Peak Oil?
 

What is ya'lls take on peak oil?

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

I found it pretty hard to read:eek:

Will we finally get a chance to go back to living like the Native American Indian:)? They did not have any Wal Marts?

Jim, check out www.hubbertpeak.com for a less alarmist perspective. There's a difference between peaking and running out. Prices will definitely rise with Asian demand, but we won't run out of oil while our diesels are still worth rebuilding.

I'd be more concerned about natural gas, which is a closed loop system in North America (currently only four LNG terminals for imports, and virtually impossible to get new ones built). US gas reservoirs are well past peak production, Canadian ones not far behind with increasing diversion to producing oil from domestic tar sands (vs. increasing exports to the US). In the face of declining US production, virtually every new power plant in the last decade is fuelled by gas, along with heat in most new homes. Gas prices spiked in 2002-3, and they're not likely to retreat much going forward.

engawork,

you beat me as I was going to ask the very same question.

I read the site ad was instantly mesmerized with the gloom/doom predictions.

It seems that after the Enron scandal, that all the major oil companies are reporting that their reserves are not what they had claimed. It seems some of the CEO's don't want to go to jail.

What is amazing to me is that hardly anyone stops to think of if/when we run out of oil.

My wife's uncle is a Canadian and he tells me that Canada has tremendous amounts of oil, surpassing even the middle east.

He adds, that the reason they buy it from the middle east is that it is much cheaper than drilling for it in Canada. I don't remember the figures exactly but he mentioned that Canada could produce a barrel of oil for appox 28 dollars, while the middle east produces it for a lot less.

Assuming this to be true, I would imagine that we will continue sucking the middle east dry, then we will be faced with much higher oil prices when we have to buy Canadian oil.

What I would imagine happening over the next 20 years or so is continued price increases as a result of dwindling supplies of "cheap oil", which will change the way some of us think regarding our love for SUV's and other gas guzzlers.

Imagine some poor shmuck filling up an expedition if gas were to hit $3.00 a gallon? "That'll be $90.00 please"

Talk about a major lifestyle change.

I could see it affecting the econmy of this country in a devastating way.

We will never run out of oil because as supply decreases price will increase proportionatly.

The real question is what can we do now to keep oil cheap for as long possible?

bump. Very good topic.

Largely ignored by 90% of the population.

Thoughts?

I'm waiting to hear more feedback from the more argumentative types on this board, but I do have the impression that he's a bit alarmist. HOwever, even if his site's half-true, that's pretty scary IMHO...

All the more reason to run biodiesel, eh?

It is kinda strange that there have been so few responses/thoughts shared on this subject.

As Koop says market pressures will address much of this issue.

As the price of oil increases the relative value of hybrid vehicles, alternative fuel research, improved oil extraction techniques will increase proportionately. While we see improvements in these areas today they are small because right now oil is cheap enough that they haven't achieved "critical mass."

I'm honestly not very concerned. I'll enjoy watching the owner's of Expeditions and H2's pay $100 at the tanks. The SUV craze IMO is getting out of hand. An H2 to bring the kids to soccer practice is ridiculous.

I brought this very topic up to my wife last night and it never would have entered her mind. Like most folks I guess.

I try to conserve as much as possible when it comes to resources. It's just my little way of helping out.

I guess that would be the first place for us to start. I do not believe that the majority of the population will jump onboard if/when we see dramatic fuel increases. Cheap oil equals ignorance. The only way people will start to care is when itt hurts their wallet.

.02

I think the thrust of his arguement is right. In the long run we are screwed. But his dismissal of alt energy is wrong. We shouldn't be looking at solar, wind nuke as a replacement but rather a supplement. And we should be doing now instead of waiting for the well to run dry.

I think we should be looking at the Europeans. They have cool, fuel efficient cars and use diesel very effectively. Instead of driving suburbans they drive hatchbacks and station wagons. There are local markets near where people live and they don't live in the McMansions we like so much. France gets 80% of its electricity from nukes.

