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
@ACCKKII
EVs are a no brainer, IMO. The motors are upwards of 95% efficient. Plus, much of the energy from the forward motion of the vehicle, can be captured with regenerative braking. Contrast that with the internal combustion engine which is only 20% efficient, and no regenerative braking. Even if we continue to use oil as an energy source, it would be much more efficient to burn the oil in a powerplant, and use the energy to charge EVs.
John Bronson says:
January 7, 2012 at 3:40 pm
@ACCKKII
“EVs are a no brainer, IMO. The motors are upwards of 95% efficient. Plus, much of the energy from the forward motion of the vehicle, can be captured with regenerative braking. Contrast that with the internal combustion engine which is only 20% efficient, and no regenerative braking. Even if we continue to use oil as an energy source, it would be much more efficient to burn the oil in a powerplant, and use the energy to charge EVs.”
Efficiency and all comparing instruments would show “fossil based fuels” (FBF)
would be the best at least for the near future. Comparing a well equipped system of combustion engine with EV would be of course good, but not to stop the progressive studies on EVs just to understand where we are. Always COMPARISONS are our motivation to go on and on. In practice my problem is air pollution but where? In the greater cities. As I said before, this is not because of FBF is not my favorite energy source, but it is because where and how can we take care and avoid the side effects of FBF. EVs as you said somehow are efficient as an engine but more efficient as a friendly healthy system to us, which we should prefer it without any hesitation and delay. As a matter of fact, regarding the production capacities of EVs even if everything is prepared for a move and change to it, then our first priorities would be the greater cities where we need EVs more. The reason is this change cannot happen at once. In metros and undergrounds we have the same conditions no way out.
Evs would have better future, every step forward would make it more feasible. Any system that its starting point is FBF would be successful. This is not ethanol or whatever. EV is an end user site in continuation of energy convergence at still fossil based fuel power plants. We have all distribution network more efficient than the existing fuel preparations at stations. We have a home delivery fuel.
John Bronson says:
“Even if we continue to use oil as an energy source, it would be much more efficient to burn the oil in a power plant, and use the energy to charge EVs.”
Same as Metros/Underground railways, which are powered by power plants. This has been my view. I don’t have any idea about “regenerative brake” if your point is not “self induction”.
jrwakefield, “It was caused because for the first time in history the US no longer produced enough of its own oil to meet demand. It was the year the US had to import oil for the first time. It was the year the US started to drop in oil production.”
That is not why gasoline prices went up and not why there was an energy crisis. Globalization actually reduces price shocks because it provides a country many more sources to obtain energy from. If our production is reduced, it is picked up by other countries. The market signal to do this is a higher price of oil. U.S. production was not sold only to the U.S. but to anyone who wanted to buy it. Governments are the only thing that can prevent market adjustments of commodities. During the 70s there was plenty of oil available in the worldwide market but economically illiterate price controls caused U.S. shortages,
Time to Lay the 1973 Oil Embargo to Rest (Cato Institute, October 17, 2003)
“It’s time that we exorcised the ghosts of 1973 once and for all. The embargo was a non-event. The production cutbacks were trivial. The wrong lessons were learned. In short, everything we think we know about the events triggered 30 years ago today is wrong.
Let’s start with the embargo. Most people believe that it was directly responsible for long gasoline lines and for service stations running dry. The shortages were, in fact, a byproduct of price controls imposed by President Nixon in August 1971, which prevented oil companies from passing on the full cost of imported crude oil to consumers at the pump (small oil companies, however, were exempted from the price control regime in 1973). In the face of increasing world oil prices, “Big Oil” did the only sensible thing: It cut back on imports and stopped selling oil to independent service stations to keep its own franchisees supplied. By May of 1973 (five months before the embargo), 1,000 service stations had shut down for lack of fuel and many others had substantially curtailed operations. By June, companies in many parts of the country began limiting the amount of gasoline motorists could purchase per stop.
