 | An updated schedule and some more resources for our House Energy Bill project.... | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: June 30, 2007 |  |
188 comments on IEA: without Iraqi oil, we'll be in deep trouble by 2015
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
188 comments on IEA: without Iraqi oil, we'll be in deep trouble by 2015
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
IIRC the Iraqi eldorado theory is that it is essentially a new basin in the west of the country and would not follow the older production profile?
ie second peak
but then again?
Boris
London
I think Boris is right.
The pre-Iraq invasion (2003) US made Iraqi oil maps sized up Iraq reserves as remarkable and with a potential for a new yet discovered super-giant.
Ref: Maps and Charts of Iraqi oilfields: Cheney Energy Task Force
http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/04-12-05/discussion.cgi.46.html
Various sources have claimed that Iraqi daily production using currently known reserves, but with improved recovery could mount up to as much as 6Mbpd. As for how long, I haven't seen any estimates.
Ref2: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HJ26Ak01.html
Of course, as-yet-to-be-discovered fields can always produce great amounts of oil. At least to the point when they are (not) discovered and appraised.
I think Al-Husseini's criticism of the IHS Iraq oil resource estimate is a good reminder how wrong estimates can be.
is an extra 4mbd enough to mitigate this 2015 deadline?.. frankly sooner rather than later is my wish..why wait for the day of days.
Perhaps the message is Iraq won't and we are there already.
the credo is apocalypse now..assume peak now, we are there or there abouts anyway by most peoples guesses.
If Iraq really is the only screw left to turn you might as well cash in your chips now and start a new game. more stories about spanish solar power stations please.
Boris
London
What about building those recently canceled trams in Leeds, South Hampshire and Liverpool ?
Best Hopes for the English building 1/3rd as many new tram lines as the French,
Alan
Sheffield, Tyne & Wear and Manchester still in limbo.
In Edinburgh we have just approved a new tram line but it was forced through the Scottish parliament by the oppostion as our SNP leaders do not have majority vote and did not want the trams to go ahead!
Interestingly one casualty in this deal is Edinburgh Airport-city centre tram link which has been posponed/cancelled. This is likely a smart move as in post peak times I do not expect as much air travel.
SNP had mentioned peak oil on their website some time ago, so I am wondering if they are dropping in on this site occasionally. Their oppostion to the trams stemmed mainly from spiralling costs which seem to afflict many large projects these days. eg our scottish parliament building which was supposed to cost circa £50m eneded up costing £414m!!!!
Marco.
That is why I said English and not British. The Scots are doing a better job of it than Westminster. Not perfect, surely, but then no one is doing an ideal job of it.
France, Switzerland, Thailand and Brazil are, IMHO, getting large parts of the puzzle right, but NO ONE has a complete game.
Best Hopes for more steps. small and large, in the right direction,
Alan
I have to say, I don't really see the benefit of trams.
Realistically the one thing you can say about a bus route is that it regularly travels through particular points. It should be ridiculously easy to arrange recharging of electric buses at key parts of the route (say flywheel, liquid battery, even compressed air) sufficient to carry it around the rest of the route.
So why go to the expense of tramlines, overhead wires, etc.?
Trams are dramatically cheaper than the Rube Goldberg set-up you describe.
Rolling resistance of steel on steel is an order of magnitude less than rubber on concrete/asphalt (i.e. low grade diesel).
Carrying your batteries with you is an enormous waste of energy when one can tap directly into the grid (and feed back as well when braking). Remember that it is not JUST the weight of the batteries but the structure to hold them, the rolling resistance to move the batteries + structure, the limited life of the batteries, etc.
A 2004 estimate was that simple over head wires were $2.5 million/mile for double track.
The French are building new tram lines (to a high level of aesthetics typically) for 20 to 25 million euros/km for ALL costs (trams, electrical, barn, spares, controls, training, etc.) Figure the trams to last 30 to 40 years, track a century or more (how long do roads last ?)
