ASPO-USA Sacramento - a Comment
Posted by Heading Out on October 5, 2008 - 9:50am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: cera, climate change, coal, ihs energy, natural gas, original, peak oil [list all tags]
This is the post where I try and draw my own conclusions from the Conference. And not recognizing many of the papers in this does not mean that they weren’t important, but rather that from my own perspective that this is what I got most from.
The recurrent word that cropped up, again and again, was Scale. It was an attempt by the speakers to try and convey to their audience the size of the problem that is coming at us, increasingly rapidly. That one word encapsulates the difference between those who talk of the world energy problem in Quads (quadrillion Btu’s), as opposed to those that talk of the solution in terms of kilowatts and Megawatts. (The handy Dashboard on my Mac tells me that a Megawatt is 56,869 Btus/min. A Quad is 1,000,000,000,000,000 Btu.) The current shortages of gasoline are largely brought about by a transient closure of refineries that affects around 1 mbd of oil supply. The time is not far distant when such shortages will become more regular as we compete for supply in a more competitive global market.
The tipping point that seemed still a comfortable distance away three years ago when the American ASPO meetings began in Denver, is now just about here. And the solutions that have been discussed do not approach, as yet, the millions of barrels a day (mbd) of fuel replacement that we may need before long. At the same time, to return to the theme of my own paper, we do not have the educated human resource that we need. Data from my Dean of Enrollment shows that ACT report national high school student interest in engineering was at 14% in 1982. By 1992 it had dropped to 9%. By 2005 it was down to 5%, and has fallen below that since.
(Ed note: In what follows I’m referencing presentations now, rather than folk, and the citations are pdf files.)
The net result is that we are heading into trouble. As Matt Simmons, I think, said “it will make what happened in the past week look like a picnic.” Glancing back through Richardson Gill’s The Great Maya Drought I found the section where he talks of the impact of famine, and how priorities switch from nation, to community, to family, to self. We’re still at the nation level, or even, some might say, still thinking globally, but one wonders how long that will last. Because the numbers are real, the decline in global production is coming, and it is going to be soon. And the decline curve will be greater than we anticipate.
In that regard I do have to tip my hat to the organizers for inviting Peter Wells to give what might be considered the cornucopian view. And he came and talked to a room full of cynics, so my hat is tipped again. But that being said, the CERA/IHS position and predictions have been proven wrong so consistently, that some of the value of the talk came from seeing how intelligent people can be led so far astray. Though to be fair, his predictions were less optimistic than those coming from CERA. And I appreciate his giving us the view “from the other side of the fence,” and the problems that the folk in the Middle East have in deciding what world demand will be so that they do not overproduce into a market in a way that will drive the price down.
Part of the problem comes from what is defined as a resource, rather than a reserve, recognizing that this changes with circumstance. For example the heavy oils that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and Iran cannot produce and sell at the moment (e.g. Manifa) depend on the construction of new refineries, such as those at Yanbu and Jubail. The Jubail refinery is scheduled to come on line in in 2012, with a production of 400,000 bd. The Yanbu refinery that will take the other half of the Manifa production is scheduled to come on line in 2013. To count the Manifa oil as an immediate reserve, as KSA and Mr Wells apparently does, is thus, in my opinion, wrong. By the time that it comes into production that oil will be needed to match declines in production from the remaining fields in KSA, which by then will be in visible decline. The evidence for that was provided by Joules Burn.
Mr Wells predictions for exploration success are, I believe, likely to be found optimistic, and the chances of Saudi Aramco being able to achieve the levels of sustained production from Enhanced Oil Recovery techniques that he gave are very optimistic. As a result I don’t think that we will see a sustained KSA production that rises much above 11 mbd, if it reaches that high (he thinks more that 12 mbd and sustained). I also think that his projections for Iraq, at up to 7 mbd, are way above what is likely to be achieved, even if the political mess out there does get straightened out in the next ten years. But then, the nice/bad thing about making projections is that, after a while, you get to see whether they were true. And sadly, we will know soon enough, whether undue optimism was in fact warranted.
