 | Some tanker arithmetic relating to LNG supply | The Oil Drum | The gas supply situation is not getting much clearer |  |
Thursday Open Thread...
Posted by Prof. Goose on January 26, 2006 - 5:44pm
Topic: Miscellaneous
Tags: jeremy leggett [list all tags]
Has anyone read the Jeremy Leggett piece from the Independent (UK) yet?
Update [2006-1-27 1:29:0 by Prof. Goose]: And there's this BBC piece out there too.
Do most fields in production use secondary or tertiary techniques, and how long after 50% of the reserve is gone, can they keep production at or near peak levels?
For instance, could most fields be 60-70% depleted and still be producing at or near peak levels?
Thanks..
Maybe TOD could do an entire blog on technology's effect on global peak of crude production. Or if you've done this already, I'd love to have a link. I searched for about 45 minutes and didn't find what I was looking for. I'll look again I guess.
Did Simmons talk about this in his book?
Thanks..
He does not believe technology increases total recovery. In fact, he believes the exact opposite. High tech methods increase production short-term, but decrease total recovery. At least for most oil fields (there are a few exceptions, depending on geology).
http://321energy.com/editorials/rudesill/rudesill083005.html
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/E%26P_Technologies/E%26P_main.html
http://ogj.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARTCL&ARTICLE_ID=114006
http://ogj.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=ARTCL&ARTICLE_ID=114877
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/Oilcrisis.htm
You could browse the archives of this site:
http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/magazine_contents.asp?Issue_Type=CURRENT
You have been very patient, it is an important question both for the amount we can actually recover and for the effects it will have on subsequent depletion rates. I, too, look forward to the comments of our more expert folks here.
(Unrelated) During my search I stumbled on this article:
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/speeches/mckillop.htm
which discusses price and demand elasticity, GDP and economic effects, etc. Since there's been a good deal of discussion about such things here lately I thought it worth posting, it looks interesting but I have only given it a cursory glance so far.
In the meantime, I hope Stuart at least acknowledges my post before Ghawar is empty! :)
As far, I have a feeling (i haven't done much reading on it, other than the link Agric posted) that gasoline demand becomes more inelastic the higher the price gets: the higher it gets, the more people that can afford the higher prices are priced out of the market.
Note to Zach: Don't let this disappointment drive you away!
Wow, Jack. Where to begin...
First, I would like to say that whether it is positive or negative criticism, I welcome it. So thanks! At least I know that you don't find the questions important, which is your opinion and you are of course entitled to it. But, as Agric so eloquently stated, "it is an important question both for the amount we can actually recover and for the effects it will have on subsequent depletion rates. I, too, look forward to the comments of our more expert folks here." I couldn't have said it better myself.
Secondly, everything you have accused me of not doing, or not willing to do, I said I have done or said I would do. Just read my posts sir. I stated that I don't want to appear too pushy and I was not being sarcastic or anything. I am understanding of people's time, especially people who volunteer it on a great site like this (I have been reading TOD since late 2004, just didn't see a need to post. The analysis and commentary was quite thorough.). In fact, Agric saw this and commended me. He obviously meant it.
Thirdly, I would like to concede that singling out Stuart turned out to be a bad idea here at TOD, but it requesting info form specific people works fine on Every Other Blog and Messageboard I've Been To. My 'acknowledgement before Ghawar is empty' statement had a smiley face on the end, indicating that it was a light hearted request and that I was eagerly awaiting a response, not demanding one. pfft.. You miss understood and took it as an opportunity for criticism. Which leads me to my next point.
Fourthly, after Leanan and Agric's very helpful posts you come off as a blog troll who has nothing better to do but criticize and make assumptions about what other people have done or will do. If it was my forum or blog, you'd have Strike 1 of 3.
Have a nice day and thank you all again for your help.
sigh..
However, I remain unconvinced that an advanced technological civilization of some kind cannot be maintained through other energy sources such as nuclear, solar, tidal, wind, etc. I think such a civilization will be very different from the consumptionist manic culture we have now but that's just an opinion.
I do not concider it a change of civilization when we electrified or when cars became cheap to buy and run. Why would a slowdown and more focus on quality, repair, software and manual services be much different?
I do not think we will loose any high tech, the present crisis encourages technological development. I suspect it might give the same kind of focus as the second world war or the cold war.
Civilization itself may be able to continue through known alternative energy source. What can not be maintained is the 6 billion global population. In another word, there will be a catastrophic massive die off of the population. Once the population is reduced to the level that the available amount of alternative energy can sustain, then things stablize and the civilization continue on, that is, unless an assuring resource war escalate into a nuclear exchange which wipes out civilization itself, then there is no future.
