my care2
make a difference

community & fun

groups

get together & make a difference

 
 
I hoping this will be beter? [peak oil] February 01, 2006 5:40 AM

I recently stopped posting in AP because noone seemed to want to respectfully and intellectually debate/discuss topics of any relevance. I am sincerely hoping that Freediver is right in suggesting this group here. I was hoping to discuss peak oil and any opinions or predictions as to when it will occur. Possible supplements and what effect it will cause. There is a link....www.peakoil.com, very interesting, check it out and get back.

                                 signed,

                                              hoping for adult conversation.

                                                                                                                                                

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
AmandaD, February 01, 2006 5:58 AM

The President sold 60% of his shares in oil right before the war. 

The next big thing is probably going to be biodiesel.  I think that we will fall behind Brazil in producing it, but we will be able to produce some. We may actually see legalization of hemp, when we start manufacturing fuel from plants.  This is gonna be weird.
 [ send green star]
 
I have heard February 01, 2006 6:31 AM

alot of talk of nuclear power, people don't understand that this alone will not be able to sustian us. And what of vehicles? There are many different predictions as to when peak oil will occure the soonest of which about one year. Will you be able to get to and from work, take your child to school, etc. without fuel in one year?  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Amanda February 01, 2006 6:49 AM

I'm disappointed in that statement. You and I had a serious discussion, which you abondoned, on peak oil. It was not interrupted by any frivolous disruption. AP combines both serious discussion and humor. Our aborted discussion was proof of that.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
Nuclear power is a bad idea. February 01, 2006 6:50 AM

It is far too dangerous for the workers.  Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl proved that.  We don't want a repeat of those incidents.    [ send green star]
 
Jeffery February 01, 2006 6:56 AM

You were the ONLY person that even attempted a discussion, I am seeking a GROUP of people who are willing to exchange ideas and perceptions without the fear of ridicule. I am not posting there, so I am not responding there either. We can continue here if you'd like, but the lack of response and totally RUDE posts on the end of mine of dissapiontment post is proof enough for me that I do not need to be associated with people who refuse to look outside there box and who will not be pushed out of their comfort zone, that is the only way we grow as people, and there is NO growth there, just immature and half intelligent insults.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
American oil production peaked in the '70's. February 01, 2006 6:58 AM

You know, during the "energy crisis."  If we want to keep using oil, it's going to be foreign oil. 

We want their oil for ourselves.  we use 25% of the oil consumed in the entire world.  If we want to keep doing that, we have to kill for it. Some people, like me, have a real problem with this.  I don't think a country should behave like a mugger.  JMO.
 [ send green star]
 
Michelle February 01, 2006 7:13 AM

I totally agree with you. We are now using 4 times as much oil as is new production. There will be fear as histaria when the public realizes...no more oil? So what, wars over oil, whoever has the most comes out on top? What about the reserve in Alaska? Shall we remove the oil from there now, or hold on to it for desperate times? This whole thing in my opinion is getting pushed under the rug and more attention needs to be payed to this crisis situation, before there is panic.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
I received this one from Greenpeace today February 01, 2006 7:25 AM

Tonight, President Bush is giving his State of the Union address. I'm sure he'll talk about terrorism, evildoers and how he plans to save us all. But I'm here to tell you that his plans are actually a threat to us all. That's because Bush wants to build new nuclear power plants across the country and put average American citizens in jeopardy.

This April will mark the 20-year anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown. If you think that can't happen here - think again. Since Three-Mile Island in 1979, more than 100 near-misses have occurred in nuclear power plants across the country. And for all of Bush's promises to prevent terrorism, he's done absolutely nothing to protect nuclear plants from a 9-11 style terrorist attack.

And now he wants to create more targets?

Take Action >> Tell Bush Enough is Enough!

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Excuse me February 01, 2006 7:25 AM

Here's the link

http://members.greenpeace.org/action/start.php?action_id=78&ref_source=newsletter20060131

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 February 01, 2006 8:00 AM

Peak oil will eventualy lead to mass unemployement. Less work, less oil needed.

Perhaps we should stop the war. That uses a lot of energy. Perhaps we should consume less, eat less meat, etc...

Perhaps I am cynical, but the Manhattan project was a giant operation. They brought together hundreds, or were it thousands of scientist to produce a atom bomb. When we could use such a combined effort (high investment cost) to solve the energy problem maybe we could do more than we thought we could.

