The End of Cheap Oilgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread |
Here's a great article about the coming crisis in oil.It makes Infomagic seem like a polly. I wonder how Andy Ray will spin this, the ultimate doomer position.
Seriously, I would appreciate it if anyone could give a plausable explanation why humanity is not going to face a crisis if this article is coorect.
DS
Oilcrisis
-- Sure M. Hopeful (Hopeful@future.com), May 16, 2000
"The peak of production will be a more important occurrence than any other event in human history, affecting more people, in more places," said AAPG member Walter Youngquist, a leading proponent of the scarcity theory.Youngquist is one of a small, persistent group of geologists seeking public and government awareness of this view. L.F. "Buzz" Ivanhoe calls them the Cassandras, after the mythological Trojan princess who could foretell the future but was doomed never to be believed.
"There are a number of us who are petroleum geologists, upstream petroleum professionals. We're all retired, so we can say what we want to," Youngquist said.
--------------------------------------------------------
"In 1998, Campbell and Jean H. Laherrere, a former Total explorationist, wrote an article titled "The End of Cheap Oil" for Scientific American magazine. Some readers thought the article implied the end of oil -- a viewpoint Campbell disclaims.
"Many people ask, 'When does the oil run out?' This really isn't the question, because the tail end of depletion goes on forever," Campbell said. "It becomes sort of irrelevant whether you have a few barrels around or not."
In their article, Campbell and Laherrere wrote: "About 80 percent of the oil produced today flows from fields that were found before 1973, and the great majority of them are declining."
-------------------------------------------------
"For the immediate future, Campbell sees OPEC's share of world oil production possibly rising to 35 percent next year. It will ultimately reach 50 percent, at which point OPEC's own production will decline, he predicted.
"At a certain point, and nobody is sure where it will be, this growth in share is translated into control of price," he said.
"Then there's a price shock, which will curb demand."
Youngquist expects governments to begin rationing oil as supply deteriorates.
"What will happen is that price will move oil to its highest and best use," he said. "People ask, 'How long will oil last?' That's inconsequential. When the peak occurs, you have a continuing world oil crisis."
-----------------------------------------------------
"If we cannot discover new oil, competitively, we will go the way of the dinosaurs." ---------------------------------------
Hello...............Hello........
IS ANYBODY ELSE GETTING THIS?????
Full Speed Ahead!
-- Swampthing (In@the.swamp), May 16, 2000.
The U.S. has 4% of the worlds population and we consume 22% of the worlds resources.The oil doesn't belong to us,so why are we bitching about high oil prices. B.T.W.,compared to the rest of the world,we have cheap prices.
-- gh (w@s.k), May 16, 2000.
I'm not a geologist. I don't have an educated opinion with regards to oil other than I can't live without it.I CAN visualize the reaction of the major industrial countries when oil production slips drasctically.
Can you say N-U-C-L-E-A-R W-A-R? I knew you could.
-- Bingo1 (howe9@shentel.net), May 16, 2000.
I would side with networking as a possible answer. With more and more doing their thing at the old bunker, less need to fight Carlos on the 405, simple(lol).But take everything I say with a grain of salt, I just attended Interop and no doubt have the Cisco-meme something terrible. Seriously, the only thing really standing in the way of networked reality is the dinosaurs of Teleco and their buds in the Gumbit. They are doing everything possible to retain their grip on your ability to freely assemble in the new economy. Just a matter of time is all.
Understand we are entering a completely new paradigm. There is a war ongoing. The old is fighting the emerging reality. OIL is old reality. Figuring out why the stock market don't respond to the old tools is OLD SCHOOL. Best to get current be my advice.
-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), May 16, 2000.
Swampthing: I share your amazement and frustration. This is going to be the biggest crisis we and our children will ever face (short of nuclear war) and almost no one cares. Yawn, wake me up when I need some more gas seems to be the standard response.Doc Paulie: your response is typical of the ongoing mania in computer technology. Networking isn't going to elimenate our energy requirements, and the "new paradigm" doesn't put food on your table. Oil isn't the old reality, it's the only reality. How did you get to work, use computers which need energy, clothe, feed yourself, etc., etc., every step in the economic cycle used oil. The US uses more oil then ever before, not less.
Nothing personal, but you are not being realistic.
DS
-- Sure M. Hopeful (Hopeful@future.com), May 16, 2000.
Saudi Prince's Big Net Gamblefollow the money!!!!!
-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), May 16, 2000.
Let's see if I have this straight:1) Finding new oil deposits is getting more expensive.
2) The quantity and quality of both new and existing deposits is diminishing, raising the cost of extraction.
3) In maybe a decade, physical (nonpolitical) factors will force energy costs from oil to start rising significantly.
