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
Lars P. says:
January 4, 2012 at 11:42 am
Oil and gas may very well be natural abiotic products – look at Titan, it has 100 times more oil then the Earth:
http://www.space.com/4968-titan-oil-earth.html
—
There’s not any oil on Titan – There’s liquid hydrocarbons but that’s because it’s about -179 degrees C. It’s pretty much all methane.
I can speak for North Sea only. I think that one of the biggest factor in decreasing UK production is regulation of produced water discharged to the sea. This is just too tough and diverted huge amount of investment into upgrades of produced water systems with marginal improvements. As a consequence less wells are drilled and less facilities build. This also cause production bottleneck with production losses. When I was in production support I really struggled to make any modification on the platform. What core crew could do in a few hours I had to plan months and years in advance with piles of paperwork and unproductive people being involved.
Scott Brim says:
January 4, 2012 at 3:32 pm
“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.”
This is not a political issue, it is economical matter and it’s true and correct. This is not even compensation.
If you hire a taxi to do your jobs all around you go, do you pay for the idle time the taxi is waiting for you? The taxi doesn’t work just parks in front door of your bank, and when you get back the driver starts engine ready to drive to your next destination. It depends on your contract with the driver:
1. You pay for the whole day;
2. You pay for the time the taxi is with you;
3. Anyhow you should know that the base price for that taxi includes the wasted times during the daily/weekly/monthly/in a year according to the taxi drivers association fees confirmed by the government/municipality. The taximeter is setup for this rate. It depends on the city/traffic/inside the city/outside the city travel etc..etc. This is just a taxi!
About windmills, don’t think that it never happens in gas turbines power plants.
You know that there is peak time in daily power consumption. Sometimes, the power authority orders you to shut down some of your generators due to low demand on power. It is a regular daily program, specially when a government power plant is in your neighborhood. They would not stop their production, they order you to stop generating. Who is going to pay for your IDLE time?
For idle times they pay %90 of your contract rate per KWh. This (%deduction) may vary for different states and countries. Why is like that? Because you don’t have depreciation. There is one more thing in calculation of the rate per KWh. Depending on your power plant location whether it is at sea level or above sea level your power output in gas turbines or any type of combustion engines would change, besides, in hot climates you would have less power generated although you can modify the recent issue by providing cooling systems but it means you should allocate more than %2 of your produced electricity internally in your system. It means the rates cannot be the same in sea level nice weather conditions and in bad locations, maybe more than %20 is the difference. For the generators with that huge investment your off taker would pay you based on these terms and conditions. It’s not POLITICAL issue at all. And finally this is you as the owner of the plant that must compensate if any shut down takes place. However this is a bilateral agreement not political issue. Otherwise, you are going to kill yourself and burn your money, are you going to sacrifice for any power authority, and or you want the electricity for the people dancing at bars?!!
To be continued…
Scott Brim says:
January 4, 2012 at 3:32 pm
“Well,” some people say, “why should we pay for electricity that is not actually being produced?”
Tell them: you are not SCOTT BRIM FOUNDATION (no charity).
R/P in driving your car.
When you are driving with high speed and fast in a highway at night, with your loved ones in your car, do you mind if you don’t have enough light to see your direction, or the next destination that is at 2km?5km?10km?100km ahead of you?
R is the light
P is you and loved ones+your car speed
The (40+) R/P is enough if the figure can be trusted.
JIS says:
January 5, 2012 at 5:16 am
I can speak for North Sea only. I think that one of the biggest factor in decreasing UK production is regulation of produced water discharged to the sea. This is just too tough and diverted huge amount of investment into upgrades of produced water systems with marginal improvements. As a consequence less wells are drilled and less facilities build. This also cause production bottleneck with production losses. When I was in production support I really struggled to make any modification on the platform. What core crew could do in a few hours I had to plan months and years in advance with piles of paperwork and unproductive people being involved.
North Sea is a geological decline. Very real.
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.
This was done on fields that are now dropping fast in their output. Cantarell went through all this and has dropped from a high of 2.5mb/day to less than 450kb/day today with a decline rate of more than 10%.
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.