Pyramids are also an example of what's possible when humans are commited to a goal.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 8:04 AM

How do you react to the fact that no major geological society supports the idea that we are anywhere near peak oil?

How do you explain the fact the oil companies, which invest hundreds of billions of dollars of their own money in this and cannot afford to get this wrong, and which employ the best geologists in the world to safeguard those hundreds of billions of dollars, all estimate enough oil reserves to meet anticipated demand for the next 30 to 50 years?
 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
Marc February 01, 2006 8:04 AM

I happen to agree with you and not think you are cynical. Why would the government at this time want to put that much resources into lowering the dependancy when they make so much from it. Should we really rely on the scientist paid by the oil manufacturers to give us accurate information? I don't think so.Something needs to be done and soon. The public needs to be mande aware of this so that we can urge the politicians to proceed with developement and research for supplemenatal energy sources that are safe and able to supply the demand.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Jeffery February 01, 2006 8:06 AM

Do you think they care if they get it wrong, they want the public to continue use as much as possible, a decrease in use in a decrease in income. Do they care if we totally run out? It doesn't effect them any differently as long as they get paid in the mean time. JMO  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Amanda February 01, 2006 8:07 AM

You seriously missed the point. The oil company geologists give the information to the oil companies, not us. It serves only to guide the investment of those hundreds of billions of dollars. If their findings were anywhere near what you proclaim here, no oil company would be investing that money in exploration.   [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
Jeffrey February 01, 2006 8:07 AM

Are you saying they put a story in the air about peak oil? They just want to drive the oilprize up?  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 8:08 AM

Who is "they"?  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 February 01, 2006 8:10 AM

They who would profit from this.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Jeffery February 01, 2006 8:11 AM

You missed the point. Ofcourse they would be investing in exploration, when the crap hits the fan, whoever has the oil has the power, you don't think they want to stock pile as much as they can for when it happens?  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 8:16 AM

Hardly. This is stockholders money that they manage. They would never consider throwing it at dry fields, that would be sheer lunacy. It would be invested elsewhere to make a profit. There is no profit in exploring dry fields.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 February 01, 2006 8:17 AM

It sounds to me like Marc and Amanda have the insider stock tip of the century! If all the oil reserves are ready to dry up tomorrow, and oil companies won't be able to meet demand, then we should all be ready to sell short and make bucket-loads of cool cash off Big Oil's demise.

But most people who argue that we are past peak oil aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is. It makes me wonder if they are spreading hysteria in order to boost their own portfolio's performance by keeping people out of their investment.
 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 8:17 AM

Further clarification. Peak oil necessarily implies that the economically produceable reservoirs have already been tapped. If that were the case, throwing huge assets at further exploration would be economic suidice for any oil company.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 8:19 AM

Exactly, Michael. I, on the other hand, invest heavily in certain oil companies and advise my clients to do so also. If I thought there were a shred of truth in the peak oil stories, I certainly wouldn't do that.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
again February 01, 2006 8:20 AM

Jeffery, chew over this for a moment would ya...When peak oil hits, how high do you think the prices for gas will become? Do you not think that the oil manufacturers want AS MUCH oil as they can get for when this occurs? They stand to make an unforseen amount of money when this happens. How can you deny this?

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]

 
Sorry, Jeffrey, wrong again. February 01, 2006 8:21 AM

http://www.energybulletin.net/8300.html

Geologists have been warning us since the seventies that we are going to run out of oil.  As for why oil moguls deny this, it's simple. 

What they want to do, is sell oil as long as oil can be sold, for the highest price possible.  They do not care about the consequences to us, they care about making money. This is how the game is played. 
Business is not about taking care of people, or the planet, or anything else.  It's about making money.  Period.

No business will tell you it has a plan to hurt you, but Big Oil's plan was to drill the Arctic, and Alaska, and sell that last bit of oil for astronomical prices, and at the same time acquire other energy sources to sell us as we transition. Now, they're going to hold that information to themselves as long as they can, because they don't want us to just stop buying their oil and go use something else. 