4) In maybe 2 decades after that, we reach diminishing returns, where the energy required to extract a barrel of oil exceeds the energy that can be extracted from that barrel.
5) Sometime during those 2 decades, the cost of oil will rise to the point where it becomes prohibitive, i.e. not competetive with alternatives.
6) Currently, although we have alternative energy sources (solar, tides, geothermal, oceanic thermoclines, biomass, wind, etc.), all of these together have no real prospect of replacing the sheer quantity of energy from oil being consumed today.
7) This cost increase is gradual, not overnight. Lifestyles will change over time as people reallocate their resources accordingly.
8) Rationing (forced or voluntary reduction in personal energy consumption) will at best only buy time for this change to occur -- it can't be avoided. Voluntary reduction is nearly guaranteed in any case as costs rise. This does stretch out the readjustment period significantly.
9) By the time a new equilibrium is reached, I'll be long gone.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 16, 2000.
So, a Saudi prince invests some money in Internet stocks and that proves what? The Middle Eastern countries have few resources other then petroleum and have long attempted to diversify. That doesn't change the fact that oil will soon peak in 2005, and decline forever after that. Many "high-tech" jobs will be junked as the world's economies implode from soaring costs due to higher oil prices.
-- Sure M. Hopeful (Hopeful@future.com), May 16, 2000.
9) By the time a new equilibrium is reached, I'll be long gone.-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 16, 2000.
As for me I shall not concern myself with the shadow I cast nor the footprint I leave!
I think you may be overly optimystic with this "decades down the road" approach.
-- Swampthing (in@the.swamp), May 16, 2000.
Doc Paulie,
It is precisely your type of thinking that explains the market valuation of Amazon.com, et al.
Only time will tell if that type of thinking is correct.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 16, 2000.
Sure M. Hopeful,Ok you convinced me, I am seeking a cave. F*ck it, why continue...?
Is this not where your dribble leads? yep dribble, pollution. Turn the lemons into lemonade,,,DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE? Survivalists survive, not sit around and moan about things which they have ZERO control over. Problem ain't OIL, never been that. or Y2k, Contrails, Klinton the Bubbybergers or dog piss in your rusty hubcap.
So who was it that shit in your porridge? Who stole your dreams? Ya you got hope, all losers have hope that one day death will come along and "save them" from the god awful reality that they alone control their destiny.
Oil running out, let me provide alternatives. As you sit and whine, 5,000 not so smart as you are doing just that. Sorry, the road may get bumpy, but humans ain't going away anytime soon. Nature unfortunately does not treat laggards so kindly and turns them into oil, are you next.
-- Doc Paulie (fannybubbles@usa.net), May 16, 2000.
Flint,I do think you "have it right" insofar as nothing that you wrote about the process is invalid. However, there are many words in your narrative that indicate speed and quantity without attaching numbers. A word such as "gradual" can be just as misleading as the word "precipitate". Each is a characterization of supply versus time. What is really needed to understand such a subject are charts.
The other observation I would make is that your narrative was very firmly founded on the point of view of a middle class member of a very rich society. It may be perfectly true to say that costs will increase, causing adjustments. But this means widely different things to different people in different situations.
For those in your class (and mine), it might mean doing without a few luxuries. For those living much nearer the margin (as several billion people on earth do today) it might mean a sharp increase in mortality and morbidity rates.
So, while nothing you wrote is actually false, it does not give a precise picture and leaves out a great deal that might be considered important.
-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), May 16, 2000.
what,s wrong with horses? & small-community.
-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), May 16, 2000.
It kind of depends..You have to take into account the following: Most of the oil is still in the ground. A well only yields about 1/3 of the oil in a find. There have been various attempts to pump hot water or steam into the wells to get the rest but they werent very effective. Many fields such as those off the CA coast have been ruled out of bounds for environmental reasons. But the oil is still there.
There are literally centuries of oil locked up in Tar Sands and Oil Shale. The expense of obtaining that oil is much more then present pumping costs. So its not economically feasible to mine and then crack to obtain oil and gas.
Environmental groups have largely changed their arguments from the world is running out of oil so we should go solar to we cant afford to burn all the oil due to greenhouse gases so we should switch to solar.
Maybe we can pump in all the CO2 into the wells to get the remaining 2/3 oil?
Also there are some interesting theories about where oil REALLY comes from. It may not be old dinosaurs and plant matter. The theories are way out there and may not be correct but they are intriguing.
-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), May 16, 2000.
The end of cheap oil will lead, inevitably, to expensive oil. Alternative energy sources that cannot economically compete now, will someday be able to do just that: COMPETE ECONOMICALLY. It is really that simple, people.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), May 16, 2000.