With crude oil supply in bad shape, finding that natural gas supplies were no better as Andy Weissman pointed out reinforced some opinions that I had already formed, and written about. But it leaves no other immediate choice, than a greater reliance on coal. It may not be popular, it may have lots of cost issues. (I cannot yet see a willingness to pay the power and financial costs for significant carbon capture and sequestration, nor the political will, when that cost is openly discussed) but there is little else.
On the liquid fuel alternatives, Robert Rapier was his usual excellent self in reviewing biodiesel. Though while I don’t completely disagree with his notion that “algal biodiesel” is still an R&D project, I do suspect that if the different parts of that complex puzzle are addressed simultaneously, rather than in order, then the impact can be sooner, and more promising, than he holds out (but then I’m biased). But that said, there is not yet enough promise in the biodiesel future to answer the need.
However I would like to close with recognizing the talk that Randy Udall gave. If it takes a little courage to come as a cornucopian to a peak oil conference, it takes a lot more to get up and tell folks not only that Peak Oil is more important than Climate Change, but also that there is an arrogance in the IPCC community, intolerant of outside information. He shared a note from them:
“We are all extraordinary skeptical of the "peak oil" stuff. We know of no reliable information that suggests that we're going to be running significantly short of any fossil fuel in this century…It certainly won't happen with any significant price on carbon.“We've done a few 300-year scenarios that have some shortages in them, but even that may not be realistic. This is especially so with coal!”
“The Chinese say they have enough coal for centuries…The idea that we're only going to reach 450 ppm is not defensible, especially when we're already around 385 ppm. Do we really think there is only another 60 years of fossil fuel left? I don't think so.”
With all the politicians now so earnestly lined up to parrot this opinion, it is going to take a significant shock to divert their, and the world’s attention.
Sadly I suspect we may see it, even before the next conference. (There were even those who wondered whether the situation would get bad enough in the next year that we might not have one.)
And so I came away a lot more apprehensive than on my arrival. Somehow having a lot of folk confirm my fears brought home that this is not a theoretical exercise in a way that, as an academic, I sometimes forget.
The talks were all information intensive, and I would highly recommend not only downloading the presentations, but also getting the DVD’s when they are issued. The Energy Challenge has already posted some information on where and when.
I submitted a written question to Mr. Wells, "What impact (and when) will North Ghawar watering out have ?"
He responded that they were already getting high water cuts and shutting in some wells, it is not a sudden oil > water (I knew this, besides Ghawar is too large to water out uniformly).
And then, in a quiet voice, he said that North Ghawar should "mostly" water out within the next two years or so.
He did not address the impact of this development.
Alan
That sounds scary! I don't remember hearing him say that, but it would have been easy to miss.
I do remember a change in tone and volume when he said that. And, yes, for someone with claimed special knowledge, it is scary.
I believe that statement more than offset every positive about KSA that he touted.
Alan
I caught that, too, as did Jeffrey, but then his slide shows no reduction in SA's production (in addition to a tripling of Iraq's production in about fifteen years).
Something doesn't add up.
Something doesn't add up
Aramco claims for future production capacity ?
Alan
Hi Gail and Alan,
Did anyone take audio or video of Peter Wells' presentation?
I suppose it's also possible to ask him for confirmation.
Westexas, AAngel and I all remember him saying this (I had a conversation with Jeffrey about it). There is some value in getting the exact wording, but really not that much.
I think it is clear that it is not a message that he wants to shout from the rooftops.
Alan
Now that I am reminded I also seem to recollect hearing this, and may have noted it at the time.
It was likely videod by Terrachord, the conference production company.
GREAT post HO, as always.
A problem of "Scale" and perspective to set priorities.