This is a common misunderstanding of economics. If the price of oil increases at the same rate as inflation then society can absorb that increase because wages keep up. But when oil prices spike up many times the rate of inflation then budgets (not just personal but also corporate) can’t keep up. Those increases eat into profits, can turn a profitable company into bankruptcy (the airlines), squeeze peoples bank accounts, increase debt defaults, decreases available credit, all of which throws those economies into recession.
Who is going to pay for your IDLE time?
This is exactly why power generation should not be private. They should be owned by government. Then no one has to pay anyone for down time because of low demand. Electric production is not like any other business because moving electrons are not a commodity.
ELECTRONS are exactly commodity and how lovely they are!
In large scale the power plants yes you are right depending on regulations.
But there is a limit that it may vary depending on the state/country laws.
The max.ever known as private power plants the limit is below 25MWh. The plan name is DG. It means Distributed Generators or small distributed power plants. Small Business has great advantages against large scale business. People are more involved and this is a job why you should think that electrons are different from petrol, gas and other materials. In addition, what is the difference between the idle time the government receives and the idle time that you as the owner, should get. That is not your money, probably you have got it as a loan or facility from your banking system. In Vancouver power authority likes to give the permission to establish your own small power plant of 6MWh. The government likes to be more responsible for the main lines and the network. Electrons are as commodity and you can sell it through the main lines and the network (same as the highways and roads shipping lines airports…) to somewhere else where they need the power at the right time. This is exactly optimizing the electrons that you think they must be socialized. The commodity never can be spoiled/ hijacked. If somebody wants to steal it, as it is self guarded, it kills the thief.
You can even set the electrons to be swift-ed same as virtual money, or you can swap it. You give the electrons in Vancouver to someone owner of a factory or the power authority that have its own off taker. Then you ask them to give you the same electrons in Toronto to somebody that you want to provide energy for a factory (SWAP), here is not even a WATT loss. In such a case you may need less power lines as well.
To control the price of these electrons and leave it to the market can make decision over it, you can establish the POWER or ENERGY EXCHANGE (BOURSE), this would provide a competition environment and would guarantee the social benefits. You sell your energy for two months to somebody and at the right time you get back to the market and get another contract in a tender.
Now, you can judge what is the difference between watermelon and the electrons here?
Leave the bureaucrats do their jobs, the people know what to do.
I think jrwakefield and others may have missed the point. The way I read the posts of both Mr. Eisenbach and Jonas is that Jonas is purporting that peak oil is happening sooner while Willis is saying that it is a ways out. I am thinking that there is not much disagreement that it will happen at some point, the question is when.
I have also seen several different definitions as to what exactly “peak oil” is. I think the definition is also tied to the question of when because my definition is when production out paces potential production. If prices would have remained at $40 a barrel, we would have reach peak oil already. We know that we are currently exploiting reserves that were not economically feasible 20 or even 10 years ago.
Remember that I see this from the exploration (potential) side of the equation. There are still huge areas of the earth that have not yet been explored and still larger reserves that are not yet feasible for exploitation. The keragen deposits in Colorado are very good example. I can guarantee the energy companies are already set up and ready to start extraction as soon as it becomes technically, economically and regulatory viable to do so. One only needs to look at the oilsands or Bakken fields to see what I mean. What I see is still 5 to 15 years from production and business is quite busy and will be for the foreseable future.
Additionally, we have developed new technics and technologies for “seeing” deeper than before and under formations we could not penetrate before with much better resolution. Whats to say that today’s “deep wells” will not be considered shallow in the future? Do you think people 100years ago imagined miles deep wells under the ocean or even directional drilling? Think how many innovations have happened in your lifetime.
The biggest obstacle to exploitation is not available reserves or even technology but government regulation.
jrwakefield said:
>>This is exactly why power generation should not be private. They should be owned by government. Then no one has to pay anyone for down time because of low demand.<<
Except the taxpayer….
why you should think that electrons are different from petrol, gas and other materials.
Then bottle up some electrons and I’ll buy them from you.
catweazle666 says:
January 5, 2012 at 8:02 am
jrwakefield said:
>>This is exactly why power generation should not be private. They should be owned by government. Then no one has to pay anyone for down time because of low demand.<<
Except the taxpayer….
Actually no. An idle plant costs only the wages of the people to maintain it. Corporations also get profit from idle plants, big profit. Shareholders to pay. It’s cheaper in the long run because those same taxpayers don’t have to pay higher power rates for idle plants.
