Peak Oil

[gunnut]

Gunnut, I see a one point in no drill policy:

"While we [the US] can, we will buy oil from elsewhere, and will pay the price, but ultimately, we will have oil reserves when needed, while the others will be out of options."

Shhhhh....don't let the cat out of the bag...;)

[Double Edge]

Deep Horizon oil leak was exactly 1 year ago. It took months to cap that blown out well head. Why? It was under a mile of water. Well, why don't we drill in shallower water? Because the government wouldn't let us. How about on land? Can't do that either. You can drill, but make sure it's 50 miles off shore.

Shell has an ofshore platform still operating. They were required by the govt to show they could plug a similar leak in much less time should the need arise, if they expected to continue with the operation. You can bet as a result of deep horizon that govts elsewhere will require no less. We will make mistakes and there will be more leaks but we learn from each of these experiences.

But the ban on drilling isn't helping

[gunnut]

But the ban on drilling isn't helping

Exactly! There's no peak oil or oil shortage. There's only the reluctance to find more oil.

The so-called peak oil is entirely man-made, as in refusal to increase production.

[Versus]

Basic calculation. Peak 2004, realized 2005 since you can't see it directly but only in the rear view mirror. So some simple math follows:2004+10 is 2014 or 2015, 2004+15 is 2019 or 2020. As far as oil drum graph goes, you need to see it as a animation. Imagine that the growth is SUV that drives 250 miles per hour as it climbs on to the hill. Once hill stops, peak accrues but due to immense inertia Hummer flies or jumps of the hill and it is in the air. Laws of motion (market) keep it in the air for a while, until gravity of the reality pull it down. Now if it stops on the hill, it bounces a couple of times but it continues to follow the topology of the hill afterward, since it can't fly. But if Hummer drives too fast or the peak on the hill is short, Hummer lands on the slope and depending on how steep the slope is it has a pretty rough landing, since it on the slope, the point of impact is lower and with the gravity and the mass of the Hummer multiplied with the distance of the hummer and the contact point on the slope, gives the rate or the speed of its descent. The higher the hummer is and the steeper the slope is,the further the contact point is, that distance translates into the impact energy and ultimately decides the Hummer's fate.
“Undefined Oil” is an acronym for shortage.
Here is the pesky sketch with spelling errors.

[Double Edge]

Thing with this crayola drawing is that its just that. What is the source for the data ?

This is one of the classic graphs of the PO community, its been known to change as time goes on.

230. THE GROWING GAP
327. STRONG ARGUMENT FOR A SLOW DECLINE

Just thought of another counter to your rate-of-production argument :)

No matter how many women you put on the job of creating babies, it STILL takes nine months per.

So why do we have such a large population and its growing.

[Versus]

[QUOTE=Double Edge;803265]Thing with this crayola drawing is that its just that. What is the source for the data ?

This is one of the classic graphs of the PO community, its been known to change as time goes on.

230. THE GROWING GAP
327. STRONG ARGUMENT FOR A SLOW DECLINE[/QUOTEHis

History?Double Edge, 10% drop is enough to create severe disruptions. Why the growth has continued? Because it is created artificially with in the financial sector whom wants desperately to sustain its fantasy that it is possible to get something for nothing.

[Double Edge]

History?Double Edge, 10% drop is enough to create severe disruptions.

Who says it will be 10% ?

If the price rises, more ppl enter the game to increase supply because there is money to be made.

Why the growth has continued? Because it is created artificially with in the financial sector whom wants desperately to sustain its fantasy that it is possible to get something for nothing.

So the growth rates we have seen in developing countries is 'something for nothing' ?

[Versus]

Who says it will be 10% ?

If the price rises, more ppl enter the game to increase supply because there is money to be made.


So the growth rates we have seen in developing countries is 'something for nothing' ?

I think that you are getting a bit confusing here. If price rises that creates incentive to produce more oil. More areas with hard to get oil will join the game and thus cover the market with necessary supply of oil? Does this mean the following:
1. Market can tolerate all prices. It can tolerate 100,200,4000,50000 Dollars per barrel?
2. The price of oil will always remain within the growth, meaning that you will always have the money to buy the gas since you are always growing and making more money?
3. High gas prices will stimulate transfer to other sources of energy that are uneconomical when compared to oil. But once oil becomes too pricy they will be ok.

Growth in the developing countries. It depends on which basis that growth is based. By my opinion there is a balance in base that needs to be kept at all costs and you can't put all eggs in one basket, so to speak.