Don't confuse economics with energy sources/sinks. For example, back during the Carter years there was an attempt to process Colorado's oil shade into usable oil. In one sense it was a success in that it was possible to do, but the energy expended exceeded the net energy gained. It doesn't matter if oil was $5 a barrel or $500 a barrel if more energy is used then produced. There is quite a debate going on what renewable sources actually are net sources of energy. Seems like biomass (i.e., wood), wind, hydro, are the top candidates.These sources could only supply a fraction of our current needs of about 22 million barrels of oil/per day. None has the versatility of oil (try running a car on wood).
Actually, the US natural gas situation is even more critical because 13% of our consumpsion comes from Canada and their fields are starting to decline.
DS
-- Sure M. Hopeful (Hopeful@future.com), May 16, 2000.
http://www.msnbc.com/msn/408090.aspNUFF SAID.
-- CPR (buytexas@swbell.net), May 16, 2000.
More energy is always consumed then produced. Otherwise youd have perpetual motion machines. Car engines are usually less then 20% efficient. The number of 17% sticks in my mind.The question was always the cost vs. the cost of pumping and cracking. Even there the cost of light crude from the Middle East is much less then the cost of oil from Mexico and Venezuela which has heavy crude. As long as its cheaper to pump the oil that method will be used.
The high cost of gas in other countries (and in this country) is due to taxes.
-- The Engineer (spcengineer@yahoo.com), May 16, 2000.
CPR, your referenced article said: "initial estimates of its size range from 8 billion to more than 50 billion barrels of oil, the sources said." To which Colin Campbell replied in another forum: "To give a sense of proportion, 12 Gb (billion barrels) would supply the world for six months." So your massive oil field will supply the world for, at best, two more years by itself. The fact remains that the world is burning more oil in a year than it's finding in a year. 'Nuff said.
-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), May 16, 2000.
J, Doc, Flint, before you go any farther down this road (walking, not driving a car, thank you very much), acquaint yourselves with the concept of Energy Return on Energy Invested, as well as Odum's eMergy concept. You're looking for economic solutions to an energy problem, and it simply doesn't work past a certain point. There is still a raging debate on when, even if, PV panels pay for themselves in energy return. Ethanol is an energy sink, not an energy producer. Wind is marginal in most locations. And while we're focussing on energy use in transportation and power generation, don't forget the estimated two billion people in the world who are kept alive by oil's agricultural uses in fertilizer and pesticides and tractor fuel.Norway, Columbia, and Venezuela are past peak oil production already. Mexico will probably peak this year. The US, of course, peaked more than 25 years ago. There's general concensus everywhere except within the US Geological Survey that world production will peak in another five years.
Flint, unless you got some really bad news from your doctor recently, you will likely be around for the fun. Bloomberg financial news service reported Friday (5.12) that OPEC is signaling no production increase for its meeting next month. "Without more oil, daily world consumption will exceed production by 220,000 barrels in the third quarter 2000 and 1.72 million in the fourth, the International Energy Agency projected." Chances are OPEC will increase production before the end of the year, but I'm betting they'll keep the leash short.
-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), May 16, 2000.
Forget the Caspian bonanza
http://dieoff.com/page144.htm
-- - (x@xxx.com), May 16, 2000.
Brian:You certainly didn't find most of what you wrote in my words, and you don't seem very skilled at reading my mind either. I hereby accuse you of projecting yourself onto what you did not find in my post but wanted to. So...
[I do think you "have it right" insofar as nothing that you wrote about the process is invalid.]
I wouldn't go that far. I was being very carefully and indirectly critical of what I view as a linear, "Club of Rome" analysis. Such analyses always fail, because they assume that the way things are is the only way they can be, and that the future will be more of the same because the options we've chosen are the only options there are. I'm highly suspicious of such a hidden assumption.
[However, there are many words in your narrative that indicate speed and quantity without attaching numbers. A word such as "gradual" can be just as misleading as the word "precipitate". Each is a characterization of supply versus time. What is really needed to understand such a subject are charts.]
I used Campbell's numbers. He defined "gradual" as over roughly the next 30 years. Even that fairly wide span rests on assumptions about future oil discoveries, technological breakthroughs, sea changes in fashion, and lack of any major imponderables (from pandemic to invasion by benevolent aliens and everything in between). Only a fool would attempt to chart out the future in greater detail, since any such chart *must* assume that a complex adaptive system will simply stop adapting in unexpected ways.
[The other observation I would make is that your narrative was very firmly founded on the point of view of a middle class member of a very rich society. It may be perfectly true to say that costs will increase, causing adjustments. But this means widely different things to different people in different situations.]
And my observations were middle class due to failure to make this explicit? Would it be less "middle class" to start bewailing the projection that a reduction in "irreplaceable" global wealth will impoverish different groups differentially? People of all levels of means have costs, and as costs change they adjust. "Costs" and "adjustments" are about as value-free as words get.