In addition to being more efficient, it just seems like a more sane way to live. It just amazes me the number of people that make good money (80k+) that are broke after their mortgage payments and two car payments and credit card payments.

I know of a few people like that. One has an Expedition, his wife drives a Tahoe. With recent gas increases they have really felt it in the pocketbook. There is no need to driving those things if you can't afford it/them.

You figure the payment on an Expedtion is around $500.00 per month. You'd spend around that for fuel(400-500) and another 150.00 per insurance.

That's appox 1200.00 monthly. WOW. I can afford to do something like that, but I'd kick myself in the head everytime I filled up at the pump.

It's insane.

Remember how popular “The Whole Earth Catalogue Was”? Well, a lot of folks around here live off the grid. Part of the ability to do this is because of modern technology. I for one, survive by a satellite hookup to the Internet, so that where exactly I am, no longer matters. I’m very established in my business, so that being in a city is not necessary. I think my situation describes more and more people. I also know quite a few people that live very efficiently on boats.
Obviously everyone did without 150 years ago, but for a modern world to turn back the clock would be difficult. There’s a lot to consider – basically you’ve got learn how to love what you’ve got, and break away from wanting to consume everything that advertisers market to you as necessary. How this or many other facts of life will play out in the big cities is what really makes it seem so scary. As I used to say in seminars – “If you love your kids you’d better be prepared. If you don’t intend to shoot em, you’d better be ready to feed them, cause they’re coming home.”

Great topic!!

Another reason we'll never really run out of oil is that it will eventually get to the point that it's too thick to be commercially worth pulling out of the ground. At that point we'll be "out" of oil, but technically, there will always be oil. (Anal enough?) :D

It is going to be hard on us old "car guys":( but I don't expect to see the worst of it unless I make it to around 90 after which time my mode of transportation will probably be a wheelchair or walker.

Anyway, I have just recently started getting around for those quick jaunts to the store on the 1994 Yamaha Jog. It is alot of fun and all the women that I pass by are smiling at me (or are they laughing:D)? Anyway, I filled it up the other day after about three days of running errands on it and it took .67 gallons;). It is probably the most "fun" ride I have:).

OK. Now that we are " out of oil" what do you suppose would happen then?

No matter how expensive it gets, it will be pulled out of the ground somehow(if it;s still there). This country will be reduced to nothing without petroleum. The questaion will be, who can/will afford to pay for it?

Those who can't will be in a world of hurt.

http://www.e85fuel.com/

Geez instead of supplementing farmer income how about creating a demand?

! RANT " ON " ! (to Quote a forum member)
 

O.K. here it goeeeeessssssss.

No domestic engine manufacturer can (or wants to) produce
a viable compression ignition engine for automotive use.

They can't because the domestic engineering gene pool
which was capable of producing diesel engineers has been
virtually forced into extinction by Detroit and the "Seven
Sisters". (Bigger Gas hogs Make U.S. MONEY)

Mass transit , the most efficient use of fuel, has similarly
beeen crushed by the same industrial fuedalistic lords.
With the exception of a few large urban areas.

We've allowed the same group of greedy pigs to kill off
passenger rail in the united states.

Yet, almost everything we consume is brought to us
courtesy of Diesel/Electric Rail or Class 8 Diesel trucks.

In europe they are working on Diesel/Electric hybrid autos,
(Note : a volkswagen "LUPO" 3 cylinder turbo diesel with
a 5 speed automatic transmission is reputed to get M.P.G
in the 90+ range....and it ain't even a hybrid!)

In America the push is for gas/electric hybrids for ALL the
above reasons.( "Can't produce the Technology/and don't
want to because the majority of Americans don't have a
clue....and won't even know what they missed !)

I am finally beginning to get a glimmer of understanding
about the "Founding Fathers" fear of the common man
participating in the electoral process.

"KEEP 'um in the DARK and FEED them GUANO!

Decades of artificially low energy prices have addicted us to
technological suicide.