I bet many of us here started focusing on the "family" part quite a while ago (and if you're like me, have been dragging them kicking and screaming into the Real 21st century).
I believe Scale will be dictated by Finances and Time. In other words, priorities will (should) be set by what can actually be accomplished given these constraints. This will be true of not only nations but also individuals.
Now in reality, I believe that what will occur will be a clusterf..k of grandiose plans (both governmental and individual) that have no chance of success and will never come to fruition. This will lead to receding horizons making it even more difficult to succeed as time is lost and costs escalate.
Todd
"Peak Oil is more important than Climate Change, but also that there is an arrogance in the IPCC community ".
The IPCC and climate change has been a most horrible distraction at this TimezUp.
Thank the godz for people like Mr. Udall, Matt Simmons and Ken Deffeyes - leaders with a spine who are Awake and Sober.
While I believe in AGW, I lament the fact that scientists have become political activists. When that happens, you get bad science. Inquiries regarding PO at realclimate.org are met with a blanket "we use USGS figures. There is a enough coal for centuries", even though James Hansen has co-authored papers on more realistic emission scenarios. Recognising the limit of FF reserves should be part of seeking the truth, but risks watering down the "message" on GW. I think AGW still remains a severe threat even with limited FF, so this should not be the case.
I sense that after being ignored and downgraded for many years, (e.g. researchers applications being vetted for views on abortion), scientists are keen to make a stand on what is an important issue. However, as PO becomes a real issue during this century, the public will ask why scientists did not warn about such a vital issue. The public will think, why should we ever to listen to scientists again.
As a conference attendee I found the dismissal of Climate change and an immediate issue to be very frustrating. The IPCC is an intergovernmental organization that produces political scientific documents (kind of like the EIA) and has been criticized as bowing to political pressure
to downplay the more serious scenarios of climate change. While Udall quoted some researchers who were dismissive of PO that is by no means typical. James Hanson, for example, has been quoted her on TOD as saying estimates of future fossil fuel production are inaccurate. Moreover, Hanson and others have pointed out that a reduction in fossil fuel use that will attend a decrease in supply are likely to exacerbate warming as the cooling effect of aerosols will be diminished.
New research into Anthropogenic climate change has identified several tipping points that could lead to rapid, and catastrophic changes in climate. Much of this new research can be found in concise form in Fred Pearce’s With Speed and Violence. I would recommend that those who dismiss Climate Change as a non-immediate problem check it out.
I am continually amazed at the tunnel vision involved on both sides. We heard many speakers call out the EIA for the fact that they have downplayed PO for political reasons. Yet those same folks embrace the IPCC’s “its serious but not that serious” position on climate change. Rapid changes in the earth’s climate will be catastrophic. For example, Randy Udall dismissal of water shortages and population ignores the effect that a loss of glacial storage will have on Asian populations or what effect a decreased snow pack will have on the American West. Far from being courageous, those who feel that we must ignore one problem to address another are simply myopic.
At the risk of stirring a little controversy, the debates and discussions on Climate Change and Peak Oil do not occur in an isolated environment. By which I mean that the public are aware through personal observation of the impacts of both. If the current impact of Climate Change has only been, for most of the United States, that the winters have got a little warmer, and that the temperatures have yet to surpass those of the 1930's, then it is hard for the public to be concerned.
If at the same time the price of gas has multiplied over four times in the last couple of years, driven in part by a diminishing gap between supply and demand at a reasonable price, then it rapidly becomes more evident to the public which is the more immediate problem.
Unfortunately, I suspect for the nations energy security, the issue of Climate Change (have you noticed that since the globe has, at least temporarily apparently stopped warming - except in the Northern Latitudes - the phraseology has changed) has seized the politicians attention. The problem that this raises is that, in accepting Hansen's maxim that "coal is the enemy of mankind", they put needed power stations on hold, or cancel them. Thus, since there is a lead time in construction, if and when that power will be required (even railroads need power from somewhere, as do electric cars) it may not be there since the scale of renewable and sustainable energy growth within the needed time scale is not going to be sufficient.
