NationStates Jolt Archive

Are we ready with all these so-called alternatives right now?


Two Warning Beacons Burning Brightly in the Night Sky, Heralding the Arrival of Peak Oil
Jeffrey Brown (Westexas), email
I have described the certain crash of Cantarell and the near certain (IMO) decline/crash of Ghawar as "Two Warning Beacons Burning Brightly in the Night Sky, Heralding the Arrival of Peak Oil." These two fields are the two largest producing fields in the world, which account, or accounted, for about 10% of world crude + condensate production.

Oil Prices Settle Above $55 (Associated Press)

Saudi Arabia, the world's largest crude oil producer and exporter, was the quickest to implement OPEC's production cuts; its exports in December were 1.1 million barrels a day lower than before the OPEC's October call for production cuts.
According to the EIA, the Saudis produced 11.1 mbpd total liquids in 2005, consumed 2.0 mbpd total liquids, and exported 9.1 mbpd total liquids.

Their crude + condensate production for 2005 was 9.55 mbpd (All EIA data).

Their total liquids consumption is growing quite rapidly, up by about 22% from 2004 to 2005.

In any case, let's assume that the Saudi's current crude + condensate consumption is about 2.0 mbpd. Their 9/06 crude + condensate production was 9.0 mbpd, which suggests crude + condensate exports of about 7.0 mbpd in September, 2006.

If the captioned news story is reporting crude + condensate, it suggests that Saudi crude + condensate production in December may have been down to about 7.9 mbpd.

It is interesting that we have reports (confirmed for Mexico) of declining/crashing production for both Saudi Arabia and Mexico in December. We have reports that the Saudis are increasing the cuts in crude deliveries to some refineries for February, and Pemex is cutting, or eliminating, crude oil deliveries to Gulf Coast refineries.
(6 Jan 2007)

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/Wearegoingtodie.gif

Well that's great, that's just fuckin' great man. Now what the fuck are we supposed to do? We're in some real pretty shit now man... That's it man, game over man, game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?

Wouldn't we all like to know?

*yawn*

"peak oil" in the past.

1970-73

2000-2003 and again when the prices were up to $3.00 a gal. etc. etc. yea.

Once again, my music switches over to Cliff Mansell's "Requiem for a Tower" just as I start looking at this, one of many threads I opened to look at. (If you've ever heard it, you know what it sounds like. It sounds like one of those pieces of music that heralds doom and all that.) Is this being reported in any other news source? Or are the media ignoring it once again?

Let's all throw our arms in the air and go "weeeee"! It's been a fun ride!

"Peak Oil" is slang for "please give us more money for alternative fuel research".

Not that alternative fuels aren't a good thing - I fully support renewable energy sources replacing fossile fuels - but when it comes down to it Wilgrove has hit the nail on the head.

An alternative to "weeeee" would be "Get the solar power generator, I wanna see the first World War to be fought with sticks and shovels";)

Well that's great, that's just fuckin' great man. Now what the fuck are we supposed to do? We're in some real pretty shit now man... That's it man, game over man, game over! What the fuck are we gonna do now? What are we gonna do?

No biggie. Press 'start' and wait for the respawn. Insert another quarter if you're out of lives ...

Not that alternative fuels aren't a good thing - I fully support renewable energy sources replacing fossile fuels - but when it comes down to it Wilgrove has hit the nail on the head.

Yes, because as we all know, all we need to do to create more oil is sprinkle some more fairy dust. And the situation in the 1970s when Saudi Arabia purposefully reduced oil outflow is exactly the same as now, when the oil outflow can't be increased.

"Peak Oil" is slang for "please give us more money for alternative fuel research".

Not that alternative fuels aren't a good thing - I fully support renewable energy sources replacing fossile fuels - but when it comes down to it Wilgrove has hit the nail on the head.

Not exactly. See, the problem with most alternative fuel sources--even nuclear fission, to a lesser extent--is that they all require a lot of energy to build the various machines that do the task. What's more, they're usually made out of materials that either must be shipped around the world or out of plastic, which is, as we all know, made out of petroleum. What's more, the amount of research we need to do yet to make most of these viable even remotely for the sustanability of our economy will require at least another ten years at the minimum. Meanwhile, we're still so dependent on oil for everything, from food shipping to transportation, to heating, to manufacturing, farming, ect ect ect that it's ridiculous. Peak Oil basically is about demand outstripping supply. It's not a fairy tail.

