IEA Projections and Peak Oil Politics

[JackRiddler]

the whistleblowers didn't say we were PAST peak, but that we are in it. This would refer to the plateau, the 'economic problems' are doing a lot of demand destruction, so we may well have a lengthy peak (granted there is some point that was or will be the max and that is the true peak, but production can hang around just under that point for some time.) Once production actually starts falling more rapidly, down the far side of the graph, the theory will no longer be deniable. that could still be years away.

but anyway, it's not surprising that this would have to be whistleblown, and it sure is mildly alarming.

My understanding of it is that a long plateau is likely, meaning a time when untapped reserves that now become profitable are brought on line quickly enough to make up for shortfalls from depleting fields, with bumps up and down. But if so, that will become obvious before a decline. Even if they choose to declare the problem is over every time there's an uptick in daily supply capacity, or the illusion of it because of a downtick in demand, less and less of the relevant actors will buy into the delusion. If they're successfully extracting more and deeper dirty stuff and Saudi Arabia's selling from offshore drilling because Ghawar is maxed out, what's left to deny?

[elfismiles]

As a side note, does anybody here think it possible or probable that long overdue revelation of alleged "free energy" techonologies could be on the horizon as the "save" card to be played in this unfolding global drama?

[justdrew]

Kunstler kicks in on this subject early this week:

http://kunstler.com/blog/2009/11/dreams-die-hard.html

nice quote from that:

History is [...] taking us someplace that we don't want to go, so it will probably have to drag us there kicking and screaming. For starters, both reality and history will probably take us out to some woodshed of the national soul and beat the crap out of us. That could be a salutary thing, since the crap consists of all the lies we tell ourselves. Once we're rid of all that, we may rediscover a few things left inside our collective identity that are worth regarding with real self-respect.

[slow_dazzle]

As a side note, does anybody here think it possible or probable that long overdue revelation of alleged "free energy" techonologies could be on the horizon as the "save" card to be played in this unfolding global drama?

Impossible to say elfismiles. However, it would take decades to retrofit the global energy infrastructure: fuel supply infrastructure, vehicles etc.

I have thought about this at length but have never been able to come to a conclusion. However, my hunch is any new energy supply would have slowly been over-lapped with fossil fuel depletion. In order to kick in, without major economic dislocation, an energy transition would need to have started decades ago. And the third law of thermodynamics is relevant here: energy has to be expended to obtain energy - a crude (sic) example is drilling to extract oil. The latter requires machinery and energy supplies. It's difficult to see where we would get the energy from to exploit another type of energy. Solar panels are a good example of this, not least because of their water footprint.

I'm open to the notion that alternatives to fossil fuel might exist, but have been suppressed to keep the current power (sic again) in place. But the constraints imposed by the retrofit time scale still mean major economic grief, irrespective of whether such sources exist.

[justdrew]

As a side note, does anybody here think it possible or probable that long overdue revelation of alleged "free energy" technologies could be on the horizon as the "save" card to be played in this unfolding global drama?

you mean working algae bio-fuel systems and solar?

yeah, I think that's about to come on-line.

somebody give me a million dollars and I'll give you a working effective algae bio-fuel system. and change. probably.

Still, big changes will be necessary. if we don't go mad-max or handmaidens-tale, a better future awaits.

other fundamental techs going forward:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geopolymers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopolymer
both of which will be used for local production of needed products from locally available resources. in for instance...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microfactory

distributed small scale custom fabrication, assembly and resource acquisition can give billions productive work and transportable skills. when you want something, you find a local craft shop to make one for you, and you fix it when it breaks and keep it as along as possible.

[slow_dazzle]

Once we're rid of all that, we may rediscover a few things left inside our collective identity that are worth regarding with real self-respect.

That's my hope drew. Maybe, just maybe, something positive will emerge, once people realise the orgy of consumption has dulled the better part of what we are capable of being/becoming.

We are capable of much more than the dumbed down outpourings of current 'civilisation'. But that means a major awakening of the human consciousness. Perhaps this is a turning point. Once people are forced to confront the fragile nature of life, and to recognise the spirit within all of us, we will evolve psychologically.

Many of us are screaming inside because we KNOW the current way of living is bereft of the essence of life, joy and happiness. There are hard times ahead. I hope we come out the other end as something better than consumers.

[Hugo Farnsworth]

I am working on a deep water project for PetroBras in the Gulf of Mexico. I was talking about this with a consultant for one of PBs contractors.

