 | Is a Wall of Oil Heading for the Market? | The Oil Drum | Homework Assignment: Rates of Decline of the Largest Fields |  |
DrumBeat: August 11, 2006
Posted by threadbot on August 11, 2006 - 9:10am
Topic: Miscellaneous
A computer scientist explains why computers won't be sustainable in the Post-Carbon Age, and offers some suggestions on peak oil and the preservation of knowledge:
The fragility of microprocessors
A project to preserve knowledge may be unable to continue in an unstable society beset with power outages, hunger, and crime. Once rationing and shortages begin, agriculture and other essential services will receive the most energy. Scientists will be unemployed. It is very likely that resource wars will erupt all over the globe, so the military will be taking a large portion of the dwindling energy resources as well.[Update by Prof. Goose on 08/11/06 at 12:13 PM EDT] Here's a story just out on MIT's Energy Manhattan Project.The time to begin is now, before we begin the inexorable retreat to wood as civilizations’ main energy source.
BP will try to keep half of oil field open
The IEA says World can cope now with Alaska, Nigeria oil loss
Ford heralds the demise of the SUV
Large sports utility vehicles (SUVs) will go out of fashion because of environmental worries and demographic trends, a top Ford executive has said.Mark Fields, who runs Ford's US business, said consumers would move away from SUVs to smaller cars in what he characterised as a "tectonic shift".
The Economist takes on Really Big Oil: Sluggish behemoths control virtually all the world's oil; they should be privatised.
U.S. Lists Places Where It Could Force New Power Lines
The Energy Department took the first step on Tuesday toward designating parts of the nation’s electric grid as “critical congestion” areas, which could force New York, New Jersey and other states to allow construction of new power lines that they do not want.
Now I know we're in trouble: In warmer world, even Inuit buy air conditioners.
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&a mp;cid=1155246610543&call_pageid=968350072197&col=969048863851
They're going to turn it around with this don't you think?
While people in Kenya might have evolved to run marathon-like distances to commute, European type white people have not. That's why we invented cars in the first place. When a runner-commuter can no longer commute what are they supposed to do? Blow themselves up like a Palastinian? When cars are too costly to use, that's what public transit or motorbikes are for. When that gets too expensive, the bicycle will be the method of choice. But something like running 10 miles each way is all but out of the question due to bodily wear and tear. Sure, you'll lose weight that way, but the mileage on the lower body is not worth it. Are you ready to shred your legs to commute?
Let's offer the soft-sided middle-agers the new and improved Sony Sex Machine that never says no.
One way to reduce the population as these noobs crash and burn in ecstasy.
The trick of The Stick is that while it will give better fuel economy, it takes some coordination on the part of the user. The Stick was invented becuse the internal combustion engine runs best at one RPM speed but a car must be able to go from zero to a desired speed. The electric motor is a lot better match than the car engine. The innovation with the hybrid comes with how the controls are like a normal car with an Automatic. Previous attempts were always with extra switches or the like that'll require the new owner having to learn them, like that Stick.
The thing about the Stick I don't like is the bit with having to do the clutch. The Automatic has that "fluid clutch" thingy which causes it to act like the case of boating. Step on the gas, and you get the desired thrust. Step off, and you glide. A zillion times easier than messing with a clutch and a hand on the gear shift! I would end up preferring a British side drive car in the case of having to do a Stick instead of an American side drive Stick car. That's becuse I drive with my right hand on the teering column.
Interesting that they finally went with an independent rear suspension on the whole Camaro line. The solid axle would stick pretty good on smooth surfaces, but hit a pot-hole near limits of adhesion ...
Anyway, on the other side of the coin,
GM, Daimler, BMW Will Spend $1 Billion on Hybrids
I think they want to sell a few more Camaros to the poor dumb SOBs (like me) who think they had found more oil after all ... when they wise up, maybe they'll have hybrids.
http://www.swizzbee.ch/
Especially if you live in a hilly region.
Siggi, that looks pretty good. Do you think I could add an auxillary seat to accomodate my inflatable "girlfriend?"
http://home.columbus.rr.com/pedex/000_0110.jpg
pretty typical of what us messengers ride these days, just meat and potatoes, its all business
at 40 yrs old im the oldest guy here still slinging packages
The reason we like bikes like that is its harder to break something, although stuff still breaks, just not as often as with a geared race bike.
Got that, the other, and both at the same time. Plus the real beauty...gravel roads. So I require both a decent set of gears and fat tires.
Which will happen first? The end of global civilisation? Or the Cubs winning a World Series?
My bet is the collapse of civilisation first, with 1908 being the last time ever for a Cubs World Series success. The above question is a no-brainer for any peaknik. Some time down the road, Wrigley Field will be a ruin like the Roman football stadium in the middle of Roma. And the Cubs will still be without a championship like the White Sox have before the "end of days".
Just a fun fact for the doomers in the TOD crowd. :)
"The global consumption of oil is now around 31 billion barrels per year and the discovery in 2005 was only 8.95 billion barrels according to CERA and they show that the average world discovery rate the last 11 years is 11.5 billion barrels p.a.. The bulk of these discoveries comes from regions that were opened up for exploration after the collapse of Soviet Union and from exploration in deep water. We can now see a decline in the discoveries in these regions and we expect that this decline also will give an overall decline in discoveries worldwide."
http://www.energybulletin.net/19120.html
I agree with him that it's actual production that counts.