Now, the question is, how bad will it be? There are so many predictions that I don't think anyone knows for certain. But will it be bad? Yes. I suggest you take a look at some of PsychoticDan's previous topics. He can be a little doom and gloomy with some of what he says, as he favors the more dire predictions(whereas I have not decided on that as of yet) but he knows his stuff. He can explain it much better than I can, especially since he has the inside source to the energy sector.

The oil will run out sooner or later - but that's not the apocalypse.

And how often we have already reached Peak Oil?

Yes, we have to save energy, we have to reduce our usage of fossile energy becaus of several reasons. But the end is not nigh!

(Did I spell nigh correctly? ;) )

And how often we have already reached Peak Oil?


Once. Don't mistake "high oil prices" for "Peak Oil". Totally different beasts.

Yes, we have to save energy, we have to reduce our usage of fossile energy becaus of several reasons. But the end is not nigh!

It's not nigh, but it's going to be a rough transition.

*yawn*

"peak oil" in the past.

1970-73

2000-2003 and again when the prices were up to $3.00 a gal. etc. etc. yea.
The fact that many americans only remember peak oil when prices are up
in no way takes away from the fact that we are approaching or indeed
have already reached global peak oil production.

peak oil in the past was
1 when US hit its peak oil production in the 70's - they had been warned
beforehand but even with having ignored it up until then there was still
plenty of time to address the issue back when the world had a good
35 years before it hit peak oil.
Unfortunately unless you repeatedly slap them in the face with a 20lb halibut
they find it easier to pretend it isn't happening.(If you do slap them
in the face with a 20lb halibut they kill you torture your friends and family
and bring "democracy" to your country)

But they get bored of you telling them things in advance
"sure like yeah you can predict the future dude
if oil were gonna run out howcome it hasnt already like"

then when the event finally does happen
americans will fall back on plan 2

"yeah well its easy to say something with 20 20 hindsight, we all thought
oil would last forever "

I would just like to state for the record
I hate Americans(U.S.)

Well, if Saudi Arabia consumes more oil, the price will rise before oil peaks because their exports are falling. If anything, that's a good thing because it will push prices up before the production actually peaks. And even so, a peak in Saudi Arabia isn't that bad; 9 million bpd in exports is only a little over 10% of world production, so that loss would be equivalent to what was disrupted in 1979. If it occurs over several years, it's not going to be that bad.

Not to mention there are new projects slated to come online in other countries that can make up for some of SA's losses; oil production last month hit a record high, surpassing the level set last December. There's a lot of underdeveloped potential, especially in Africa and Russia that could still increase supply in coming years.

We're still not at peak yet, and that Interestingly, though, US oil demand has fallen for its second straight year. We'll have to see if that trend continues in to this year. That's a pretty significant gain given that each year of falling demand is another year we have to prepare for drops in supply.

Not exactly. See, the problem with most alternative fuel sources--even nuclear fission, to a lesser extent--is that they all require a lot of energy to build the various machines that do the task. What's more, they're usually made out of materials that either must be shipped around the world or out of plastic, which is, as we all know, made out of petroleum. What's more, the amount of research we need to do yet to make most of these viable even remotely for the sustanability of our economy will require at least another ten years at the minimum. Meanwhile, we're still so dependent on oil for everything, from food shipping to transportation, to heating, to manufacturing, farming, ect ect ect that it's ridiculous. Peak Oil basically is about demand outstripping supply. It's not a fairy tail.

Here's the thing: Of all of the world's oil, 70% of it goes in to transportation, of which something like 70-80% is in light-duty vehicles like cars, light trucks, and SUVs. The amount of oil used in construction, plastics, and international shipping is no more than 10% of total demand, and even agriculture consumes only a fraction of the remaining demand.

We have enough oil to build and operate our infrastructure and our heavy-duty transportation needs; the entire challenge of Peak Oil is our individual means of transportation.