No technology to debug#
Best Hopes for No Gadgetbahn,
Alan
# The French could not resist and put in a couple of km of no overhead wire. A "3rd rail" turns on 12 or 15 m sections when a tram is overhead (safety considerations). PROBLEMS, PROBLEMS !
In Michelin HQ city and a couple of others they put the tram de pneu. No rails, rubber tires, but other wise similar. Problematic (not nearly as bad as above) is the judgment. Higher electrical consumption as well (duh !)
The conservative proven technology solution works reliably with minimal costs per pax-km.
'How long do roads last'
Roadway deterioration is largely dependent upon the number of large axle loads, subgrade quality/drainage and freeze thaw cycles (among others).
Rural concrete interstate (say 10,000-20,000 vehicles/day) in northeast US can provide 40 years of service with relatively minimal maintenance.
Flexible pavement (asphaltic concrete) is less costly at the front end but requires much more significant investment over a similar time period.
Current design life of modern NE US bridges is 75 years.
Concrete ties in heavy Class I service (an order of magnitude greater loads than a rural interstate lane) are expected to last at least 50 years (only two decades experience). In lighter duty service "indefinite".
Heavy rail (141 lb/yard) should last 40 years in all but the heaviest service (Powder River Basin spur). In lighter duty service, a century plus is a reasonable expectation.
The Greenbush commuter rail line (pax only service south of Boston, about to open) concrete ties, 132# or 135# rail (from memory) and concrete ties should have an indefinite life span except for the wooden ties used for at grade road crossings.
Rail bridges, without salt exposure, should also have century plus life expectancies. Many 100+ year old rail bridges remain in service without any significant life expectancy issues. Others have abutment and other ancillary issues.
Best Hopes for long lived infrastructure,
Alan
There is some amount of planned design flaw in roads. One time on the History Channel on "Modern Marvels" they showed how they build a runway for the 747s. It ends up being a road on steroids built out of concrete.
A runway must be made to hold up a 100-tonne vehicle with 3 landing gear and tolerate it going 200mph. But the funny thing is that for a runway, it's only about twice the thickness of a concrete roadway meant to hold up a semi. Why not make roads like runways and get it over with? It would save the government a lot of money - and save gas on many commuters not wasting gas stuck in traffic from "road construction".
Also, a road that'll last will last for many years to come as bicycle and rollerblade users as they use it for decades. Is it too much like making sense to make a road to last more than 3 years?
Build a concrete road to hold up a semi for 20 years and you have a road that'll hold up a bicycle user for a thousand years, like La Via Appia of Olde Roma.
Petrol prices high enough yet? Just wait!
It's been done in places: Portions of the German Autobahn were built to allow tracked vehicle (i.e. tanks) travel and to be used as emergency airstrips without suffering as a result, same in places in Switzerland.
It's my understanding that some of these roads in what became East Germany got pretty much $0 spent on them from the end of ww2 through to the failure of the Soviet Union and were still able to safely handle traffic at 100 kph.
It often looks obvious but it isn't. Adjust the discount rate higher and spending 20% more now on a road is more expensive than building the whole thing over in twenty years.
It seems like you're investing in the future; You are. But every investment has an opportunity cost. You could use that extra 20% for something that has a higher return.
Alan:
Just read the above in the context of $2.5mm per mile of overhead and thought of a system powered by 3rd rail sections but with the 3rd rail confined to station platform areas. The LR would enter the station to load and discharge and at the same time would connect to electrical supply. 3rd rail would be located under platform apron in such a way that it is not open and accessible to public.
Operation would be a form of "pulse and cruise." This is reported to give the highest mileage in auto applications and should do the same in LR. Train sits in station and loads passengers while at the same time taking on energy to take it to the next station stop. Train accelerates out of station while still pulling power from 3rd rail ( and it is the acceleration phase that has the highest energy demand). LR then cruises through to the next station stop where the process is repeated.
Outside the station area the LR maintains speed through combination of momentum, or capacitor discharge to drive motors, or by pulling power from a flywheel that was energised at last station stop. I'm thinking of station intervals as being similar to current urban bus spacing not as widely spaced as Toulouse - Paris. On severe grades it might be necessary to install 3rd rail to assist with the climb but in most urban settings this likely would not be required. Seems to be a relatively inexpensive solution.
