<The Air Car Part 2 - Q & A With Louis Arnoux of IT-MDI The Oil Drum 2007: record year for US wind industry>
<DrumBeat: January 19, 2008 DrumBeat DrumBeat: January 21, 2008>

253 comments on DrumBeat: January 20, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

xeroid on January 20, 2008 - 11:09am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Westexas,

What do you think will be a realistic world net exports decline rate, once they start to decline?

I am trying to work out what will happen to availability of gasoline and diesel in 'net importer' countries - how quickly it will approach zero.
I am assuming that some uses of a barrel of crude will take priority.
This means that things with high priority take more than their fair share of the declining resource.

ie.: unpolluted fresh water is the greatest need, agriculture next, then military, then hospitals and so on.

I also assume that because world population is growing exponentially so also will the energy (and oil) requirements for fresh water, irrigation, food, fertilizer etc.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on January 20, 2008 - 11:30am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The EIA showed a small overall net export decline in 2006, that I strongly suspect accelerated in 2007.

Note that our mathematical ELM showed that its post-peak net exports would only be 10% of post-peak production, with consumption equal to 50% of production at peak.

For the world, perhaps the best way to envision the situation is using an exported production to export ratio (EP/E). Our middle case is that the post-2005 top five net exports would only show cumulative net exports of about 100 Gb, with annual 2005 net exports of about 23 mbpd. In round numbers, the top five are about half of world net exports.

Let's assume the bottom half post-2005 cumulative net exports are on the order of 150 Gb. So, the total post-2005 net exports, based on this assumption and our middle case for the top five, would be about 250 Gb. At the 2005 rate of export, the remaining world net export capacity would be gone in about 15 years. Of course we don't produce or export at maximum capacity and then go to zero in one year, but it does give one a pretty good idea of the problems we are facing with post-2005 net export capacity.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
xeroid on January 20, 2008 - 12:26pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

(EP/E)? Is that like a Hubbert linearisation plot?

I am only looking ahead to about 2020, since that is the planning timescale the UK government is using to start to change things like 'new nuclear' and windmills.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on January 20, 2008 - 12:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Except that it is forward looking. It's analogous to the standard Reserve to Production Ratio.

Back to the ELM:

Production at peak: 2.0 mbpd
Consumption at peak: 1.0 mbpd

Remaining recoverable reserves at peak: 17 Gb
Remaining cumulative net exports at peak: 1.7 Gb

R/P = 17 Gb divided by 0.73Gb/year = 23 years

EP/E = 1.7 Gb divided by 0.365 Gb/year = 4.7 years

Because of declining net exports, ELM hit zero net exports in 9 years.

The top five (middle case) export numbes are as follows:

EP/E = 100 Gb divided 8.4 Gb/year = 12 years

Our middle case shows the top five approaching zero net exports in 26 years (from the 2005 peak).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
xeroid on January 20, 2008 - 1:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So, as a mid-case would it be reasonable to expect total world net exports to be reduced by ~50% by 2020 (in 12 years) - that's ~5% a year decline rate (from 46 mbpd in 2005 to 23 mbpd in 2020.)

By 2020 I am expecting world population to be around 7.6 billion, up from 6.6 billion today, a 15% increase overall - not sure yet what percentage it will be for net importer countries.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on January 20, 2008 - 1:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sounds reasonable, but a key point to keep in mind is that the year to year net export decline rate starts out slowly, and accelerates with time, but once the decline kicks in, the volumetric decline rate tends to be approximately linear, i.e., close to a fixed rate per year.

So, if the overall world net export decline really kicked in, in 2007, one might expect the decline to be on the order of 1.5 mbpd per year. The 2006 and 2007 data suggest that the top five are dropping at about one mbpd per year in 2006 and 2007.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
enemy of state on January 20, 2008 - 1:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The one problem (or maybe I should say refinement) with the ELM, is that the indigenous demand is driven by profits from the exported oil. As the amount of exported oil decreases, the consumption growth -and possibly consumption itself should be affected. Of course higher per unit price might delay this effect. Two more complicating obvious factors exist. If an oil exporting country is smart they won't subsidise local consumption, as local consumption decreases export revenues. Also if the oil exporters SWF does well that can become a major source of funds for domestic consumption.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
xeroid on January 20, 2008 - 1:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Who really knows what the future will be?

I would like to know what it can't be - that eliminates some scenarios maybe.

My opinion is that any exporter would not be sensible to export more than is required to balance their imports - they need their oil to last as long as possible.

So, that does not necessarily mean growth of exports of crude oil will continue to be as the importers require for their BAU.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oldhippie on January 20, 2008 - 2:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

For all the reasons you have mentioned what the future will not include is exponentially increasing population. The peak is now. A very short plateau if there is a plateau at all.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
stevelevine on January 20, 2008 - 3:47pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The Saudis' strategy is eminently shrewd. Take away more of Big Oil's value stream, capture those extra tens of billions of dollars in chemicals, refining and plastics profit for itself, and thus extend and expand the life of its cash cow. Kuwait, Qatar and the UAE are doing the same in chemicals and refining. Russia and Kazakhstan are as well in terms of attempting to capture pieces of Europe's downstream power and refining sectors.

