and transport the food
that you seem to think just magically appears in the grocery store.
You aren't going to change your life cause some damn long haired
sandal wearing commie eco-hippie says so. You are going to change it
because geological, environmental, and economic harsh realities will
force you to. The eco-hippies are just trying to warn you to prepare
for the inevitable so the transition will be less hard on you. Don't
shoot the messenger.

I'm sure quasarstrider is well aware of where food comes from. That is
the very reason we will be living closer and walking to work. We will
need the remaining fuel to produce and transport food.

Food, by the way, will be different in the future. You will no longer
be eating fresh fruits from south america. You will no longer be
buying hermetically sealed packages of factory produced crap. The
energy costs of over-packaging, processing and tranporting food will
be unsustainable. You might be making dinner from a sack of grain, a
live chicken, and a basket of veggies from the back yard.
Post by Gary Reichlinger
While I am not in the apocalyptic camp (at least not due to any
"limits of nature" shortages), I still tend to view death and
destruction as things to try to avoid. On the other hand, you seem to
be blissfully hoping for them.
Actually you tend to view death and destruction as things that won't
happen if you wish away the gathering forces that will bring them.

I would also like to avoid death and destruction for my family, my
friends, and my neighbors. But my approach is to learn how to remain
fed and healthy on a fraction of the per capita energy consumption
that we take for granted today. And when the time comes that others
will listen and believe, teach them how to to do the same.

Dan
G EddieA95
2004-08-17 05:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by dan
You aren't going to change your life cause some damn long haired
sandal wearing commie eco-hippie says so. You are going to change it
because geological, environmental, and economic harsh realities will
force you to.
The only one of those three factors that will ultimately matter is the
geological one, because it determines the economics, and because serious
hardship will send environmental worries right out the window.
Environmentalism is a luxury, and it does no good to pretend otherwise. If the
choices are to use coal, methane hydrate, or otherwise to keep going, or else
to live life by candlelight while struggling to grow one's own food out of
"environmental" concerns, the environment is sure to lose out.
Bob Ehrlich
2004-08-18 14:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Gentlemen: The question is not imho whether one or another country "runs
out" of oil. The problem is : 1) can there be an equilibrium between
consumption and production? or will there be a reserves/production limit
on consumption? For about 100 yrs. we have had a cushion of a very large
reserve base, apparently this is now an historical curiosity. Also when
demand increased, the oil industry were able to replace reserves cheaply
and rapidly. This is no longer the case. By the end of the cheap
hydrocarbon-burning era, I have no doubt that the Saudis will still be
producing oil.

In retrospect the Majors have done a fine job feeding us cheap oil.
Whilst serving their own interests, they also made possible a 20th
century petroleum-based industrial revolution; just as the coal industry
did in the 19th century.
quasarstrider
2004-08-19 15:52:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Ehrlich
Gentlemen: The question is not imho whether one or another country "runs
out" of oil. The problem is : 1) can there be an equilibrium between
consumption and production? or will there be a reserves/production limit
on consumption? For about 100 yrs. we have had a cushion of a very large
reserve base, apparently this is now an historical curiosity. Also when
demand increased, the oil industry were able to replace reserves cheaply
and rapidly. This is no longer the case. By the end of the cheap
hydrocarbon-burning era, I have no doubt that the Saudis will still be
producing oil.
In retrospect the Majors have done a fine job feeding us cheap oil.
Whilst serving their own interests, they also made possible a 20th
century petroleum-based industrial revolution; just as the coal industry
did in the 19th century.
Agreed. This discussion is about the end of cheap oil. But oil should not run
out during our lifetimes, it will just get increasingly expensive.

Like Hubbert said:

"A child born in the middle 30s, will have seen the consumption of 80 percent of
all American oil and gas in his lifetime; a child born about 1970 will see most
of the world's [reserves] consumed."
FEerguy9
2004-08-23 17:12:22 UTC
Permalink
Less oil is being discovered across the globe than is being
consumed - so yes the world is running out of oil including
the Saudis.
What amazes me is the plan to steal Saudi oil.
What amazes me is that this guy is so passionate about petroleum that
he's obviously been sniffing a lot of it.
wHAT AMAZES ME IS THAT YU STIlL THINK WE need OIl!


Frank
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...