NationStates Jolt Archive

I can't stand this guy, but if he's gonna start sounding the alram bells in regards to energy, more power to him. This is from Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network:

CBN.com – (CBN News) - Some believe that the world as we have known it is about to change.

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) is talking about what he thinks could be the biggest challenge in our nation's history.

"The world has never faced a problem like this," Bartlett said.

A huge and sustained increase in the price of oil that would devastate our economy and the world economy, and would force all of us to change the way we live. Why?

It is a phenomenon known as "peak oil." The idea is that oil is a finite resource. There is only so much of it in the ground, and eventually we will start to run out.

One of the leading advocates of this theory is oil industry analyst Matthew Simmons. In his book, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, Simmons uses reams of hard geological data to argue that the oil fields of Saudi Arabia -- the world's largest producer -- are in serious decline, and prices for oil at some point will skyrocket.
More (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/060411a.asp)

I can't stand this guy, but if he's gonna start sounding the alram bells in regards to energy, more power to him. This is from Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network:


More (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/060411a.asp)

Hehe....energy alarm bells...more power...*snicker*

I like how they refer to peak oil as a "theory".

Hehe....energy alarm bells...more power...*snicker*
Ha!

Pun unintended.

I like how they refer to peak oil as a "theory".
Yeah, I've never really understood that. If recovery started at zero about 150 years ago and ultimately production must fall to zero then how could there not be a bell curve in between?

Yeah, I've never really understood that. If recovery started at zero about 150 years ago and ultimately production must fall to zero then how could there not be a bell curve in between?That's simple. Oil resources are defined by economic mineability. The oil shales in Alberta didn't pay off until oil prices rose high enough. They weren't resources before, but now they are. The number of those is finite, too, though.

Edit: With this I mean that any calculation as to how much oil is left usually only takes oil resources into account, and through rising prices, new oil resources need to be added to the equation.

That's simple. Oil resources are defined by economic mineability. The oil shales in Alberta didn't pay off until oil prices rose high enough. They weren't resources before, but now they are. The number of those is finite, too, though.

Edit: With this I mean that any calculation as to how much oil is left usually only takes oil resources into account, and through rising prices, new oil resources need to be added to the equation.
Only in an economist's world where there is no respect for limits. The tar sands and heavy oil resources will never be able to match the production rates of conventional oil thus even when these resources are added to the equation all you get is a decline that is not as teep as it would have been. The result is still a bell curve. While economists push around the numbers they calculate in a lot of faith in technological advances, for example. A faith that the engineers, geologists and physicists, the people ultimately responsible for the technological advances, don't share. No matter the price of oil. When you get to the point that it takes a barrel of oil's worth of energy to produce a barrel of oil, you stop producing oil. That point is getting closer and closer.

Only in an economist's world where there is no respect for limits. The tar sands and heavy oil resources will never be able to match the production rates of conventional oil thus even when these resources are added to the equation all you get is a decline that is not as teep as it would have been. The result is still a bell curve. While economists push around the numbers they calculate in a lot of faith in technological advances, for example. A faith that the engineers, geologists and physicists, the people ultimately responsible for the technological advances, don't share. No matter the price of oil. When you get to the point that it takes a barrel of oil's worth of energy to produce a barrel of oil, you stop producing oil. That point is getting closer and closer.You misunderstood me, I just don't think that this would result in something like a bell curve. I believe the decline of oil being taken would be much more abrupt.

Oil prices are rising. This means that supply is falling. Surely we reached the Peak of Oil production some 30 years ago, and we are now on the downward curve?

It is essential to get off oil as soon as possible.

Oil prices are rising. This means that supply is falling. Surely we reached the Peak of Oil production some 30 years ago, and we are now on the downward curve?

It is essential to get off oil as soon as possible.
Either that or start making oil from garbage. It's not as efficient as just pumping it out of the ground, but as oil prices rise it will be really profitable.

