An Energy Tsunami Ahead

[adios]

An Energy Tsunami Ahead (http://www.simmonsco-intl.com/files/PESA%20Annual%20Meeting-B&W.pdf)

Admittedly this guy has a vested interest in increased oil production but he gives some statistics that are worth considering whether or not they have merit. A synopsys of the statistics in the presentation.

Statistics below are from Simmons' speeches.

50% of the world's oil production comes from only 120 fields that were discovered 40+ yrs ago. Half are more than 40 yrs old, 95% are more than 25 yrs old.

Saudi Arabia has 5 key fields producing 90% of their output, and have so for 40 yrs.

Pressurized oil fields all have a "rate sensitivity" to how they are drained, so that the higher the production, the faster high reservoir pressures end. Once pressures fall to a "bubble point", gas rises to the surface of the pool and pressures begin to drop much faster. Thus, many experts believe that if the Saudi's pump faster by adding a lot more holes in these few high producing fields, the peak production point will be reached faster and the degradation rate after peak production will become faster.

A geologist I read said the world has been entirely "mapped" seismically, and the liklihood of any significant numbers of "elephant" finds is highly unlikely: thus these types of finds may soon be called dinasaurs rather than elephants.

The date of peak discovery in the world was 1965. The typical time from date of peak discovery of a single field to peak production is tyically 40 yrs.

The Saudi's have some severe challenges to maintain production, let alone increase production: the age of their fields, the rising "water cuts" [The ratio of water produced compared to the volume of total liquids produced], and the tight and complex geologic formations. The north Ghawar water cuts have risen from 0.1% to ~3.0% over the life of the reservoir, so far, and the slope is increasing.

Technology was supposed to make oil easy to find and cheap to produce: instead, technology exaggerated proven reserves and used up most of the high quality light crude oil. The track record of technology being able to bail us out from the present course towards peak oil production is not good.

There are significant "choke points" of capacity to produce oil: Well head, Processing, Pipeline, Tanker, Refining, Drill rig capacities as well as finding new projects to boost the supply inventory of viable large drilling opporunities, and also the people to execute those projects. Spare high quality offshore and deep depth (high horsepower) land rigs can be counted on 5-7 hands. The global drilling fleet is old, the capacity to add drilling components is sparse, and the capacity to build offshore platforms is spare with the cost to build an offshore rig being twice that of the 1996-2001 period. The rig shortage squeeze in the near future will be acute. Also, the oil and gas industry has a graying work force with a "lost generation" gap of new hires since the late 70's, and pre-1982 hires will be retiring in the next 10 yrs.

There are frontiers out there (Russia, Artic, Antartic, offshore US/Canada and Mexico, and Alaska North Slope), but they all take time and will merely offset post Peak-production declines.

"Once Saudi oil productino passes peak, so has the world."

We are not running out of oil but we are running out of *cheap* oil just as oil demand appears to be surmounting supply in the 4th quarter of this yr as we will produce 83-84 M bpd and are likely to need 86-87 M bpd. We will not run short of oil then, but prices will cause the elasticity of demand to meet supply.

[Il_Mostro]

Just a quick note, don't have time to read it now.
Simmons has been talking about peak oil for quite a while, and I would say he is very reliable. His book about SA, due in june I belive, will be very interesting.

[superleeds]

If your interested in this topic I can reccomend

The End of Oil (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=x47SBNuATx&isbn=0618239774& itm=2)

[Il_Mostro]

I have read these things before, all in all he is likely correct in all he is saying. Noteworthy is that he is on the optimistic side.

[ QUOTE ]

Admittedly this guy has a vested interest in increased oil production but he gives some statistics that are worth considering whether or not they have merit.

[/ QUOTE ]
The stats are probably correct, easily checked facts tend to be.

[natedogg]

The more I read about peak oil and the future of energy, the less I am concerned about a disaster.

Everything they say about oil supplies etc is probably right.

Their extrapolations of the ramifications are, I believe, borderline nonsense, especially the really extreme survivalist peak-oil types like the guy who wrote:

The Long Emergency (http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/7203633?rnd=1114670331906&has-player=unknown)

This is a hilarious read but has nothing to do with reality.
natedogg

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
The more I read about peak oil and the future of energy, the less I am concerned about a disaster.


[/ QUOTE ]
Define disaster. Society coming apart in a matter of years? No, not likely. But in a 100 years? Unless we abandon the current growth-based view I'm certain that will happen. It has happened many times before in history.

