Until China and the US change their ways (which could and should be encouraged by us in Europe; but sadly isnt) then nothing that we do will affect the worlds need of oil or its carbon footprint etc.
I get most annoyed at being told what to do by those that behave much worse than me (us)!
I dont waste oil of any sort, I dont buy foreign (especially chinese) where I have a choice. I dont want to walk everywhere either!
|
|
|
The OB, I completely agree that there are many little solutions that we can employ simultaneously to avoid the problem. The real issue is that the "head in the sand brigade " is by far the majority and includes most politicians too. The latter are too scared of losing votes to show any leadership.
I think that those in the developed world had a great opportunity at the time of Kyoto to set an example by reducing fuel use - and it could have been done without a massive reduction in living standards. We didn't set an example, so we lost the moral high ground and India and China's view is then "if you won't, then why should we"
Re " the current system collapsing" - my fear is that the rapidly rising prices of oil - which (excuse the pun) also feed into food prices (via pharmaceuticals, fertiliser, fuel for tractors, transport etc) is driving up food prices and the "system" has never had to adapt to a sustained and inexorable rise in prices. The unrest in the developing world over food prices may well end up as a massive backlash against the "greedy" developed world.
|
I've just finished watching a series of documentary's on the teachers channel about the Oil industry. It was a series of five one hour long programs with interviews with various experts and 'big wigs' in the oil industry - Sheik Yamani for example.
A British scientist stated in the 50s that the US would start to be import dependent from the 70s onward when all other experts stated otherwise. Another expert warned that due to the way oil is 'stored' in rocks that as soon as peak production is reached in one deposit it will start to drop almost instantly rather than plateau.
If you get a chance to see these programs they are well worth watching because they cover the oil from starting up to almost present day and every side from money to power to politics.
www.teachers.tv/search/node/black+gold
Steve.
|
|
|
The real issue is that the "head in the sand brigade " is by far the majority and includes most politicians too. The latter are too scared of losing votes to show any leadership.
Sadly, I think you're right. I really want to see a shift in what happens in the USA. As rightly pointed out above, they are far worse than us Europeans, but what they do obviously still has an effect on us.
None of the candidates in the USA is willing to talk about Peak Oil, they'd rather blame oil companies for high prices, knowing that is a popular theme with the voters.
|
Does anyone know about Gas to Liquid (GTL) technology? I only know that it exists, and is fairly small scale. Whilst it doesn't alter the fact that gas, too, is finite, the huge reserves of gas would have an effect if GTL works at the scale needed.
Peanut.
|
It works see:
tinyurl.com/3ctvb3
Only trouble is, gas production is peaking in many major producing countries (although a global peak is still some way off, thanks to huge Russian reserves) and gas demand is soaring. Just look at some of the record spot prices on the gas market, it's real expensive stuff to buy these days.
What will make more of an impact is coal-to-liquids. Vast amounts of coal remain, we just need to find ways of using it in a "clean" way. Obviously the reserves of coal won't last quite so long if huge amounts go into replacing existing oil and gas production, but that's another problem for another day...
|
Regardless of what happens with oil, by investing in a car with good mpg you can't lose.
Shifts in technology and attitudes will be in reaction to price changes. I expect there to be a period of pain while we wait for the solutions to arrive.
We have access to plentifull supplies of energy outside of oil - coal and nuclear. The issue is getting that energy into a useable form for transport.
Electric motors are far better than an IC engine and every respect (other than they don't sound as nice as a V8). Battery technology is the weakness.
Lets look at our own oil and gas supplies in the North Sea - we have reached Peak Oil there havn't we? In fact havn't we now passed peak oil and are on the decline down the other side?
|
|
That happened quite some time ago - N Sea is in steep decline now.
|
I know batteries are a problem for now. but think what a sweat we would be in if there wasn`t the Nuclear option for the long term future. I mean if we had never obtained the technology.
It would be similar to the south sea islanders gradually using all the trees on Easter Island until nothing was left. No wood, famine, no boats to sail away.
No oil......
Like it or loath it, Nuclear means the lights will be on 1,000 years from now, batteries will be better. Assuming of course that the cockroaches are not in charge at that stage. ;)
Regards
Edited by oilrag on 30/04/2008 at 20:13
|
There is enough oil in Saudi alone to meet world needs for the next 20 years.
Marginal cost of production in Saud is $2 so oil should be around $3 a barrel. Everything else is politics.