This isn't bad business, especially if they are quietly buying land at the same time, so that later they can corner the market on biodiesel.  Probably they will first try to sell us on coal, and nuclear energy, because those are easier to monopolize than fuel made from corn, sunflowers, and weeds.
 [ send green star]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 8:25 AM

Amanda, you are failing to grasp certain fundamental of economics and business. Nobody invests that huge a percentage of assets in a dying market. The little bit of oil left will not pay back the exploration costs at any price. It costs tens of millions of dollars just to explore a potential reservoir. It costs far more to actually produce. No same person is going to pour their assets into such a scenario.

Proof that we are nowhere near peak oil rest in current oil prices, which adjusted for inflation, ar no higher than twenty years ago. There will be significant price hikes long before peak oil hits due to speculation of decresing supply and increasingly expense drilling operations. If we were anywhere near that now, gasoline prices would be more expensive than twenty years ago by many times.
 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Michelle February 01, 2006 8:28 AM

Actually you are wrong, and your article exemplifies my point. Again, no major geological society agrees with the peak oil stories. What you linked to was an article by a single geologist whose opinion is at odds with the concensus. Google, and you will find other dissenting opinions similar to the one you presented here. Your mistake, which you repeat often by the way, is to confuse fringe opinion with the consensus of the respectable majority.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
Michael, February 01, 2006 8:29 AM

you wrote, " It sounds to me like Marc and Amanda have the insider stock tip of the century! If all the oil reserves are ready to dry up tomorrow, and oil companies won't be able to meet demand, then we should all be ready to sell short and make bucket-loads of cool cash off Big Oil's demise.

But most people who argue that we are past peak oil aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is. It makes me wonder if they are spreading hysteria in order to boost their own portfolio's performance by keeping people out of their investment."

Okay, this shows a very narrow view of the world.  It's all about stock portfolios, etc....In fact, nobody's exploring dry fields.  They are instead putting their money into trying to lobby for arctic drilling, and drilling in Alaska, and of course, putting $ into supporting hawkish politicians who will try to get pipelines and control of other countries' oilfields.  It backfired, but it's very transparently what's been happening. 

As for us having the stock tip of the century, Bush got rid of 60% of his oil stocks right before he declared war on Iraq, and the timing was uncanny, because those oil stocks went way down after he did that.

If I had a stock portfolio,  which I don't, or any money at all to invest, which again, I don't, I would be investing right now in corn and sunflowers grown in Brazil.  I'd also buy into Green tea, anti-aging products, health products, and cancer treatments, because the demand for those is only going to increase, during the rest of my lifetime. But Jeffrey, Michael, you both probably already know all of this, and you're probably just pretending not to.


 [ send green star]
 
anonymous Michelle February 01, 2006 8:31 AM

Exploration consists of a vastly larger perentage of oil company budgets than does lobbying. You are simply making up your statement that companies are not investing in exploration, but spending instead on lobbying.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
here then February 01, 2006 8:32 AM

www.peakoil.com have you even read there Jeffery? There are plenty of facts by repectable geologists and scientists.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
The "respectable majority" February 01, 2006 8:41 AM

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze495hz/id9.html

http://www.peakoil.net/


Let me ask you this, Jeffrey.  If you are a guy who owns big oil, and has been told since the '70's that oil is going to run out sometime in the next 50 years, what would YOU be doing, in 2005? Suppose you're a billionaire and someone tells you the oil will run out?  Do you think you'd believe him, or would you fire him and hire a geologist who'd tell you what you want to hear?

Suppose you had huge holdings oil.  Would you divest now, or would you, realizing that all development of alternative fuels was pretty much stalled, monopolize the last of the oil, and sell it for what the market would bear?

Airlines and weapons manufacturers will still be buying oil even after people are driving cars that run on sunflower oil.


 [ send green star]
 
Definitely the respectable majority here: February 01, 2006 8:42 AM

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ENG408A.html

Jeffrey, consider it a free stock tip.
 [ send green star]
 
Michelle February 01, 2006 8:45 AM

I would divest and not spend billions of dollars listening the overwhelming number of geologists who disagreed with the vocal minority of geologists who said that it will run out. Basically you are saying that the oil companies are knowingly spending billions of dollars on something they realize is futile.

 [ send green star]
 
David February 01, 2006 8:47 AM

Do you think they want to leave their money sitting in the ground?

