What does RGR actually want.

Welsh Wizard · Post by **Welsh Wizard** » 15 Dec 2008, 15:02

Also it's worth pointing out that "fine to 2030", even if we believed the optimistic view, still means peak oil in my likely lifetime, and my children's lifetime. Postponing the problem by using the tar sands and in the process severely messing with the climate seems to be a poor deal. The very fact that the tarsands are even being held out as a good option tells us that the cheap, easy oil is in trouble.

Miss Madam · Post by **Miss Madam** » 15 Dec 2008, 15:03

In answer to the thread title ..... errrr 'a slap'? *I'll get my coat, again* sorry RGR you do make me think (and I appreciate that) but sometimes you remind me of one of those blokes who goes to hookers to get physically abused and pays for it....

ziggy12345 · Post by **ziggy12345** » 15 Dec 2008, 15:46

One flaw in the whole "Its all good to 2030" is the assumption of further output from Saudi Arabia. As they are such a big influence in what could happen they should be taken as a special case and models created to show what happens if Saudi's optput increases, peaks or declines.

They have just anounced shelving the output development plans they had for 2009 and are making noises that they dont expect to increase above 11 million.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 15 Dec 2008, 19:29

Welsh Wizard wrote:RGR, the IEA changed their mind very quickly between 2007 and 2008. "Radical change" is the phrase used in the video. They painted an optimistic picture in the past and it is clear that the rosy view was wrong:

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 15 Dec 2008, 19:34

[quote="Welsh Wizard"]

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 15 Dec 2008, 21:07

RGR wrote:We'll be producing "easy oil" a century from now....probably not in the same amounts as today, but it'll still be oozing out of the ground, guaranteed.

Absolutely agree with you on this one RGR. We may even have another two or three hundred years left. Let's push the boat out and say a thousand years, after all someone is bound to find some somewhere in 3008 AD.

But that isn't the point is it RGR? Who cares whether the rate of depletion is 6% or 0.0006%. The issue is what will a peak in oil supply do to the price of oil? Even if that peak lasts 50 or 100 years, it still means the world will need to shift away from using oil as a driver of economic growth, which considering how much we use as transport could present a major problem. But don't tell me, you're an expert on the hydrogen economy too.

Welsh Wizard · Post by **Welsh Wizard** » 15 Dec 2008, 22:43

RGR, I hope we can agree that Crude oil is a very useful substance.

How can the prospect of it running low and rising in price be viewed with anything other than trepidation?

I live in the UK, a heavily populated country and there is no doubt in my mind that without food imports and mechanized agriculture we would struggle to feed the population as it stands now. Now if the decline in available oil is slow then we may have a chance to adapt and shift people to more rural countries. But if decline in oil is steep and the price spikes, then food is going to get scarce and expensive fairly quickly. I live 170 miles from my parents, if I cant travel to see them because of cost then I will have to leave my job to be nearer to them. That scares me as hungry people make bad decisions, and I may not find another job in a price-shocked economy..

"The shortfall in oil supply in the IEA view by 2030 is 7m bpd, supplied by the Albertan Tar Sands. I personally doubt that production at that giant level is feasible in the timeframe of 22 years."

"So...what are your qualifications at predicting future oil supply compared to the IEA? Can you pick and choose among the pieces of the report you like and don't like based on your personal experience with the tar sands, or do you just not LIKE them?"

I have no direct personal experience of tarsands, but the description of the process required to produce product on Wikipedia doesn't sound promising. In 2005 the Saudis pumped 9.5mn bpd. They have lots of infrastructure in place and the easiest oil to produce in the world, they have been doing it for several decades, with a very low cost per barrel. I have been to the Gulf states and seen with my own eyes that the oil wells, pipelines, refineries and port facilities are mega-projects!

Now look at the tarsands, and ask yourself if we can build enough infrastructure quickly enough to replicate 80% of Saudi ouput. The oil is difficult to extract and the process is energy intensive and the energy and water required for the process is apparently scarce. Every environmentalist in the world is going to protest like hell and planning permissions are going to face concerted opposition.
Oh and major projects to expand the facilities have already been mothballed this year.

I just doubt it happening on sufficient scale to meet the demand.
It seems like a building project from hell, and we can all agree what it is like to have a builders in.....deadlines are not always met etc.

I respect you taking an alternative view point by the way. Makes for a good discussion!

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 15 Dec 2008, 23:16

Miss Madam wrote:sorry RGR....but sometimes you remind me of one of those blokes who goes to hookers to get physically abused and pays for it....

LOL - coffee and keyboard don't mix

Yves75 · Post by **Yves75** » 15 Dec 2008, 23:29

RGR wrote:
The IEA says we'll be fine through 2030. I don't interpret "fine" as "screwed".

