Ghawar fading faster than anyone expected

[BritDownUnder]

BDU, the amount of water available per hectare has a huge effect on the productivity of the land. In the UK we can graze 1.5 cattle or 10 sheep per hectare year round with a lot more on summer only grazing but I doubt that is possible on most Australian grazing.

I would say that in Australia it would be in the inverse so 1 sheep for 10 hectares if you are lucky. and one cow per 100 hectares may be more like the truth, but when you have 300 million hectares to play with that is still a lot of cows or sheep grazing away happily.

The irrigation situation Australia is well known and has given rise to many plans, none reaching fruition of how to move the water to the areas with usable soils. As far as I know there is one inter-basin water transfer in Australia - The Snowy Scheme and this is slowly being reversed. The Bradfield scheme is still talked about before elections and then quietly forgotten about after them.

Solar desalination anyone?

It strikes me that one of the most significant points may not be the lost production, but that it is *cheap* high-EROEI production that has been lost.

As for Saudi and their EROEI I think that you are on the money there. They are supposedly just building their first nuclear power plant to free up more of the black stuff for export - apparently an Argentinian company is building it. Good luck there.
On a national Saudi scale their own oil consumption for power plants, water desalination, domestic industry etc is becoming a concern that it is beginning to eat into their exports - one of the reasons why they export relatively little natural gas already is the Saudi use most of their own. While domestic consumption is not strictly speaking EROEI is still a drag on possible oil/gas exports.

Whether Ghawar EROEI is going down is a mystery to me but in the natural lifecycle of an oil field as I understand it, it comes out under its own pressure at first then you need to put in energy in the form of a nodding donkey or down hole pump to pump the stuff out. After that you need to either pump water, CO2 or some kind of surfactant to 'persuade' the stuff to come out. Then you can frack the hell out of it. At all stages the EROEI goes down. I would think Saudi EROEI stats are a state secret.

[Little John]

What we can probably assume, as a rule of thumb, is that the more technology is used to flatten out the downslope on the other side of the production curve, the more likely will be a severe and abrupt reduction in production at some point. In other words, if you manage to flatten the curve of a finite resource following the peak of production, it eventually becomes a cliff.

[BritDownUnder]

What we can probably assume, as a rule of thumb, is that the more technology is used to flatten out the downslope on the other side of the production curve, the more likely will be a severe and abrupt reduction in production at some point. In other words, if you manage to flatten the curve of a finite resource following the peak of production, it eventually becomes a cliff.

Never were truer words spoken.

Where mankind has succeeded in the past is moving from one form of power to another before this 'cliff' hits. Going in human history from your own muscle power, to slave power, animal power, to water power, to firewood, to coal, to oil and now to gas the technology seems to have reaped ever increasing EROEI. Within each form of energy there have been technological improvements (e.g. James Watt on the steam engine) to improve EROEI but they have all been temporary and never stop the overall depletion trend. With renewables this trend of ever increasing EROEI seems to have stopped abruptly.

Some people might call it a cliff.

[fuzzy]

There are enormous savings easy to be made in petrol powered vehicles used in western countries. None are designed as only fuel economy vehicles. They are all sold as expensive luxuries. But it can't happen without gov central planning, so it won't. Govs are too corrupt to lobbyists to plan anything as we can see everyday. A mixture of hi-tech tuc-tucs and velosolex's would get us another 100 years out of an oil cliff.

[vtsnowedin]

You don't need central planning or mandates to get rid of gas guzzling SUVs.
The only reason they are popular is that gas is cheap and people can afford to drive them. When oil becomes scarce and gas prices rise dramatically Western drivers will adapt to that new reality in a heartbeat. Not only would people trade in for ultra efficient ICE engine cars, hybrids and EVs they would also forgo many of the unnecessary trips they thoughtlessly take today.
If gas rose to say $10/gallon I would not be surprised to see total miles driven to drop by a third and average gas mileage to at least double. That combination would reduce fuel use by two thirds.
A pre announced gradual increase in the fuel tax would allow for an orderly transition but the politicians have not the integrity to vote for for something good for the country in the face of childlike opposition of voters and lobbyist so we will have to wait for a shortage caused by decline to boost the price of oil and create the resulting panic and waste. .