This is not to say that certain parts of the world are not seeing severe impacts from Climate Change - the droughts in Australia being one example, and if the patterns of the last warming period are followed, the droughts in California and in the South East may be sustained for decades, rather it is to suggest that the price of heating oil this winter, and whether there will be enough natural gas to go around are more immediate problems that the public can relate to. But even there getting an accelerated solution to the problem is proving to be quite difficult.
Climate scientists have used the term "Climate Change" since the 80s as they knew, even then, that it was not just a question of warming. The popular media has preferred Global Warming. My Master Thesis in 1991 was "Promethean Legacy: Global Climate Change and U.S. Energy Policy."
My point is that people express frustration with overly optimistic scenarios regarding PO tend to discount climate change effects because they are only looking at overly optimistic scenarios.
I think the best way I have seen how to combine climate & peak oil has been done by Rob Hopkins from transition towns movement:
http://transitionculture.org/
From the Transition Handbook:
"The Transition Timeline is a tool for the Transition communities starting to grapple with preparing their local Energy Descent Plans. The first version is nearing completion, and should be made available next month, and it is intended as an ongoing interactive project.
It lays out the global context of peak oil and climate change in some detail and then considers the Transition Vision of how the UK could develop over the next 20 years within that context, looking at the key areas which local subgroups have tended to form around, such as food, transport, electricity generation, health and so forth."
Homer- Dixon's The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity and the Renewal of Civilization is another great source. Homer-Dixon sees 5 interlocking stressors: peak oil, climate change, environmental destruction, population and economic inequality.
Peak Oil and Climate Change must be addressed together, comprehensively. And yes, Homer-Dixon extends that argument very persuasively. Personally, I use "resource depletion, toxic planet, climate change, cancerous growth and economic inequality" as the five stressors. I was at a Transition Town workshop this weekend and I hammered on economic inequality and class as something largely left out of the Transition Initiative. It's critical because that is the basis of legitimacy, social contract and any decisionmaking process. Transition Towns is very middle class; that's important in that what's left of middle class has to get angry, but it's not enough to have only middle class participation.
All of these stressors have to be reconciled together if we are to have a "positive" outcome.
cfm in Gray, ME
Actually, the IPCC is 100% right about that. Where I differ with the IPCC and climate change activists is that I consider the CC situation to be beyond any political fix. I agree with Lovelock, the climate is way past the tipping point. The numbers:
We have measured 70 ppm increase in 50 years. Assume that use of fossil fuels is at peak now, and will rapidly decline mirroring the growth over the past 50 years. (Wrong, because natural gas and coal use is still increasing) Assume no positive feedbacks from the environment (Arctic peat does not decay, the Amazon does not burn). Disregard the several decade time delay between atmospheric chemistry changes and climate changes. You still end up at 455 ppm by 2058. The CO2 persists for hundreds of years at least.
The last time that CO2 was above 450 ppm was the Eocene. Antarctica was ice free at that time. The seas were 70 meters higher. It could take centuries for all the ice to melt, but that is the destination.
How you feel about this depends on where you live. If you have farm land in Iceland at 100 meters elevation, you would not be troubled. My perspective living in the South Pacific is a bit different.
Some of the islands are getting flooded out already. For people living on atolls, where their ancestors have lived for 3000 years, it is already the end of their world. I was also in the Caribbean recently. One of the most shocking unreported stories is that almost all the shallow water coral in the Caribbean died in 2005 due to high sea surface temperatures. It is not recovering. The great barrier reef coral, already suffering dieoffs, will probably all be dead within 30 years. These disasters have already happened or are in progress, while the sacred mass consumers are still enjoying this year's new record global liquids production.
