47 comments on US Petroleum Supply: Some Overview Graphs
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
47 comments on US Petroleum Supply: Some Overview Graphs
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
- Thanksgiving Open Campfire Thread
- How Relocalization Worked
- How to Set Up and Run a Bicycle Repair Company
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
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
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
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.
“My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel.”
—Saudi saying
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
Ethanol production is 0.4 million barrels per day compared to about 9.3 million barrels per day gasoline consumption. To get the same energy for our cars to all run on ethanol the US would have to produce 13.3 million barrels, after accounting for the lower energy content of ethanol. This is a 33 fold increase in ethanol production for all cars to be E-85 and run on this alcohol fuel. Even a doubling of ethanol production would't help much. Switching all diesel us to bio diesel has similar scale up problem but without the lower BTU per gallon problem.
Only real solution to curbing gasoline and diesel consumption in transport is conservation. But conservation has diminishing returns unless the economy shrinks as it did in 1981 to 1983 period.
I predict long term economic downturn for US that will follow world oil production decline of 2 or 3% per year. The US will not fall off a cliff but be on a long slide downhill. Decreasing personal wealth (for most) will translate into lower per capita energy consumption through fewer jobs, fewer road trips/vacations, fewer people owning cars, fewer people taking airline flights, fewer products bought/imported and in general less money changing hands.
Mark in St Louis, USA
I think that an analysis that only looks at the impact of a small decline in oil misses some of the major effects. I see two major compounding issues - financial impacts, and impacts relating to the knowledge that world oil supply is likely to decline in the future.
1. I have said before that I think the immediate impact of a downturn in oil supply is likely to be financial. For example, see my series on the Economic Impact of Peak oil (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3).
What happens is that the price of petroleum products increases, so the price of food and other products using petroleum increase as well. Soon competing energy products start increasing as well. People have less money available for non-essentials, so they cut back, resulting in a recession. More people default on their mortgages.
With our huge balance of payments problems, there is a significant chance that there will be pressure to get this back in line, probably through declining value of the dollar and fewer imports of all kinds. The whole situation may evolve into hyperinflation or massive deflation.
2. The knowledge of peak oil, and its likely long-term impact, is in some ways as important as peak oil itself. Once people understand peak oil, they can be expected to act differently.
For example, oil exporting countries start to understand that they have more power than they did previously. They are likely to exert more and more of their power - raising required royalties, getting rid of oil partners they no longer want, and even holding back production.
Oil importing nations are likely to act differently, as well - trying to secure supplies in any way they can.
There can be financial impacts as well from the knowledge of peak oil. The value of stocks and bonds is likely to be lower, once people realize that the future is likely to be less rosy than the past. The whole long-term growth paradigm will at some point have to go away. This feeds back into the other financial impacts noted above.
I'm a member of a small non-profit organisation here in Sweden that modifies ordinary cars to run on ethanol. Usually the owners modifies their own cars, the org serves as a knowledgebase. We call ourselves etanol.nu (etanol is swedish for ethanol) and have a small homepage at that adress. Swedish ofcourse, but there is an international section in our forum: http://etanol.nu/forumrecover/viewforum.php?f=42
Now to my point after my shamless plug ;)
We have found that an ordinary gasoline powered car can pretty easily be converted to E85. It is possible to do it at home with inexpensive tools and inexpensive parts. With more home experimenting we have found that a properly modified car does not consume much more E85 than it dit gasoline prior to the modification. Increasing the compression ratio of the engine seems to be the key here. Admittedly, not so easy to do at home, but not that expensive at an engine shop either. A properly modifed mid sized car have a consumption well below a litre per ten kilometers, or about 33 mpg. Not too bad on a fuel that has less energy per unit. The key seems to be the higher octane number and the cooling effect. Gear heads that want performance and power have successfully used E85 as fuel to improve their engines well beyond what was possible with gasoline.
I would say that it is very much possible for ethanol to replace gasoline on an almost one to one ratio. Despite the lower energy content due to other adwantages.
I do agree that conservation is important, but I do think that we miss a large part oif the picture if we dissmiss ethanol on the lower energy content alone. There is distict adwantages that can be used for much higer efficiency.
