Guest post by Mike Jonas
On Dec 13, Willis Eschenbach posted a convincing (and eloquent as always) argument “The R/P Ratio” against Peak Oil being imminent. I would like to present a different view. In fact I draw the opposite inference from the same statistic.
From the BP data [1], Willis argued that the “R/P ratio” – the ratio of reserves R to production rate P – is higher than ever, and that therefore the world is even more able to continue producing oil at today’s rate than it was yesterday at yesterday’s lower rate.
My argument is that the high R/P ratio shows that it is getting very difficult to increase P in spite of a high R and a high oil price. This argument is based on two factors of which Willis took no account – the reliability of stated reserves and the quality of the oil.
Reliability
The first major hiatus in the oil world occurred in 1973, when OPEC caused the price of oil to quadruple. The second was the Iranian revolution in 1979. Their effects are clearly seen in the historical oil price:
Figure 1 – Historical Oil Price – click image to enlarge
Over the following years, 1980 to 1988, the world’s oil reserve increased by 331.5 billion barrels, of which 329.6 were OPEC.
Figure 2 – Historical Oil Reserve – click image to enlarge
What is thought to have happened is that certain OPEC countries artificially inflated their reserves so that they could sell more oil, because OPEC production quotas were based on official reserve figures [17][22]. It is quite possible that none of this reported increase in reserves actually exists. There has recently been supporting information from Wikileaks [2].
Questions about the reliability of reserve figures are not restricted to the reserves declared between 1980 and 1988. For example, the UAE’s official reserve has been stuck on exactly 97.8bn barrels since 1996 (and was at 98.1bn barrels from 1989 to 1995), in spite of total production of 15bn barrels over that period (21bn barrels 1989-2010) and no major discoveries [21]. That’s mathematically possible, but rather unlikely.
Some other countries have similar patterns – Iran reserve at 92.9bn barrels from 1986 to 1993 (9bn barrels produced), Iraq 100.0 from 1987 to 1995 (5 produced) and 115.0 from 2001 to 2010 (8 produced), Kuwait 96.5 from 1991 to 2002 (8 produced) and 101.5 from 2004 to 2010 (7 produced), Saudi Arabia in a tight range 260.1 to 264.6 from 1989 to 2010 and not falling more than 0.1 in any one year (75 produced).
It does appear likely that a significant proportion of stated reserves do not in fact exist.
Quality
After 1988, the next significant increases in world reserves occurred in 2002 and 2008-9.
Figure 3 – Annual change in reserves – click image to enlarge
In 2002, most of the 60.7 billion barrel increase was in Russia, Iran and Qatar, and I haven’t checked it. I have no reason to suppose that it was anything but a genuine increase in good quality oil. However, of the 123.0 billion barrels increase in 2008-9, 111.8 were in Venezuela. This is an ultra-heavy crude, difficult and expensive to produce at high production rates [3].
This is where the problem lies. Much of the easy oil has gone. We are into the difficult and expensive stuff. It is a major challenge to maintain high production rates. Heavy and unconventional oil are now dominant in world reserves [4] …
Figure 4 – Total World Oil Reserves by Type – click image to enlarge
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_World_Oil_Reserves.PNG]
… to the extent that actually being able to increase the total production rate may prove to be out of reach [8].
Global oil production has basically flatlined for the last 5 or 6 years …
Figure 5 – World Oil Production – click image to enlarge
… while the oil price has surged over the same period (Fig.1). I would argue that a high R/P ratio does not necessarily indicate an ability to increase production. Rather, a high R/P together with a high oil price would seem to indicate that it is difficult to increase production. Note that for 5 years now the price of oil has been higher (in 2010 dollar terms) than it was after the 1973 oil shock.
In Venezuela (heavy and very heavy oil), the production rate has declined nearly 30% from 1965 to 2010. In 2006, before the large 2008-9 increases in reserve, its R/P was already high at 85, but was still exactly what it had been in 1985. From 1985 to 1998, production did increase markedly, bringing R/P down to 60, but production has been in decline since.
