 | Oil Prices Below $40 per Barrel | The Oil Drum: Europe | Will the UK Face a Natural Gas Crisis this Winter? (Part 2 of 2) |  |
63 comments on Oilwatch Monthly December 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
63 comments on Oilwatch Monthly December 2008
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
It annoys me that different kinds of liquid fuel are added together.
Things that are different can not be compared, added, subtracted, divided or multiplied. If they are anyway the result is silly nonsense.
What is the point of adding bio fuels to other liquid production? It does nothing to clarify the situation. Just tell what the production of each liquid fuel was and show a graph of each.
I suspect those who add different kinds of liquid fuel together are either the most obtuse thinkers around or are purposely trying to obfuscate what is going on.
Adding nonrenewable which is the problem to renewable which is the solution makes no sense. The energy content of each is different besides. All it does is befuddle the reader which evidently is the object.
@X,
If you would look in the Oilwatch PDF you can see the different types of liquids in separated production graphs (as far as separation is possible). Including a graph which looks at energy content.
Just open the PDF and your wish is granted.
I did so. Very good overview.
Would you venture a guess as to what you expect C&C production in 2009Q1 will be? (On average)
@eastender
Quick guess, between 72.5 and 73.0 million b/d.
Rembrandt
If the OPEC cuts just announced are kept to then it's going to be way, way below that. More like 70 - 71 mbpd surely? That's if OPEC announced cuts hold.
Rembrandt,
I'm confused.
I notice there are 8 Gb of natural gas liquids-pentane,hexane(2007) but that's really 7.3 Gboe.
Is barrels actual barrels equivalent?
EIA says a barrel is 42 gallons, strictly volumetric not boe. NGL do go into refining gasoline but it can't be as efficient as using crude oil.
I realize that this data is coming from IEA, EIA in a certain form(volumetric data) but could it conceal a boe Peak(Campbell uses boe)?
And does OPEC really produce 41 mbpd of liquid hydrocarbon 'products'? I thought they really only produced crude hydrocarbons. Most oil producers import
refined oil products, which suggests they may be more
dependent on world markets that they would like to think.
@Majorian
>I notice there are 8 Gb of natural gas liquids-pentane,hexane(2007) but that's really 7.3 Gboe.
Is barrels actual barrels equivalent?<
I don't understand your question as I don't know which piece of data you are referring to. Which chart, section of the report?
>And does OPEC really produce 41 mbpd of liquid hydrocarbon 'products'? I thought they really only produced crude hydrocarbons. Most oil producers import
refined oil products, which suggests they may be more
dependent on world markets that they would like to think.<
Where is it stated that we talk about liquid hydrocarbon products? Please look on page 1 at the definitions for crude oil and liquids:
Liquids, all forms of liquid fuels including conventional, heavy, and extra heavy oil, oil shale, oil sands, natural gas liquids, lease condensates, gas-to-liquids, coal-to-liquids, and biofuels.
Rembrandt
If I understand correctly, there is a bit of a "double counting" problem, in that it requires energy inputs (including some oil) to produce biofuels, and unless I am very much mistaken these inputs are not subtracted out.
You are not very much mistaken. This issue has been discussed for years on this site. One wonders if the new Secretary of Agriculture understands it. (I assume New Sec of Energy Chu does, but perhaps I should not)
Nate, you are right, you should not assume so. I've had discussions about biofuels and net energy in particular with Chu and a number of other physicists and energy scientists around the Lab, and there is a jaw-dropping lack of understanding of what it is and why it matters. Almost to a person, the only metric that matters is financial return. And forget scalability--as one leading physicist told me (and he lectures publicly on energy solutions), "If we just used the $700 billion in bailout money, we could solve all these problems!". Argh.
That is rather surprising to hear Sparaxis. I've made the point before that the oil patch could care less about net energy gain. For us it has always been, and will always be, payout and rate of return which determines a project's viability. I would have thought the Lab was so removed from the commercial world as to not be so influenced. OTOH, if the gov't expects the bulk of the progress to be made by private enterprise this will likely be the only metric applied. But gov't subsidies (like ethanol) can change the parameters somewhat.
It has been established by the USDA that for every seven gallons of ethanol you use a gallon of oil(diesel, fuel oil, etc.) in ethanol production.
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm
Since a gallon of ethanol has 2/3 of the energy of crude oil, you are 3.66 gallons ahead using ethanol;(7 x 2/3)-1 = 3.66 gallons.
Though this has been demagogued many times of this site, it has yet to be discussed in an objective way.
Hey, this could be the first time!
"Though this has been demagogued many times of this site, it has yet to be discussed in an objective way.
Hey, this could be the first time!"
I doubt it ;-)
Do you generally trust every bit of data that comes out of the US government? If not, why put trust in this one?
The problem is that most people and institutions putting out studies on this have vested interests one way or the other. I am skeptical of most claims, but particularly those put out by the gov and of course by the ethanol industry. How foolish would the gov look if after they invested so much money in corn-base ethanol they put out a study showing it provided no new energy?
What is and isn't included in the inputs for these studies has a huge effect on the outcomes, of course.
As far as I've seen, only some forms of bio-diesel show any real promise of long-term sustainability (there I did it, I used the dreaded s-word!).
I see that Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich leads the Governors' Ethanol Coalition. What a surprise.
Demagogue is not a verb. Mislead is a verb. It is what you do at every opportunity.
The fundamental thing that people should remember is that the net energy from the corn ethanol process is negative according to independent analysts, and very slightly positive according to industry aligned analysts.
The first questions are, what else can be accomplished with the energy consumed (not to mention the government subsidies) by the ethanol crew, and what else can be done with the land used to grow corn for fuel.
If you can't think better things than ethanol, then you haven't been paying attention.
There is, for example, an electrified rail transportation system, which could use the energy in the coal that is currently burned to generate electricity for the corn ethanol process. Such a transportation system would dramatically cut the consumption of liquid fuels used to maintain goods and labour markets. (See for example, "Electrification is the way to move Canada in the 1980's", Benjamin, L & Richards, D. [Summer 1981]Canadian Public Policy)
As for the land, if there is too much corn in the world and no need for other foodstuffs or fibres which might be produced therefrom, then leave it lie idle and let it slowly recuperate from the damage done from the years of industrial farming. At present rates of population growth, it will soon be needed for food production again. We'll all be better off, especially our progeny, to pay the farmer/landowner to count earthworms, than we are by paying them to misallocate resources such as coal, natural gas, and oil into the corn ethanol boondoggle.
post of day (my vote)
Not only is there too much corn, particularly in the U.S., but nearly all of it (#2 corn) is inedible by humans! Billions of bushels that we can't eat directly. #2 corn is all starch and no protein, unlike natural corn.
majorian -- Thus with the drastic reduction in their fuel costs and the continuation of the gov't subsidies, should we assume to be hearing about zooming profits from the ethanol plants this 4Q?
The current crash is bad for anyone who is in debt and the ethanol refiners surely are. However they do have
a guaranteed percentage of the declining gasoline market.
'Zooming profits' must be stinging sarcasm.
Ah he...
I don't think you got stung too hard majorian. You're a tough old bird who stands by your words. Yep...something of a cheap shot. But, as you say, having the gov't require folks to buy your product (and then give you a subsidy on top of that) should make for some pretty good economic headlines for this industry we've yet to see.
Which means that for every 7 gallons of ethanol in that all liquids graph, it should show 2.66 gal to be commensurate with pre-ethanol numbers (7 -> 3.66, less the gallon used to make it.)