That's why the critique is incomplete.
Closing sentence of Prof. Alekletts critic
I'm not sure that reserve increases are a good indicator of future production. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that indicates reserve information is a very poor indicator of future production because it is often manipulated.
Also, we may see large revisions down in reserve data. Royal Dutch Shell oil revised theirs down a couple years ago, I think by a large % of their total reserves and Kuwait has acknowledged that their reserve estimates may be inflated by quit a bit.
All of OPECs reserve estimates have been questioned and more transparency in how they estimate reserves has been asked for but I don't think the Saudis have been forthcoming with answers or clearer info.
That may be why ASPO focusses on discoveries as a predictor of future production instead of reserves.
Your question is fair , I don't have a definitive answer.
I am sorry JCK, but were you under the impression that reserves in the ground actually grow? I know oil companies sometimes, or used to anyway, periodically, upgrade their reserves due to deliberately low-balling their guesstimates in the first place. However this was a practice of publicly owned companies. Nationally owned companies change their reserves for different reasons, as did all OPEC nations in the 80s. They upgraded reserves for quota reasons. But existing reserves do not grow.
Shell, in 2004, had to downgrade their reserves because they had originally overestimated them. The Shell downgrade, in my opinion, marked the end of so-called "reserve growth". We can now look forward to "reserve shrinkage". OPEC reserves are way overestimated, perhaps by as much as 50%.
Oil in place does not change. A fraction of the oil in place is classified as reserves, which is the portion which is expected to be produced, based on various (geology, economics, etc) models. Usually over time, greater portions of the oil in place are converted to reserves, and the reserves numbers are accordingly revised upwards.
BP provides a good explanation of the terminology here.
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9009529&contentId=7017933
So, in a given year, typical x amount of oil is discovered, and y amount of oil is converted from oil in place to reserves. ASPO's critique is based solely on the former number, which is my original point.
Whether or not OPECs reserve numbers are correct is a completely separate issue.
Yes, over time, water flooding and gas flooding increases production but there no evidence that this actually increases the amount of oil that can ultimately be recovered. Cantarell, in Mexico is a good example. Gas injection drove the production from about 1 to 2.1 million barrels per day. That did not increase the UUR one iota however. Of course water injection increases the amount of oil that could be recovered without water injection. But we have been injecting water in wells for perhaps half a century. All current reserve estimates are based on the exception that water will be injected, as in the vast majority of cases, it already is being injected. In fact, Saudi now starts injecting water right from day one. The Haradh 3 section of Ghawar came on line in February and started immediately injecting 520,000 barrels of seawater per day to produce 300,000 barrels of oil.
My point is JCK, all these things have already been figured into the mix. Probable reserves already include all these things.
This is a sticky point. If you had been following the Peak Oil debate over the last six or seven years, as many on this list have, you would understand. A little history is necessary. The Securities and Exchange Commission will penalize a company for overstating reserves. It also plays havoc with the stock price if a company must downgrade estimated reserves. Therefore it has always been the policy of all publicly listed oil companies to understate reserves. Later, as they got a better handle on actual reserves of a given field, they could gradually upgrade them. This created the illusion of what the USGS calls "Reserve Growth". However this was always only a phenomenon of publicly listed companies only. And also, as Shell proved in 2004, it is largely a phenomenon of the past.
In the past decade, except for new discoveries and accusations, reserves of companies simply have not grown. They have already drained all they can get out of upgrading the reserves of all their large fields. These reserves are now shrinking, as would be expected when one pumps the oil out of them.
And, the past reserve growth of OPEC countries is not a separate issue. Reserve growth advocates point to OPEC's reserve growth as an example of how reserves grow over time. But only an elementary examination will show that there was no real growth in OPEC reserves. OPEC announced in the early 80s that each country's quota would be based on each country's proven reserves. This prompted each country to dramatically increase its reserves, doubling them in some cases.
There is little to no chance that current reserves will grow. They have all been milked for all that can be gotten out of them. All future growth in a companies or a nation's reserves must come from new discoveries.
88.7 mbpd - 24% = 67.4 mbpd. This is close to the ASPO estimate for regular oil for 2005. Anyone know if CERA is using the same definition of conventional liquids, i.e. total liquids minus tar sands, deep water and natural gas liquids?
I see, maintain your prediction by adding in another category of liquids. Next time will CERA be adding in CTL?
No need to admit to a peak in light crude oil, just substitute gas-liquids.A while back Stuart did a post about reserves. The OPEC reserves were the usual flat with a couple of delta function increases in the recent past.
The non-OPEC data was more interesting. Generally the reserves have kept increasing, then flattening out over the last 5-10 years.
My question is, how can this be? We've been pumping out a lot more oil than we have been discovering, especially over the las 5-10 years. So what explains the small rise/plateau in reserves?
It seems to me the answers must be some combination of technology and price. I'm skeptical of the price angle since as recently as 2000 the price of oil was near historic lows. There was no noticeable dip in oil reserves due to the lower price (which would presumably make some formerly economical deposits uneconomical to recover).
Finally, I find it difficult to believe that technology can really make up the huge difference between recent production and recent discoveries. But I suppose it's possible. Any light anyone can throw on this situation would be greatly appreciated.