[kenneal - lagger]

There are enormous savings easy to be made in petrol powered vehicles used in western countries. None are designed as only fuel economy vehicles. They are all sold as expensive luxuries. But it can't happen without gov central planning, so it won't. Govs are too corrupt to lobbyists to plan anything as we can see everyday. A mixture of hi-tech tuc-tucs and velosolex's would get us another 100 years out of an oil cliff.

I agree. Lobbyists in the US own the government and there isn't a hope in hell of getting the US government to do anything good on climate change. States such as California and cities like NY are easier and many are leading the way in the US so all hope is not lost.

[kenneal - lagger]

You don't need central planning or mandates to get rid of gas guzzling SUVs.
The only reason they are popular is that gas is cheap and people can afford to drive them. When oil becomes scarce and gas prices rise dramatically Western drivers will adapt to that new reality in a heartbeat. Not only would people trade in for ultra efficient ICE engine cars, hybrids and EVs they would also forgo many of the unnecessary trips they thoughtlessly take today.
If gas rose to say $10/gallon I would not be surprised to see total miles driven to drop by a third and average gas mileage to at least double. That combination would reduce fuel use by two thirds.
A pre announced gradual increase in the fuel tax would allow for an orderly transition but the politicians have not the integrity to vote for for something good for the country in the face of childlike opposition of voters and lobbyist so we will have to wait for a shortage caused by decline to boost the price of oil and create the resulting panic and waste. .

The increasing vehicle fuel efficiency standards from the government pointed the way forward and gave the people and industry a heads up on the way thing were going. Trump's watering down of standards gave the opposite impression. People will do more if they think that government is doing its bit. If government gives the impression that it thinks better standards are a waste of time the people will go with that as many are in the US.

People in Europe are mainly on board with higher standards in everything which is why we don't want cheap and nasty, hormone, chlorine and Roundup riddled American food rammed down our throats.

[PS_RalphW]

When oil becomes scarce and gas prices rise dramatically Western drivers will adapt to that new reality in a heartbeat. Not only would people trade in for ultra efficient ICE engine cars, hybrids and EVs they would also forgo many of the unnecessary trips they thoughtlessly take today.
If gas rose to say $10/gallon I would not be surprised to see total miles driven to drop by a third and average gas mileage to at least double. That combination would reduce fuel use by two thirds.
.

No they won't. The average life of an ICE is about 15 years. To transition to ultra efficient vehicles people need to
1. be able to afford them. People won't sell an SUV they bought last year on finance because they can't until they pay off the current vehicle.
2. Have the vehicles on the market to buy - only a small percentage of the new cars built today are efficient / electric models
3. It will take years for manufacturers to ramp up production of very efficient vehicles to meet demnand - see the Tesla model 3.
4. Designing new ultra efficient vehicles will need safety regulations to be thrown out of the window, probably along with toxic emissions regulations, sharply reduced acceleration and comfort levels. They will be a hard sell.
5. Most people will believe the oil price is just a blip and it will fall again in a year or too like it always has done

Slowly ramping up fuel taxes is exactly what UK/Europe did over the last 30 years, resulting in much more fuel efficient cars. However, incremental improvements stalled about 15 years ago as governments baulked at the popular backlash on fuel prices and manufacturers now systematically cheat on efficiency regulations, resulting far larger and heavier cars being the normal on our roads than ever before.

At it's peak in 2008 UK fuel reached about $8/gal US . there was no dramatic change in the car fleet, but people did drive a slower to save fuel, and consequently more safely

[vtsnowedin]

When oil becomes scarce and gas prices rise dramatically Western drivers will adapt to that new reality in a heartbeat. Not only would people trade in for ultra efficient ICE engine cars, hybrids and EVs they would also forgo many of the unnecessary trips they thoughtlessly take today.
If gas rose to say $10/gallon I would not be surprised to see total miles driven to drop by a third and average gas mileage to at least double. That combination would reduce fuel use by two thirds.
.

No they won't. The average life of an ICE is about 15 years. To transition to ultra efficient vehicles people need to

Yes they will . I have seen just $4.00 gas make a person trade in an SUV for a $5000 loss because they could not afford both the payment and the gas. Short sighted on her part at that time as $4.00 gas was temporary but she could not have known that.