[Roosveltrepub]

Of course we will need other sources of energy more and more. The world's demand will outstrip production even w/o controls. In the US we place some limits on drilling but it's not like we have the oil beyond dirty shale and sands that have a real potential to cause havoc with ground water and are located in this country in places we don't have available water to allow efficent processing with today's practices. If we had never switched to oil would coal of lasted forever? Would we of been able to use wood and whale oil to power the industrial revoloution? With increased energy use on the global scale we are experiencing to pretend oil is enough or can be extracted fast enough to sustain growth rates is to be a luddite stuck in the last century. Nuk lar, wind, sun, cellulouse bio fuels are needed and the country that invests in them will be the Britain of the 19th century.

[Versus]

Back in the college days, I had a nightmarish lecture. My college was new, polytechnic oriented so aside for studying just the design (industrial design is not just art, things need to be visually appealing but also they have to have good functionality and safety as well) we had a lots of other subjects including marketing and economy. I sucked in both of them, since I didn't found them to be profession related in any sense. Economist do economy, marketing managers do marketing and PR, my place is at the workstation doing drafting or at the shop working on the prototypes, so I really hated those two subjects and passed them with lowest grades possible. But in one lecture I had a nightmare when our professor told us that we need to design things so that they have a certain lifespan, and the life span is determined by the economist and marketing folks. So that is why we need to learn economy and marketing so that we can communicate with those two branches. Funny, we have to but they don't. So I've started to hate even more those two lectures. How come that we need to learn to communicate with the economists but they don't have to learn to communicate with us. Why it is one way link? Are we economists/marketing branch b..ches? Yes, we are as I learned afterward. The new product birth starts like this:
First Economists say we need profit and we need a product that will make us profit. Marketing experts do market research and come back to the economists with the reports. Than they both come to us and say build us product with these specifications. Now, a good designer will make a good product, that means that this product will have good aesthetics, good functionality, good safety. Good aesthetic establishes visual identity, that is the primary weapon on the market so rule of thumb is looks sell. Good functionality reflects itself on to the product usefulness and reliability, it reflects at its performance and all those things combined form the products life span. Good safety in the product deals with the safety of the consumer and it shows how much you actually care about the world. So good design looks good, works good and it is safe. In other words the product is useful. But than the economist say we don't want that, it is not good to make a good product since the better the product is we make less money. How is that? Well, if you make a car that lasts for 50 years, it is easily and cheaply maintained, it doesn't require special services, we make less money since we need constant new sales and constant new products since we depend on money flow. In other words if you make product that has a smaller lifespan you force consumers to buy a new one and the faster you make new product the faster the old one is obsolete and that creates faster rate of cash generation for the economists. Marketing guys also want to be able to work so new products ensure that they constantly are busy and making money. So in a way the very nature of good design has been perverted by the economists and marketing branch, making the bad designs become exceptional designs in order to increase profits. So instead of making benefit to the human kind, by creating good products that perform well, are pleasing to use, and are safe, industrial design became the economy's slut and became the destroyer of the worlds.
This thinking was confirmed in the US. While I was in San Francisco, my brother in law was the Intel engineer. We spent countless hours designing new equipment, playing with the CPU's architecture, motherboards, graphic cards etc, but than he looked me and told me the thing I already knew :”You know, your ideas are good but they cannot be applied because the industry didn't changed its production process since 1970es. The design is sound but it is not economical.”

This mechanism is the way how this world works and it is in the core of all things. It is the economy or the financial sector that stands in the path of progress. I've realized that I, as a designer, am not a bad guy but it is the setting that is the problem. If we as a world, started using new sources of energy in the 70es we would be ok now. But now, the time has run out and there is nothing that can be done to prevent the inevitable.

Brace for impact.

[Doktor]

When was the doom day? 2012 or 2014?

Anyway, even if all the oil vanish, we had life before oil. Humans are very adoptable beings. If we can't use cars, heck we have bikes. If we don't have plastics anymore, even better we'll get back to glass, paper. If it is too expensive to bring the goods from China, we'll produce them at home (hell yeah). We, as humans lived without oil for centuries, we will do it again. The only thing that worries me is what will the Arab in the sands with all the $$$ and no food and water do when oil stops to exist.

[Versus]

When was the doom day? 2012 or 2014?

Anyway, even if all the oil vanish, we had life before oil. Humans are very adoptable beings. If we can't use cars, heck we have bikes. If we don't have plastics anymore, even better we'll get back to glass, paper. If it is too expensive to bring the goods from China, we'll produce them at home (hell yeah). We, as humans lived without oil for centuries, we will do it again. The only thing that worries me is what will the Arab in the sands with all the $$$ and no food and water do when oil stops to exist.

I am not a doomer. Sure thing, people lived before oil and they will live after the oil. It might be hard at first but we will get used to it. Interesting question about Middle East. Possibilities are endless. There will be some serious rioting and considering dispositions, I wouldn't be surprised that it might turn into something worse, like a conquest of some sort. Most definitely they will be very angry and blaming the west for taking their resources so it is likely that there will be some type of a major conflict.