You misunderstood me, I just don't think that this would result in something like a bell curve. I believe the decline of oil being taken would be much more abrupt.
Okay. But a bell curve does not always mean "shaped like a bell." Any curve that starts at a value, raises to one or more peaks and ultimately falls back to teh value it started at is a bell curve. You're point is valid, however. When we look back at the history of oil production 50 years from now it will probably have a few peaks and will be bumpy.

You misunderstood me, I just don't think that this would result in something like a bell curve. I believe the decline of oil being taken would be much more abrupt.
A half-empanada curve?

Oil prices are rising. This means that supply is falling. Surely we reached the Peak of Oil production some 30 years ago, and we are now on the downward curve?

It is essential to get off oil as soon as possible.

I agree that we should get off oil ASAP. I don't buy the "OMG, we're all doooomed" whining I hear from the peak oil crowd, but it is a limited resource, and too much of it comes from the most unstable area in the world. The sooner we can switch to something else, the better.

I agree that we should get off oil ASAP. I don't buy the "OMG, we're all doooomed" whining I hear from the peak oil crowd, but it is a limited resource, and too much of it comes from the most unstable area in the world. The sooner we can switch to something else, the better.
Well, we'll see how things go this summer! :p

And that'll be just the beginning. :)

Oil prices are rising. This means that supply is falling. Surely we reached the Peak of Oil production some 30 years ago, and we are now on the downward curve?

It is essential to get off oil as soon as possible.
No demand is rising, supply is still rising slowly for now, I think.

When you get to the point that it takes a barrel of oil's worth of energy to produce a barrel of oil, you stop producing oil.

Why would you have to stop producing oil? If oil companies can make money by burning a ton of coal to make a barrel of oil they will do it. I don't think it is a good idea environmentally, but people will do it if the price is right. That's why I think we need carbon taxes to discourage such behaviour - but I digress.

Why would you have to stop producing oil? If oil companies can make money by burning a ton of coal to make a barrel of oil they will do it. I don't think it is a good idea environmentally, but people will do it if the price is right. That's why I think we need carbon taxes to discourage such behaviour - but I digress.
Because it doesn't work physically. At that point you're better off just burning the coal for its energy than using it to produce oil.

Because it doesn't work physically. At that point you're better off just burning the coal for its energy than using it to produce oil.

It works physically. I have a pile of oil shale. I burn a ton of of coal which costs $25 a ton to heat the shale and extract a barrel of oil which I sell for $68. Since people can't put coal in their car fuel tanks they are willing to pay more for liquid fuel than for coal. In much the same way I will pay a dollar to buy a battery that contains 0.00001 cents worth of electricty, people are willing to pay more for convenient liquid fuel than lumpy old coal. It's not energy ratios that matter to oil companies, it's money.

Or I could use waste heat from a nuclear reactor to heat the shale. Another alternative would be to use geothermal energy to heat the shale to extract oil. All these processes could result in using more energy to extract a barrel of oil then there is present in a barrel of oil but could still be profitable.

Because it doesn't work physically. At that point you're better off just burning the coal for its energy than using it to produce oil.
Not when cars don't run on coal.

So, Pat Robertson finally said something useful!

I totally agree with the first poster.

It works physically. I have a pile of oil shale. I burn a ton of of coal which costs $25 a ton to heat the shale and extract a barrel of oil which I sell for $68.
You are forgetting to add the costs of converting that coal into oil. At some point it becomes much more feasible to just build coal burning engines.

You are forgetting to add the costs of converting that coal into oil. At some point it becomes much more feasible to just build coal burning engines.

But coal doesn't have to be liquid to heat shale. Or perhaps do you mean it will be cheaper to liquify coal than to use it to extract oil from shale? And while coal burning engines are certainly possible, burning the coal in a power plant and using it to charge electric cars would be more efficient and environmentally friendly. That way pollution control equipment will be located at the plant instead of every car.

But coal doesn't have to be liquid to heat shale. Or perhaps do you mean it will be cheaper to liquify coal than to use it to extract oil from shale? And while coal burning engines are certainly possible, burning the coal in a power plant and using it to charge electric cars would be more efficient and environmentally friendly. That way pollution control equipment will be located at the plant instead of every car.
Well, there you are. All good reasons to stop producing oil at some point after which it doesn't make economic sense.