Side Note: all the energy mess on the West Coast of late,
could be viewed as a "Testing of the Waters" to see just
how UN-aware the electorate and the "BOOBS" we elect
to represent us are. Here in GEORGIA a few years ago
the Natural Gas LOBBY managed to RAILROAD deregulation
That winter people on fixed incomes had to decide between
paying the GAS bill or food for sustinence! I fully expect
the electric power grid owners/operators/suppliers to
attempt the same !#&*%+ very soon!

Re: ! RANT " ON " ! (to Quote a forum member)
 

This is only partially true. The other side of this is the American consumer. There was a brief period in the late 1970's and early 1980's where the "Big Three" tried to build diesel-powered vehicles. Ford had a small Mazda diesel that they put in the Escort and teh Ranger pickup, Dodge had a Mitsubishi diesel put in their (Mitsu-built) D-50 pickup trucks, and General Motors had the infamous "350 diesel". Ford's and Dodge's diesels were little engines that got 40+ mpg, but they were very slow and thus weren't all that popular.

GM's 350 diesel was, needless to say, a spectacular failure. In fact, the failure was so much so that it left a bad taste in the mouths of many Americans regarding diesels. As a result, except for in the pickup truck field (and a few people who've been buying M-B or VW diesels), there's been absolutely no market for diesels.

With the demand for more fuel-efficient vehicles, coupled with people beginning to realize that the 350 was a fluke, I think the diesel market's opening up a bit...the Jeep Liberty's being introduced with a diesel next model year, there's talks (stalled for now) of a V-6 version of the Powerstroke diesel being put in F-150's and Expeditions, and there have been rumors of a V-6 Detroit diesel for the Dodge Dakota and Durango.

Who knows what'll happen, but this could be the start of something good...I agree with you that Europe's on the right track while America has fallen way behind...

I guess we'll see what happens, eh? :)

I still think the possibility of running out of oil is far fetched.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=509&ncid=753&e=1&u=/ap/20040413/ap_on_bi_ge/farm_scene

"A University of Illinois research team is working on turning pig manure into a form of crude oil that could be refined to heat homes or generate electricity."

How bout turning Iraq into a PIG farm.

Research: Pig Manure Can Become Crude Oil
FARM SCENE: Research Shows Pig Manure Can Become Crude Oil That Could Be Refined to Heat Homes

The Associated Press


URBANA, Ill. April 13 — A University of Illinois research team is working on turning pig manure into a form of crude oil that could be refined to heat homes or generate electricity.

Years of research and fine-tuning are ahead before the idea could be commercially viable, but results so far indicate there might be big benefits for farmers and consumers, lead researcher Yanhui Zhang said.

"This is making more sense in terms of alternative energy or renewable energy and strategically for reducing our dependency on foreign oil," said Zhang, an associate professor of agricultural and biological engineering. "Definitely, there is potential in the long term."

The thermochemical conversion process uses intense heat and pressure to break down the molecular structure of manure into oil. It's much like the natural process that turns organic matter into oil over centuries, but in the laboratory the process can take as little as a half-hour.

A similar process is being used at a plant in Carthage, Mo., where tons of turkey entrails, feathers, fat and grease from a nearby Butterball turkey plant are converted into a light crude oil, said Julie DeYoung, a spokeswoman for Omaha, Neb.-based Conagra Foods, which operates the plant in a joint venture with Changing World Technologies of Long Island, N.Y.

Converting manure is sure to catch the attention of swine producers. Safe containment of livestock waste is costly for farmers, especially at large confinement operations where thousands of tons of manure are produced each year. Also, odors produced by swine farms have made them a nuisance to neighbors.

"If this ultimately becomes one of the silver bullets to help the industry, I'm absolutely in favor of it," said Jim Kaitschuk, executive director of the Illinois Pork Producers Association.

Zhang and his research team have found that converting manure into crude oil is possible in small batches, but much more research is needed to develop a continuously operating reaction chamber that could handle large amounts of manure. That is key to making the process practicable and economically viable.

Zhang predicted that one day a reactor the size of a home furnace could process the manure generated by 2,000 hogs at a cost of about $10 per barrel.