Ah well, nothing we can do about it. Might as well just sit back and wait.

Or better yet we could have millions of little hamsters who will run around in wheels to generate power. Hehe.

Just how many times are we going to hear about this? I mean on this forum. How many times has it been already that we've heard about this problem but been offered no solution except, "cHANGE yOUR eBIL wAYS!" or "Repent now and take down teh ebil one-stop shops even though by going to them you don't have to drive as much"?

I'm telling ya, you can't just spout fear and doom and gloom. If you see a problem, offer a solution.

Want to know mine? Coal. We've got a hundred year supply just waiting to be used. And if you're of the mindset that smoke will bake the planet then just run it through a couple of scrubbers to get rid of the soot and the CO2 into agricultural greenhouses. That satisfies energy needs and the environmentalists can't really complain because nothing actually gets into the air. Sure it'll only buy a century but that's plenty of time to think up something a little more lasting and it can all be done with existing technology. All you need is someone to design a easily assembled greenhouses.

A pretty cheap and easy to setup system: run a ring/box around a farm field, setup a big frame, fill in the spaces between frame members with glass or plastic, fill the new greenhouse with high concentrations of CO2 (1000 ppmv) to increase crop yields and carry on like before. We get power, farmers get better crops, enviro-wackos get clean air, and energy engineers get time to build breeder reactors to turn U238 (the vast majority of uranium) into Pu239 (good reactor fuel) which can then supply power needs for a very long time.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/Wearegoingtodie.gif

That is the best thing ever. His :( face is gold.

And, as said, I wouldn't take this seriously. Peak Oil was predicted 30 years ago. We are still finding more reserves too.

Well, let's take a look at what we can do:
1. Ethanol is pure, 100% bullshit. It is nowhere near efficient in order to ever replace oil. Not even sugar is anywhere close to the efficiency of oil, much less this corn and woodchip crap we hear. Ethanol is popular becuase farmers like the idea. A lot.
2. It's called nuclear. Nuclear is great- the waste is concentrated and easy to handle, there's no air pollution, and it's efficient. What's not to like?
3. Lastly, drill. Drill in the Arctic, drill in the seas. And for those of you who argue that there's not enough oil, remember this: No one who advocated drilling in ANWR believes for a minute that ANWR can supply all our needs. I doubt ANWR will supply even 10% of our needs. But with the market as tight as it is now, 9% can help a lot. Besides, there's no substanial evidnece that drilling in the Arctic hurts the enviroment. Look at Prudhoe.
These three steps have to be realized if anything on energy is to get done.

1. Ethanol is pure, 100% bullshit. It is nowhere near efficient in order to ever replace oil. Not even sugar is anywhere close to the efficiency of oil, much less this corn and woodchip crap we hear. Ethanol is popular becuase farmers like the idea.

Cellulosic ethanol and sugarcane have pretty good EROEI; it's not as good as oil, but it's many, many times better than gasoline which is at best 0.8:1 in terms of energy. This would be like using crude directly rather than having to refine it. However, corn ethanol is a joke; it's good for developing the technology, but its fuel potential is pretty much nothing.

Even so, we're better off reducing our need for liquid fuels in general through efficiency, expanded mass transit and increased use of electric/hybrid vehicles; ethanol and biodiesel are good for reducing our demand in the meantime.

2. It's called nuclear. Nuclear is great- the waste is concentrated and easy to handle, there's no air pollution, and it's efficient. What's not to like?

Absolutely. Nuclear is an excellent source of abundant electricity; combine it with wind, solar, hydroelectric, tidal, geothermal and biomass and you will be able to tap a massive amount of energy that is both clean and abundant.

2. It's called nuclear. Nuclear is great- the waste is concentrated and easy to handle, there's no air pollution, and it's efficient. What's not to like?
Actually 95% of spent fuel can be recovered and used again. Whats left is heavy metal. That's toxic but it ain't radioactive. We don't recover spent fuel in the US because we're afraid someone might try to blow a recovery center or steal from said center. But yeah, you're absolutely right about ethanol and nuclear.