In response, Congress passed the Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act about a month before the embargo, which made matters worse. The Act mandated that supply reductions had to be shared equally between independent and branded gasoline stations. It also put a small percentage of gasoline going to each state under the governors’ control, which they then could then allocate as they wished if shortages occurred. And occur they did, largely because of the withdrawal of supplies from the market necessary to put together the governors’ set aside.
Did the subsequent embargo stoke the crisis further? No — it was an economically meaningless gesture. That’s because the embargo had no effect on imports. Once oil is in a tanker, neither Petroleum Exporting Countries nor OPEC nor Knick-Knack-Paddywack can control where it goes. Oil that was exported to Europe during the embargo was simply resold to the United States or ended up displacing non-OPEC oil that was diverted to the U.S. market. Supply routes were shuffled but import volumes remained steady.
Saudi oil minister Sheik Yamani conceded afterwards that the 1973 embargo “did not imply that we could reduce imports to the United States … the world is really just one market. So the embargo was more symbolic than anything else.” It took a while, however, for Americans to figure this out. In his memoirs, then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote that, looking back, “the structure of the oil market was so little understood that the embargo became the principle focus of concern. Lifting it turned almost into an obsession for the next five months. In fact, the Arab embargo was a symbolic gesture of limited practical importance.”
Rational Debate, “By the way, Mike, you’re showing Russia as peak production in 87, but apparently they’ve reached a post Soviet Union high this year”
Excellent research! This just shows peak oil theorist cannot do basic research and should not be taken seriously as they do not understand basic economics,
Russian Crude Oil Production Rose to Post-Soviet High in 2011 (Bloomberg, January 2, 2012)
I love how all peak oil theorists foolishly try to make meaningful conclusions from nationalized oil companies under socialized governments.
This is all anyone needs to know about your “argument” – According to your logic if Saudi Arabia bans oil production tomorrow even though it has massively huge reserves still in the ground that means peak oil is reached!
jrwakefield, “You are finally understanding 🙂 That is quite correct. You need to move out of the “whats in the ground” and look at what is AVAILABLE to the market. Indeed if SA were to shut in all their oil for export it indeed would reduce flow rates on the world, and someone would do without the oil they need. Agree or not, peak oil has ALWAYS been about flow rates.”
That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard. All anyone cares about is what is in the ground. I am well aware that largest obstruction to oil production is government.
The solution to your “peak oil” nonsense is simple,
1. Privatize all oil companies.
2. Remove all price controls, taxes, regulations and subsidies on the oil industry.
3. Remove all land use restrictions on the oil industry.
None of which changes the fact that just about everyone believes “Peak Oil” to be a geologic peak.
“As for China, every drop of future oil they secure for themselves is a drop that is not exported to countries who need it.”
China can only secure oil reserves in two ways,
1. Negotiate for it or,
2. Take it by military force.
So long as they are doing it via negotiation any other country/company can bid for these as well. Any change in the available supply of oil to other countries because of this will be reflected in the market price of oil. A higher price simply signals to producers the need to produce more. If the market price gets above other sources of crude (heavy oil, tar sands, shale) then that gets used. If the price gets above other forms of energy that can be used for transportation fuel (natural gas, CTL) then that gets used.
There are enormous known quantities of these,
6 Trillion barrels of oil are estimated in the U.S. Oil-Shale Reserves (DOE)
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/Oil_Shale_Resource_Fact_Sheet.pdf
100 Billion barrels of heavy oil are estimated in the U.S. (DOE)
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/Heavy_Oil_Fact_Sheet.pdf
60 to 80 Billion barrels of oil are estimated in U.S. Tar Sands (DOE)
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/Tar_Sands_Fact_Sheet.pdf
“Take a simple example. You need a loaf of bread every day to feed your family. But your neighbour secures bread for the next twenty years from that bakery, all of it. You then can’t get any more when your contract runs out. Now you starve. Why? Because there isn’t enough supply of bread to keep up with growing demand. Someone does without, you.”