The western world has finally worked out that giving vast amounts of money to Wahabists is not that great an idea.
Vast amounts of money are being poured in to alternatives by THE driver of technology in the last 60 years namely the US military and OPEC are very worried.
I predict in 50 years time this argument will be as irrelevant as the arguments about horse dung reaching 6 feet high in London streets were in the past.
I wonder then what arguments the anti-capitalists will put forward to bring in socialism by the back door but I'm sure they'll think of something.
|
"There is enough oil in Saudi alone to meet world needs for the next 20 years."
prove it. No-one BUT NO_ONE outside ARAMCO and the Saudi Royal family know. It is a State Secret.
Facts:
The main Saudi wells are over 50 years old in their producing life,
They are using water injection to keep up pressure.
The King has stated policy is to pump no more than present. (probably because they can't but we do not know).
They are spending $billions drilling for oil in the Sea -(Why if they have so much oil? Could it be running out?:-)
OPEC are really worried.. They have $billions in Sovereign Wealth Funds and they don't know where to invest them. And with the oil price now over $110 they will generate at least 10% more cash than last year.
The US military have been a driver of technology but since the 1980s it's Silicon Valley that's been the driver not the US military..
As for what socilaism and capitalism have to do with this debate, I'm unsure but it's as relevant as "horse dung".
:-)
Edited by madf on 30/04/2008 at 21:48
|
There is enough oil in Saudi alone to meet world needs for the next 20 years.
LOL! Even if that were true (most unlikely, nobody, not even the Saudis are claiming this) then it is irrelevent. Saudia Arabia have made it quite clear that they don't intend pumping much, if any more than at present. As madf says, could it be because they can't? Or maybe they realise that nobody else has much oil, so why not make the most of what reserves you have and keep them for the future, when oil prices will be even higher.
Marginal cost of production in Saud is $2 so oil should be around $3 a barrel. Everything else is politics.
Yes but Saudi crude is very poor (high sulpher) and so requires very expensive refining. Don't confuse cost of extraction with the final cost of the refined product + delivery + the vast cost of maintaining the Saudi theocracy / behemoth of a welfare state. Politics may be a part, but it is never as simple as all that.
|
Saudi Reserves.
I have done some research to confirm my comments above.
Official Reserves: 260Billion barrels.
World usage: approx 87 million barrels = 31.8billion barrels
Years supply of world usage = 8.2 years.
Not the claimed 20 years.
And there are 2,000 Saudi members of the royal family to support from that output.. which at a minimum $25 million pa = $50 Billion pa.
Cost per barrel of output based on 3.5Billion barrels pa = $14 per barrel.
Edited by madf on 30/04/2008 at 23:19
|
|
|
UK section of North Sea peaked in 1999, Norway section peaked in 2000.
In fact, with the exception of a brief period recently (when a new field came online) the UK is (and has been for a while) a net importer of oil. i.e. we use more oil than we produce from our own fields.
That is probably why the disruption due to the Grangemouth strike wasn't as bad as it might have been.
|
You can't use crude as is: it has to be processed. That's what Grangemouth does, especially for the Scottish, N Ireland and northern English markets. About 11% of the total fuel processed in UK. However, of even more concern the pipeline down to Grangemouth from the Forties oil field, supplying other refineries and the USA! by tanker, handles 30% - 50% of UK crude supplies, and if that is taken out of the equation, there would be chaos until other supplies could be shipped in. www.theoildrum.com/files/GrangemouthBP.jpg
|
Well lets try using EIA figures.
As at 01/01/2007 Saud had 259.8 billion barrels reported proven reserves. Saud definition of proven is essentially producible now and is much harsher than Western definitions. It is thought that under SEC rules Saud could add 200 billion to that figure but lets stick with the first figure.
As at 01/01/2007 annual worldwide usage was 23 bbpd therefore Saud held 11 years production at that date.
And thats before we have even start talking Siberia or Canada or deep water Nigeria or Angola and we haven't even mentioned South America.
Oil price is politics not supply.
Just as green politics is middle class anti-capitalism dressed up as science.
|
Is that right Niallster? So what politics is stopping us from extracting maximum production from Canada or Siberia? None. Yet despite great efforts, Canada for example is only able to make a contribution of around 1.5m - 2.0m barrels a day, mostly limited by fresh water and gas supplies that are required for oil sands production.
