Oil Production: Will the Peak Hold?

[Adam1]

...
Consider this: say we built an all-electric economy but with quality products that didn't wear out as fast as they do in our consumer economy of today.

In theory we could grow the economy based purely on services with a little bit of churn on the manufactured end...

It has struck me (a bit belatedly maybe) that there are three essential transitions that we need to make if we are to achieve a genuinely sustainable and reasonably comfortable and happy existence in the finite environment of one planet:

1) Renewables-based, almost entirely electric energy capture for heating/cooling, mechanical work and transport;

2) Closed system or "Cradle-to-Cradle" processes for all manufacturing and consumption of stuff, all activity that consumes mineral resources;

3) Agricultural systems that don't degrade any of resource bases that food production depends on - e.g. based on permaculture principles: mimicking natural systems, low energy input, low water usage, top-soil protecting/building.

[biffvernon]

Yes.
Neatly put Adam.

[jonny2mad]

well Ive read through this thread and I think I remember some of your threads at latoc and so far your not doing a great job of convincing me .

saying "Im a engineer I work in the oil industry " doesnt really work my late father who was a engineer would tell people he was a window cleaner and then try to convince them by his argument .

we knew about peak in the 1970s and in the nearly 40 years since then we have done very little to prepare for it in fact countrys like the usa have gone in the wrong direction , hubert said we needed to get rid of money the work ethic and growth if we were not going to end in disaster .

also that we needed to start back in the 1970s or 80s

peak oil is just a symptom of a deeper fault as adam just pointed out we would need to have a different approach to materials and the natural world and I dont see that happening before we have a disaster

[PS_RalphW]

saying "Im a engineer I work in the oil industry " doesnt really work my late father who was a engineer would tell people he was a window cleaner and then try to convince them by his argument .

I've been reading more of the comments on TOD natural gas thread. I think RGR is what he claims to be, and I can see that US "unconventional gas" now provides 45% of US production, and although it had lousy EROEI to start with, it is improving in the last couple of years as the technology matures.

That said, I think that is as far as the good news goes. I can't help picturing RGR as an oil driller in the US in 1970 saying - 'There - I told you he was an idiot'.

It takes 2 - 3 times more wells drilled each year to get the same amount of gas out of the ground as it did ten years ago. The new shale bed wells lose 60% of their gas flow in the first year. It will be very difficult for the US to maintain production at current levels for more than a few years. There are considerable environmental impacts with the shale bed gas - it generates large quantities of polluted water (why does that sound familiar?)

The position for Canadian NG still looks worse than the US position to me. Tar sands will be lucky to still be producing at today's level in ten years.

I haven't changed my view that we are facing peak FF net energy in the next ten years or so, and although it would be possible for the industrial world to transition to a renewables based energy model in the available timeframe, I don't see it happening, not least because of complacency of technical people like RGR.

RGR, My advice would be to broaden your reading. Starting with 'The Limits to Growth' is a good place. Then try some of the 'collapse' theory books. Jared Diamond is good, Homer-Dixon is an ex-redneck, so maybe he will strike a chord. You are already up to speed on peak oil, or you wouldn't be here!

Sorry if I sound patronising, see it as a counter to your arrogance.

[emordnilap]

An interesting point I read in an article was that trying to get oil out of depleting wells in China is consuming huge amounts of water which really should be going to water-hungry monocrops.

[RenewableCandy]

An interesting point I read in an article was that trying to get oil out of depleting wells in China is consuming huge amounts of water which really should be going to water-hungry monocrops.

Sod that what about water-hungry people??

[RGR]

[RGR]

saying "Im a engineer I work in the oil industry " doesnt really work my late father who was a engineer would tell people he was a window cleaner and then try to convince them by his argument .

[RGR]

It takes 2 - 3 times more wells drilled each year to get the same amount of gas out of the ground as it did ten years ago. The new shale bed wells lose 60% of their gas flow in the first year. It will be very difficult for the US to maintain production at current levels for more than a few years. There are considerable environmental impacts with the shale bed gas - it generates large quantities of polluted water (why does that sound familiar?)

[biffvernon]

I haven't infested the place is because it is the most aweful, difficult place

5 minutes after I posted it, it was deleted and I was banned.

Maybe it's not so much what you say as the way you say it. We're patient here as we see some of what you write is well worth reading. But manners maketh the man, dont you know?

[Mean Mr Mustard]

I tried that once, someone asked me for how I came to such and such a conclusion of Hubberts work. So I did, I laid out my references, pointed out where and why things came off the rails, explained why this worked or this didn't work, how these things got put together, took me 2 hours for a single post.

5 minutes after I posted it, it was deleted and I was banned.

So lets say I learned my lesson about doing this as anything other than a hobby.

I'm sure that wouldn't happen here. We're a civilised bunch and not prone to groupthink. If you can spare the two hours again...? New topic - 'RGR's Rebuttal'.

[mikepepler]

I certainly have no plans on banning - open discussion is good. The important thing is that we don't have to agree, but we do have to take whatever action is appropriate for what we believe.

[RGR]

5 minutes after I posted it, it was deleted and I was banned.

Maybe it's not so much what you say as the way you say it.

[RGR]

[biffvernon]

how it gets said is irrelevant as long as its true.

If you are rude there is a risk that people won't bother reading what you write, in which case being true has little merit.