This is what they do, produce oil, are they going to stop because it will run out? No they are going to get as much as they can before that happens

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 9:06 AM

No, Michelle, you linked to a highly partisan group, not a major geolocial association. Like I said, you commonly mistake the fringe for the consensus.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Amanda February 01, 2006 9:08 AM

Tell me why it would make economic sense to pour all of your assets into a dying market and dry fields. I already showed how there never could be enough supply to make up those hundreds of billions of dollars they would knowingly have wasted exploring dry fields. Your theory makes no sense at all.

I also would like to hear your explanation of why the price per gallon in real dollars ahsn't changed in 25 years.
 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
Peak Oil? February 01, 2006 9:09 AM

How could geologists or anyone else for that matter know where every drop of petroleum is within this planet?  Some good guesses maybe, but no estimate would be convincing enough to implement rationing, not when it is the political animal that will be doing the decision making.

Whether or not our petroleum supply is waning or not, is like arguing over which came first, the chicken or the egg.  It is what the CONSUMPTION of petroleum is doing to our air, water, and soil, that will prove more toxic and untenable, than the 'inconvenience' of higher prices, and 'alternative' fuel sources.  Now, whether or not we humans poison ourselves to death, PRIOR to 'running out' of petroleum.... Now, that is the question.  Perhaps this is our lame way of accomodating the massive human population reduction the planet so desperately needs...  greed, bigotry, arrogance, are all hallmarks of the destructive paradigm of take take take... 

Those that really believe, that the world's supply of petroleum is near it's end, are the true optimists... they think we will all be able to withdraw from the tit of petrol, before we expire from our own self-destructive means of power.

I tend to be more of a realist, albeit an idealist as well.  And I think there will be alot more years of 'big oil', and the sicknesses and wars that will be generated because of both it's power, and it's toxic nature.  I tried to hate 'oil', but I just can't, I value too many of the things petroleum has made possible.  It's the Beast that the petrol suppliers has become, that is really the effusive threat that we all face.  This Beast, has turned a miracle of science and technology, into a greedy, and soulless force for power.  I am not talking about one company, or this or that group of people, that's not where the evil lies.  It's the amalgam of corporate power and political power, that has hijacked our hopes for a better world for our children... and petroleum is just the means for the short-sighted and power-hungry to lay claim to arrogant and delusional victory, while the prognosis for long-term health and prosperity of humans and the planet become a dim and sorry hope.

sorry for the rant, but it seemed like the right thread for it.

OM Shanti

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 9:10 AM

Geologists study these things. That's why they are really good at finding the oil.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 February 01, 2006 9:14 AM

Michelle, when you can't argue the point, do you always resort to argument by insult?

Rather than a narrow view of the world, Michelle, it's a very practical observation. Markets serve as a very effective barometer of what investors believe, for the simple reason that investment always involves risk. Professionals will invest in solid investments and find ways to make money off major market shifts; it's that simple. If a majority of people really believed that we are past peak oil, right now is the best opportunity to make money off Big Oil now that the stock prices are at record highs.

If Bush sold off 60% of his oil stock before invading Iraq, he must be kicking himself now that Big Oil stocks are at record highs

Even your post betrays an important fact: If Big Oil can lobby to open up more reserves, then we are not past peak oil. If we were past peak oil, Big Oil could lobby Congress all they wanted but never find any new oil reserves.
 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Michelle February 01, 2006 9:18 AM

Here is a link to the most respected geologicl society in the world. See what you can find:

http://www.geosociety.org/
 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 February 01, 2006 9:39 AM

 

Oil producers have wised up. More money is saved than ever before; more jobs are being created in the private sector; real estate and stock markets are booming; and governments are encouraging a diversification of their economies to move them away from oil's increasingly volatile cycles.

..Analysts following the oil policies of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries members say the group is seeking to defend a minimum price of $55 a barrel and, if needed, would be willing to cut production to maintain prices above that level. That policy, never voiced officially by any OPEC representative, is meant to avoid a repeat of the 1998 price collapse, which nearly bankrupted producers.   (peakoil.com)


 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 10:01 AM

What did you think that showed?  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
you asked February 01, 2006 10:03 AM

I also would like to hear your explanation of why the price per gallon in real dollars ahsn't changed in 25 years.

I answered....