Why would one be surprise, massive population die off due to resource depletion had happened many times in the human history. It's just that this time it may be the first time it happen on a global scale. So it's un-precendent.
If 90% of the population dies, we'll lose an awful lot of knowledge. Could you build a bicycle or a computer or a solar panel yourself? From scratch, from refining the metals to construction to installation? What about if you're struggling to grow enough food to eat in a hostile world?
It is possible, even common, for "advanced" civilizations to lose knowledge. Even the literate ones, like ancient Egypt. I suspect our complexity will be a disadvantage, not an advantage. We're all specialists these days. Without the matrix of civilization around us, our skills are useless.
I actually think that this slow collapse - catabolic collapse - is the worst possible outcome. Probably the most likely outcome as well. We would switch to substitutes - coal and nuclear, probably. At first we would make an effort to maintain safety and environmental standards, but as the going got tougher, our standards would get lower and lower.
The very worst possible outcome would be Al Gore's nightmare: global warming run amok. As David Goodstein puts it, the earth is tipped into a condition "incompatible with life." That would not be entirely in our hands. Even if we refrain from burning coal, we can't stop China or Russia from doing it.
Even if that doesn't happen, the result of a catabolic collapse would be ugly. Topsoil stripped, water polluted (if there is any), trees all burned for firewood, plants and animals extinct due to human hunting and farming, chemical and radioactive waste poisoning the land for 100,000 years.
I think we should aim for sustainability, not maintaining our technology. Yes, I think the two are mutually exclusive. No, I don't think many will agree with me.
"Sustainabilty" of what?
If we don't keep out modern medical technology, then millions will die from disease. Plagues would spread.
Our modern medical system requires plastics, computers, etc. It relies on the rest of the technology food chain.
If everyone dies (except for a rare few of the "fittest"), that would be "sustainability"?
Medicine for thought.
Sustainability of the environment. Because if we don't husband our natural resources, we will have a hard crash - Easter Island times ten. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but one day.
Our modern medical system requires plastics, computers, etc. It relies on the rest of the technology food chain.
Exactly. We cannot sustain it. Not indefinitely. We have to prepare to do without it. Heck, even now, good health care is out of reach of most people, including a lot of Americans.
If everyone dies (except for a rare few of the "fittest"), that would be "sustainability"?
Not necessarily. But reducing our population substantially should be our #1 priority. Jared Diamond's Collapse is the most interesting when it discusses what it takes to succeed. To become a truly sustainable society. And population control is a big part it.
I'm not saying there has to be a big dieoff, or that we should all go live as hunter-gatherers tomorrow. But we should consider sustainability when we make choices today.
For example...do we build New Orleans, or don't we? With sustainability in mind, I say no. Pay to relocate them elsewhere, rather than using the money to build bigger levees.
Another example: health insurance often pays for Viagra, but not for birth control. It should be the opposite.
IMO, we should look at alternate energy sources - biofuels, solar, wind, nuclear - as temporary. They can help us transition to a sustainable society. But make it clear to people that it is temporary. That eventually, no one will be putting the powerlines back up after a big storm. Don't lie to them and say one day it will all be back to normal.
A couple of years ago I invented this scale as a broad framework for assessing what might be expected. Someday I will probably devise intermediate points, especially for levels 2, 3 and 4 which I anticipate being the low point of the next 30 years and for which knowledge and skills preservation will be most critical. If anyone knows of similar attempts to devise such a scale I'd be very interested, I've not seen any.
- Short term, basic infrastructure and money system remain operational, possible interruptions to electric, gas and water supplies. Less locally devastating than severe floods, earthquakes, storms etc but much more widespread. Many businesses cease operation, significant unemployment. Larger impact than anything in developed countries in last 50 years, worse than 'Great Depression' of 1930s.
- Short term, considerable economic dislocation but basic infrastructure and money system (local at least, but probably not at 'normal' value) remain largely intact. Low die off (< 5 to 10% ?) unless widespread lawlessness when it could be higher, perhaps >25% in some dense population areas. Probable need to survive a few weeks or months without normal water / gas / electricity / shopping supplies for a significant proportion of population.
- Short term, significant collapse of infrastructure and money but sufficient remains to re-establish pre-existing society if it does fragment and repair most critical damage within months or a few years. Electricity, water, currency value all largely absent for several months, maybe years. Low to medium die off for developed countries, perhaps 20% to 60%. Probably equivalent to go back 40 to 80 years. Most important knowledge probably preserved.