We agreed that the best indicator for Peak Oil and the subsequent decline in production is the decline in bopdp vs bopdc ratio (barrels of oil per day produced vs barrels of oil per day consumed). In the early 20th century the ratio was (record keeping was not very good in those days) around 1000:1 to around 500:1, now it is around 10:1 for the field we are working on now. Deep water production consumes huge amounts of energy to extract the oil and gas. Once it reaches 1:1, it is a break even proposition only useful as a profitable mineral resource, since the extraction pays for itself. Once it falls below that, it becomes an energy sink rather than an energy source.

At this point, the plateau morphs into a steep decline. Presently, oil companies abandon the operation when this point is reached. Since this point is reached sooner with deep water and arctic operations, their useful life is curtailed. This view can be considered on a well by well, field by field, regional or planetary basis. It is the same.

In the future, oil and gas will still be produced, but not for energy, only as a mineral resource.

[justdrew]

I am working on a deep water project for PetroBras in the Gulf of Mexico. I was talking about this with a consultant for one of PBs contractors.

We agreed that the best indicator for Peak Oil and the subsequent decline in production is the decline in bopdp vs bopdc ratio (barrels of oil per day produced vs barrels of oil per day consumed). In the early 20th century the ratio was (record keeping was not very good in those days) around 1000:1 to around 500:1, now it is around 10:1 for the field we are working on now. Deep water production consumes huge amounts of energy to extract the oil and gas. Once it reaches 1:1, it is a break even proposition only useful as a profitable mineral resource, since the extraction pays for itself. Once it falls below that, it becomes an energy sink rather than an energy source.

At this point, the plateau morphs into a steep decline. Presently, oil companies abandon the operation when this point is reached. Since this point is reached sooner with deep water and arctic operations, their useful life is curtailed. This view can be considered on a well by well, field by field, regional or planetary basis. It is the same.

In the future, oil and gas will still be produced, but not for energy, only as a mineral resource.

At bopdp vs bopdc of 1000:1 to 500:1 - where was all the extra production stored or what happened to it? Did they not produce year round? Does produced not mean pumped out of the ground?

[Hugo Farnsworth]

I am working on a deep water project for PetroBras in the Gulf of Mexico. I was talking about this with a consultant for one of PBs contractors.

We agreed that the best indicator for Peak Oil and the subsequent decline in production is the decline in bopdp vs bopdc ratio (barrels of oil per day produced vs barrels of oil per day consumed). In the early 20th century the ratio was (record keeping was not very good in those days) around 1000:1 to around 500:1, now it is around 10:1 for the field we are working on now. Deep water production consumes huge amounts of energy to extract the oil and gas. Once it reaches 1:1, it is a break even proposition only useful as a profitable mineral resource, since the extraction pays for itself. Once it falls below that, it becomes an energy sink rather than an energy source.

At this point, the plateau morphs into a steep decline. Presently, oil companies abandon the operation when this point is reached. Since this point is reached sooner with deep water and arctic operations, their useful life is curtailed. This view can be considered on a well by well, field by field, regional or planetary basis. It is the same.

In the future, oil and gas will still be produced, but not for energy, only as a mineral resource.

At bopdp vs bopdc of 1000:1 to 500:1 - where was all the extra production stored or what happened to it? Did they not produce year round? Does produced not mean pumped out of the ground?

Sorry, i tend to get cryptic in my posts. What I meant here is that in the very early days of drilling for oil, it only required burning (using) a barrel of oil to get 500 out of the ground. Now, we get only 10 in remote locations like deepwater or arctic.

Oil is consumed to drill the well, smelt the steel and infrastructure to produce, store, and transport the oil, and so many other things. Oil is consumed to transport the materials and workers to and from the site. The total amount (ongoing) used is calculated against what has been produced in excess.

[JackRiddler]

@justdrew:

I think Hugo is referring to the energy expended in extraction, a.k.a. net energy or, in Peak Oil jargon, Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI). Meaning, the oil spent to get oil. In this case, apparently, at the field he's working itself, prior to transport, refinement and distribution.

Thanks for your input, Hugo. Incredible what a collection of people post here.

[Hugo Farnsworth]

@justdrew:

I think Hugo is referring to the energy expended in extraction, a.k.a. net energy or, in Peak Oil jargon, Energy Return on Energy Invested (EROI). Meaning, the oil spent to get oil. In this case, apparently, at the field he's working itself, prior to transport, refinement and distribution.