Here in Sweden it is easy to find E85 filling station, over a thosand in the country now. Cheaper than ordinary gasoline too. In the city next to mine there is a wheat based ethanol plant. No goverment subsidies, it makes money on its own. In tandem is a biogas plant built, it runs on the waste from the ethanol plant. They get high efficiency that way. Most ethanol that is sold here is imported form Brazil, though. Many hopes on cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel.
Yes, it's very important to feed cars not people. It helps with the overpopulation program.
I know that cars can be "tuned" to use E85, but with the tiny amount available, this doesn't make sense. Most of the ethanol we have is used as a substitute for MTBE. Even if a person could find a local station selling E85, they would never be able to find E85 stations while on a trip.
Right now, scaling up ethanol doesn't make sense because of the food issue. Even if we could do cellulosic ethanol on a fairly wide scale basis, I wonder whether we would have enough to provide E85 everywhere. Some numbers I saw yesterday said that one group was hoping that technology would allow Georgia to eventually get 22% of its transportation fuel from cellulosic ethanol, using pine trees as a source. I suppose if this level of cellulosic ethanol were available, it might make sense to tune some cars to use E85.
Another question is how much arable land do we intend to sacrifice to fuel, and what are the unintended or intended consequences if we do.
If we used all the arable land we have (US), it still wouldn't make enough alcohol (or diesel) to do what we do now with FF.
Myths of Biofuels
Corn based ethanol does not make sense. You would be hard pressed to find anyone around here who think it is a good idea. Most people just shakes their heads.
Food production and biofuel production do not really compete here in Sweden. Most ethanol sold is sucarcane, from Brazil. Waste from the forest industry have the biggest potential for liquid fuels (or solid fuel) produced here in Sweden. The forest industry here is good at conservation. There never has been more forest available for lumbering and the like than it is today here in Sweden. There are critics going on about how we are losing money by too much conservation...
I do understand that it is quite a diffrent picture for you people over in the USA than it is here in Sweden. And I don't think we will make it without conservation either.
And speaking about food, we have more arable land lying fallow than we use for biofuels. Biofuels does not compete with food production in any sense. Biogas production uses waste primarily, not stuff grown on land that could be used for food production. So it is essentially a non issue here in Sweden.
Later today I will go on a longer trip, about 600 km (~370 miles). I will find filling stations on the way, there are plenty of them.
Well, I suppose it's good for you that any problems associated with it are exported to another country. Consider that Brazilian ethanol production doesn't directly, though definitely indirectly, forces cutting down of more rain forest lands for their other food production as the demand for sugar cane grows in order to fuel the demand for ethanol.
No, because that competition is exported to other countries and your climate may not grow any crops that would make economic sense to use for ethanol (I don't know this, am just posturing, uh, postulating).
Use oil as a metaphor. What if Brazil is forced to raise prices dramatically on ethanol, or chose to, in order to "profit."
Would Sweden then need to create a large standing army to invade Brazil to guarantee their supply of ethanol?
Or would the EU need an army to go to Indonesia and Malaysia, if biodiesel supplies produced "efficiently" from what used to be rainforest, now used to grow palm, were to be interrupted?
This is not a local "solution" in any sense of the word. It is just another way to make sure automobile culture continues as long as is humanly, not naturally, possible.
That's why we want to make fuels form our forests, waste from the paper industry and so on. We allready have plants that produces fuels from wood, albeit mostly expreminetal ones. Full producion plants are planned though. Biodiesel form the waste of the paper industry have a very large potential, it could replace all fossil diesel we use today.
Importing ethanol from Brazil is a stop gap measure. Soon we will have our own fuels. Ethanol will probably be one of many. Transportation will probably mostly be powered by electric (we have plenty of hydro power and nuclear), biodisels, biogas, alcohols and solid fuels.
Most of the ethanol produced in Sweden today is made from wheat grown localy. The plant in Norrköping produces about 55000 cubic meters of ehtanol. An expansion is in process of expanding the output to 210000 cubic meters per year. Not mutch yet, but it's getting there. Wheat based ethanol production is a positive EROEI process. Corn based ethanol is not.
A recent problem is that our right wing goverment have abolished the import duties on Brazillian ethanol. This is stupid, it does not motivate local production.
And I don't think cellulosic ethanol is a dream only.
http://www.ethanolstatistics.com/Industry_News/Exclusive/Novozymes_Expec...
And I'm back from my weekend trip. 1100 km (~683 miles) on E85 in total.