- Medium term, most infrastructure, government, money systems fail. Most systems and infrastructure have to be rebuilt locally once the population has learned to survive and feed itself. Medium die off for developed countries, 40% to 80% overall, very variable between urban and country areas, could range from 0% to 95% for different localities. Probably equivalent to go back 100 to 300 years. Significant knowledge lost.
- Long term. This is mostly differentiated from medium term by the amount of population, skills, knowledge, that are lost. Major die off for developed countries, 70% to 90%. Go back 500+ years. Most knowledge lost.
- Very long term. 90% to 99% human population lost, survival and repopulation first priority. Go back 1000+ years, nearly all knowledge lost.
- Re-evolve 1. Human experiment terminated. Go back 1+ million years, apes probably still best bet.
- Re-evolve 2. Back to small mammals / reptiles / insects, back 50+ million years.
- Unicellular / full restart.
The first two levels are insufficient, of themselves, of providing sufficient 're-adjustment' to solve the resource and other problems we will imminently face, thus it is very likely that further shocks / collapses would follow level 1 and 2 collapses.A level 2 collapse might hopefully trigger a massive change in human priorities, behavior and intent such that we could avoid anything worse and buy us the time to find solutions - that is my best guess of our best hope. A level 1 collapse is unlikely to be sufficient.
Level 3 or greater collapses will disable countries as functional entities, mostly temporarily in the case of level 3. But local survival becomes the priority for years. Level 3 is the least level of collapse that, of itself, probably makes humanity sustainable beyond this century.
One use it could have is to suggest what approaches and preparation may be most appropriate and advantageous should a specific level of collapse be expected. I propose it as a framework within which risks could be assessed and preparations made, nothing more. I am not aware of any other attempts to do this (if you are I would greatly appreciate knowing of them), I think it is a valid and worthwhile area to research.
Presently, my wife and I feel we are prepared for a Category 1 type failure, and are making strides toward getting ready for a Category 2.
It will depend on how deep the collapse is. Should it reach level 3 or 4 on my scale knowledge preservation will be a very significant objective, possibly the most important determinant of how well we survive and progress thereafter.
While the internet exists in a widespread form the risk of significant knowledge loss should be low. In the run up to major collapse (assuming, though it is probably unwise to do so, that we have reasonable warning) there should be a big effort to acquire, disseminate and safely archive multiple copies of important data.
I expect that, even in the case of profound collapse to level 4, 5 or 6, some computers capable of accessing locally archived data will be possible and some sporadic means of powering them should be available. That would be the most practical way of storing huge amounts of information for a decade or so at least. Books will probably be a more practical way of providing portable copies of frequently useful information but care will need to be given to their use and storage.
Maybe someone needs to make the committment to preserve these materials, like the monasteries and convents during the Dark Ages
I think we discussed this in the sci-fi thread. See "A Canticle For Leibowitz." ;-)
Seriously, I'm sure some books will survive. But books alone are not enough. We need the whole infrastructure of civilization. Even Einstein could not teach himself physics. He hated school and got terrible grades, but found he had to go to a university to learn physics.
But in a low-energy world, we won't be able to support many scholars - that is, people who don't produce something tangible. Now, a farmer can grow enough food to feed a hundred people, freeing the rest of us to specialize in other things. Only a hundred years ago, it was the opposite: most people grew their own food. I think that is the model we are heading back to.
However, the fact of the matter is that I have never actually seen, felt, or smelled the stuff! (I mean crude oil in its various forms and types, not refined products.) Is there anyone on here who can possibly help me obtain representative samples of some of the important grades and types? E.g. West Texas Intermediate, Brent Crude, Venezuela Heavy, etc.?
(After I look at, smell, and touch the stuff, I can then put it in vials and place those on my book shelf to show off to guests - leaving them to scratch their heads, of course, about my wierd and eccentric fixation with oil!)
Googling around, I did find a couple of sources. You're not going to believe this, but Edgar Cayce, the 20th century psychic, believed in crude oil shampoos. And I found a couple of companies selling raw crude oil for use as a shampoo! Here's one:
http://www.baar.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=9670&AFFIL=frg
I certainly wouldn't put that stuff on my head, I'd worry that it might contain carcinogens, but I guess Cayce has enough followers that some people do it.
Also, I just searched on eBay for "crude oil" and found a few people selling samples. There was one from Alberta and a set of four vials from Saudi Arabia. That sounds like it would be your best source.
I don't doubt it.
Halfin, did you check out the price? $9.95 for 16 oz = $3343.20 a barrel - not including sales tax! :-)
I wouldn't put it on my hair either, but some shampoos have pine tar for the scalp.
dinosaur blood