The simple fact is that there still is nothing, nothing, nothing that can even begin to make up for the loss of fossil fuels and we will very likely have to make do with a lot less energy per person in the future, with all that will mean.

[ QUOTE ]
Everything they say about oil supplies etc is probably right.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most of it, anyway, a lot is not known only estimated / guessed.

[wacki]

In the USA oil production peaked in 1970 - and in almost every year since then, production has been less than the year preceding it.

Should this happen on a world-wide scale, then the only way to avert shoratges will be to conserve, because there will be no option to increase supply.

Some geologists put the time of 'peak' within about 2-3 years. The most optimistic estimates put it about 20-25 years in the future.

See www.peakoil.net (http://www.peakoil.net) for more info.

From what I've seen, the info on that site tends to be pretty reliable and numerous articles from that site have been referenced by Nobel Laureates.

[wacki]

http://www.peakoil.net/Aleklett/2004Scenario.jpg

[Il_Mostro]

Individual peak years for countries:
http://www.energybulletin.net/image/articles/2544/LBST_Countdown_2004-10-12_html_m703e66b2.gif
energybulletin.net/ (http://www.energybulletin.net/2544.html)

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
The simple fact is that there still is nothing, nothing, nothing that can even begin to make up for the loss of fossil fuels and we will very likely have to make do with a lot less energy per person in the future, with all that will mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the part I don't believe is correct.

natedogg

[Il_Mostro]

And what would you say we can use? There are some temporary fixes, as described in the Hirsch report, but beyond that all we can do is hope for technology to save us. Which I highly doubt, among other things because of the law of unintended consequenses. So far we have not developed many problem-solving technologies that has not had unforseen problems that are worse than the problem they were meant to solve.

And even if we can find technology to save us we will eventually run into problems if we keep the exponential growth in the usage of energy and just about everything else.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
The Long Emergency

This is a hilarious read but has nothing to do with reality.

[/ QUOTE ]
His premises are correct. His conclusions are a logical step from his premises. Not the only conclusions to make, maybe, but if you accept is premises, that there will be no new large-scale energy source coming online, it's hard to argue that he is wrong in the parts of mobility and agriculture needing lots and lots more manual labor. We are having an absolutely enormous energy subsidy from fossil fuels today, without it just about everything we do and make money from will be impossible.

What parts do you find "hilarious" and "nothing to do with reality"?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
And what would you say we can use? There are some temporary fixes, as described in the Hirsch report, but beyond that all we can do is hope for technology to save us. Which I highly doubt, among other things because of the law of unintended consequenses. So far we have not developed many problem-solving technologies that has not had unforseen problems that are worse than the problem they were meant to solve.

And even if we can find technology to save us we will eventually run into problems if we keep the exponential growth in the usage of energy and just about everything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key is energy, not what form it comes in right?

So obviously, transportation will not be a problem when fossil fuels become scarce. Cars will use batteries, and trucking fleets will use hydrogen. That's obvious.

But that will put a lot of strain on the grid... will it cause a global society meltdown and send us back to teh stone age? Hardly.

It will cause more efficient use of the grid such as through energy brokering. It will spur more powerplants to go up. Remember, we have about a 200 year supply of coal right here in the US. And canada is basically made of coal. The energy grid is not going down. Bigger, better, cleaner coal plants will be built, as well as more nuclear energy.

This puts the problem sufficiently far off that there's no reason to panic. We won't be short on energy anytime soon.

Then there's the problem of food production. There are some problems here but not insurmountable, especially the way agbiotech is moving.

But you're european so you won't benefit from ag biotech until your leaders wake up from their luddite fever. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

natedogg

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
The key is energy, not what form it comes in right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Partly correct. Energy conversions come at a cost, but if you have enough energy to start with you are correct.

[ QUOTE ]
Cars will use batteries, and trucking fleets will use hydrogen. That's obvious.


[/ QUOTE ]
Not obvious at all. This requires breakthroughs in basic science to happen. Something we cannot be sure of.

[ QUOTE ]
It will spur more powerplants to go up. Remember, we have about a 200 year supply of coal right here in the US.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. If you are to substitute oil for coal and taking into acount growth the US has about 50 years of coal, tops. And it's getting harder to get to. I've read industry people claiming that (long) before that mining coal will be an energy loser. It will require more energy than we get from the coal.
Plus I don't want to know what burning all that coal will mean to the earth.