The idea that running out of fossil fuels will prevent catastrophic climate change is wrong, wrong, wrong. Maybe if oil had peaked in 1958, it would have helped. Maybe we would have a world population of 2 billion with a nuclear electric economy by now. But that didn't happen. If anything, fuel switching like coal to liquids projects will accelerate and exacerbate climate change. The climate change people are correct to be indifferent to PO, except concerning how it encourages greater global coal and natural gas use.
Obviously, PO is going to trigger all sorts of chaos in the economy and food production. Cherfurka predicts that world population could decline by 5 or 6 billion by 2100 due to PO. But that would be necessary anyway. The carrying capacity of the Eocene climate world will be much lower than at present. Even if someone invents tabletop fuson, the dieoff is going to happen anyway.
You seem to have not been attentive to the material published here at TOD on the issue. I recomend these posts:
Implications of "Peak Oil" for Atmospheric CO2 and Climate
The Coal Question and Climate Change
It's still possible that we have passed the tipping points or that the additional carbon we are still going to add to the atmosphere will have us pass the tipping points.
The conclusions drawn in both of those articles are based on the thinking available at the time, and, as MicroHydro points out, things are much worse than the IPCC reported, in my view.
Climate change may be another problem that gets away from us, to borrow a term from Dr. Hirsch.
You need to check a geologic record of CO2 in the atmosphere. We are at 380 ppm, not 3800 ppm.
Over the epochs going back to the Pre-Cambrian, Carbon Dioxide has been locked away by the planet in the form of Carbonates, Organic rich muds, coal, oil, and gas.
Fortunately for the planet, a group of apes came along and mined and burned the captive carbon.
Thus restoring the balance.
Gaia theory works:-).
But if apes continue doing so dinosaurs will return and wipe them away.
I am continually amazed at the complete lack of logic displayed by otherwise seemingly intelligent people. The above post is a perfect example. How can such a statement be made, logically? It cannot. Let us examine:
1. Climate Change can end humanity, PO cannot.
We do not know what the climate consequences are going to be. Runaway warming could make the planet inhabitable for humans. Can PO? No. Even if all don't die, in such a warming scenario only a tiny fraction would survive. (While there is a difference in terms of survival of humans if 6.6 billion die and as opposed to none surviving, the difference for those alive now and their descendants, would a world of.1 billion people be recognizable to us? No, so it is a moot point.) This alone makes the above sentiments not only illogical, but demonstrably false.
2. We don't know when either will manifest in an unambiguous way, but we know both can have extraordinary impacts in very short time periods. Yes, BOTH. Climate can flip in as little as two years, which is nothing, really. This alone makes the above sentiments not only illogical, but demonstrably false.
There is more to say, but I must get to bed. In any case, saying one is more important than the other is ludicrous just yet.
Cheers
Which particular statement were you saying was illogical? Wars over resources have been going on for millennia, and with nuclear weapons have the potential for escalation to the point where Civilization can be destroyed, in a time scale even shorter than two years. We are still competing for resources with other countries, and I anticipate that this competition will grow.
Given that the planet was in the past 6ºC warmer than today I'd like to hear how that could be possible (solely by increaing atmospheric CO2).
Eradicating the last of the hunter-gatherer tribes in Patagonia, New Zealand, etc. will be quite difficult IMHO.
However, humans were not around the last time the climate was +6 C, crocodile teeth on high Arctic islands imply a VERY different world. Human organization above the extended family, any knowledge of history or science, will probably go extinct in such a world.
Alan
Why?
Knowledge and organization are lost as radically hanging circumstances result in upheaval in everything, including population #s.
Step by step, with little time or opportunity to increase knowledge or complexity, knowledge and social organization will decline over centuries and millennium. I suspect that resource wars will be the direct cause of much of the decline as crocodiles move towards the poles.
Crop failures coupled with shrinking land area are powerful disruptive factors.