It is possible that the major factor here was Hugo Chavez being elected president in 1998, so let’s look at all the countries with above average R/P –
| R/P | |
| Venezuela | 233.9 |
| Iraq | 128.0 |
| Kuwait | 110.8 |
| UAE | 94.0 |
| Iran | 88.4 |
| Libya | 76.6 |
| Saudi Arabia | 72.4 |
| Kazakhstan | 62.1 |
| (World average) | 46.1 |
– maybe Venezuela, Iraq, Iran and Libya have political reasons for relatively low production rates. The UAE, whose oil is chiefly in Abu Dhabi, does have difficulty increasing production [10]. Kuwait [11][12] and Saudi Arabia [13] do too.
For comparison, Canada’s Alberta Tar Sands, which began production in 1967, have an R/P of 662. It is hoped that it may in future come down to around 150 (reserve 174bn bbls, prodn 720k bpd, target 3m bpd [6]).
[bbl = barrel, bpd = barrels per day]
There is a clear tendency for high R/P to be associated with heavy and unconventional oil, that is, oil for which high production rates are very difficult.
The Future
The oil industry has been successful in maintaining reporting a world R/P of 40+ since 1988.
Figure 6 – World R/P – click image to enlarge
But in order for the rate of oil production to keep increasing, a lot has to go right. Things like:
· Major new conventional oil discoveries.
· Technological progress in heavy and unconventional oil production.
· Political stability in producing countries.
· Political stability in consuming countries.
· A high oil price.
· Increasing demand in spite of the high oil price.
· Oil remaining competitive with alternatives.
· Non-obstruction by governments (think “carbon” trading and taxes, USA offshore exploration ban)
More optimistic estimates of the Peak Oil date range from 2014 [7] to the IEA’s 2035 or later [5][5a]. But in the IEA presentation, note that although foil #8 “Oil production becomes less crude” …
Figure 7 IEA forecast – click image to enlarge
… shows production increasing to at least 2035 , there is enormous (heroic?) reliance on “fields yet to be developed or found” which are more than half of all oil production by 2035. Note also the relatively low contribution from “unconventional oil”, and the rapid decline of currently producing conventional fields.
There is another figure worth keeping an eye on for the next few years – Saudi Arabia’s production rate. The IEA presentation [5] expects Saudi Arabia to increase production by 50% between 2009 and 2035.
Figure 8 – IEA forecast by country – click image to enlarge
In mid 2008 Saudi Arabia announced that they would increase production by 500k bpd [14], but production fell 8% over the next two years. Perhaps this confirms that the producing Saudi fields are already in decline [15]. In June 2011, Saudi Arabia again stated that they would raise production [16]. It will be interesting to see if they are able to.
Saudi Arabia’s (2010) R/P is 72. They do have some as yet undeveloped fields, but none are anything like as large as the now-declining Ghawar [20].
Conclusion
The increasing world R/P, together with the high oil price, probably means that it is getting ever more difficult to increase production, rather than that Peak Oil is obviously many years away. I suspect that we are already at or close to Peak Oil, but it can only be identified in retrospect [see footnote 4].
It is, admittedly, still mathematically possible that Peak Oil is many years away. I would agree that “Peak Oil & Gas” and “Peak Energy”, as opposed to “Peak Oil”, are many years away – provided sanity returns to western governments.
Footnotes
1. All production and reserve amounts, associated amounts (eg. R/P), and graphs, are from or derived from the BP data [1] unless otherwise indicated. BP’s reserve data includes “gas condensate and natural gas liquids“, but does not include the Canadian oil sands.
2. Oil reserves are relative to economic and operating conditions, so they can increase without new discoveries.
3. Why did I quote the IEA 2010 report instead of the 2011 report? Because in 2011 the IEA lost its marbles and interlaced everything with the need to reduce CO2 emissions [18]. When the world wakes up to the fact that CO2 emissions are not dangerous, much of the 2011 report will be useless. FWIW, in the 2011 report oil production is still expected to increase by a similar amount by 2035, with OPEC increasing its share [19].
4. I understand “Peak Oil” to mean the point in time after which global oil production does not materially increase. The peak in oil production does not signify ‘running out of oil’ [9]. It doesn’t mean that oil production cannot physically be increased, simply that it does not increase. Peak Oil can therefore be influenced by factors such as price, changes in use and efficiency of use, and competition from alternatives. Basically, it is only possible to identify it in retrospect.
Mike Jonas
Jan 2012
###
Mike Jonas (MA Maths Oxford UK) retired some years ago after nearly 40 years in I.T.. He worked for BP in the 1960s and 70s, including 3 years in Abu Dhabi.
References
[1] BP Statistical Review of World Energy, Jun 2011.
[2] Time report “Have Saudis Overstated How Much Oil Is Left?” Feb 2011
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2048242,00.html
[3] Wikipedia “Oil reserves in Venezuela”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Venezuela
[4] Wikipedia “Oil Reserves”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
[5] IEA “World Energy Outlook 2010” Presentation to the Press Nov 2010
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/weo2010_london_nov9.pdf
NB. See Footnote 3 above.
[5a] Gail Tverberg, Comment on IEA “World Energy Outlook 2010”, Nov 2010.
http://www.countercurrents.org/tverberg101110.htm
[6] Popular Mechanics “New Tech to Tap North America’s Vast Oil Reserves” Oct 2009
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/4212552
[7] msnbc.com “Peak oil production predicted for 2014” Dec 2010.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35838273/ns/business-oil_and_energy/ – .TumIeGAch0I
[8] AAAS Member Central “Peak Oil Production May Already Be Here” Mar 2011.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6024/1510.short
[9] Energy Bulletin “Peak Oil Primer”
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
[10] My comment on JudithCurry.com, re Zakum, Tupi and Peak Oil. Nov 2011.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/11/24/emails/ – comment-144017
[11] H. M. Shalaby “Refining of Kuwait’s Heavy Crude Oil: Material Challenges” Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research. Dec 2005
http://www.arabschool.org/pdf_notes/20_REFINING_OF_KUWAITS_HEAVY_CRUDE_OIL.pdf
[12] Bloomberg “Kuwait Reduces Its 2020 Heavy-Oil Production Target by More Than Half”. Oct 2010.
[13] WSJ “Facing Up to End of ‘Easy Oil’”. May 2011.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704436004576299421455133398.html
[14] The Independent “Saudi King: “We will pump more Oil”” June 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-king-we-will-pump-more-oil-847830.html
[15] Energy Security “New study raises doubts about Saudi oil reserves” March 2004
http://www.iags.org/n0331043.htm
[16] NY Times “Saudi Arabia, Defying OPEC, Will Raise Its Oil Output” June 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/business/energy-environment/11oil.html
[17] Telegraph article “Oil reserves ‘exaggerated by one third’” Dec 2011.
[18] IEA “World Energy Outlook 2011” Presentation to the press Nov 2011
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/homepage/WEO2011_Press_Launch_London.pdf
[19] IEA “World Energy Outlook 2011 Fact Sheet” (see “Global oil production”)
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/factsheets.pdf
[20] NY Times “Forecast of Rising Oil Demand Challenges Tired Saudi Fields” Feb 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/business/24OIL.html?pagewanted=all
[21] Gerald Butt “Oil and Gas in the UAE”
http://www.geopowers.com/energie/sites/default/files/images/PDF – VAE.pdf
[22] Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue, Hofstra University “Changes in Major Crude Oil Reserves, 2001-2006” http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch5en/appl5en/oilreserves.html
wsbriggs says:
January 4, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Just to put things in perspective for those who think that shale oil is some kind of gimmick. In 2004 you could lease mineral rights for shale for as little as $3/acre. Today the price is over $5000/acre for the lease rights. The change in the price reflects the change in the economics of well production. Some wells in the “Bakken” are producing >1000 bpd, most are over 100 bpd. The expected recovery ratio is now over 30%. Here in Houston there will be a series of dinners celebrating the unconventional oil pioneers, those interested in what’s gone on should consider attending. http://www.hgs.org/. This is the Houston Geological Society.
Bakken will never yield 30% of oil in place. 1% is the limit expected. Why? Because a normal well produces 30-40%. Bakken is a tight shale. 30% is physically impossible.
Dizzy Ringo says:
January 4, 2012 at 11:57 am
I think you have forgotten the economic aspect – as proposed by Julian Simon. There is no shortage of resources as we are continually being more economic in our useage of them because of technological advances.
There is also the point that we haven’t quite worked out how oil is formed – is it the bones of dead trees and dinosaurs or is it formed abiotically? The deep wells would seem to support the abiotic theory.
No, no, and no. Oil comes from MARINE environments, shallow seas. Dinos had nothing to do with it. The depth of a well means nothing as per the source of the oil. EVERY oil field has a biological marker. Even the deep Tupi field off Brazil has a biological source rock just below the host rock. NO ONE field has been shown to be abiotic.
In the meantime, as long as the profit-making reward for pursuing technical innovation is maintained at useful levels; and as long as the profit reward is not artificially constrained to suit the whims of some political or social agenda, then the process of transition will be sometimes painful to one degree or another, but will not be catastrophically disruptive as many of the Peak Oilers would have us believe.
Scott, you really need to read about the Energy Trap. Diverting energy to make alternatives to oil is less energy we need to run society. That then causes recessions, taking capital away from building alternatives. Your mindset is one of economic growth. With economic growth we could proceed to convert society to electrical where we can. But in an ecomony that is not expanding, but contracting, such endevours are near impossible to do.
Right here in Ontario is a prime example. Our government is pushing for more wind and solar. But it is so expensive (14c for wind, 80c for solar) that our power bills have more than tripled in just 8 years. And not just for power, but to build the infrastructure to move the new power. This increase in power rates is destroying industry as 3 jobs are lost there than are being made in the “green” sector.
That’s the energy trap.
Alberta has Oil Sands,they’re not tar sands.
Can we please get the term corrected in the article?
TRENDLines has tracked and published the world’s recognized oil depletion forecasts on a monthly basis since 2004. Back then its consensus inferred a Peak of 95 Mbd in 2020. Today the 16 tier-1 practitioners project 97 Mbd in 2025. My own PS-2500 model suggests PEAK DEMAND will occur upon crude price attaining $113/barrel in 2029 (100 Mbd) truncating GEOLOGIC PEAK (103 Mbd in 2031).
But congrat’s to Mike Jonas on extending the McPeakster myth (imminent peak oil) to its 24th consecutive year. Even a broken clock has a better record than this fringe group.
genuine peak oil depletion charts: http://www.trendlines.ca/free/peakoil
Robert in Calgary says:
January 4, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Alberta has Oil Sands,they’re not tar sands.
Can we please get the term corrected in the article?
It’s niether, it’s bitumen. It has to be cracked into smaller hydocarbons to make synthetic oil. In a conventional oil field, bitumen is a small component, left at the bottom of the distilation process.
That’s 4 years of world consumption. It’s a small deposit.As to a reserve of 123 billion barrels being labeled as a “small deposit,” those of us in the oil business have traditionally had another name for such a field: we call them “supergiants.” Assuming, of course, that the reserve estimate can be borne out by developmental drilling, something which has yet to occur with the Brazilian discovery.
From Fred’s site: The year oil (excl BTL) runs out: 2497
Interesting you can acccuratly predict that. I also love your wiggly lines past today, especially that drop in 2017. You must have some amazing crystal ball.
You don’t seem to include any economic consequences, nor have you considered political issues. Should oil producing countrys decide to stop exporting, we have reached fast depletion rates in importing countries.
No one can predict the future.
Steamroller Sam says:
January 4, 2012 at 2:42 pm
That’s 4 years of world consumption. It’s a small deposit.
As to a reserve of 123 billion barrels being labeled as a “small deposit,” those of us in the oil business have traditionally had another name for such a field: we call them “supergiants.” Assuming, of course, that the reserve estimate can be borne out by developmental drilling, something which has yet to occur with the Brazilian discovery.
Name it what you want. It’s still only 4 years. Takes a lot of those to run this civilization, one like that won’t compensate for losses from depleting fields.
Mike Jonas says:
“But everyone here pointing out that there are vast quantities of oil just waiting to be produced, and that the technology is going to deliver it, needs to check the numbers carefully…
N Dakota’s Bakken production reached a record in 2011 of nearly 500k bpd. That sounds very impressive… the mammoth efforts on N Dakota’s Bakken are struggling just to compensate for production lost from Saudi Arabia.”
There is no disputing these points except to say that the new technologies have increased N. Dakota production from virtually zero to .5mm bbls/day. Alberta’s conventional oil production was in serious decline and most of the Big Oil players had sold their acreage and moved on. Now Alberta’s conventional production is climbing very rapidly. Manitoba is becoming a “Big Oil Player” with rapidly ramping production. The Hosston, Norphlet, Haynesville and Bartlet formations have fantastic potential in Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, etc. Throughout Europe there exists similar potential in Hungary, Ukraine, France, Russia, etc. The prospect for some old fields to reach back to and beyond former glories such as has been demonstrated in Alberta has, in my view, magnificent potential.
“The oil companies piling into Brazil are chasing a possible 123bn bbls of reserves, although the figure stands now at 16bn. But it is going to take many years to develop those fields, and 123bn bbls is only 4 years’ world supply.”
I do dislike this old pea game of hiding a significant resource under the big “only 4 years of world supply” cup. Brazil will of course, ramp up production to 2 or 3 mm bbls per day and their 120 bn bbls will produce for many decades to come. My point is; an extra .5mm bbls/day from N. Dakota plus + 1mm bbls/day from enhanced Alberta conventional + 2mm/day from Brazil + 1mm bbls/day from enhanced Russia, and a little bit here and a little bit there and before you know it, it’s 2025 and the ability to supply v. demand hasn’t changed much.
The real wild-card we will all agree is as you said “Maybe the world really can increase oil production for many more years, but IMHO when you look at the numbers and add in things like political factors it is looking ever less likely.”
In this I doubt you will be proven wrong.
jrwakefield,
Keep fighting the good fight. I know it seems like you’re preaching to a very obstinate crowd, but perhaps some guest is reading the thread and learning something. The truth needs to be told that “Peak Oil” (perhaps an unfortunate term) is not about running out of oil. It is about an inevitable decline in the ability of human societies to produce and consume this key resource efficiently.
jrwakefield says: “Diverting energy to make alternatives to oil is less energy we need to run society. That then causes recessions, taking capital away from building alternatives. Your mindset is one of economic growth. With economic growth we could proceed to convert society to electrical where we can. But in an economy that is not expanding, but contracting, such endeavors are near impossible to do.”
My mindset is indeed one of economic growth. I do not see how we can control the world’s population growth unless most nations become industrialized and therefore have much less need for large numbers of children to support their parents. Hence the need for worldwide economic growth.
I also happen to be one who thinks the notion of abiotic oil is complete nonsense, the notion of fusion power becoming practical anytime in this century is complete nonsense, and that the prospects for a thorium-fueled nuclear industry emerging anytime soon is highly problematic.
There will be winners and losers in the transition from petroleum based liquid carbon fuels into multi-source liquid carbon fuels, There will also be economic dislocations for those who are not able to cope with this transition.
And those who are most economically affected may very well include those in western societies who ignore the fundamental benefits of capitalist economics and who make a serious effort to directly manage the transition according to some predetermined socio-political-technical agenda.
But the transition will not happen quickly, and for most of those around the world who don’t presently have ready access to cheap energy, they have nowhere to go but up, and can do so using whatever means of production the unfettered interplay between technology and capitalist economics is able to put into their hands.
jrwakefield says: “Right here in Ontario is a prime example. Our government is pushing for more wind and solar. But it is so expensive (14c for wind, 80c for solar) that our power bills have more than tripled in just 8 years. And not just for power, but to build the infrastructure to move the new power. This increase in power rates is destroying industry as 3 jobs are lost there than are being made in the “green” sector.”
Here in Washington State, there was a mandate passed several years ago by voter initiative that a certain percentage of the state’s electrical power generating capacity must be provided by renewable sources, 20 percent by 2020 if I remember correctly. In Washington State, this means covering a good portion of the southern, central and eastern areas of the state with wind turbines, a process which is now well underway and which has dramatically affected the character of Washington’s rural landscape; i,e,, it isn’t truly rural anymore.
A political issue is developing in that producers of wind-generated power are asking to be paid for not producing electricity whenever the northwest power grid is unable to absorb all the electricity they can produce. For example, this happens when the lakes behind our hydroelectric dams are full during spring runoff periods and when as much water as possible must be sent through the dam’s power turbines, rather than the dam’s open spillways, so as to mitigate negative impacts on the local fish populations.
“Well,” some people say, “why should we pay for electricity that is not actually being produced?”
The counterargument is this: the voters made their choice about renewable sources of energy, and the voters have to live with the downside of their decision — higher electricity rates and a Washington State which no longer possesses its former rural character. If Washington State voters want to make some other kind of decision, then they should repeal the 20% mandate.
In the meantime, while the voters are thinking about the wisdom of enforcing renewable energy mandates, it is perfectly reasonable, I think, that they should be willing to pay the wind power producers whatever special compensation those producers are asking for.
James D et al; roughly, conventional production means you drill a well into a sand or karstic limestone reservoir (vertical, inclined, horizontal, S-shaped, fish-hook… it matters not), complete it and the hydrocarbon flows to surface due to formation pressure (which is why I hate reading MSM articles which talk of oil being ‘pumped’ from conventional wells).
Deep water drilling, horizontal drains, arctic drilling, water or gas injection production are all quite conventional.
Once you start having to run ESPs (electric submersible pumps) to lift high viscosity oil to surface, injecting steam to liquify tar for pumping, mining oil rich sand, fracturing shales and coals to achieve long term mouse flatulence production rates you move into the realm of unconventional production. It’s the future and it’s all properly fascinating; but look to the arctic first (provided governments and electorateswake up to the fact that anti-development watermelons wouldn’t know their rectum from their retina) and to the US or China sorting out a few more 3rd world basket cases in order to remove political obstacles to future oil production.
Once we’re done with that, there’s always submarine drilling and who knows what in Antarctica(certainly coal and metals), but that should be some way into the future :o)
I read a book a while back, by Peter Tertzakian, and while he advocates for the peak oil, for the lack of a better term, hypothesis, there was a gem or two in the book (A Thousand Barrels a Second). It essentially showed just how fast technological change occurs, particularly with energy, but that whatever is going to replace oil (transportation, energy, what have you) is already on the scene.
jrwakefield says:
January 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Coal to oil is negative ERoEI.
==============
I know what ERoEI is, but I have no idea what is being said here.
For what it is worth, South Africa meets about 25% of its liquid hydrocarbon needs with synthetic oil produced from coal — about 150,000 bpd. Costs are said to be in the $50 per barrel range. Are you saying that isn’t possible? BTW, I personally hate the idea of CTL. Massive environmental damage. But it WILL almost certainly happen in North America, my desires notwithstanding.
@jrwakefield
As I said, they are called Oil Sands.
http://www.oilsands.alberta.ca/resource.html
“Bitumen is a viscous form of oil that has combined with sand and water. The bitumen must be removed from the sand and water prior to being upgraded into crude oil and other petroleum products.
There are two types of oil sands extraction methods: in situ (which means in place) recovery and surface mining.”
Don K says:
January 4, 2012 at 5:44 pm
jrwakefield says:
January 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Coal to oil is negative ERoEI.
==============
I know what ERoEI is, but I have no idea what is being said here.
For what it is worth, South Africa meets about 25% of its liquid hydrocarbon needs with synthetic oil produced from coal — about 150,000 bpd. Costs are said to be in the $50 per barrel range. Are you saying that isn’t possible? BTW, I personally hate the idea of CTL. Massive environmental damage. But it WILL almost certainly happen in North America, my desires notwithstanding.
Just because they are doing it does not mean it’s positive ERoEI. Countries do lots of things that don’t make sense, re AGW. One has to look at the entire picture of what energy is being used, from mining to the pumps. Notice their flow rate from this is puny.
Robert in Calgary says:
January 4, 2012 at 7:24 pm
@jrwakefield
As I said, they are called Oil Sands.
http://www.oilsands.alberta.ca/resource.html
“Bitumen is a viscous form of oil that has combined with sand and water. The bitumen must be removed from the sand and water prior to being upgraded into crude oil and other petroleum products.
There are two types of oil sands extraction methods: in situ (which means in place) recovery and surface mining.”
Bitumen is a sub-component of oil, but bitument isn’t oil because oil contains more compounds than just bitumen. To make those compounds from bitumen it has to be cracked and capped with H+ ions to make smaller chains to make synthetic oil.
Here in Washington State, there was a mandate passed several years ago by voter initiative that a certain percentage of the state’s electrical power generating capacity must be provided by renewable sources, 20 percent by 2020 if I remember correctly. In Washington State, this means covering a good portion of the southern, central and eastern areas of the state with wind turbines, a process which is now well underway and which has dramatically affected the character of Washington’s rural landscape; i,e,, it isn’t truly rural anymore.
At least your people voted for that con, we didn’t, it was thrusted upon us by liberals who think they know better than anyone else. Both you and us are bound for epic failure of the system because of this. Do the math of how many wind turbines would be needed (at 10% median capacify factor). In Ontario we would need some 40,000 of them. That’s one every 100 meters from Windsor to Montreal. BY the time you get part way to the goal, the first batch of turbines will be past their lifespan and will need to be replaced. That means you have to build twice as many that next year for new capacity and replacing depleting capacity because turbines are past their age. You will never get to 20%.
You may find this useful http://ontariowindperformance.wordpress.com
BTW, we hold back Niagara to allow wind to supply. When we have too much production we have to pay Ohio to take it from us. It’s only a matter ot time before this mess comes crashing down.
I do dislike this old pea game of hiding a significant resource under the big “only 4 years of world supply” cup. Brazil will of course, ramp up production to 2 or 3 mm bbls per day and their 120 bn bbls will produce for many decades to come. My point is; an extra .5mm bbls/day from N. Dakota plus + 1mm bbls/day from enhanced Alberta conventional + 2mm/day from Brazil + 1mm bbls/day from enhanced Russia, and a little bit here and a little bit there and before you know it, it’s 2025 and the ability to supply v. demand hasn’t changed much
It’s a perspective to counter the moniker of “supergiant” which people then say. wow it must be HUGE! But when compared to world consumption it isn’t. But if it’s a true comparison you want how about comparing Brazil’s increase with Mexico’s decrease. Cantarell has dropped by 2mb/day in only 15 years.
You are also assuming that countries like Brazil will export that resource. They consume 2.654 million bbl/day, and import 750kb/day. So half the off shore will be used to stop importation. The rest they could just leave in the ground for future growth in their own country. None of it may even get to world markets. We will have to see.
Bottom line is depletion from older fields will outpace production from these new deposits much sooner that 2025.
Ah, my old friend, “Peak Oil”! Thanks, Mike, that’s a good summary of how things appear with conventional technology.
Back in the late 1970’s through early 1980’s, there was quite a push for “enhance oil recovery” technologies that could stimulate further production from played-out fields, or move heavy crude from the formations more readily. Groups like Argonne National Labs injected anaerobic bacteria into formations for “microbial oil recovery,” where the bugs would generate surfactants & carbon dioxide to help reduce the viscosity.
Other techniques involved using radio frequency heating of entire oil fields with dispersed antennas, injection of steam and, lately, renewed interest in using fossil fuel carbon dioxide to help reduce viscosity while losing the CO2 into the formation (a form of geosequestration, they hope).
Where there is a will, there is a way. As the price per barrel goes up, these technologies will be dusted off & reapplied. Combined with modern innovation such as directional drilling, I think there are some exciting times yet to be had in the oil patch.
Cheers, Charles the DrPH (old Okie petroleum scientist from Tulsa, OK)
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/eor/
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=00038311&soc=SPE
Scott Brim says:
January 4, 2012 at 3:32 pm
jrwakefield says: “Diverting energy to make alternatives to oil is less energy we need to run society. That then causes recessions, taking capital away from building alternatives. Your mindset is one of economic growth. With economic growth we could proceed to convert society to electrical where we can. But in an economy that is not expanding, but contracting, such endeavors are near impossible to do.”
1.Strong ties between our lifestyles and the existing energy resources(fossil based fuels) from one side, and huge systematic infrastructures and mobilization on this sector, on the other side, are the main factors that would not let other sources to proceed. Basically it’s correct, there is an old proverb saying “a little bird in hand is much better than 100 eagles in the sky.” There are no evidence as yet, that can convince the market (all the people) as a whole, a divert to new unknown system may meet the requirements.
2. You have mentioned that with economic growth we could proceed to convert society to electrical where we can. Actually, this has been done in some ways. You said “where we can”, but there are priorities of the “MUSTs”. This is quite different from “where we can” that is “optional”. Metro/Underground Railways is an example of “MUST” large scale projects. You can imagine how the system could work with diesel based locomotives! The system now is powered by power plants outside the cities, but still with Fossil Based Fuels, this is perfect, nothing wrong would take place here and the people that do like CO2, are satisfied as well. There are still more to do as “MUSTs”. You know greater cities in the whole world there are air pollutions the same as could happen in underground railways with diesel fuel powered, nobody can breath. We are not talking about all the urban areas, just think about the capital cities with more than min.6 millions residents mostly around 12 millions each. Here is the right place for electric vehicles. As soon as you want to speak about this, as a MUST because of the health of millions of people around the world, the calculators start counting, this is the input that is the output. Electric vehicles are essential for the greater cities where we need no more air pollutions, this is a huge project, leave other rural places for the future where and when we need. You are speaking about new energies as a must by the government in Canada, of course it must get started ASAP, when can we really get out of prototype versions? In aviation, the world started with those GOD blessed brothers, we are here now with satisfaction.
Still more to come…
jrwakefield says:
That’s 4 years of world consumption. It’s a small deposit.
================================
That’s just one discovery off the coast of Brazil that could fuel the entire for four years! It’s a huge deposit, not a small one. Meanwhile, the U.S. increased domestic reserves by a staggering 50 percent in 2006, with just one discovery in the Gulf of Mexico. Wow!
And in your fervent hydrocarbon-powered fear-mongering about depletion catastrophe, you responded to Lars P on the subject of Titan’s hydrocarbons thus:
“Just because small hydrocarbons, which were accreted early in the formation of the solar system, are on Titan means that large molecule oil components can abiotically form on this planet is grossly misguided.”
The hydrocarbons on Titan, as you might already know, did not accrete during formation, but are produced there continuously by geochemical processes:
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The process is called serpentinisation and is basically the reaction between water and rocks at 100 to 400 degrees Celsius (212 to 752 degrees Fahrenheit)…
http://esse.engin.umich.edu/PSL/PRESS/Titan_Cassini_Huygens/AP_Wire_012705.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you know that “peculiar changes” are required of biological molecules to convert them into kerogen?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerogen
That seem “grossly misguided” to me.
Scott Brim says:
January 4, 2012 at 3:32 pm
“My mindset is indeed one of economic growth. I do not see how we can control the world’s population growth unless most nations become industrialized and therefore have much less need for large numbers of children to support their parents. Hence the need for worldwide economic growth.”
Controlling the population in most of the 3rd world countries have began since years ago. There are of course economical aspects in addition to some rules and regulations made by the governments. It is not limited to only the poor countries, as you see, the average marriage age has been increased in most cases to 25-35 years. There are still exceptions, that would never be close to the trend lines.
This is a humanitarian idea about the progress of the nations to be leveled up and touch the higher living standards. That would remain as an idea of course.
The infrastructure of energy sector today, would never bear an impact not only in exploring but in production of energy for all the requirements if we suppose all the nations are ready to grow up at once, that is utterly impossible. Referring to China and India moving towards industrialization, and in just their start ups, there occurred lots of problems. From drinking water, to food, health care, etc etc…to fuel consumption and all the energy aspects, and air pollution to climate changes …whatever you may think.
The living costs of the people leaving with $2 a month can never be compared with THE NORTH standards. No need to go further on this issue.
apology for the amendment in the last 2 lines:
acckkii says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 5, 2012 at 2:46 am
Scott Brim says:
January 4, 2012 at 3:32 pm
…….”The living costs of the people with $2 a month the income, can never be compared with THE NORTH standards. No need to go further on this issue.”