[ QUOTE ]
This puts the problem sufficiently far off that there's no reason to panic. We won't be short on energy anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, but we will. Maybe not permanently short, but temporarily for sure. Have you read the Hirsch report yet? He says the same things that you do, only he (they) has done the math and the studying. So he concludes that if we don't start at least 20 years ahead of time we are in for lots of problems, that won't go away.

Have you read the Hirsch report? Have you seen the Smalley video?

[natedogg]

Have you read the Hirsch report? Have you seen the Smalley video?

I have read some parts and some summaries of the Hirsch report, but not all. I have not seen the Smalley video.

natedogg

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Long Emergency

This is a hilarious read but has nothing to do with reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

What parts do you find "hilarious" and "nothing to do with reality"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a few sentences:
The American economy of the mid-twenty-first century may actually center on agriculture, not information, not high tech, not "services" like real estate sales or hawking cheeseburgers to tourists. Farming.

Fantasy.

The automobile will be a diminished presence in our lives, to say the least. With gasoline in short supply, not to mention tax revenue, our roads will surely suffer.

Utter nonsense. Not to mention that he reveals his love of statism with his comment that lowered tax revenue is a problem.

America today has a railroad system that the Bulgarians would be ashamed of.

What does he have against Bulgarians? What a condescending, snide statement.

Some kind of urban entities will exist where they are in the future, but probably not the colossi of twentieth-century industrialism.

Yeah, got it. Cities are going away. Yet he also claims that suburbia will become unviable. Where exactly are people going to live?


THis one is the kicker:

I'm not optimistic about the Southeast, either, for different reasons. I think it will be subject to substantial levels of violence as the grievances of the formerly middle class boil over and collide with the delusions of Pentecostal Christian extremism. The latent encoded behavior of Southern culture includes an outsized notion of individualism and the belief that firearms ought to be used in the defense of it.

His mad fantasies reach new heights as he envisions southeastern suburbia burning itself up in flames at the hands of indignant destitute fallen bourgeouis and apocalyptic minded religious rubes. His disdain for southerners is palpable, but his story is a load of nonsense.

Read the article for entertainment purposes only.

natedogg

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I have read some parts and some summaries of the Hirsch report, but not all. I have not seen the Smalley video.


[/ QUOTE ]
Then do so. Really. If you want to get a fuller understanding these are essential reading / viewing.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
The American economy of the mid-twenty-first century may actually center on agriculture, not information, not high tech, not "services" like real estate sales or hawking cheeseburgers to tourists. Farming.

Fantasy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not fantasy. If energy becomes as scarce as he belives this will be true. If we find a new source of energy and manage to scale it up this will probably not be true.

[ QUOTE ]
The automobile will be a diminished presence in our lives, to say the least. With gasoline in short supply, not to mention tax revenue, our roads will surely suffer.

Utter nonsense. Not to mention that he reveals his love of statism with his comment that lowered tax revenue is a problem.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again. Without a new source of energy this is completely true. If we don't have enough cheap energy, cars will be something for the very rich, not for the ordinary people.
And of course lowered tax revenue is a problem. If you get lowered tax revenue because you have made the state smaller it's not a problem (apart from all the things you will have to solve to make this possible, but that's another discussion). But if you get smaller tax revenue without having made the descision to make the state smaller you have a problem.

[ QUOTE ]

America today has a railroad system that the Bulgarians would be ashamed of.

What does he have against Bulgarians? What a condescending, snide statement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well. Maybe the choice of words wasn't great, but the essense of the statement is true, I belive?

[ QUOTE ]

Some kind of urban entities will exist where they are in the future, but probably not the colossi of twentieth-century industrialism.

Yeah, got it. Cities are going away. Yet he also claims that suburbia will become unviable. Where exactly are people going to live?


[/ QUOTE ]
That's a problem. But take away the car and how do you envision suburbia to function?

[ QUOTE ]

THis one is the kicker:


[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. Although uprisings against the rich has happened many times before in history.

It all boils down to energy. And exponential growth.

Again, watch the Smalley video, it's one of the most important 1.5 hours of information in existance.

[frizzfreeling]

1) Battery operated vehicles go 150-200 miles on a charge currently vs. 300+ for gasoline cars. Car batteries dont recharge in 5 minutes like filling your tank with gas, so forget about going on a long trip for recreation, or business.

