214 comments on Peak Oil Update - January 2007: Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
214 comments on Peak Oil Update - January 2007: Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Pessimism of the Intellect; Optimism of the Will.”
—Antonio Gramsci
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Thanks Nate,
Re: as presumably the 14% of total liquids that are now NOT crude oil or condensate, require more energy to create which is taken out of the total pie.
Besides, it could be interesting to know how much diesel fuel has been used to produce ethanol which is counted in the "Other Liquids" category.
Re: It will also be interesting to see the impact of NA gas cliff on the NGPL component - though the world as a whole may still get a good boost in this area.
I agree, NGPL production is almost flat since February 2005 but seems to have increased a little bit lately.
Besides, it could be interesting to know how much diesel fuel has been used to produce ethanol which is counted in the "Other Liquids" category.
We discussed this some yesterday in another thread. The answer to this is 'not much'. The bulk of the energy input is derived from natural gas.
What else could have been done with the natural gas?
The number Austex came up with was 23% of the BTUs for a gallon of ethanol was from gas/diesel.
Unfortunatly he didn't save his work and only posted the results.
Last night after the fact I found this piece of analysis that I did not see the other day when I was trying to calculate the crude oil inputs. By far the most detailed and thorough piece of work that I've seen to this point. Many of the numbers are justified as well, which I did not see much of the other day. Check it out if you have time. It's few years old, but should still be fairly applicable to today's situation
http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/pdfs/energy_balance_report_final_R1.PDF
If you don't have time, in his conclusion (pg 55/56) it's stated that the makeup of btu's comes from 7.3% petroleum, 75.2% coal/natural gas, and 17.5% captured solar energy by the corn.
I'm thinking these percentages do not include transportation of feedstock and finished product which is why my conclusion came out with a higher percentage.
The link refers to the energy balance of corn ethanol. Until the recent foolish burst of subsidized ethanol production from the US, the single largest producer of ethanol was Brazil and it was done with 100% sugar cane.
Sources that I have frequently posted here cite energy balances of 8-10 from sugar cane-based ethanol rather than the 1.2-1.3 from corn.
So even if crude based inputs constitute 50% of the energy input into sugar cane based ethanol production, they woudn't be more than 5-6% of the BTUs in the final fuel.
So instead of double counting, in the case of sugar cane, it is more like + 5% counting. Biodiesel presumably comes somewhere in between.
I believe that the world could derive 5-10% of the BTU content in all liquid fuels from sugar cane without much damage to the environment (and ideally with improvement to health). This would be a significant offset to waning oil supplies and would have little actual oil content.
By the way, I think it makes sense to count and track both C & C figures as well as all (net) liquids, but for different purposes. C&C is the best measure of peak oil. All (net) liquids is the best measure for how mankind will cope with it.
'By the way, I think it makes sense to count and track both C & C figures as well as all (net) liquids, but for different purposes. C&C is the best measure of peak oil. All (net) liquids is the best measure for how mankind will cope with it.'
A succint and important point, well worth keeping in mind as the inevitable decline of crude production will lead to a number of different directions in how that reality is accepted, from starving those who can't pay for a tank of gas (based on the data that the corn required for one tank of vehicle fuel is equivalent to what one human requires for a year) to utopian visions of peaceful powerdown, or in the German expression, 'Frieden. Freude. Eierkuchen.' (a slightly nonsensical expression meaning 'Peace, Joy, and Pancakes' - or if you are from Berlin, then 'Peace Joy, and jelly filled Doughnuts' - sort of like 'happily ever after,' it tends to refer to something very desirable, but which will never really occur.)
Explain the basis of this belief, please. How much topsoil is lost annually to achieve this process? How much silting occurs annually to achieve this process? How much water table damage occurs annually to achieve this process? What level of salinization occurs annually? Under what population scenarios? Under what consumption scenarios?
Please provide the data for your conclusion, as I do not believe the statement you made.
Thank you.