Back in the days of Kosovo conflict, I saw the mujahideen on a black horse, so either the guy was showing of or he really believed that he is the Saladin the second , but I must say he made the impression.

[Double Edge]

I think that you are getting a bit confusing here. If price rises that creates incentive to produce more oil. More areas with hard to get oil will join the game and thus cover the market with necessary supply of oil? Does this mean the following:
1. Market can tolerate all prices. It can tolerate 100,200,4000,50000 Dollars per barrel?

Remember the first gulf war in 1991, they were warning that oil could reach $40 per barrel due to uncertainty How much has it been over the last ten years.
Tell me why the world has not collapsed or suffered as much compared to the oil shocks of the 70s ? The difference as i can see it is how fast the price rose. A slow rise can be dealt with, an overnight doubling is harder. We learnt that diversifying sources for oil reduced the impact & influence that OPEC has over our lives.

Asking about oil at 4000,50000 is senseless within this context. It does not help to make your point in fact quite the opposite.

2. The price of oil will always remain within the growth, meaning that you will always have the money to buy the gas since you are always growing and making more money?

No, it means the oil does rise in price faster than ppl can pay for it. If it ever does we will make the shifts necessary which will bring the price down. We can delay abnormal rises in oil this way for a long time. This is why peak is meaningless because we won't care either way when its passed.

3. High gas prices will stimulate transfer to other sources of energy that are uneconomical when compared to oil. But once oil becomes too pricy they will be ok.

No, other sources prevent oil from becoming too pricy.

Growth in the developing countries. It depends on which basis that growth is based. By my opinion there is a balance in base that needs to be kept at all costs and you can't put all eggs in one basket, so to speak.

Lots of ppl knock growth, because its some aggregate figure. Does being in a country with the highest GDP mean anthing at all to a poor person. GDP is a combination of goods & services produced over those consumed & money invested in the country. If GDP grows then there is money to be made in that country.

Don't follow what you mean by putting all eggs in one basket

[Double Edge]

Economist do economy, marketing managers do marketing and PR, my place is at the workstation doing drafting or at the shop working on the prototypes, so I really hated those two subjects and passed them with lowest grades possible.

Not surprising, doomers do not like economics arguments.

But in one lecture I had a nightmare when our professor told us that we need to design things so that they have a certain lifespan, and the life span is determined by the economist and marketing folks. So that is why we need to learn economy and marketing so that we can communicate with those two branches. Funny, we have to but they don't. So I've started to hate even more those two lectures. How come that we need to learn to communicate with the economists but they don't have to learn to communicate with us. Why it is one way link? Are we economists/marketing branch b..ches? Yes, we are as I learned afterward.

They're in contact with ppl higher up the food chain than a mere worker. It would be to your best interest to understand how they think. Nothing else matters if a company cannot produce a profit at the end of the quarter.

The new product birth starts like this:
First Economists say we need profit and we need a product that will make us profit. Marketing experts do market research and come back to the economists with the reports. Than they both come to us and say build us product with these specifications. Now, a good designer will make a good product, that means that this product will have good aesthetics, good functionality, good safety. Good aesthetic establishes visual identity, that is the primary weapon on the market so rule of thumb is looks sell. Good functionality reflects itself on to the product usefulness and reliability, it reflects at its performance and all those things combined form the products life span. Good safety in the product deals with the safety of the consumer and it shows how much you actually care about the world. So good design looks good, works good and it is safe. In other words the product is useful. But than the economist say we don't want that, it is not good to make a good product since the better the product is we make less money. How is that? Well, if you make a car that lasts for 50 years, it is easily and cheaply maintained, it doesn't require special services, we make less money since we need constant new sales and constant new products since we depend on money flow. In other words if you make product that has a smaller lifespan you force consumers to buy a new one and the faster you make new product the faster the old one is obsolete and that creates faster rate of cash generation for the economists. Marketing guys also want to be able to work so new products ensure that they constantly are busy and making money. So in a way the very nature of good design has been perverted by the economists and marketing branch, making the bad designs become exceptional designs in order to increase profits. So instead of making benefit to the human kind, by creating good products that perform well, are pleasing to use, and are safe, industrial design became the economy's slut and became the destroyer of the worlds.

Living in India i can identify with what you're saying. They just don't make things like they did before. The upside is the cheaper your product the more ppl that are not rich can afford to buy. They are in armies of the 100s of millions. Think about that. Over here they sell shampoo in small sachets. You know like you have for tomato sauce. That sachet goes to the village and ppl try it and they like it. They start to buy lots of little sachets like this.