As a counter example, the Chinese evolved a society that accepted famine as "normal" and without excessive disruption (a new dynasty perhaps). But these were normal, Malthusian cycles within a "normal" range. Vast areas of farmland did not just disappear beneath the waves.
Alan
I fail to see what any of this has to do with atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Even after the cold events of the III and V centuries, that plunged us into the dark ages, European culture rebounded once more during the Medieavel Warm Period just to endure the much more serious transition imposed by the Sporer Minimum.
Those were minor, almost trivial, natural variations. Human society degraded and then recovered, using cultural resources from isolated islands (Ireland, Arab).
We are discussing the impact of man made Global Warming on an uncontrolled level !
A papercut compared to multiple lethal stab wounds PLUS terminal cancer !
The homes of more than half of humanity will disappear under neath the waves. All farming and all weather patterns will be disrupted (think crocodiles in the high arctic).
Alan
I am looking forward to the DVD set. I just can't justify the expense of flying to the West Coast for a meeting about peak oil. Unfortunately I miss the one-on-one conversations with people that way.
One thing that strikes me is that this is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Not that much changes on a week to week basis, and in a sense the basic story hasn't changed in years - it is only the details that change.
Hehe. The web link to order the DVD set is partially up, but it doesn't look like they are quite ready to accept orders yet:
http://www.regonline.com/Checkin.asp?EventId=662327
I found the link on the first page of Kjell Aleklett's pdf file of proceedings..
INTELLECTUALS AWAKE,
Never mind what the Establishment and the masses say or think. It is time to change our lifestyle and plan our future. I think the intellectual Jews left Germany long before Hitler came for them.
We know what is coming down the tubes, and should plan our lives accordingly. Sure "they' may be wrong by 10-20, or even 30 years, but we of intellect must position now.
If the population of the planet keeps increasing, even God cannot save us from the inevitable. He may help a bit with mass pestilences, plagues and floods, but only those getting onto Noah's-Intellectual-Ark will be left to pick up the pieces. The lesser intuitive masses as always, will be the cannon fodder.
(Personal irrelevance, I have survived four social implosions by being ahead of the game. The lesser intellectual Patriots, are still biting the bullet in these societies)
Peak oil is a fact. Peak Credit seems to be a fact. Peak derivatives and peak leverage seem to be a fact. From here it is all downhill.
With the fact that one barrel of oil represents about 11 years of human work and represents about $200,000 modern dollars (TOD post), we had better get a touch of reality very soon.
For anyone of intellect to even think of continuing along the path which got us here, is an insanity.
0-60mph in 5 seconds, cars are an insanity.
100mph cars are an insanity,
Long range cars are an insanity. I live in a country where villages are about 10km apart (a horse/ox days range)
Mega houses and air-conditioning are an insanity. (I live where a room 10x10 can sleep 5+ people).
Suburbs and commuting 20+ kilometers to work are an insanity. If one cannot walk to work by 7am the job is not sustainable.
Asia, in its backwardness, will soon be ahead of the leaders.
Graham
Umm, four times? Once bacause you were born there, and one more from bad luck, but two more make me wonder about your skills as a prophet.
Frank
To My Critics,
Of course I now have to explain. I am not a bank clerk or a desk jockey whose main danger is a paper cut.
Half my family were high government officials in Zimbabwe. Circa 1970 they knew the writing was on the wall and pulled their money out.
By 1976 I decided South Africa was terminal so I built a yacht and sailed out. (a bit too soon but safer that way)
in 1977 I was in Argentina looking for a place to roost and was there for Mrs Peron's revolution, and the Disappeared and Dirty war. I left as soon as I realized the new regime was terminal.
Many years later 2000/2001 I was in Fiji looking for a good place to spend time when a Fijian called George Speight decided to fix the looming Indian Prime Minister problem, by kidnapping the Parliament.
I left as soon as I realized my future was not there.
Were I an Author I could write a book that would make the one trick Patriots sick with envy.
Graham