PEAK OIL: Going Mainstream

[JihadJane]

"A storm is quickly approaching, and the world is not ready for it.

The permanent end of the era of cheap oil is coming as soon as next year, according to a raft of official reports that have made their way into energy media over the last few months. Governments are now beginning to acknowledge the looming crisis. Yet, perhaps because they waited too long to prevent it, leaders are not yet alerting the public.

The entire world economy is built on cheap oil, A permanent oil production shortage will thus lead to The End of The World (As We Know It). What will come on the other side of this — will it be good or bad?"

Peak oil production coming sooner than expected
Media, public, governments unprepared for the End of the World (As We Know It)

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

"A storm is quickly approaching, and the world is not ready for it.

The permanent end of the era of cheap oil is coming as soon as next year, according to a raft of official reports that have made their way into energy media over the last few months.

You say this as if it is a bad thing.

Governments are now beginning to acknowledge the looming crisis. Yet, perhaps because they waited too long to prevent it, leaders are not yet alerting the public.

I bet the Jews are behind it.

The entire world economy is built on cheap oil, A permanent oil production shortage will thus lead to The End of The World (As We Know It). What will come on the other side of this — will it be good or bad?"

Good.


Correction: Very, very good.

 

[Nosi]

You say this as if it is a bad thing.



I bet the Jews are behind it.



Good.


Correction: Very, very good.

Alright, tell me exactly how we can adjust FAST to a sudden shortage of cheap oil and avoid Jihad Jane's 'doom'? Especially in the USA of SUV's.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Alright, tell me exactly how we can adjust FAST to a sudden shortage of cheap oil and avoid Jihad Jane's 'doom'? Especially in the USA of SUV's.

We won't have to adjust FAST.

 

[drkitten]

Alright, tell me exactly how we can adjust FAST to a sudden shortage of cheap oil and avoid Jihad Jane's 'doom'? Especially in the USA of SUV's.

Re-read the Peak Oil literature. Oil production is a symmetric curve, not a cliff. It took us 200 years to get to the production levels we are currently at; it will almost certainly take us 200 years to get back down to zero as well.

We'll need to adjust, but it won't need to be FAST; selling or scrapping all those damn SUVs will certainly be an early and easy adjustment. Look at what happened to Hummer and its sales.....

 

[jimbob]

Re-read the Peak Oil literature. Oil production is a symmetric curve, not a cliff. It took us 200 years to get to the production levels we are currently at; it will almost certainly take us 200 years to get back down to zero as well.

We'll need to adjust, but it won't need to be FAST; selling or scrapping all those damn SUVs will certainly be an early and easy adjustment. Look at what happened to Hummer and its sales.....

But our current usage is pretty close to our current production. Not that of the 1800's.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Re-read the Peak Oil literature. Oil production is a symmetric curve, not a cliff. It took us 200 years to get to the production levels we are currently at; it will almost certainly take us 200 years to get back down to zero as well.

I don't claim to know the numbers, but I'm not convinced the adjustment won't have to be relatively fast simply because consumption continues to increase dramatically. (I don't think all our conservation efforts to date have resulted in a net decrease in consumption, or even a net per capita decrease.)

ETA: Also, consider current consumption demands compared to consumption demands of 150 years ago. In other words, production isn't the full story.

If nations with large populations like China and India consume anywhere close to what the U.S. consumes per capita, the increase will be even more dramatic as production drops off.

Also, the increase in production was gradual as extraction infrastructure and technology developed. The decrease will be due to depletion, so there's no reason to think the decrease curve will necessarily be the same as the increase curve was.

It might taper off a long time after we have already been forced off a petroleum-based economy (that is, after we have made the adjustment and consumption of petroleum has dropped off markedly).

 

[jimbob]

I don't claim to know the numbers, but I'm not convinced the adjustment won't have to be relatively fast simply because consumption continues to increase dramatically. (I don't think all our conservation efforts to date have resulted in a net decrease in consumption, or even a net per capita decrease.)

ETA: Also, consider current consumption demands compared to consumption demands of 150 years ago. In other words, production isn't the full story.