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 10:04 AM

Ok, but that directly refutes the claim of peak oil.   [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
confused as always February 01, 2006 10:14 AM

How does that refute the "claim" of peak oil?  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 10:16 AM

Peak oil implies scarcity of supply. Arificially reducing supply to boost price indicates surplus of supply. The two are mutually exclusive.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 February 01, 2006 10:41 AM

US oil peaked in 1972 -- geologists were only off by 6 months.. assuming that the capacity to predict has either remained the same or improved, predictions that we are likely to run out of oil within the next decade should be taken seriously.

from my understanding -- the only way a huge profit can be made is by the abrupt transition to a new energy source.  it would not benefit investors if it were developed over the long term.  therefore it would behoove oil companies to stick with drilling for oil until it peaks and then using their capital to create and control the next energy supply.  this goes along with a predominent mentality in america that "technology will always save us".  we were resourceful when it came to employing oil, why shouldn't we be equally or more so successful when 150 years later we turn to a new energy source? 

http://dieoff.org/page140.htm

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 February 01, 2006 10:44 AM

"All this when Arthur R. Green, lecturer for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and former chief geoscientist of ExxonMobil, says world oil production is nearing its peak. "

-- Charles Burch, retired senior staffer at Conoco

Oil Companies Discover Sustainability July 30 2005.  

so  

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 February 01, 2006 10:45 AM

... so it appears at least two reasonably informed employees in the oil industry believe peak oil is approaching.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Kathleen February 01, 2006 10:47 AM

Once again, no respectable geological society agrees with that. The market doesn't agree either. You are merely posting fringe views not accepted by the geological community, or born out in gasoline pricing. It is simply false.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
Jeffery February 01, 2006 10:47 AM

I understand your statement, but I disagree. The raise in price would cause panic and would over all be detremental to the producers of the product. I don't believe that we will see an enormous increase until we have surpassed the peak and in the decline.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 10:48 AM

A senior staffer is a title without meaning. If this Mr. Burch were actually somebody of significance, they would have included a title with a bit more credibility.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 10:53 AM

A step in the right direction, anyway. Last time we addressed this, you claimed peal occurred in 2003. At least you now recognize it hasn't occurred yet.

The next step is to understand the relationship between supply and demand. As we near peak. it is inevitable that costs will rise sharply well before that occurs. The combination of less supply plus greatly increased production costs due to less accessible reservoisrs will make increased prices a certainty.

If in fact oil companies were artificially lowering the price of gasoline to prevent a rise in price, this would show in declining profitibility and soon actual losses. The exact opposite is happening. Oil companies are more profitable now than any time in the past.
 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
Jeffery February 01, 2006 10:57 AM

I am reposting this because you never commented on it. Do you believe these sources to be invalid?

There are 317 days until WOCAP (World oil production company) Peak Oil Date,There are 682 days until ASPO (association for the study of peak oil and gas)Peak Oil DateThere are 9083 days until USGS (United  States Geological Survey)Peak Oil Date.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Jeffery February 01, 2006 10:59 AM

That are obviously contridictory dates with this, I was mistaken with the earlier post. It is difficult to dicifer what information is accurate. I am trying to take in all of the information I can and come up with the most resonable time frame.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
there February 01, 2006 10:59 AM

not that  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 11:00 AM

That is correct. Now let's get back to the facts, and discussion from those facts. We were on the impossibility of having skyrocketing profits if we have greatly more expensive production costs and we hold the revenue at the same level.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
jeffery February 01, 2006 11:53 AM

You stated 30 to 50 years until peak oil, there are reputable organizations disputing that, is that what is correct?  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 11:59 AM

Yes, some think it is somewhat shorter. None think peak oil is imminent, or really anything to worry about. Even if you said it was twenty years, the market would have provided transition to other sources long before peak occurred.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Amanda February 01, 2006 12:15 PM

Actually, what I said was 30 to 50 years supply of economically producible oil. which is not quite the same as saying to peak oil. It is likely that we would have peaked some years before that. All that means, though, is that the remaining oil becomes gradually more expensive to produce. It is this gradual increase in cost that will produce the incentive to the marketplace to develop alternatives.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Can't believe it myself February 01, 2006 1:17 PM

I have to agree with Jeffrey here.

Peak oil means all the easy oil will be gone.  There will still be oil to find, and produce, albeit more expensively (sour crude, found in sand and bedrock, as opposed to "sweet" easily extracted crude).  At that time, alternative sources will be more feasible because the "cost-gap" will be narrowed considerably.

You want to invest in oil?  Find a company that has already converted their production capacity to handle sour crude.  Jeffrey, back me up here...isn't Valero an attractive investment these days?