In the big picture, it fits into the thesis of Paul Kennedy's classic Rise and Fall of Great Powers: They are rising, we are falling.

Steve LeVine, author
The Oil and the Glory
http://www.oilandglory.com

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mbnewtrain on January 20, 2008 - 4:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I agree 100%.

Suadi's ARAMCO bought GE's plastics division a year ago to fit this goal of controlling the market of materials and products made from oil. Much of this internal consumption in the coming years will be for the production of things made from oil. Another industry thus lost by the US and handed over to an oil rich country.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
gwb on January 20, 2008 - 11:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think Saudi Arabia's move to diversify into industries like plastics and fertilizer is not just a unilateral move on their part; the U.S. companies in these industries are looking to move their plants to where natural gas and oil are still relatively plentiful and cheap. North America is running low on natural gas; these industries can't get cheap gas here anymore. It's a lot cheaper to move the plant to where the gas is, than try to bring LNG here.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wideblacksky on January 20, 2008 - 7:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Big deal; they'll be lucky to last 10 years like this. A massively overgrown youthful population in the middle of a desert totally dependent on a depleting resource? I don't envy them their oil and I don't see how they expect to maintain this transitory state for long at all.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
xeroid on January 20, 2008 - 5:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

what the future will not include is exponentially increasing population. The peak is now.

You may well be correct, I agree it will happen eventually, but will it be in the next 12 years (the planning outlook period for my government) - it is not clear how soon 'peak sapiens' could be, for food and water reasons. At the moment it is all down to guesses and opinions - the reason I am asking these questions is to try and see what 'can't-possibly-be' in a bit more detail - what is the best case?

I think, for a while at least, fresh water and agriculture will, if at all possible, get all the liquid fuels and chemicals they need - whereas aviation and long range tourism, as an example, will be at the bottom of the list of people to get adequate supplies of oil.

From the EIA statistics almost every 'net exporting' country is already showing the ELM effect, which is bad enough for 'net importers' (especially those that import close to 100% of their needs!), but then add in the fact that certain parts of the struggling economy will get more than their fair share ... hmmmmm!

I also think that some areas of the world can be self-sufficient in food for quite a while, just like some nations can be self-sufficient in fossil fuels for quite a while.

For all the things that are going to peak, we won't peak everywhere in the world simmultaneously - the trick will be to avoid as many as possible of the peaks coming to a place near you soon!

There are already several countries in the world who are post 'peak oil', watch and learn what the failure modes are - then maybe you will have a viable plan B when it happens to you?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oldhippie on January 20, 2008 - 7:25pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Upthread you mention a guesstimate of 7.6 billion by 2020. So far as I can tell no government anywhere is making preparations to feed 7.6 billion mouths. There are no preparations to make.

I suppose theoretically it would be possible if we ate drastically less meat, if the weather always cooperated, if if if. Do you expect that will happen? Do you think it could happen? No one here knows the future, you just asked what possibilities could be eliminated and my guess is that further population growth is about the least likely event you might plan for.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
WNC Observer on January 21, 2008 - 9:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Or, to extend your comment to a more general truth:

"no government anywhere is making preparations"

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on January 21, 2008 - 9:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

France may be going 15 kph in the right direction, when they should be doing 125 kph, but I think thye (and Switzerland) can be said to be making preparations.

On 1/1/06, President Chirac announced plans to electrify "every meter" of the French rail system and "burn not one drop of oil"when completed in 20 years.

In November of last year rent-a-bikes were brought to several mid-size cities. (First half hour free). And the numbers are increasing rapidly in Paris etc.

France has just started work on a new generation of nuclear reactors.

A second Phase of TGV building has been announced (a multi-decade effort) as the last leg of the first phase nears completion after almost 30 years.

France plans for 1,500 km of new Urban Rail (in the next decade ?)

Speeding up existing programs is a much easier, and faster, than starting from scratch.

Their plans may not be fast enough, but they have been working steadily on this for several decades (one could say since 1973) and have a lot already in operation.

Best Hopes for the Prepared,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oldhippie on January 21, 2008 - 4:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, France is doing all that.

France doesn't control the weather and France's agricultural output is both sporadic and very much at risk.

France has had it's neck out for years supporting small farmers and local production and it doesn't feed 7,6 billion. Southern France is drying out, the forests are burning and no matter how much one admires France there is just no direction they could take that addresses the problem.

Switzerland is in decline. Their environment is being trashed by GW. Tourism needs oil, tourism needs snow. Switzerland may survive in some form but it won't be pretty.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

253 comments on DrumBeat: January 20, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version