1. be able to afford them. People won't sell an SUV they bought last year on finance because they can't until they pay off the current vehicle.
2. Have the vehicles on the market to buy - only a small percentage of the new cars built today are efficient / electric models
3. It will take years for manufacturers to ramp up production of very efficient vehicles to meet demnand - see the Tesla model 3.

Do not underestimate the industries ability to meet demand by shifting cars intended for one market to another and converting assembly lines. Tesla is a poor example because they are newbies in the industry.

4. Designing new ultra efficient vehicles will need safety regulations to be thrown out of the window, probably along with toxic emissions regulations, sharply reduced acceleration and comfort levels. They will be a hard sell.

The designs are done just not selling at this gas price. The $10.00 gas price will make the sale.

5. Most people will believe the oil price is just a blip and it will fall again in a year or too like it always has done

True enough it will take a couple of years to sink in or a passage of a fuel tax that has no prospect of repeal to convince many that the age of cheap gas is over.

Slowly ramping up fuel taxes is exactly what UK/Europe did over the last 30 years, resulting in much more fuel efficient cars.

Thereby proving my point.

However, incremental improvements stalled about 15 years ago as governments baulked at the popular backlash on fuel prices and manufacturers now systematically cheat on efficiency regulations, resulting far larger and heavier cars being the normal on our roads than ever before.

At it's peak in 2008 UK fuel reached about $8/gal US . there was no dramatic change in the car fleet,

You contradict yourself here but I can tell you that Brits watching traffic in America are amazed at the number of pickups and SUVs driving by when their vehicle back in the UK is a tiny Fiat.

but people did drive a slower to save fuel, and consequently more safely

On roads built for it speed is not the limiting factor on safety. [/quote]

[kenneal - lagger]

Regarding safety, I think that I drive more safely the faster I drive. Sitting at 50 mph on the motorway bores me silly and I start looking at the scenery for stimulation. At 80 mph I am watching the traffic in front of me.

[kenneal - lagger]

The Hirsch Report said that it would take 30 years to turn over the US vehicle fleet to fuel efficient vehicles. How true that is we will soon find out (in thirty years?).

[vtsnowedin]

The Hirsch Report said that it would take 30 years to turn over the US vehicle fleet to fuel efficient vehicles. How true that is we will soon find out (in thirty years?).

Considering how badly the Hirsch report missed on the prediction for the date of peak oil I would not place too much faith in their crystal ball.
Considering that vehicles like railroad locomotives and jet planes do have a service life of decades there is some truth to that 30 year number especially for rail traffic which will probably increase in a post peak world but $10+ jet fuel would raise ticket prices high enough to ground a third of flights or more. On the other hand the auto fleet number is ridiculous on it's face. The average vehicle in America lasts fifteen years and half the fleet is already seven years old and paid for. Start $10 gas today and in seven years all of those vehicles will have gone to the crusher plus all the newer ones will be paid for and the gas guzzling portion of them traded in or relegated to big family trips and load specific uses. So in seven years you would have about a three quarters fleet changeover and achieve a total oil based fuel use drop by 35 to 60 percent.

[emordnilap]

If gas rose to say $10/gallon I would not be surprised to see total miles driven to drop by a third and average gas mileage to at least double. That combination would reduce fuel use by two thirds.

You might also see an insurrection!

[vtsnowedin]

If gas rose to say $10/gallon I would not be surprised to see total miles driven to drop by a third and average gas mileage to at least double. That combination would reduce fuel use by two thirds.

You might also see an insurrection!

That depends on what the public thought was the cause of gas rising to $10. If they thought they were being cheated and there was plenty of gas that could be had for less if the leadership was overthrown then yes they would revolt in a heartbeat. If the truth was that there were no cheaper supplies and the public was aware of it then I think they would just get into a deal with it and overcome mode.
You only revolt if you think the result will be to your advantage.

[Catweazle]

You can talk about $10 gas "forcing a sale", but there won't be anyone to buy, so it might be a case of $10 gas or no transport at all.

Unless, of course, Government buys back all the petrol / diesel cars, the tax money needed would be huge.