 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 1:22 PM

It is.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 February 01, 2006 4:39 PM

Amanda, welcome to the group.

Peak oil is not going to be such a disaster. It means we will be about half way through our oil reserves. Oil will keep being produced afterwards, although hopefully renewables will replace it. We will not run out of oil. The price will just keep going up until we find an alternative source. Given how wasteful we are with oil at the moment, I don't think this will be a major long term adjustment.

The comapnies that extract and transport the oil (what we usually think of as oil companies) will make roughly the same amount of profit per unit of oil produced regardless of the price, provided the market remains competitive. The people that own the oil reserves will make a lot more money as the price goes up.

Jeffrey, do you know of any geological societies that claim that we are not near peak oil production? Repeatedly claiming that they do not without giving any examples just wastes everybodies time.

 [ send green star]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 4:43 PM

Your kidding, right fish guy?  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 4:43 PM

THIS JUST IN FROM THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE: THERE IS NO TORNADO ABOUT TO HIT MIAMI  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 February 01, 2006 4:46 PM

No, I'm not kidding. Please give an example.  [ send green star]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 4:51 PM

As good of a place to start as any. Shows peak occurring around 40 years out, give or take a whole lot depending on world economic growth rates.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2004/worldoilsupply/oilsupply04.html
 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous  February 01, 2006 5:00 PM

This is another nice presentation, showing on one graph all of the major peal oil models. The consensus again is somewhere around 40 years out.

http://www.trendlines.ca/economic.htm
 [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 February 01, 2006 5:01 PM

From what I could tell it shows peak occurring in 20 years time, with only a 5% chance of it occurring  in 40 years.

Why does it show such a sharp drop in oil production after peak oil? Does most of the available oil cost about the same to extract?

 [ send green star]
 
 February 01, 2006 5:02 PM

Annual Production Scenarios with 2 Percent Growth Rates and Different Resource 
				Levels (Decline R/P=10)  [ send green star]
 
from the second link provided by Jeffrey: February 01, 2006 5:02 PM

 [ send green star]
 
 February 01, 2006 8:34 PM

the other issue to remember is that oil consumption is increasing.  so we will go through that second half in considerably less time than we went through the first half... and I'm not just refering to automobile usage -- it goes into plastics and fertilizers, etc.  combine this with an increase in standard of living across the globe and continued population growth, bottom line: there will be less and less oil as there are more people who want more things oil is used in.  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
On population and oil (dated figures) February 01, 2006 8:57 PM

[excerpt]

More prosperity means a greater use of fuel – there can be no doubt about that.  At present, the prosperity gap between the poor of this world and the rich is very wide indeed, and this is clearly shown in their respective fuel consumption.  Let us define as “rich” all populations in countries with an average fuel consumption – in 1966 – of more than one metric ton of coal equivalent (abbr. c.e.) per head, and as “poor” all those below this level.  On these definitions we cam draw i[ the table below (using United Nation figures throughout).

 The average fuel consumption per head of the “poor” is only .32 tons – roughly 1/14 of that of the “rich” and there are very many “poor” people in the world. – on these definitions – nearly 7/10 of the world population.  If the “poor” suddenly used as much fuel as the “rich”, world fuel consumption would treble right away.

 Table 1 (1966)

Rich(%)            Poor (%)                      World (%)

Populations (millions)

1060 (31)         2284 (69)                     3344 (100)

Fuel consumption (million tons c.e.)

                                    4788 (87)         721 (13)                       5509 (100)

Fuel consumption per head (tons c.e.)

                                    4.52                 .32                               1.65

 But this cannot happen as everything takes time.  And in time both the “rich” and the “poor” are growing in desires and numbers.  So let us make an exploratory calculation.  If the “rich” populations grow at the rate of 1.25% and the “poor” at the rate of 2.5% per year, world population will grow to about 6900 million by A.D. 2000 – a figure not very different from the most authoritative forecasts  Of at the same time the fuel consumption per head of the “rich” populations grows by 2.5% while that of the “poor” grows by 4.5% a year, the following figures will emerge for the year A.D. 2000.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
cont. February 01, 2006 8:59 PM

Table 2 (A.D. 2000)

Rich(%)            Poor (%)                      World (%)

Populations (millions)

1617 (23)         5292 (77)                     6909 (100)

Fuel Consumption (million tons c.e.)