[For those in your class (and mine), it might mean doing without a few luxuries. For those living much nearer the margin (as several billion people on earth do today) it might mean a sharp increase in mortality and morbidity rates.]
OK, if these linear projections prove accurate (for the first time ever), some groups will "adjust" by dying. If so, this will be considered a terrible thing as it happens, and later be viewed positively by the descendents of the survivors. I'd bet on that, except I'd never live to collect.
[So, while nothing you wrote is actually false, it does not give a precise picture and leaves out a great deal that might be considered important.]
Well, as I've been saying, that was deliberate. I can't give a precise picture of the fairly distant future. Whole books are written about future changes their authors consider important, all of which become obsolete rapidly. This forum isn't the place for a book embodying planned obsolescence anyway.
I'm quite sure we're consuming oil faster than it's being created, and the time will come when it's no longer practical to use it for quite so many purposes, nor any longer affordable to consume it in such quantity. But Campbell-type projections in 1890 would have us all under 20 feet of horseshit by now. For all we know, in 30 years an "internet" of huge bandwidth will connect everyone into the same virtual reality, physical travel will be rare and undesirable, and what little power we consume will be beamed microwaves from orbital solar collectors. I consider that *at least* as likely as a world suffering massive human dieback due to universal human refusal to accept alternatives to once-abundant oil now vanished.
Far more likely, the most important professions 30 years from now don't even exist yet, and we don't know what they'll be. But you can be sure that *some* people will be making linear projections even then, and finding proof of doom from exhaustion of what isn't even recognized as a resource today. Some people have a knack for this.
Cash:
I spoke of long term physical and NOT short term political matters (point #3, did you miss it?), yet you turn right around and speculate about short term political decisions. Not the topic at hand. I also spoke of energy return on energy invested (point #4, did you miss that one too?).
Recall that during the 1973-4 energy crisis, as soon as gasoline prices skyrocketed, consumption plummeted. Economists were surprised at how elastic that demand really was. And you claim that economics doesn't address rising costs? In real life, increased difficulty producing oil translates directlyinto rising costs.
I think your notion of economics is much too narrow. For an economist, dollars are a useful measure in most cases because they're generic and fairly universal. But costs are also measured in *deaths*, if that's the best measure. And incredibly cold hearted as it may sound, a cost of 2 billion deaths might well have an excellent cost/benefit ratio if nobody can possibly dream up any way to adapt to rising dollar costs for oil. And that's *still* economics.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), May 16, 2000.
Pssst, Benjamin---COLD FUSION
-- (nemesis@awol.com), May 16, 2000.
Flint, I didn't miss your point, tho you may have missed mine. I was referring in a semijocular way to your view that you wouldn't be here when the shortage and resulting equilibrium -- whatever that might be -- arrived. I know the difference between physical and economic shortages. I was making reference to the idea that (economic) shortfalls in supply and rising prices will likely arrive sooner than the (physical) oil production peak and resulting decline themselves, and that you will likely be here to see them. In other words, I was making a joke, my friend. (I hope I'm not being too presumptuous in using that word.) And I agree that oil demand has a certain elasticity, but only, as I mentioned, to a certain point. As to the economic/social "benefits" resulting from two billion deaths ... I'll have to ponder that one for a while. The Club of Rome made the same mistakes Erlich did when he was publishing his doom and gloom books of the late 1960s and 1970s. They assumed what is would always be, that linear reasoning you mentioned. That sort of problem goes all the way back to Malthus. I do not take the apocalyptic view of some people in the larger discussion -- and here I refer specificially to Jay Hanson, altho at times I wonder if he argues the extreme position simply to stimulate discussion. I've said before that human beings have proven themselves infinitely adaptable to environmental changes. If Campbell and his compatriots are right, the oil decline will be as gradual as the oil rise, giving us some leeway in adapting to the situation, that new equilibrium. That doesn't mean it will be a smooth process. Just the opposite, I fear. I have to sign off. Perhaps we can continue this discussion later. Also, I would urge you, if you're at all interested in the larger debate, to join Hanson's egroup. Its members aren't TEOTWAWKI types at all. I think you can sign up through dieoff.com. If not, I'll be happy to post the url tomorrow if you like. Regards, Cash
-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), May 16, 2000.
Cash,>So your massive oil field will supply the world for, at best, two more years by itself.
Make that eight months instead of two years.
As noted in the next-to-last paragraph of David Ottaway's article referenced by CPR, "Oil companies are currently able to recover between one-quarter to one-third of the oil in most fields" and the 50 billion barrel size estimate is for total oil, not the recoverable fraction.
-- No Spam Please (nos_pam_please@hotmail.com), May 17, 2000.
No Spam, thanks for the clarification.
-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), May 17, 2000.