If nations with large populations like China and India consume anywhere close to what the U.S. consumes per capita, the increase will be even more dramatic as production drops off.

Also, the increase in production was gradual as extraction infrastructure and technology developed. The decrease will be due to depletion, so there's no reason to think the decrease curve will necessarily be the same as the increase curve was.

It might taper off a long time after we have already been forced off a petroleum-based economy (that is, after we have made the adjustment and consumption of petroleum has dropped off markedly).

Page#2 and page#7 of this report (pdf)

http://www.eia.doe.gov/conference/2009/session3/Sweetnam.pdf
suggest that the demand for "oil" is expected to increase to about 130% of the current demand by 2030. (about from about 80 to 105-Million Barrels/day in 2030) with an "unidentified" component of 43-million barrels.

This seems quite a lot.

ETA: What are the copyright rules on using images from US Governmental websites? That's why I didn't post the graph.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

But our current usage is pretty close to our current production. Not that of the 1800's.

It always has been. Do you think there was ever a time when production outpaced usage? If so, where do you think they put all the oil?***



***Yes, I am aware of the strategic petroleum reserve.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It always has been. Do you think there was ever a time when production outpaced usage? If so, where do you think they put all the oil?***



***Yes, I am aware of the strategic petroleum reserve.

I think you missed the point. Even if production declines with the same gradual gentle curve that it increased historically, consumption won't be at the levels it was back then as production declines.

ETA: I worded that very poorly. To illustrate, let's say production will reach the level it was at in 1930 in 2030 (I have no idea if that's at all a reasonable estimate). Unless there is very fast, dramatic change, consumption in 2030 will not be anything like it was in 1930.

 

[jimbob]

It always has been. Do you think there was ever a time when production outpaced usage? If so, where do you think they put all the oil?***



***Yes, I am aware of the strategic petroleum reserve.

Joe the Juggler has answered for me.

The existance of strategic oil reserves is why I used the word "approximately".

I was responding to DrKitten's statement that it took 200-years to reach this level of production and would take about another 200-years for it to reach zero.

The problem isn't the amount produced, it is the difference between supply and demand.

Production does indeed look to be a symmetric curve. But (potential) demand ("need") isn't.

Of course the price will rise until demand falls and meets supply. However there could be some bad effects from this, for example on food prices.

 

[mike3]

I think you missed the point. Even if production declines with the same gradual gentle curve that it increased historically, consumption won't be at the levels it was back then as production declines.

ETA: I worded that very poorly. To illustrate, let's say production will reach the level it was at in 1930 in 2030 (I have no idea if that's at all a reasonable estimate). Unless there is very fast, dramatic change, consumption in 2030 will not be anything like it was in 1930.

If it's a symmetrical curve, then if it peaked out now, 2030 would be more like 1990 (2030 - 2010 = 20 years, 2010 - 20 = 1990) in terms of oil production. But yeah, demand would be up, so a significant supply-demand gap forms, and that triggers an economic crisis.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think you missed the point. Even if production declines with the same gradual gentle curve that it increased historically, consumption won't be at the levels it was back then as production declines.

ETA: I worded that very poorly. To illustrate, let's say production will reach the level it was at in 1930 in 2030 (I have no idea if that's at all a reasonable estimate). Unless there is very fast, dramatic change, consumption in 2030 will not be anything like it was in 1930.

Then gas prices will go up and people will switch to mass transit and will chose to live closer to the urban core. These are both desirable results.

 

[drkitten]

I don't claim to know the numbers, but I'm not convinced the adjustment won't have to be relatively fast simply because consumption continues to increase dramatically. (I don't think all our conservation efforts to date have resulted in a net decrease in consumption, or even a net per capita decrease.)

Only if you've figured out a magical way to consume stuff that hasn't been produced. If world production is a hundred zillion barrels a day, world consumption can't be over a hundred zillion barrels a day plus whatever's left in the the various reserves around the world.

To put this in perspective, actual US consumption is about thirty million barrels a day, give or take. The US has a strategic petroleum reserve with a capacity of about 750 million barrels. Less than a month of consumption, in other words. For all practical purposes, world oil production is a hard limit on world oil consumption.