Comment?
Cheers!
Not a massive fan of trams myself.
Particularly in the UK where our streets are congested enough as it is without adding tram lines to the chaos.
There is also the issue of low frequency vibrations caused by metal on metal rolling as the trams pass. This is a significant problem for many houses in Manchester where new tram lines have been built. The vibrations cause cracking in house foundations.
Now considering that much of Scotland's housing stock consists of tenement type buildings lining the main thoroughfares and you can see why the return of trams would not be welcome.
After the demise of trams they were largely replaced with Trolleybuses.
These were so quiet that they were known as the "silent service" (or the silent death...)
They didn't survive the cheap diesel of the 60s/early 70's. By the early 70's they were all gone.
To me trolleybuses represent a much better solution. Much lower investment than trams, & in our congested roads, their ability to move around double parked cars, delivery vans etc is their coup de grace over fixed line trams.
Trolleybuses can now be built in tram like lengths, so the argument over capacity is null & void. With certain lengths of their route the buses can run in dedicated bus lanes and so can pick up scheduling advantages in rush hour traffic.
They may not be quite as efficient as trams, but you have to grant them the lower up front capital cost (which in the UK is the real make or break factor for large public schemes) and better integration & flexibility. And the nimby's have less objections due to lower noise & vibration issues and no road disruption during construction.
If trams were proposed for anywhere I lived (especially near my house) I'd activity campaign against them. And this is from a guy that lives within the fallout range of the local nuke and doesn't mind it one bit....
Andy
Noise and vibration are a function of engineering detail.
The Canal Streetcars (built in house in New Orleans with trucks by Brookville, also used in new PCC II streetcars in Philly) have no preceptiable vibration. Less than a diesel bus or truck for sure (and this is on the Jello like soil of New Orleans, where a train a km away has bounced me in bed).
Over grass tracks they are as quiet as a passing car. Over concrete tracks, as quiet as a passing 5 ton delivery truck.
Since the roads are "free" the upfront capital costs can be lower for electric trolley buses. Longer term they are often the "second best" solution (they do require not one but two overhead wires BTW). ETBs do not significantly increase ridership (historically +3% over diesel) and trams do (+26% for new French trams over buses they replaced in the first year, usually higher % in the USA).
Less space for cars is, IMO, a good and not a bad thing *IF* there is a private ROW for tram that is not held up by congestion. In other words, it is good when trams move faster and cars move slower from my perspective post-Peak Oil.
If your perspective is that trams are for other people, and trams are just a bus replacement, then I could see disagreement. (Hope that is not a straw man).
Still, ETBs do have their place. They are "Step 3" of my plan.
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_lrt_2006-05a.htm
Best Hopes for More and Better Trams post-Peak Oil, everyone is going to need them,
Alan
Our buses run 24/7. As far as I'm concerned a 5 ton delivery truck is way too noisy at 2am. Plus any new trams in the UK will not be built to the best standards but will be built by the cheapest bidder. So what do you think is going to happen noise wise? The clatter of the old trams were one of the few reasons people were glad to see the back of them.
I'm sorry, but I subscribe to working with the best you've got. Within the confines of what we've got in the UK, I see trolleybuses as being the quickest to implement at the lowest cost. In Glasgow bus ridership already beats the trains hands down so I don't think it'll be a problem convincing folk that trolleybuses are a good thing. Plus it'll get rid of those damn diesels for once and all. (Can you tell I'm a cyclist?)
The roads ain't free, they are paid for already by the rest of us car drivers via our Vehicle Excise Duty (road tax).
But because this is the situation, I'd prefer trolleybuses as they mess up the roads less.
And in the UK, capital costs are still king. I'd rather get a medium sized well thought out trolleybus system than a small, expensive, goldplated tram system that hardly serves anyone. And being the UK, that is exactly what'll happen.