                                    15588 (67)       7568 (33)                     23156 (100)

Fuel consumption per head (tons c.e.)

                                    9.64                 1.43                             3.35

 

The total result on world fuel consumption would be a growth from 5.5 milliard tons c.e. in 1966 to 23.3 milliard tons in the year 2000 – an increase by a factor of more than four, half of which would be attributable to population increase and half to increased fuel consumption per head.

 

This half and half split is interested enough.  But the split between the “rich” and the “poor” is even more interesting.  Of the total increase in world fuel consumption from 5.5 milliard to 23.3 milliard tons c.e., i.e. an increase by 17.7 milliard tons, the “rich” would account for nearly 2/3 and the “poor” for only a little over 1/3.  Over the whole 34 year period, the world would use 425 milliard tons of coal equivalent, with the “rich” using 321 milliards or 75% and the “poor” 104 milliards. 

 

E. F. Schumacher “Peace and Permanence”.  Small is Beautiful.  Harper Perennial. New York.  pp. 25-27 © 1973


To illustrate the relationship between fuel usage, population and prosperity.  Now imagine what the next 34 year trend might show.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 February 01, 2006 9:03 PM

So is it like 6% of the earth's population is using up over half the available natural resources and the rest of the people on the planet want the same standard of living and if they somehow got it like tomorrow we'd burn up the freak'n planet in a few weeks?

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
anonymous Kathleen February 01, 2006 11:22 PM

Those models all take into account increased deman. Read the links.  [report anonymous abuse]  [ accepted]
 
 February 01, 2006 11:30 PM

What assumptions do they make about the uptake of renewables? That would be hard to predict.

Sarvo: yes.

 [ send green star]
 
 May 03, 2006 11:29 PM

http://www.oilcrisis.com/summary.htm

World Oil Production to date Figure 1
This graph depicts world oil production to date.

The vertical line indicates the probable midpoint of
depletion as identified by Campbell.
(Refer to future scenarios as estimated by Campbell and others.)

Figure 2
Graph showing Production (Mbd) against Time (Years), based on Campbell’s data.

 [ send green star]
 
 May 06, 2006 11:27 PM

Hate to be the Cynic, but from all I have read and can find, we have already passed the peak of oil production.  There have been no major finds since the 1970s. The area in the mid-east has already used over half of what was found. The emphasis for geologists now is to get as much of the remaining oil out as fast as possible. No new oil producing areas are being located. Just looking for better ways to find how to get the little that remains most economicaly.

How much oil is there in the world?
In 1996 there were 1,047,200 million barrels of proven crude oil reserves, of which 76.6 per cent was in OPEC Member Countries.
(from OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin: 1996).
http://www.opec.org/faqs.htm

How much oil do the top oil producers produce a day?
Amount of oil produced per day:

  • Saudi Arabia* - 8.1 million barrels per day;
    *Including share of production from the Neutral Zone
  • Former Soviet Union - 6.9 million barrels per day;
  • United States - 6.5 million barrels per day;
  • I.R. Iran - 3.6 million barrels per day;
  • China - 3.2 million barrels per day.

(from OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin: 1996).
http://www.opec.org/faqs.htm

Which countries use the most oil and gas?
The top oil user is the USA (17 million barrels per day) and top gas user is the former Soviet Union (23,000 billion cubic feet per year)
http://www.lib.kth.se/~lg/envsite.htm

How much oil does the world consume each day?
The total world consumption of crude oil in 1996 was 71.7 million barrels per day (there are 42 US gallons in a barrel, or 159 litres). OPEC estimates that total world oil consumption could reach around 100 million barrels per day by the year 2020.
(From OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin: 1996, OWEM Scenarios Report: 1998.)
http://www.opec.org/faqs.htm

There are some newer stats, that I lost track of, if I find them I will post them. But the outcome looks the same. At best we can expect the known world reserves to be depleted in about 20 years. The mid east reserves to be depleted in 10 to 15 years, which is going to force production in the currently environmentaly protected areas.  Current production areas, without new drilling, will be depleted in 5 to 10 years.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 May 06, 2006 11:35 PM