Well, there you are. All good reasons to stop producing oil at some point after which it doesn't make economic sense.

I certainly agree that oil will stop being produced when it no longer makes economic sense. But I am concerned that oil shale extraction and coal liquification could do a lot of damage the environment by that point. My point was a technical one - it can still be profitable to produce oil, even if it costs more energy to produce it than it contains.

I certainly agree that oil will stop being produced when it no longer makes economic sense. But I am concerned that oil shale extraction and coal liquification could do a lot of damage the environment by that point. My point was a technical one - it can still be profitable to produce oil, even if it costs more energy to produce it than it contains.
Oh, I see the point. That'd be the case if you can price it higher than the coal, but since coal would be cheaper and would give you more energy per dollar, the transition to coal burning engines (or electrical engines) would be pretty quick.

I certainly agree that oil will stop being produced when it no longer makes economic sense. But I am concerned that oil shale extraction and coal liquification could do a lot of damage the environment by that point. My point was a technical one - it can still be profitable to produce oil, even if it costs more energy to produce it than it contains.
You have to complete the full equation back to the source. If you use coal to get oil how will you get the coal? The only way this works is with teh industrial extraction of coal and currently the industrial extraction of coal is dependent on oil. The reason why this is possible is because oil is extremely easy to get with a big "bang for your buck." You pretty much just pop a hole in the ground and you get anywhere from an 800% to 2000% return on the energy you invested. If it takes more coal energy to get oil than you get from the oil then it follows that then using the oil you got to mine, process and transport the coal to the shale bed... blah, blah...

You end up in a negative feedback loop of declining energy returns and none of your energy is ever surplus to be used by someone driving their car to Taco Bell. At some point in the energy chain you have to have a positive return on energy invested.

You have to complete the full equation back to the source. If you use coal to get oil how will you get the coal?

The coal company can buy the oil off me that I make from heating the shale. The cost of the oil is contained in the is contained in the $25 a ton price of the coal. If the price of oil goes up, sure the price of coal will go up, but since the price of oil has gone up I will be making more money and will be able to pay for the extra cost of the coal. As long as I have to pay money for coal and the coal company has to pay money for oil we will only stay in business for as long as it is profitable for us to do so. It doesn't matter if I use five units of coal energy to produce one unit of oil energy, as long as it is profitable for me to do so.

I will not produce oil if the cost of producing it is more than what I can sell it for. Therefore there can be no negative feedback loop.

At some point in the energy chain you have to have a positive return on energy invested.

No I don't. All I need is a positive return on money. Think of it as feeding grain to cows to make beef. Sure it is inefficent, sure more people could be fed if we ate the grain ourselves, but as long as I can sell steaks for a good price it is profitable for me to feed the grain to cows.

Peak oil is a load of bullshit. The problem with it is that:

1) We have not discovered all the reserves that are out there, and vast areas are yet to even be explored.

2) The figures you hear for oil running out are based on the economically extractable portions of known reserves. Right now only about 10% of an oil field is economically extractable. According to textbooks I've seen from the 70s, north sea oil and gas should have run out in the mid-90s. According to this website (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/edc/countries/UnitedKingdom.asp) using known economically extractable reserves in 2001 for North Sea oil, it should have run out by now! This is clearly ludicrous and wrong, and shows that these figures cannot be trusted for predicting future production.

3) It doesn't account for oil fields we know about but cannot extract for whatever reason (ie. Antarctic Oil, which will become extractable in 2013 when the mining ban runs out).

4) It doesn't account for other sources of oil. Canada, for example, contains enough oil in oilshale alone to match middle-east production. Thermal deploymerisation produces oil out of what is essentially waste, and although it does it expensively right now (about $200 per barrel) it hasnt been refined nearly so much as it could be and the price will come way down (approaching economically viable levels, considering high current oil prices).

5) It underestimates the heights that oil prices can reach before some sort of collapse. A few decades ago, $8 per barrel would have seemed extortionate.

6) It assumes that oil will 'peak' almost instantly, allowing little or no time for the market to adapt. This is simply untrue.

Peak oil is a load of bullshit. The problem with it is that:

1) We have not discovered all the reserves that are out there, and vast areas are yet to even be explored.

2) The figures you here for oil running out are based on the economically extractable portions of known reserves. Right now only about 10% of an oil field is economically extractable. According to textbooks I've seen from the 70s, north sea oil and gas should have run out in the mid-90s. According to this website (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/edc/countries/UnitedKingdom.asp) using known economically extractable reserves in 2001 for North Sea oil, it should have run out by now! This is clearly ludicrous and wrong, and shows that these figures cannot be trusted for predicting future production.

3) It doesn't account for oil fields we know about but cannot extract for whatever reason (ie. Antarctic Oil, which will become extractable in 2013 when the mining ban runs out).

4) It doesn't account for other sources of oil. Canada, for example, contains enough oil in oilshale alone to match middle-east production. Thermal deploymerisation produces oil out of what is essentially waste, and although it does it expensively right now (about $200 per barrel) it hasnt been refined nearly so much as it could be and the price will come way down (approaching economically viable levels, considering high current oil prices).

Yeah, for the record. You don't have to run out, production just has to drop a bit.

Yeah, for the record. You don't have to run out, production just has to drop a bit.
No, it has to drop a lot, although you conveniently missed out the bit of my post where I say that. The bit you quoted explains why it isnt going to drop a lot.

No, it has to drop a lot, although you conveniently missed out the bit of my post where I say that. The bit you quoted explains why it isnt going to drop a lot.

Well, one doesn't say much of anything...two is discrediting past figures and seems to be talking about running out again, three assumes we have the seven years and it'd be worth it to mine there, assuming the ban isn't renewed or something, and until thermal depolymerization does get "refined" I'm not expecting much from it...

According to this website (http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/edc/countries/UnitedKingdom.asp) using known economically extractable reserves in 2001 for North Sea oil, it should have run out by now! This is clearly ludicrous and wrong, and shows that these figures cannot be trusted for predicting future production

Sorry, according to UK government's official statistics, that's neither ludicrous, nor wrong: http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/detail.asp?ReleaseID=183382&NewsAreaID=2&NavigatedFromDepartment=False
12.8% reduction in production from 2004 to 2005. What most people don't know is that oil fields don't simply stop suddenly, their production dwindles slowly until it simply makes no sense to keep it open. The North Sea fields are done for. Which I guess show the figures can be somewhat trusted.

3) It doesn't account for oil fields we know about but cannot extract for whatever reason (ie. Antarctic Oil, which will become extractable in 2013 when the mining ban runs out).

4) It doesn't account for other sources of oil. Canada, for example, contains enough oil in oilshale alone to match middle-east production. Thermal deploymerisation produces oil out of what is essentially waste, and although it does it expensively right now (about $200 per barrel) it hasnt been refined nearly so much as it could be and the price will come way down (approaching economically viable levels, considering high current oil prices).
The figures are based on how probable those sources are and how much impact they'll have overall. Canada may have enormous fields, but if oil can't be extracted cheaply and quickly enough to satisfy demand, that won't matter much.

Well, one doesn't say much of anything...
Yes it does. It says that this peak oil crap is based on known reserves, and not nearly all reserves are known.

two is discrediting past figures and seems to be talking about running out again,
Um... if something is going to run out in 5 years then clearly it is going to "slow down" before then. When I talk about oil not running out when it's supposed to, that's worse for your position, not better.

three assumes we have the seven years and it'd be worth it to mine there, assuming the ban isn't renewed or something,
50 billion barrels (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/antarctica.html) known about so far may just be worth something, no? And the ban won't be renewed. A new anarctic mining ban treaty actually extends until 2040, but it explicitly exempts off-shore mining, which is where the oil is (I too don't think it's worth drilling through ice for oil, but this is off-shore oil and can be extracted for the same cost as north sea oil can - BP is already intending to explore it).

and until thermal depolymerization does get "refined" I'm not expecting much from it...
That's what I said, so shall I take it that you agree with me? Was there really any point in you saying that at all?

Sorry, according to UK government's official statistics, that's neither ludicrous, nor wrong: http://www.gnn.gov.uk/environment/de...partment=False
12.8% reduction in production from 2004 to 2005. What most people don't know is that oil fields don't simply stop suddenly, their production dwindles slowly until it simply makes no sense to keep it open. The North Sea fields are done for. Which I guess show the figures can be somewhat trusted.
Even accounting for the slow downs (which I am actually aware of), the oil should still have run out by now. It hasn't.

The figures are based on how probable those sources are and how much impact they'll have overall. Canada may have enormous fields, but if oil can't be extracted cheaply and quickly enough to satisfy demand, that won't matter much.
See above for antarctica and oil shale is already beginning extraction (in Canada and in Britain).

The coal company can buy the oil off me that I make from heating the shale. The cost of the oil is contained in the is contained in the $25 a ton price of the coal. If the price of oil goes up, sure the price of coal will go up, but since the price of oil has gone up I will be making more money and will be able to pay for the extra cost of the coal. As long as I have to pay money for coal and the coal company has to pay money for oil we will only stay in business for as long as it is profitable for us to do so. It doesn't matter if I use five units of coal energy to produce one unit of oil energy, as long as it is profitable for me to do so.

I will not produce oil if the cost of producing it is more than what I can sell it for. Therefore there can be no negative feedback loop.



No I don't. All I need is a positive return on money. Think of it as feeding grain to cows to make beef. Sure it is inefficent, sure more people could be fed if we ate the grain ourselves, but as long as I can sell steaks for a good price it is profitable for me to feed the grain to cows.
It's actually very simple math.
EROEI Math

I have noticed a bit of confusion on what Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROEI) means when a fossil fuel extraction process reinvests the recovered energy and how that will serve to aggressively deplete the supply as EROEI approaches 1. Consider the case when the energy needed for extraction arises from a portion of the energy produced:

if E=EROEI
and
if P=Fraction of Energy put to use elsewhere

then
P = (E-1)/E

Notice that when E=2, we waste exactly half the energy in the regeneration process. When E=1, we waste all the energy.

Anything greater than 1 means that the process can sustain itself. The problem occurs with the huge "burn" rate we get as EROEI approaches one.

This has implications for global warming and the tremendous pressure on non-renewable resources, which acts to hasten depletion much more than an energy source with a high EROEI would.
The economics will follow the physical reality. Once you get to the point where it takes as much energy to extract the useful energy it will become to expensive to do it.

Yes it does. It says that this peak oil crap is based on known reserves, and not nearly all reserves are known.
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/images/oildiscoveries.gif


Um... if something is going to run out in 5 years then clearly it is going to "slow down" before then. When I talk about oil not running out when it's supposed to, that's worse for your position, not better.The whole point to this discussion is Peak Oil, not No Oil. Of course it will slow down and when it does the price will go up inexorably.


50 billion barrels (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/antarctica.html) known about so far may just be worth something, no? And the ban won't be renewed. A new anarctic mining ban treaty actually extends until 2040, but it explicitly exempts off-shore mining, which is where the oil is (I too don't think it's worth drilling through ice for oil, but this is off-shore oil and can be extracted for the same cost as north sea oil can - BP is already intending to explore it).
85 million barrels/day = 31 billion barrels/year
Antarctic reserves = 1 1/2 years worth of oil that will be spread out over decades. Kinda like feeding a starving man a sandwhich - piece by piece over thirty years.

See above for antarctica and oil shale is already beginning extraction (in Canada and in Britain).
Maxed out by 2020 Tar sands production should reach 2.5 million barrels/day or about as much production as we will be losing from Canteral by 2008. It'll cover the loss of one oil field, in other words. How do we make up for lost production in the other 8 fields in the world that are responsible for 80% of total world oil production and add another 40 million barrels/day to meat expected energy demand by then? According to the DOE that production will have to come from Saudi Arabia who kinda just chuckle when they hear that.