2) What about people in Brazil who cant afford such high tech cars? Total economic collapse due to lack of, or serious cost issues with transportation. Most countries around the world are in this position vs. the first-world economic position.

3)Fuel cell vehicles are even worse. Its not just the technology that is expensive here. These arent microchips made from silicon, and just saying that technology will eventually make them cheap is misleading. For instance, many fuel cells contain large ammounts of precious metals including platinum and/or gold. If large quantities of fuel cells are produced, precious metals will increase dramatically in price. This is also true for non-precious metals in batteries (see above).

4) Coal fired plants are about 40% efficient. Putting all this into hydrogen GAS production brings that efficiency down to around 30%. The gas then must be liquified for transportation, a very energy intensive and expensive operation. To be fair, lets say this ONLY drops the plant efficiency to 25%. Then you have transportation of this liquid that takes up about 10 times the volume of water for the same weight. If the cars are using liquid hydrogen storage, as in some of the current scenarios, they lose about 10% per day for evaporation. Even if you somehow get pipelines in across the entire country in time, this too is an inefficient mode of fuel transport for such a low density gas. All this leads to a very inefficient system which at the same time is also very expensive. Think of all the infrastructure necessary and the short time span it must be created in versus the 100 years of infrastructure we have had with gasoline.

5) Regardless of what we can do here in the US, there is no solution to the WORLD problem of fuel shortage. Most people in the world are not as rich as us and can do nothing to combat this problem.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
I have not seen the Smalley video.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope wacki doesn't see this... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[OtisTheMarsupial]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of what we can do here in the US, there is no solution to the WORLD problem of fuel shortage. Most people in the world are not as rich as us and can do nothing to combat this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no one, single solution. But there are certainly some good ideas:

1) urban planning - when cities are planned well, people can live much more efficiently and use fewer reasources. They can walk or use mass transport. They can live in smaller dwellings with centralized heating/ cooling units. They can recycle more effectively...

2) design - buildings and cars can be designed with efficiency in mind. Already some cars get 50 MPG simply because they're lightweight and aerodynamic. Buildings can be built to use solar and wind power.

3) "living green" - if we launched a campaign like the campaign against Drunk Driving or the Safe Sex campaign or the Anti-Tobacco campaign, we could easily change a whole generation of American's attitudes about conservation and consumption so that they believed more in their right to clean air and water than their right to drive an SUV. Since Americans are by far the largest consumers worldwide, this single generation could have a HUGE impact that really could change the world!

-Otis

[jokerswild]

What happened? The Republicans kick you out of tthe log cabin? Limbaugh will surely label you a Chinese Communist.

Seriously, welcome to the PNAC war motive. Too bad it took you 5 years to realize it.

[Il_Mostro]

A comment on hydrogen:
If we are ever to have a large fleet of hydrogen powered transportation I see no other way than having locally produced hydrogen. Central production, such as for oil/gas today, is just not viable, transportation of H2 eats up too much energy.

[tolbiny]

"1) urban planning - when cities are planned well, people can live much more efficiently and use fewer reasources. They can walk or use mass transport. They can live in smaller dwellings with centralized heating/ cooling units. They can recycle more effectively..."

The high density areas such as new york or shanghi will be very diffiucult to improve in any sig way as far as urban planning is involved. Look at boston's "big dig"- their efforts to streamline and plan the area are years behind and way over budget, and not projected to help as much as the original planners wanted.
And recycling uses more energy for most substances than producing from raw materials. Currently recycling isn't even close to answer or even a contribution.

"2) design - buildings and cars can be designed with efficiency in mind. Already some cars get 50 MPG simply because they're lightweight and aerodynamic. Buildings can be built to use solar and wind power."

The world population is growing way faster than the effciency gained by any of these "leaps".

"Since Americans are by far the largest consumers worldwide, this single generation could have a HUGE impact that really could change the world!"

Currently american's are the largest consumers of energy - if china's economy keeps growing they will outstrip us soon. Even if we managed to reduce the usage per person the numver of people will keep us using more and more. Most of the energy plans- even the most progressive ones- are only aimed at stalling for time. It will take something hugely radical like cold fusion to push it back more than a century or two- or a huge drop in population. On the order of billions.