You can even set the electrons to be swift-ed same as virtual money, or you can swap it. You give the electrons in Vancouver to someone owner of a factory or the power authority that have its own off taker
Power companies are not selling electrons. They are selling potential energy. The electrons are the carriers of that energy. The same number of electrons arrive back at the plant as are sent down the line, minus leakage.
jrwakefield says:
January 4, 2012 at 7:39 pm
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.
=============
It’s true that I don’t know exactly what the EROEI is. But It appears that you don’t either. (The numbers aren’t that easy to come by.) It’s also true that when South Africa built their initial CTL complex, it was during a time Apartheid related embargos and the (then cheap) cost of world oil was not the factor that it would normally be. On the other hand, they continue to operate the plants and to build them out even though they have had the same access to imported oil as anyone one else for several decades. BTW, although the South Aftrican government operates the original plant — which has been converted to Gas To Liquid, their large Coal to Liquid complex is Sasol which looks to be a perfectly normal investor owned multi-national energy corporation that would presumably dump the CTL operation if it were not profitable.
Quite by chance, I do know the EREOI for natural gas to liquid conversion. It’s half the EREOI for natural gas = 2.5 to 5 — if you believe Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested ) Assuming coal is also about half the EREOI for coal used directly as a fuel, that would make the EREOI for Coal to Liquid about 40 … Again, if you believe Wikipedia. In my experience, Wikipedia isn’t always right, but it’s often more right than wrong.
============================================================
It has become a political issue here in Washington State because it was a combination of a statewide voter mandate and a system of pre-existing government subsidies and tax credits which caused those windmills to be installed in the first place.
If it weren’t for those subsidies and for that voter mandate, these thousands of windmills wouldn’t be ubiquitously covering the rural areas of the state, destroying its rural character in the process.
As subsidies go, paying for wind-generated electricity which isn’t actually being produced is not really very different from paying farmers not to grow crops. What kind of real benefit does the public ultimately derive from doing either one?
Nevertheless, if the majority of Washington State’s voters want it done this way, they should be willing to carry all the baggage which goes with their decision.
jrwakefield says:
January 5, 2012 at 6:54 am
“Who is going to pay for your IDLE time?
This is exactly why power generation should not be private. They should be owned by government. Then no one has to pay anyone for down time because of low demand. Electric production is not like any other business because moving electrons are not a commodity.”
May I have your attention please:
“No one” , the government sector, or private sector they would never ever pay a penny from their pockets for this IDLE time. You sleep %50 of your life, who is going to compensate that, just you and only you. You pay from the pocket of your own life time. The government for sure would not pay it, they must give their balance sheets to their offices, they must show real figures of their income and the costs. The private sector has no reason to do it, who do you like to be? G-sector or P-sector? It is the money that you would pay upon the bills. The private sector would not send you any bill. The power authority would handle it because they receive the power from various sources they pay you and the people would pay the authority. So there is nothing to make you happy, only you/ your son/your family/ your friend/ your fellow whatever would have jobs. The PRICE OF IDLE TIME IS INCLUDED IN YOUR BILLS, YOU HAVE PAID THAT SEVERAL TIMES.
If you wish to be a DG, the financial specialists would lead you what is the reality.
jrwakefield says:
January 5, 2012 at 8:24 am
“You can even set the electrons to be swift-ed same as virtual money, or you can swap it. You give the electrons in Vancouver to someone owner of a factory or the power authority that have its own off taker
Power companies are not selling electrons. They are selling potential energy. The electrons are the carriers of that energy. The same number of electrons arrive back at the plant as are sent down the line, minus leakage.”
Scott Brim liked to name the power as electrons, it did not make any sense. You are of course right. As you see I have tried to use POWER instead of electrons unless where its meaning was closer to commodity like WATERMELON!
And about the voters!, how many (%) of the voters are the VOTERS going to the polls and give the VOTES. With respect to all of them, look NASA is handing over more and more its jobs to private sector, how is that, we are talking about socialized power on the streets of Washington?
jrwakefield says a lot in the thread:
January 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm
“There is no oil on Titan because no life was on Titan. 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.”
From wikipedia: “Their structure is not currently known, but they are believed to be tholins, and may form the basis for the formation of more complex molecules, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.”
Yes, true, I have no problem if one does not want to call it oil, but not sure I understand what is the problem with “methane and other hydrocarbons” as energy resource or usage for plastic generation?