Put it this way. In the UK the only way we'll get either trams or trolley's is if the infrastructure is paid for by grants/regional/local authority. The actual service will be provided by a franchise/concession allowing a supplier to provide a monopoly service at agreed prices. the supplier will provide the rolling stock.
Thus the public authority is going to universally want low up front engineering costs and the supplier low rolling stock costs. You'd also be wise not to upset homeowners or rail unions (another reason I'd want to stay away from steel rails).
the problem I have with this is the underlying assumption that peak oil=no cars.
Really?
The way I see it, no oil=lots of little short range electric vehicles with all the attendant double parking etc that we have now. Small, short range electric vehicles are already available for reasonable costs so to think that the personal vehicle is going to pack up and die due to a lack of oil is one of the more interesting assumptions that I question about peak oil. Personal mobility is very highly cherished (otherwise we wouldn't be discussing trams/trolleys in the first place) and I don't see it going without a fight.
Buses are for other people. Can't stand the damn things myself. Not too keen on trains/trams either.
I've always said that public transport has two problems:
1> The public (they smell and are frequently violent)
2> The transport (slow, expensive, unreliable..)
But, hey, other than that its fine ;-)
Lower population and electric cars are definently the way forward. And if all else fails then I can always ride my bike.
Andy
Our streetcars (but not our buses) also ran 24/7 before Katrina. Every day but Mardi Gras :-)
I'd rather get a medium sized well thought out trolleybus system than a small, expensive, gold-plated tram system that hardly serves anyone
You assume trolley buses will be done well but trams will be done poorly. Under that assumption, I would also chose good design and management over poor design and management. But I do not see the quality of management as being dependent upon mode.
Some narrow streets are only practical with trolley buses unless the entire street is devoted to the tram.
The French experience (and I am actively searching for official confirmation of this ATM) [sterotype] is to:
1) select a very heavy bus line for conversion to tram
2a) Take two lanes entirely away from rubber tires and have grass running (except on cross streets). Some streets are turned into grassy lanes.
2b) Take two lanes and make the surface faux cobblestones. Cars can use it, but they avoid it unless congestion is high.
Taking the tram largely out of traffic makes it faster and more reliable (some of your objections) AND cheaper to build and operate.
3) Add pedestrian and bicycle facilities along the way (Grenoble is going to a bike + tram network with service vehicles, the goal is few private cars)
Low floor trams work quite well with bicycles. The French are pushing that combination with Grenoble the most extreme example.
Financing of public projects need not be static. You make dour projections based upon the dismal British history. One can assume more of the same as the UK slips further behind France.
You assume that ETBs are going to be substantially cheaper than trams. I question that assumption. Slower = more vehicles = more cost for rolling stock and more operating expense. And costs are shifted (street repair vs tram installation)
20 to 25 million euros/km (1.5 euros/pound ?) is reasonably close to affordable.
Perhaps the Scots lack the management and design skill of the French (the Americans certainly do) and all you can muster in a post-Peak Oil world is a "second best" stop-gap solution. So be it. Better than nothing !
Just do not delude yourself that it is not a second best solution,
Best Hopes for the Best Solutions,
Alan
That wasn't my assumption. I assumed that for a given capital cost we'd get a much larger trolleybus system than a tram system. Also if road maintainance costs can be pushed onto motorists (or shared with freight/delivery trucks) then it further lowers the cost for the trolleybus operator as they aren't solely responsible for track maintainance like trams are.
I think there may be a fundamental disconnect between our visions here. In the US and France you have nice large grid iron pattern cities with wide thoroughfares which you can easiy tap into to allow dedicated running lines for trams.
In both Glasgow & Edinburgh this is most certainly not the case. Glasgow has a very long history of trams. Indeed at one time it had a world class tram system the soldiered on until 1967.
BUT, if you'd ever seen a Glasgow tram then you'd understand many of my objections. They are, to all intents and purposes, the same size as a modern double decker bus. They're non-articulated like modern UK trams. When they were taken out of service it was easy to replace them with double decker trolleybuses and diesel buses. Here's a nice pic:
Even going back to 1902, all of Glasgow's roads have been shared access and I don't see it ever going over to dedicated tram lines. Our main thoroughfares aren't large enough to contain dedicated tram lines. They never were.