Will oil remain the most important source of energy?
Yes, OPEC forecasts that oil demand will continue to grow strongly and oil will remain the world's single most important source of energy for the foreseeable future. OPEC forecasts that oil's share of the worldwide energy market will fall from almost 40 per cent in 1995 to less than 37 per cent in 2020. But oil will still be the world's single largest source of energy. The reduction in oil's market share is largely due to the stronger growth enjoyed by other forms of energy, particularly gas. The amount of oil demanded worldwide is actually expected to rise, from around 70 million barrels per day in 1995 to about 100 million barrels per day in 2020.
http://www.opec.org/faqs.htm

Advocates of a production peak coming soon offer several pieces of evidence:

• Total world oil production reached 68 million barrels per day in 2003, according to a count by the Oil and Gas Journal. That's not much above the 66.7 million barrels per day. in 2001. Oil reserves estimated at 1.266 trillion are up only a bit from 1.213 trillion a year earlier.

• Production has peaked for more than 50 oil-producing nations, including the US (1970) and Britain (1999). China, second to the US in the consumption of oil, was a net exporter of oil until five years ago.

• The Department of Energy predicts world demand will reach 119 million b.p.d. in 2025, with huge increases in China, India, and other developing nations.

• In 2002, the world used four times as much oil as was newly found.

• The rate of discovery of worldwide oil reserves, after declining for 40 years, has slowed to a trickle. In 2000, there were 16 large discoveries of oil, eight in 2001, three in 2002, and none last year, notes James Meyer, director of the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre in London.

• All the giant fields, such as those in the Middle East, have already been discovered, some experts say. These giants are relatively easy to find. The last major oil field, Cantarell, off Mexico's shore, was discovered in 1976.

"The oil companies are drilling fewer and fewer wells," says Colin Campbell, founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, a network of scientists, professors, and government experts. "There are fewer worthwhile prospects to test."

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 May 06, 2006 11:51 PM

Now comes an additional problem. It takes a lot of energy to pump oil out of a ground. Yes initialy there is a free ride. About 25 to 33% of a pools reserves will come out from natural gas pressure, but after that it needs to be pumped. With the depth of todays wells that is a massive unertaking. You got to remember that the depths of todays wells are measured in miles, not feet. I do not know the average depth but I know that the depth of the deepest well in Oklahomas Anadarko basin that was drilled in the 1970s was over 5 miles deep. It is now depleted.

You have to burn a lot of gasoline to move a barrel of oil 5 miles. Keep in mind you only get a little over 1 gallon of gasoline from every barrel of oil. about 50% of that barrel is going to be paraffin and asphalt. The remaining liquid will be heavy hydrocarbons usefull for making plastics and such. Only about one gallon can be converted to fuel usage. so you can reach a point were it takes more oil to pump it out then what you get.

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
 May 07, 2006 12:00 AM

Can anyone say, "Global Warming"?  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
peak oil predictions September 28, 2006 9:40 PM

Just to add in my two cents - keep in mind that the initial peak oil prediction (which was what, sometime around now +/- 5 years) didn't include oil from the tar sands in places such as Alberta, Canada. It was thought that it would never be possible and/or profitable to take the oil out of them, but now they're doing it (albeit at a huge environmental cost). Needless to say, if you consider how much oil is extractable (granted, these are just estimates, hence no definite year can be stated), the peak oil production for the world is estimated to be around 2020 +/- 8 years or so. I don't think oil discoveries in disputed off-shore areas, even if they were rather large, would alter this number significantly. Mike  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
peak oil production topped out June 18, 2008 1:24 PM

In case people here aren't in the Energy group, Phil posted this link:

World Crude Production Has Peaked: Pickens reuters.com World crude oil production has topped out at 85 million barrels per day even as demand keeps climbing, helping to drive a stunning surge in prices, billionaire oil investor T. Boone Pickens said on Tuesday.

http://www.care2.com/news/member/342040137/784298

 [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
Hi all June 18, 2008 1:35 PM

sorry for butting in but I just watched a very interesting video on the oil crisis and thought you might be interested seeing as it is right up your street.
Here it is:

The Energy Non-Crisis---LINDSEY WILLIAMS



It seems there is a lot more to this than just peak oil......



This post was modified from its original form on 18 Jun, 13:36  [ send green star]  [ accepted]
 
  New Topic              Back To Topics Read Code of Conduct

 

This group:
?Science?
336 Members

View All Topics
New Topic

Track Topic
Mail Preferences


Copyright © 2009 Care2.com, inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved