This is a very interesting read on this topic.
A little unnerving though in places.
This GD thread has a very interesting and informative discussion on the subject.
“While Australia’s natural resource-based economy has enjoyed tremendous growth along with the rebound in commodity prices worldwide, the country’s oil production continues to decline at a staggering pace. The country’s production peaked at 805,000 barrels of oil per day (bopd) in 2000 and only averaged 490,000 bopd in the first 10 months of 2004 (Source: US Department of Energy).”
http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/powers/2005/02…
Scary numbers…
And in a similar vain:
Oman predicts lower oil production in 2005
“Oman exported 197.4 million barrels of crude in the first nine months of this year <2004>, 5.5 percent lower than for 2003. Daily average production in 2003 was 819,500 barrels, down 8.7 percent from 898,000 the year before.”
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&c…
Is the world’s oil running out fast?
“North Sea production is declining at an increasing rate, having peaked in 1999. Not at the predicted flat rate of decline of 7%, but gradually accelerating from 7% to 8.5% to 11%.”
BBC NEWS | Business | Is the world's oil running out fast?
It appears that post peak production rates can decline extremely fast, especially mature fields employing tertiary production methods. Like Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar, in production for over 50 years old with average production for the last 10 years essentially steady at five million barrels per day helped by water injection since 1965.
Because Paul Erlich was wrong in the 70’s we must have more oil now?
Alternatives?
- Like what? Is there anything feasible hat doesn’t require more oil than it replaces? Less than half what it replaces?
USGS?
Won’t certify it’s results; can’t verify its methodology. Will admit that it’s usually behind the current methodology and understanding.
Even their best case says 100 years
“managed transition”
- what would that look like, even approximately?
“Long enough so I’ll be dead so f**k it.”
- The beauty is that’s easy.
- The ugly is we’re monkeys. We’re like any other organism that overshoots its environment’s ability to support it. Beethoven’s 9th means nothing.
- The logic says- this doesn’t really answer the question. Rather, it implies that the question doesn’t matter. But there are approximately 6 .5 billion people alive on the earth today- how many can the world support if/when the oil runs out?
“Which of course means no one knows, nor does there seem to be much hope of finding out until some crisis”
- so you’re driving down a highway in the dark, fast enough that you are overdriving your headlights- i.e., so fast that the headlights do not illuminate the full range of your stopping distance even your turning distance- and rather than slow down so you can avoid the impact or make the turn- your conclusion is no hope of knowing until the impact or departure from the pavement.
Energy Information Administration
I’ll keep chewing through this one, but it looks like global production has plateaued, if not peaked. Clearly that’s different from “running out” but the implication is that increasing efficiency will compensate for increased demand. So all the cars coming on line in China will be fed by the increasing efficiency in production and consumption in the rest of the world. Doesn’t seem reasonable. Just looking at cars & trucks, best case efficiency seems to reduce demand approx10% per year, whereas the increase in demand more like 30% per year.
Efficency can’t get us there- not without a reduction in demand.
American Petroleum Institute
It would be nice to know someone is thinking about how to turn the boat. But it’s not the API - pro-production, pro-consumption but not a lot of focus on how much there is. I.e., it doesn’t really answer the question. But very informative all the same.
“What in the heck do we do when the oil runs out?”
I agree that’s a critical question; vital, in fact. But that depends on “when.” A lot.
The problem is that there are approximately 6.5billion people alive right now. And some percentage of that number is not supportable if we have less available, affordable or accessible energy. None of us has lived though a period of major population decline- I’m not sure any of us have any idea how.
If it’s a gentle overshoot and correction- say a 1 or 2% decline - though a gruesomely large number, most of us can probably deal with it. But if the percentage gets into the double digits- the gruesomeness increases exponentially and then I’m not convinced most of us can deal. Heinberg puts the number at 15-50% or higher. He could be guessing but he has data that suggests he’s closer than not.
“…there is oodles of the stuff left, with new reserves being regularly discovered.”
Well- I can live with the imprecision of an impressive quantitative estimate like “oodles.” But where? When? I believe that many national estimates of reserves are misstated – hugely. But to just say, “hey, I know a guy and he says there’s tons and tons more everyday” seems sort of … casual.
“…I can remember back to 1973…”
“Will the oil run out? Yes. Is it a good idea to try and use what we have wisely? Yes. Is it a smart move to look at what alternative energy sources we could use? Yes. Do we know when the oil will run out? No. “
I am quite sure you don’t mean to imply that because people were wrong about this before, they can’t ever be right about it.
It will run out- i.e., cease to be a useful input into sustaining our population. And lifestyle.
Alternatives? We better transition fast if it’s relatively soon. I mean, present technology requires a lot of oil to build a nuke plant. Or solar panels. Or row after row of batteries. Or ethanol factories. Or hydrogen fuel cells.
But if it’s not “soon”, the transition can wait.
C’moin- the math can’t be that hard. It’s a sphere. It’s mostly not filled with oil. We may not have identified 100% of the reserves – but surely we’ve identified enough to make a reasonable estimate. Or two. We should try.
“…when alternative energy sources become cheaper.”
Right- but that’s relatively cheaper. It doesn’t make the math of supporting 6.5billion residents any easier. To use an extreme example just to make the point- what if the next best alternative becomes cheaper when oil hits $1000/bl? 6.5 billion doesn’t add up any more.
Fat Marrow-
That is a good link- though a lot of Savinar’s sources and methodology have been pretty well thrashed in the serious and academic press. However, there are nuggets there that no one disputes- for example.
“ …approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US.
Peak oil-
fortunately for Australia their consumption has still been able to increase because they have been able to import more. As have we in the US.
Unless it really is a geochemical process and not a biological legacy, that increase can’t go one forever.
Australian oil production has declined because it’s not economic to extract, that’s all. It’s not even as the the oil reserves of the continent are hard to get at, it’s just that most of them are far too light to make them economical for tarmac and polymer production so Mid-east crude is used instead.
When in Oz last time I was given a tour of test drilling rig. They proved their point that it was lousy quality by pouring several gallong of the stuff striaght into the tank of a ute and driving off. It really is that light.
WHich highlights the problem of trying to compare reserves and production with existing resources. It’s all terribly complex and 2/3 economic.
-
-
- Economically speaking: oil will not “run out” so much as its price will climb until a less-expensive alternative will eventually be found, and oil will more or less fall out of use. As more and more is used up, the decreasing final quantities left will not be economically feasible to obtain in light of other cheaper alternatives.
…
- Economically speaking: oil will not “run out” so much as its price will climb until a less-expensive alternative will eventually be found, and oil will more or less fall out of use. As more and more is used up, the decreasing final quantities left will not be economically feasible to obtain in light of other cheaper alternatives.
-
- As for “conserving oil”, there’s really not a lot of point, considering the above. Rather like the situation with whalebone corsets: even though the whalebone corset industry died, it was not due to any shortage of whales, and we still have whales around today.
- Ultimately, if you want to do whatever’s kindest to the environment, do whatever’s cheapest. The “price” of an object represents two things–the first is the amount of resources that were used to make it, and the second is profit on the manufacturer/distributor/retailer’s part. The first part represents resources already used that effectively caused “pollution”, and all the people that work for the manufacturer, the distributor and the retailer will use their portions of the profit to go buy more things, which will in turn cause more resources to be used, and in turn cause even more pollution. So most of the time (ignoring any governmental interference in pricing or buying laws) choosing the cheapest option for a product causes the least pollution. It must–because causing pollution costs money!
~
Not if we run out of petroleum. It will have to be whale oil to run our SUVs 