Not only that but the main reason for the trams was to connect outlying Glasgow suburbs to the city to enable the workforce & professionals to commute into and out of town. This means that you'll need a very extensive tram line network. At its heyday the Glasgow tram system had over 150 miles of double track. No doubt nowadays you'd need more to cover some of the newer developments.
I think the other reason I see trolleybuses as a bus replacement rather than a tram replacement is that many Glasgow suburbs already have good rail connections to central station. To me setting up a tram network is a bit too much like duplication. If you want to ride on rails out of the flow of traffic then you already have that choice pretty much anywhere in Glasgow.
All of our buses are already low floor.
Unfortunately our dour British history is already dooming us to fall further behind the French in other areas. I have my doubts that we'll get the next generation of nuclear facilities by the time we really need them. Certainly the government doesn't seem to be making encouraging noises. If it refuses to give any support either financially or with guaranteed power purchase price agreements with the national grid then operators are likely to come to the conclusion that it is not worth building new nukes in the UK until after a power shortage pushes up our electricity costs. By this time we'll be running a grid heavily dependant on russian gas.
Now where did I say we'd need either more vehicles or that they'd be slower? 1 modern computer controlled articulated trolleybus (that happens to look like a tram) can replace 3 buses. It can also accelerate & decelerate much faster than trams can allowing a quicker service. See: http://www.tbus.org.uk (no affiliation to myself BTW)
Indeed the French have a very nice looking prototype in Nancy and Caen, see: http://www.tbus.org.uk/article.htm
I'm still not convinced that spending millions to lay track over hundreds of miles of our most valuable roads will give us that much benefit.
Horses for courses (but no diesels please).
Andy
A propos Nancy:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/features/f_ncy001.htm
I didn´t check, but it could have been written by alan :-)
From what I have heard, it was not one of the best managed project in France, even taking into account the new technology.
If you accept the premise that extremely expensive, scarce oil and natural gas will have a rippling effect throughout the industrial economy, this assumption makes perfect sense. It will be likely, IMO, that your 'small, short range electric vehicles, will be prohibitively expensive given that the industrial infrastructure to manufacture and ship them will have been dependent on oil.
The assumption doesn't make sense only if you assume a future source of energy, say nuclear, that will at least fully replace crude oil and natural gas and allow BAU for industrial civilization.
Public transport sure does have the 2 problems you mention. Being exposed to the public means a larger danger of violence. This is a reason I bought my present car. BUT it does not remove that risk completely. There is always a hazard of traffic altercation when you drive. Equipping the car with cameras that are visible to other drivers can reduce the risk of altercation but never remove it altogether.
Second, public transport is never going to be as fast as driving your own vehicle. This is why people prefer to drive over transit more than the risk of violence. Plus, in America at least, many people have no choice but to drive for their mission to and from work.
Post-peak does not mean zero cars but it does mean fewer cars. After all, there will be SOME gasoline, but simply not enough to allow "happy motoring". That's a big difference. Post-peak means that as gas prices rise, people will be forced to either live closer to work, change jobs, or otherwise look to an alternative to driving. If you live close enough, a bicycle to use can come into play. The main deterrent to bicycle use is exposure to traffic and weather. If a huge number of people are forced to use bicycles (as likely will happen) the traffic exposure issue goes away.
I currently live 10 miles from work, just about close enough to allow bicycle use. But the car traffic serves as the deterrent. A tipping point will surely be reached when bicycle users are plentiful enough that car traffic will have to give way to bicycle traffic. How far down the road will that occur is anyone's guess.
In terms of real-life safety, bicycles are (if used correctly) pretty safe, owing to slow speed. It turns out that you are safer if you have long hair than if you wear a helmet. Not scientific, John Stossel took a bicycle with a range finder to check distance drivers leave for a cyclist. The cars went closer if the user wore a helmet but kept the most distance if the user wore a wig. Good thing I have long hair without a wig! Just the thing for the day I'm forced onto a bicycle.