Even if you accept that Saudi Arabia really has 260 billion barrels of reserves (which nobody else can quantify, because it is a state secret, even the EIA don't have access to the real data, we have to take it on "trust"). Current daily worldwide production is 88m barrels a day. That's about 32 billion barrels a year. That would eat up Saudi in a mere 8.5 years of world production. Nowhere near what you claimed - 20 years!
Then factor in world demand growth of say 3% p.a. (a very conservative figure, historically speaking it's been closer to 7%), and we find consumption grows to 56 billion barrels a year within 20 years, or 153m barrels a day!
That means if we relied on Saudi alone (thankfully, we don't!) their 260 billion barrels will be gone within 7.5 years. Even if you *double* their stated reserves to 520b, it would still be gone in 13.5 years!
You're also forgetting that that between the first and last barrels of oil production, production gets continually slower and more expensive. Even if Saudi Arabia do have 260 billion barrels or more, the most important question is how high can daily production be maintained?
All this in the face of declining exports from all the other major oil producers and Saudi Arabia (plus for that matter South America, Angola etc etc) have a big job to do increasing production just to cover depletion of existing fields, let alone cope with future increases in demand.
Look at the figures, existing fields tend to decline by 3% p.a.. That means production from existing fields (producing now) will drop to around 18 billion barrels p.a in 20 years (49m barrels a day). Even to cope with current demand, that means finding another 38 million barrels a day in production!! To cope with increasing demand as illustrated above, that would require finding an EXTRA 104 million barrels a day on top of what we currently have in production. We can't even produce that much now, let alone on top of what current fields have to offer.
Even a doubling in Saudi production to 18-20m barrels a day isn't going to make these problems go away, and there's no sign of that happening soon either.
The writing is on the wall, we find a way to move away from oil, we have to. Start with picking a car with all this in mind, especially if you intend to keep it for a few years...
|
In 2005 Saudi said they would add 200 Billion barrels to their reserves to nearly double them to 460Billion.
They also stated they could/would increase output from 9.5 to 11.5M bopd.
They have done neither. And as I stated, started a big drilling program offshore to find oil.
Join the dots.
Edited by madf on 01/05/2008 at 10:23
|
|
Exactly, in fact Saudi output has actually dropped since 2005!!
|
OB - you clearly have access to a lot of oil info and indeed made the case far more clearly than I managed to! I agree entirely about buying super economy cars. With the amount of traffic on UK roads and our speed limits a lot of power is not required.
The car companies do not seem to be doing much - they do not seem to be addressing the issues. Sure there is the BlueMotion and the Ford Econetic - but you have to pay more for them. As a result they won't sell... and they will say "told you so - eco cars don't sell!" If they were priced the same as - or even a bit below the other models, then they would be more likely to sell. Better still, put the technology in all models - stuff like the BMW clutched alternator that only works on the over-run - neat.
Would I invest in Jaguar and/or Rover? - no way, with oil prices going as they are!
|
Mecon, as Isaac Newton is well known to have said (and probably stole it himself), "standing on the shoulders of giants". Most of what I have learnt has come from theoildrum.com. There's a lot of crazy talk from people foreseeing the end of the world and all the stuff, but there's also a wealth of highly technical information and industry news. Beats the mass media any day.
I too am confused why manufacturers are not doing more to improve the situation. I guess there are limits as to what they can do with customers requirements and present technology.
However, why the Polo Bluemotion is so expensive, I don't know. The Polo 1.4 TDI Match is better specced and cheap enough to outweigh the difference in fuel economy, at least at current prices.
|
Oh yes, I would also recommend reading "The Prize - The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power" by Daniel Yergin. It's a little out of date now, but it is the standard industry bible, with a complete and very revealing history of oil production, from so-called Colonel Drake to the political oil related games of Saddam in Gulf War I.
It's not a text about oil depletion, so don't expect much about depletion or Peak Oil, but it is a Pulitzer Prize winning book, so that says a lot about the quality of the work.
|
Is that right Niallster? So what politics is stopping us from extracting maximum production from Canada or Siberia? None.
Your statement is correct in all parts Oil Burner except for the fact that its totally wrong.
Canadian production is mostly heavy oil. Technically its about the easiest oil to produce as its all onshore and can in same cases be open cast mined. Basically it oil sands that you boil to produce a small amount of low quality oil and a large amount of mildly radioactive muck. Its only viable above about US$25 a barrel. Production could be increased 10 fold overnight but the tree huggers hate it and so the large oil companies have historically steered well clear. So whats stopping the increase in production? Politics.
Siberia. Well where to start? Russia wanting to use the oil weapon to reclaim their world position. Literally thousands of miles of poisoned earth due to lousy environmental controls for decades. Every warlord from the well head to the export terminal wanting a levy or he'll blow your pipeline up. Western majors won't touch it with a bargepole because as soon as they hoist a say Exxon sign up the tree huggers will blaim then for decades of misuse and put political pressure on them to fund the whole clean up. So whats stopping the increase in production? Politics.
|
"Your statement is correct in all parts Oil Burner except for the fact that its totally wrong."
;)
Please check your facts, there are real problems holding tar sands production back from increasing 10x:
Tar sands extraction process:
"The heavy crude oil or crude bitumen extracted from these deposits is a viscous, solid or semisolid form that does not easily flow at normal environmental temperatures and pressures, making it difficult and expensive to process into gasoline, diesel fuel, and other products."
Water requirements:
"Between 2 to 4.5 volume units of water are used to produce each volume unit of synthetic crude oil (SCO) in an ex-situ mining operation. Despite recycling, almost all of it ends up in tailings ponds. In SAGD operations, 90 to 95 percent of the water is recycled and only about 0.2 volume units of water is used per volume unit of bitumen produced. Immense amounts of water are used for tar sands operations ? currently 349 million cubic metres per year, twice the amount of water used by the city of Calgary ."
Gas requirements:
"Large amounts of energy are needed to extract and upgrade the bitumen to synthetic crude. At this point in time, most of this is produced by burning natural gas which is widely available in the tar sands area. Approximately 1.0 to 1.25 gigajoules of natural gas are needed per barrel of bitumen extracted. Since a barrel of oil equivalent is about 6.117 gigajoules, this produces about 5 or 6 times as much energy as is consumed. Energy efficiency is expected to improve to 0.7 gigajoules of energy per barrel by 2015, giving an EROEI of about 9. However, since natural gas production in Alberta peaked in 2001 and has been static ever since, it is likely tar sands requirements will be met by cutting back natural gas exports to the U.S."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_sands
Yes, environment objections are part of the problem, but not all of it.
I'd venture your statements about Siberia are mostly opinion, IMO. There's plenty of oil flowing from Russia now, regardless of the problems you mention.
I'm not trying to claim politics is not a big issue in oil extraction difficulties, but it is one of many major issues we face.
Edited by TheOilBurner on 01/05/2008 at 17:02
|
"Technically its about the easiest oil to produce as its all onshore and can in same cases be open cast mined. Basically it oil sands that you boil to produce a small amount of low quality oil and a large amount of mildly radioactive muck. "
Totally misleading..
And wrong.
Canadian tar sands require huge $ investments are incredily environmentally unfriendly and very costly.
"Production can be increased 10 fold overnight"
Lies.
Takes a HUGE investment.
|
I don't know what is wrong with you two. I prove your assertions wrong and you still claim your right.
Just sticking to heavy oil.
Technically its easy. Deep water, North Sea, HPHT wells, drilling multi-lateral wheels, thats difficult. Mining shale, nothing to it. Even if you use rigs they are towed by trucks in to possition. Not semi-subs or subs being towed hundreds of miles across open seas by tugs.
Is increasing heavy oil production 10 fold overprint feasible? Damn right. Is it expensive? Well define expensive. Try bidding US 1 billion for an exploration permit in deep water Nigeria where you may well dry hole. Thats expensive. Heavy oil production is relatively cheap and far more certain that a 1 in 10 chance exploration well off Angola. Plus you can debt finance it. You can not debt finance exploration wells. Do you know the current day rates for rigs?
Environmentally unfriendly yes. That's why the world leader in heavy oil is a minnow called CNR. They don't care what Greenpeace think, Exxon do.
|
I'm afraid you haven't even answered our very valid factual points, let alone disproved them; therefore it looks like we will have to agree to disagree.
Suffice to say, that I do partly agree that politics does indeed play a major part in obstructing new oil field development, but then it *always* has, and that never stopped production getting to 88 million barrels a day, did it? I would just ask you to consider the part geology has in the equation too.
:)
|
> Do you know thecurrent day rates for rigs?
No. What are they?
Peanut
|
Current rate for hiring an oil rig?
Same question as "how much does it cost to hire a car?"
Onshore?
offshore?
Big?
Small?
Horizontal drilling?
Vertical drilling?
How deep?
etc
Roughly from $300,000 to $5,000,000 per day plus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