Thanks for your input, Hugo. Incredible what a collection of people post here.

Thanks, Jack. That is what I meant. EROI is different for oil production because the usage goes up, and the production goes down in time, hence the precipitous bell curve we see in Peak Oil literature.

For nuclear power plants and solar cells and wind generators, it is relatively fixed (quite fixed for solar and wind, actually).

That is why i was appalled by the cash-for-clunkers campaign. The amount of oil and gas required to build a new car is enormous.

One of my anti-military friends said it this way (a paraphrase):

"America is insane and irrational. We are burning huge amounts of oil and gas to maintain the world's largest military to safeguard our supply of oil and gas to maintain the world's largest military."

[MacCruiskeen]

I am working on a deep water project for PetroBras in the Gulf of Mexico. I was talking about this with a consultant for one of PBs contractors.

We agreed that the best indicator for Peak Oil and the subsequent decline in production is the decline in bopdp vs bopdc ratio (barrels of oil per day produced vs barrels of oil per day consumed). In the early 20th century the ratio was (record keeping was not very good in those days) around 1000:1 to around 500:1, now it is around 10:1 for the field we are working on now. Deep water production consumes huge amounts of energy to extract the oil and gas. Once it reaches 1:1, it is a break even proposition only useful as a profitable mineral resource, since the extraction pays for itself. Once it falls below that, it becomes an energy sink rather than an energy source.

At this point, the plateau morphs into a steep decline. Presently, oil companies abandon the operation when this point is reached. Since this point is reached sooner with deep water and arctic operations, their useful life is curtailed. This view can be considered on a well by well, field by field, regional or planetary basis. It is the same.

In the future, oil and gas will still be produced, but not for energy, only as a mineral resource

Thanks for that. Very informative post. I didn't quite understand the last line, though:

In the future, oil and gas will still be produced, but not for energy, only as a mineral resource..

Do you mean that oil will become roughly analogous to diamonds? I.e., that it will still be worth investing huge amounts of energy in producing it, because it will still perform certain indispensable tasks and there will still be a small but exclusive market for it, however extortionally expensive it may become? (For example, the trophy wives of billionaire robber-barons might take baths in light sweet crude instead of goats' milk.)

I mean, as long as there are people with enough money to squander, they'll happily squander it. Granted. But then I don't see how it counts as "a mineral resource", rather than as a luxury item conspicuously consumed, like larks's tongues in aspic.

I may very well be missing your point entirely, though. (Probably am.)

[JackRiddler]

Plastics.

Fertilizers.

Pesticides.

Pharmaceuticals.

Asphalt. Tar. Lubricants. Wax. Fibers. Polyesters. Sprays. WD-40.

Presumably, despite negative net energy: fuel for warplanes.

[MacCruiskeen]

Plastics.

Fertilizers.

Pesticides.

Pharmaceuticals.

Asphalt. Tar. Lubricants. Wax. Fibers. Polyesters. Sprays. WD-40.

Yes Jack, I understand all that. ("Eating Fossil Fuels", etc.) But what happened to EROEI? You can only use oil to make plastics, fertilizers, etc. IF you can afford to buy the oil you need to fuel the industries that make them. Or steal it. Ruppert's been hammering that very point for years now.

Presumably, despite negative net energy: fuel for warplanes.

Precisely. Fuel again. (Or rather: still fuel. Still energy, the sine qua non.)

That's why I still don't understand Hugo Farnsworth's last line:

In the future, oil and gas will still be produced, but not for energy, only as a mineral resource.

I'm not trying to pick holes or score debating points here! I'm just curious to know exactly what he means, because he obviously has much more first-hand knowledge of the topic than I do.

[SonicG]

I'm sure many of you are aware of The Oil Drum site but if not I highly recommend it. I was reading it daily when oil last shot up in price and find most of their commentary to be rational and educated. Hugo: Do you have any opinion about it? Anyhow, would love to hear more about Petrobras since there was a lot of news about that offshore find in Brazil and how it was going to supply all our oil needs for 100s of years.
Certainly, the global economic crisis came along at a perfect time to knock back demand a bit but the price is slowly climbing up. One important point I learned is that not only are fields running out but as the economies of oil-producing countries grow, they start using more of their own oil and exporting less. Mexico is in dire straits and may become a net importer within a few years.

Unless of course the abiotic oil theory is right.

Or aliens handover their free energy secrets.

ETA: Here's the Oil Drum's take on the OP article.