[natedogg]

A comment on hydrogen:
If we are ever to have a large fleet of hydrogen powered transportation I see no other way than having locally produced hydrogen.

Actually, I don't think it will happen. I think batteries will be solution. Battery powered cars won't care if the energy comes from the grid, from a hydrogen fuel cell, from a gas generator.


natedogg

[Il_Mostro]

You may be correct, but I remain unconvinced that we can solve all the problems with batteries, poor energy density (which leads to heavy batteries), slow recharging and whatnot. It may be that batteries will play a part, but it will not be the only "fuel" we use. Heavy machinery and aviation will likely never be able to run on batteries.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
A comment on hydrogen:
If we are ever to have a large fleet of hydrogen powered transportation I see no other way than having locally produced hydrogen.

Actually, I don't think it will happen. I think batteries will be solution. Battery powered cars won't care if the energy comes from the grid, from a hydrogen fuel cell, from a gas generator.


natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2309397.stm

On various other subjects, I've been relatively impressed with your posts. You are obviously capable of rational thought. Hopefully one day you will learn the value of a google search.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A comment on hydrogen:
If we are ever to have a large fleet of hydrogen powered transportation I see no other way than having locally produced hydrogen.

Actually, I don't think it will happen. I think batteries will be solution. Battery powered cars won't care if the energy comes from the grid, from a hydrogen fuel cell, from a gas generator.


natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2309397.stm

On various other subjects, I've been relatively impressed with your posts. You are obviously capable of rational thought. Hopefully one day you will learn the value of a google search.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee, congratulations. You have successfully derailed a speculation about future technology into a pissing contest.

Both battery tech and hydrogen tech are making incredible advances these days (from *private* research I"ll note /images/graemlins/smile.gif).

It's anyone's guess what will happend but I think the inherent advantage of batteries,namley the charge can come from any energy source, will mean we have battery powered cars.

Note, an interesting advancement : http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05032903tosh1minbatt.asp

natedogg

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Gee, congratulations. You have successfully derailed a speculation about future technology into a pissing contest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, just trying to get you to actually do some homework. And it looks like it worked!!!!

[ QUOTE ]
Note, an interesting advancement : http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05032903tosh1minbatt.asp

[/ QUOTE ]

I am well aware of this. However that won't be enough.

On the other hand this will:

Solid state batteries (http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2005/0,4814,98804,00.html)

The bad news is the technology is too far away to be any use for us. Also, ZERO research is being done in the US. If research was being done, and we miraculously solved the technological problems with solid state batteries then we would be golden.

Now, what was your view on government funding again?

BTW, good job on posting your first link. Don't stop!

[Bulbarainey]

im counting on the deep water explorers of ker-mcgee

[Il_Mostro]

Below is a link to a video presentation held by Simmons about SA oil. It's 70 minutes and should be required watching for everyone.

If Simmons is correct, and he has lots of data to support him, we have problems, massive, massive problems.

Video Presentation (http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/95)

[natedogg]

Here's a new one for you from a site I read regularly:

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/002023.html

[ QUOTE ]

Now, what was your view on government funding again?


[/ QUOTE ]

Hasn't changed. If you read the link I just provided, it referenced 5 entities that are pursuing that path and 4 are private industry.

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, good job on posting your first link. Don't stop!

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, this is not an academic journal. I think you've spent too much time in the belly of the beast.

But.. want to make a bet on batteries vs. hydrogen? We could put $100 each into a trust for our grandchildren, kind of like the Erlich/Simon bet?

I admit I have the advantage cause if the peak-oil fantasists are right, our investment won't matter anyway.

natedogg

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, good job on posting your first link. Don't stop!

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, this is not an academic journal. I think you've spent too much time in the belly of the beast.


[/ QUOTE ]

WTF does that mean? And what does it have to do with the quote?

[ QUOTE ]
But.. want to make a bet on batteries vs. hydrogen? We could put $100 each into a trust for our grandchildren, kind of like the Erlich/Simon bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you can't predict technology. And right now I would bet on synthetic hydrocarbons anyway. Of the three I think hydrogen is the worst. Battery technology requires the most research. Still miracles happen so you simply can't predict this stuff.

Also, you can't wait around for private industry to create miracles on their own. I find it very ironic that the very technology you have such high hopes in was developed via DARPA funding yet you claim government funding is worthless. Again, don't let your ideology blind you. Facts are facts, you can't change that. Do some more research on this stuff.