Looks like the IEA is slowly trying to gain grounds while keeping "respectable manners" through the process however, no ?

These are only figures we should be able to have a bit of truth here ...

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 16 Dec 2008, 00:23

[quote="ziggy12345"]

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 16 Dec 2008, 00:50

[quote="Bozzio"]

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 16 Dec 2008, 01:05

Welsh Wizard wrote:RGR, I hope we can agree that Crude oil is a very useful substance.

You bet.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 16 Dec 2008, 01:06

[quote="Alain75"]

Welsh Wizard · Post by **Welsh Wizard** » 16 Dec 2008, 09:28

"I just doubt it happening on sufficient scale to meet consumption" is completely reasonable. Maybe it will. Maybe it won't. But this is the RIGHT context to place oil supply in...match it with consumption/demand.

But with world population rising rapidly, surely consumption of oil will rise in a business as usual case. 9 billion people forecast by 2050? I know a lot of the rise is in the third world where consumption is low, but even so, if the USA hits the projections of population increase due to migration from the south, there will be serious growth in the number of western style consumers.

But we have already seen that there are geological constraints on supply: the North Sea is in decline , the US has peaked. We have no good data for the Saudis. World discoveres of oil are not matching consumption of oil. Would you not agree that this alone is unsustainable and implies future shortage of crude.

A consistent criticism of Peak Oil theory ( whichever version we might be talking about ) tends to be that they ignore the basic economics of the situation in favor of focusing on some other issue, for whatever reason.

Surely basic economics means that if supply is tight and demand is high, prices go up.

As the oil price rises to higher levels more difficult oil becomes profitable, but the point is that the price cannot rise too high without utterly destroying the economy. If the oil price rose to $300 a barrel a lot of oil projects would become economically feasible, but every single item (including food and fuel) produced with oil would become prohibitively expensive.

Thus people would have to consume less, and make efficiencies, which might well lower living standards. What happens to those who cannot afford the higher prices for food? Do they go hungry? How long before hunger translates into political action? How long before hunger translates into violent action? I know there is a huge class of people in the UK who might struggle to put food on the table if prices doubled. Pensioners for example?

We might be talking revolution. Which we havent had in the UK for centuries. So while oil depletion might seem a remote risk, the consequences are so grave in a disorderly transition that it deserves serious study. But what do we find? Data from OPEC is opaque, and my own government has not carried out any serious study into the problem. It has however examined the remote possibility of an asteroid crashing into the earth....

Oil depletion is a natural consequence of producing the first well in a field, country, or planet. Its been recognized, known and quantified for longer than anyone on this planet has been alive. It isn't a problem, it just IS, and HAS been.

We can agree that oil depletion is a fact. Where we disagree is on the consequences of depletion on a global scale over time. Adaptation is important but we in the UK at least are not doing very much now to mitigate the worst case scenario.

In every other field one plans for the worst case scenario. We build nuclear weapons based on worst case scenario assumptions. Why is it different when we come to oil depletion (and global climate change). We cant rule out worst case scenarios because we dont have good enough data from the Saudis in particular.

Welsh Wizard · Post by **Welsh Wizard** » 16 Dec 2008, 10:12

http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/key_g ... Graphs.pdf

Take a look at graph number 8. The IEA says

Production reaches 104 mb/d in 2030, requiring 64 mb/d of gross capacity additions –six times the current capacity of Saudi Arabia –to meet demand growth & counter decline"

We need to find and bring into action 6 Saudi Arabia's worth of oil! That is frankly improbable, given the extensive effort undertaken to find oil in all the likely oil bearing parts of the world.

Jeremy Leggett says in his article:

This is indeed alarming, Tanaka said. The more so because, even with demand for oil being destroyed fast by recession in the west, the rate of demand growth – led by China, and India – is such that the world will need to be producing at least 103 million barrels a day by 2030.

Can that be done? Yes, he said, but only if massive investment is thrown at the challenge, especially by the Opec nations. Global production today totals 82.3 mbd if we subtract biofuels and add to existing crude production the 1.6 mbd of "unconventional" oil squeezed from the tar sands and 10.5 mbd of oil produced during gas-field operations. To reach production of 103 mbd, therefore, would require oil-from-gas to expand almost to 20 mbd, unconventional production to expand almost 9 mbd, and on top of that more than 45 million barrels a day of crude oil capacity yet to be developed and yet to be found. All this adds up to 64 mbd of totally new production capacity needed onstream within 22 years. That, said Tanaka, pausing for effect, is fully six times the production of Saudi Arabia today.

Is this really going to happen given the huge demand for natural gas and the tight timescale. And if it does happen Co2 soars past 600ppm. I hate to be a doomer, but the case that we face a severe challenge in the medium term is clear.