Big oil refineries are unlikely to purchase crude oil made from converted manure, Zhang said, because they aren't set up to refine it. But the oil could be used to fuel smaller electric or heating plants, or to make plastics, ink or asphalt, he said.

"Crude oil is our first raw material," he said. "If we can make it value-added, suddenly the whole economic picture becomes brighter."

On the Net:

Zhang's site:

VANCOUVER, Wash. (AP) A new interpretation of a court decision that will impose stricter conservation rules on ditches, irrigation canals and wetlands in the Pacific Northwest could lead to development restrictions.

The Army Corps of Engineers will begin treating such bodies of water with surface connections to natural streams as "waters of the United States," qualifying them for protection under the Clean Water Act.

Wetlands protected under the act can't be filled without a permit from the corps, which typically requires construction of artificial wetlands elsewhere.

Corps attorney Ron Marsh said the change brings the corps into compliance with a 2001 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that irrigation ditches and canals qualify as tributaries to navigable rivers. Corps regulations already protect wetlands adjacent to tributary streams.

The new policy will broaden federal wetland jurisdiction in Washington, Oregon and portions of Idaho. It could eventually apply to all states within the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, including California, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii, Marsh told the Vancouver Columbian newspaper.

The expansion of wetland protection in areas previously farmed could frustrate many property owners, said Matt Lewis, executive director of the Building Industry Association of Southwest Washington.

"Property owners who are trying to develop their property for personal or commercial use are frustrated when they run into legitimate environmental regulations," Lewis said. "Now that man-created areas are going to be protected for their environmental benefit, there's the potential to create some real anger."

It's good to know pig **** is good for something other than fertilzer.

;)

World Energy Consumption:
The Good, The Bad, and The BTUs

by Ed "Redwood" Ring

To speak exclusively of conservation," said U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney in early 2001, "is to duck tough issues." It's hard to argue with that statement, whether or not you agree with anything else Cheney may have to say about energy. The tough issue is that energy production must increase, and conservation will only slow that increase but can't stop it. Energy production is a global issue, and in a world where populations are increasing and economies are industrializing, the idea that global energy usage can remain flat through conservation is ridiculous. Here's why:

Using 1995 figures provided by the World Bank, in that year, the world's energy consumption totaled 316 quadrillion BTUs. A BTU, or British Thermal Unit, is a standard measure of energy that can be used regardless of the type of energy being produced. For example, there are 3,413 BTUs in a kilowatt hour of electricity. A barrel of oil contains 5.8 million BTUs.

Imagine that through conservation and increased energy efficiency, every citizen in the United States were to consume half the BTUs they currently consume. This is certainly possible, though very unlikely in the near term. In 1995 the U.S. citizenry consumed, on average, 327 million BTUs per year, (BTUs by Nation) which is more than twice what many developed countries use per capita, including the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany and Japan. In 1995 there were 28 countries in the world (North, BTU's per $1 GNP) with per capita incomes over $15,000 per year. Let's call these the developed nations. They numbered 787 million people and they consumed on average 216 million BTUs per person. They represented about 15% of the world's population and they consumed 68% of the world's energy. No surprise there.

The problem with thinking that energy production worldwide does not have to dramatically increase in the next ten years is to forget about the rest of the world. Countries with huge populations such as China and India, along with most of Latin America and the rest of Asia, are industrializing with astonishing speed, yet their total energy consumption right now is only at the beginning of a rapid increase. In 1995 the per-capita energy consumption of the 85% of humanity with average incomes under $15,000 was only 23 million BTUs per person, barely 10% of the average for the developed world.

If the per capita energy consumption in the developing world were to reach only 50% of that consumed by the citizens of industrialized nations, and if everyone in the prosperous industrialized nations were to conserve themselves down to that same level, energy production worldwide would have to double. That is to say, if everyone on earth got by on 100 million BTUs of energy per year, that would require 600+ quadrillion BTUs of energy, compared to only 316 QBTUs produced worldwide in 1995. To try to prevent this process is to impinge on the sovereignty of nations, slowing their progress towards prosperity. It's not a good choice.