OK, so you do not like this example, then here is another. I had an uncle who worked in the refrigeration business. He was very proud of his 1940s era american fridge. He could always service it unlike the new fridges today where the compressor dies after five years. And its more expensive to replace that compressor than buy a new fridge. In fact not many ppl can fix these compressors because they are all sealed. The new fridges have very thin walls, maybe an inch thick compared to his fridge that is three inches thick. They can cool much lower than 0 degrees c or freezing point of water. They are frost free and do not need to be defrosted, lol you rememeber that. Leave the fridge off so the ice buildup can melt and you have more space in your very small freezer. No maintenance with the new models. But still he thinks the new ones are rubbish and prefers to have his old 1940s model.

This thinking was confirmed in the US. While I was in San Francisco, my brother in law was the Intel engineer. We spent countless hours designing new equipment, playing with the CPU's architecture, motherboards, graphic cards etc, but than he looked me and told me the thing I already knew :”You know, your ideas are good but they cannot be applied because the industry didn't changed its production process since 1970es. The design is sound but it is not economical.”

This mechanism is the way how this world works and it is in the core of all things. It is the economy or the financial sector that stands in the path of progress. I've realized that I, as a designer, am not a bad guy but it is the setting that is the problem. If we as a world, started using new sources of energy in the 70es we would be ok now. But now, the time has run out and there is nothing that can be done to prevent the inevitable.

Brace for impact.

But bear in mind in a richer country, there are ppl that will shop for quality rather than price. That is why companies that can make quality goods did not all go out of business. They have a niche, they are not in a commodity segment.

[Doktor]

With my casual browsing, I have ran into this (taken out from the whole article that can be found here) article where Russian scientist explain that oil is not expandable. Keep in mind that the Russian budget is highly dependable on price and the availabilty of the oil.

Academician Salambek Khadzhiyev, director of the A.V. Topchiyev Institute of Petrochemical Synthesis at the Russian Academy of Sciences:
“Today, the developed oil reserves are as follows: 180 billion tons of low-density oil, 820 billion tons of heavy-density oil, 700 billion tons of oil-equivalent coal, 300 billion tons of oil-equivalent gas. This will supply the world for 300-350 years. Cheap oil is running out, but carbon resources are infinite. For our country, the problem of deep oil processing is more relevant than the sale of raw petroleum. Today, we develop 490 million tons of oil, of which 260 million are exported, and 230 million are processed. But even of the 230 million processed tons of oil, we sell 80 million tons. Thus, we consume 150 million tons of oil, about a ton per person. In the US, this figure is 2 tons, in Europe, 2.5 tons.
In terms of the development of basic sciences, we are ahead of the West, but we have destroyed sectorial research, and our oil-processing depth equals 73%, while in the US it’s nearly 90%. Worldwide, the production of polymers uses up to 7% of petroleum, and here it is only 1%. In the production of polyethylene and polypropylene, we significantly lag behind Europe. We have 5 kg per person, and there it’s 15 kg. Although, we do have some achievements – 94% of the equipment used at plants in Bashkiria and other petrochemical centers is domestic. The petrochemical sector needs to be developed, without worrying about the raw material reserves. Oil will never run out.”

Vitaly Flid, PhD in Chemistry, director of the Physical Chemistry Department at the M.V. Lomonosov Moscow Institute of Fine Chemical Technology:
“In some countries, the US, Japan, here in Troitsk, installations have been constructed which simulate the build-up process of hydrocarbons from carbon and hydrogen with ferrous iron. If calcium carbonate and magnesium are mixed with iron salts and heated under high pressure then, as was shown by our experiments, hydrocarbons are formed – or at least methane. This gas travels from to the surface from the depths of Earth through the ground, while having various reactions along the way and forming heavier hydrocarbons – that is, oil.
That is the non-organic method of the origination of petroleum. Geologists argue that there are oil deposits which were fully exhausted, and then petroleum reappeared in them. Perhaps that is the petroleum from the depths of the Earth, which is unlikely to ever run out.”

Vladimir Arutyunov, PhD in Chemistry, director of the Laboratory of Hydrocarbon Oxidation at the N. N. Semyenov Institute of Chemical Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences:
“Before, in Baku for example, petroleum was simply raised in tubs out of a pit, and these oil resources did indeed run out. There is significantly less oil, which we are specifically able to produce today. Sedimentary rocks contain a large amount of organic matter, up to dozens of the percentage of their weight. New technologies are being developed, and some radical changes have just recently happened in the US. Americans have learned to produce hydrocarbons that, until now, had remained untouched. And the global oil reserves were suddenly increased by 1.5 to 2-fold. I am referring to heavy bituminous oil in Canada and shale gas. However, a shale gas deposit can be developed for only a few years, but these deposits stretch over vast territories. 'The shale revolution' will change geopolitics, and the US and Europe will be able to do without fuel oil.”