Also, the increase in production was gradual as extraction infrastructure and technology developed. The decrease will be due to depletion, so there's no reason to think the decrease curve will necessarily be the same as the increase curve was.

No, that's exactly what Peak Oil theory says. The production curve is always (more or less) symmetric.

 

[drkitten]

Production does indeed look to be a symmetric curve. But (potential) demand ("need") isn't.

Yes but "(potential) demand" doesn't exist. Potential demand for anything is infinite -- that's one of the fundamental axioms of economics. Wants are unlimited. If oil were free, everyone would drive Hummers -- or helicopters --- or both.

China would like to burn a lot more oil than it does, but can't afford it. The United States would like to burn a lot more oil than it does, but can't afford it. Estonia would like to burn a lot more oil than it does, but can't afford it. As the supply drops and the cost of production rises, Estonia (and the USA) will be able to afford less and less oil, which will mean people will get rid of their helicopter, then their Hummer, then their SUV, and eventually learn that commuting by bicycle isn't all that bad.... The big train companies, which can outbid me for oil but which also use it much more efficiently will still be burning oil and handle the long distance travel needs that I would do in my own private helicopter-Hummer-Learjet if oil were free.

 

[Hindmost]

For Information:

The US uses about 20 million barrels per day and the world uses about 85 million per day.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html

Peak oil really means that the production of oil has reached a peak--which occurs around the point 50% of the extractable oil has been produced from a specific field...it really doesn't mean the downside will be more or less rapid. For Prudhoe, that was about 1981 and was about 2 million barrels perday--and now produces in the 650,000 range. If a field has used enhance recovery prior to the peak, there is a reasonable probability the downside will be faster than the upside. Mexico, Norway and the North sea have seen step drops in production.

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=37562

http://www.compasscayman.com/observ...alistic-pride-complicates-their-oil-industry/

Enhance recovery techniques have improved oil extraction so the downslope will be more gradual depending on the field...however, the energy return---which is what matters--is going to be less during the downslope in all cases. Couple that with a large demand and the downslope being uncertain...and uncertainty is never good.

glenn

 

[JihadJane]

Re-read the Peak Oil literature. Oil production is a symmetric curve, not a cliff. It took us 200 years to get to the production levels we are currently at; it will almost certainly take us 200 years to get back down to zero as well.

Zero is irrelevant.

 

[jimbob]

Yes but "(potential) demand" doesn't exist. Potential demand for anything is infinite -- that's one of the fundamental axioms of economics. Wants are unlimited. If oil were free, everyone would drive Hummers -- or helicopters --- or both.

China would like to burn a lot more oil than it does, but can't afford it. The United States would like to burn a lot more oil than it does, but can't afford it. Estonia would like to burn a lot more oil than it does, but can't afford it. As the supply drops and the cost of production rises, Estonia (and the USA) will be able to afford less and less oil, which will mean people will get rid of their helicopter, then their Hummer, then their SUV, and eventually learn that commuting by bicycle isn't all that bad.... The big train companies, which can outbid me for oil but which also use it much more efficiently will still be burning oil and handle the long distance travel needs that I would do in my own private helicopter-Hummer-Learjet if oil were free.

What I should have said, is the amount to sustain the current economic activity our way of life.

 

[drkitten]

What I should have said, is the amount to sustain the current economic activity our way of life.

The only problem with that is that the amount it takes to sustain our way of life is also a function of our technology; as oil prices rise, the value in oil substitutes or oil-efficient technologies rises. Again, this isn't exactly news; it's exactly what's been seen in other "peak" events. People didn't use less lighting when whale oil got expensive (quite the opposite), but they did switch to kerosene and other light-producing technologies.

 

[jimbob]

drkitten, I do hope you are right.

From a professional POV I'd really like photovoltaics to become major, as my experience in power semiconductor design and development are fairly good match for that field, and it would increase demand for my skills.

I think that a potential problem is that oil is pretty energy dense, so is highly suitable for transport applications. Hydrogen isn't nearly as good.