Petrol prices high enough yet? Just wait!
"Being exposed to the public means a larger danger of violence. This is a reason I bought my present car."
Now you only need to buy a road too, and you can drive in private!
Not to mention the risk of a violent death in a traffic accident vs. a public transport incident.
It is like tea-leaf readings.
A large part of the 2003 (pre and post) US invasion justification was that the fabulous oil riches would see the Iraqis straight - rebuilding after shock and awe would be paid for by ‘oil’ revenues.
Such propaganda legitimized the invasion two ways: first, there was ‘bounty’ to be had there (no matter how it would be organized, divided, managed, etc.), second, there would be no need to ‘fund’ or ‘control’ Iraq - everyone would be a winner, the invaders, the locals and even the 'world.'
"Propaganda" is indeed the right word. The architects of the invasion, for all their willful blindness and arrogance, are not morons, and they've known about PO for a long time. So if you see the precipice closing fast, and you'd like to at least slow the descent, how do you do so? I'd think about engineering some premature supply declines, exploiting the price spikes to turn off some demand and get people prepared, psychologically at least.
"...consuming nations will understand the gravity of the situation and put in place radical and extremely tough policies to curb oil demand growth." Nothing works better than price to curb said growth. The result is: 1) Introduction of the scarcity narrative; 2) A push toward conservation and alternatives; 3) An above-ground excuse for shortages; and 4) A much longer horizon for the ultimate depletion of the ("our") Iraqi oil.
I'm not so sure. while oil was a big factor in their strategic thinking it seems to operate on some parallel plane..... a distorted reality.
I think the planers and voices calling for the war are morons
they just seem unable to work outside of this industrial-miltary complex thing.
There seems to be some massive contradiction at the heart of geopolitical stratergising
Boris
London
"I think the planers [sic] and voices calling for the war are morons"
Occam's Razor meets ad hominem attack?
For morons, they've made some excellent investment decisions over the past decade.
I won't dispute the vacuousness of the "empty suits" that spin the TV tale for us. But the people who installed them, support them, and beat the drum for them are anything but morons. Look at that "embassy" - it's a citadel, for pete's sake - that's going up in Baghdad. Or those fourteen huge, permanent bases: Their construction was planned and underway years ago, while the notion of an "insurgency in its last throes" was still being sold to us. No one in the US administration ever intended an exit of any kind, military, political, or colonial. Now they have their "long war" narrative to justify the endless occupation. Endless, anyway, until only the strippers are still pumping in-country.
The point is that the oil has to be secured, so that if "we" can't have it, then nobody can. So long as the whole world declines together, the US still has a shot at clinging to preeminence, but if China gets that Iraqi oil, we're history.
I think this is totally correct..and I think the difference is deciding what one describes as moronic..I guess.
this is real fiddling while rome burns stuff as it forces a end game mentality onto all the players.
I would describe that as Insane... being clever about how one goes about ones madness is stupid.. i think...
its just an opinion though.
Boris
London
There's morons, and they can't help it.
And there are insane people, and they can't help it.
And there are the sociopaths, and it isn't clear if they can help it or not.
And then there are just the greedy and manipulative people who seize the reins and for whatever reason, we all seem to give them a pass. Some of them are quite charming -- maybe that's why they get away with it.
Read the newly re-issued, abridged translation of Casanova's "Histoire de Ma Vie" -- being from the 18th century it is far enough removed to put it above contemporary politics, but the dynamic is about the same.
NeverLNG:
"There's morons, and they can't help it.
And there are insane people, and they can't help it.
And there are the sociopaths, and it isn't clear if they can help it or not."
Just ask a typical Economist and they will clarify your confusion:
1) All humans are "sociopaths".
2) "insane people" are sociopaths who try and "help it" i.e. try and be otherwise
3) "morons" are incompetent sociopaths
Competent sociopaths are cheered by "insane people" and "morons" since they generally compete poorly for scarce resouces, which is a good thing.
Thank you. I was confused. ("I was blind, but now I see....")