“Coal to oil is negative ERoEI. ”
ERoEI is sometimes misunderstood and misused. If I have a 300 USD value that I cannot carry with me – as it weights 100 tons – I might sell it for 100 bucks and put those in my pocket and go away with it. Yes, one needs to use energy to generate oil from coal. Where is the problem to use that (nuclear – or solar or whatever) power plant and generate it? The overall energy budget needs to work.
Why convert coal to oil, what makes oil so special? Its products – gasoline and diesel are used as “concentrated energy” that can be easily transported and used, it is not so efficient to use coal in its solid form for that purpose at current technology. There are no competitive ways at current technology for energy storage, distribution and handling but technology evolves. So when there will be other forms to use & transform that electric energy it would make no longer sense to convert coal to oil. As long as there is not such, it still makes sense.
What else is oil used for? Chemistry and plastics, cosmetics – where it could be replaced also through coal and gas.
The demand will not be satisfied at a certain time? Well is now each and every oil demand satisfied? Will it cost more? Yes. Will it stop suddenly? No.
What is ECA?
Let me explain it:
ENERGY CONVERGENCE AGREEMENT.
DGs must be protected from their fuel price fluctuation and inflation.
So DGs would have the contract for “energy convergence”. Their benefits are limited to their equipment (the generators) and wages (the people working on generators), they are never benefited because fuel rate changes and they have nothing to lose on fuel because of nothing no risks for them at all.
But they must give the people the efficient power against the fuel they receive. This rate is around min%41-%46 the output. If they get back the power with less efficiency than the given numbers they would compensate that fuel for sure.
So old engines must be renewed to get higher outputs. This can be done by private sector, you never see such controls and services in government sector, don’t forget USSR.
Small & Medium Enterprises:
Please have a visit to this page. Just take those parts related to our discussions here:
http://oyeta936.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/trade-climate-change-cdm-in-sme-sector-can-reduce-exposure-and-vulnerability-to-weather-and-climate-events/
acckkii says: “And about the voters!, how many (%) of the voters are the VOTERS going to the polls and give the VOTES. With respect to all of them, look NASA is handing over more and more its jobs to private sector, how is that, we are talking about socialized power on the streets of Washington?”
===================================================================
If a majority of the eligible voters of Washington State actually do want something done differently in regard to publicly-subsidized wind power generation, but that majority hasn’t bothered to take the time needed to vote their opinions, they will just have to get off their duffs and go make their opinions heard at the polls. But until this happens, these eligible but non-participating voters should have to live with the full range of economic consequences that go with their decision not to participate in the voting process.
ERoEI is sometimes misunderstood and misused. If I have a 300 USD value that I cannot carry with me – as it weights 100 tons – I might sell it for 100 bucks and put those in my pocket and go away with it.
The monitary analogy to energy ERoEI also works. Negative monitary ERoEI is why the EU and the US are in deep trouble. You can only lose money (energy) for so long. Society needs a minimum of 3:1. Some argue the more complex society becomes the larger the ERoEI society needs to maintain itself, let alone allow for growth. Eventually it catches up with you.
From wikipedia: “Their structure is not currently known, but they are believed to be tholins, and may form the basis for the formation of more complex molecules, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.”
Yes, true, I have no problem if one does not want to call it oil, but not sure I understand what is the problem with “methane and other hydrocarbons” as energy resource or usage for plastic generation?
It has to do with ERoEI, it rules supreme, Second Law and all that. Ask the petrochemical industry what it takes to make plastic from methane vs the residuals from oil. I really do not understand this fascination with Titan with respect to our energy needs. Not like we are going to start to send tankers there next year.
jrwakefield says:
January 4, 2012 at 8:06 pm
“Bottom line is depletion from older fields will outpace production from these new deposits much sooner that 2025.”
Just because you say so, doesn’t make it so. Peakers have been saying exactly this since 1978 and have been wrong since the first time they uttered the words. The world has been trundling along with +/- 2mm bbls/day of surplus capacity for a more than a decade now and I see no indication that this will change. Some fields will deplete. Some will be brought back into production, some into very significant production, using new techniques and technologies. The gains and losses have kept pace, going to and fro like a good football game for decades. The field has not been vacated and the ball is still in play.