That is the tough issue of which Cheney speaks, and the algebra to prove it is conservative. If, for example, everyone on earth consumed as much energy as U.S. citizens currently use, worldwide energy production would not have to go from 316 QBTUs to over 600 QBTUs, but instead to over 1,900 QBTUs! This is absurd, but again demonstrates that the above example assumes radical conservation measures worldwide, and no population growth! Conservation should be a very important option in the United States (whose per capita BTU consumption is only exceeded by the oil rich enclaves of Brunei, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Qatar) but conservation cannot begin to solve the world's energy challenges alone.

Another way to evaluate energy consumption worldwide is to look at the correlation between BTU consumption and GNP. That is, how many BTUs correspond to each dollar of GNP in various countries? Or put another way, how efficiently do various countries convert energy into wealth? The six largest consumers of energy in the world are the United States, China, Russia, Japan, Germany and India. But whereas the United States only requires 12,000 BTUs per dollar of GNP, which is only slightly higher than average for industrialized nations, China requires 46,000 BTUs per dollar of GNP, and India requires 31,000. (South, BTU's per $1 GNP) This means that as these countries industrialize, unless they adopt more efficient technologies, they will consume far more energy per capita in order to create wealth for their citizens, and energy consumption worldwide will not double or triple, but will go off the chart.

The prevailing energy issue worldwide is how will global energy production more than double in the next twenty years in a way that is clean and sustainable. Because even with highly efficient energy usage and conservation worldwide, that's what it's going to take for all the countries of the world to stay on the course of increasing prosperity.

Can "non-hydro renewables" provide this much energy? Maybe, but it would take a transformation in the world energy infrastructure of unimaginable speed and scope. Environmentalists can hope that such will happen, but they will need to back up hope with technological innovation, solid business plans, and arguments that rely on reason along with passion, if hopes are to become reality.

Bump

Interesting website discussing peak oil.

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/mainpages/olduvai.html

Also this, from that website.

??? I just filled up my 300D and it was $82.00. Why would you think $90 to fill an SUV such a big deal?
Dave
1976 300D

Last summer I told the towel girl at the club that she should fill up after work, because we were going to go up about twenty cents within a few days. I don't know her story except she's mid thirties and a single mom. I was just being friendly or kind of kidding. Anyway she got a sick look on her face and teared up a little. She smirked at me and said “Easy for you to say”. Just kinda sticks out.

Peak Oil vs Deep Oil.

https://phys.org/news/2009-07-hydrocarbons-deep-earth.html

Maybe we could deposit city waste into continental subduction zones.

this liquid carbon they found under the U.S.,wonder can they tap it,and mix with sea water,like audii did in 2015 to make diesel? Imagine, tapping volcanoes,and preventing eruptions too.

There is a well known problem that must first be overcome.

When the first wells were drilled they were drilled until they hit oil. Then everyone bought big houses and fancy cars. Then the money ran out.

So old fields were reopened with the theory that there was more than one pay zone under the ground. And this theory was correct. First: A pay zone is a layer of sand, or today it might be shale, that is laid over by a layer of (usually) limestone. Drill into the pay zone, suck out the oil. Drill through the pay zone, through the limestone beneath it, and sometimes (Actually usually) there is another pay zone beneath it. Yeh! More big houses! More fancy cars!

Then drill to the next and to the next until you reach depths where the temp and pressure is beyond anything a current drilling rig can penetrate. And that's where you stop.

So deeper hydrocarbons are nothing new. What needs to be new is a cost effective way to reach them.

And I wonder what blowout preventer could deal with the forces found in a volcano?

The Russian theory of oil is different than the western theory. They believe that petroleum is formed from primordial methane left from the formation of the planets. When there is an impermeable underground structure like a salt dome, methane gathers under it for millennia and gradually transforms into petroleum. Search on "abiogenic petroleum" if you're interested.

The implication is that there's probably a near infinite supply of oil if you can drill deep enough to find it. If true, we need to think carefully about pollution, since we can make an infinite supply of waste gasses.

Drilling into mantle,laser drill,or nitrogen cooled drills