That is a total economically illiterate fantasy. No baker would enter into any such contract unless the buyer was willing to pay some ridiculous price. If this did happen you simply get bread from another baker. If no other baker exists in your town, you get it from the next town and I guarantee you (baring government intervention) that a new baker will set up shop in your town to sell bread to everyone else.
This is why a geological peak is the only valid argument. So long as oil exists in the ground, it is only a matter of cost to get it out (baring government intervention).
“Peak oil is like musical chairs with a twist. Not only is a chair removed at the end of a song (depletion of oil), but a dancer is added to the floor. More people chasing deminishing resourses.”
You have failed to make an argument for diminishing resources as you have failed to provide the total amount of oil the Earth contains nor how it is created.
“It is clear from your posts you do not understand the mechanisms of oil supply and the crutial roll it plays. You are too fixated on what’s in the ground.”
No I actually understand the economics of oil supply and why your arguments are meaningless. What is in the ground is the only valid argument in relation to “peak oil”. Production rates are misleading and wildly distorted by government intervention. They are not something valid future predictions of oil supply can be made on. They are used when peak oil theorists lose the argument and start grasping at straws.
RE: ACCKKII: (January 7, 2012 at 12:22 pm)
“Spector,
“As I understand from your comment, man should not stay quiet until the TODAY energy comes to him and say IT IS FINISHED. Pilot projects are for this important matter.”
Not quite, I think we should not wait until available carbon power has declined to the point where a population reducing energy famine sets in before looking for a long-term replacement.
As I understand it, despite massive government subsidies and the purported danger of a global warming catastrophe, the so-called green energy sources have not been able to provide more than about one percent of our current power usage. Thus green energy might be able to supply a population reduced to something like ten percent of our current population with ten percent of the energy we now use. We do have the nineteenth century example of a population primarily supported by green energy.
At this stage, no potential source of energy should be absolutely disallowed unless it can be shown that such source cannot be continued on a long-term basis without progressively reducing the habitability of the planet. So far, based on presentations by its advocates, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor seems to be the most likely option for a *total* carbon power replacement technology. According to a recent Kirk Sorensen Google Tech Talk video, it appears that a scientific decision during the Nixon Administration may have forced nuclear development down the wrong path to the exclusion of any other option. Based on his own words, it appears that the President may really have been convinced the LMFBR was the only way to go.
REF: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI
spector wrote:
“As I understand it, despite massive government subsidies and the purported danger of a global warming catastrophe, the so-called green energy sources have not been able to provide more than about one percent of our current power usage. Thus green energy might be able to supply a population reduced to something like ten percent of our current population with ten percent of the energy we now use. We do have the nineteenth century example of a population primarily supported by green energy.”
According to this report:
http://www.ren21.net/REN21Activities/Publications/GlobalStatusReport/GSR2011/tabid/56142/Default.aspx
Renewables provided 16% of total energy, and 20% of electricity production in 2010. Of course the 2011 numbers will be higher because of the large growth rates.
Also, comparing 19th century energy production technology to the 21st century is beyond absurd.
Time for some clarification:
I said in my original post that “I understand “Peak Oil” to mean the point in time after which global oil production does not materially increase.“.
This is completely in line with the definition in Wikipedia, which it is reasonable to assume is the most generally accepted definition: “Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline.“.The “terminal decline” bit is a bit unnecessary, and it might be many years after the peak before the decline begins in earnest, but obviously it is eventually inevitable.
There is a perception among some here that “Peak Oil” is an oh-my-gawd moment when oil production suddenly hits a brick wall and we all fall off a cliff (sorry about the mixed metaphors). Otherwise known as “Geological Peak Oil” (GPO), the point when the absolute geological limits of oil production is reached. Just as with the definition I use, it would be hard to know when you’re at GPO – there will never be a moment when every single oil deposit is being produced at the maximum possible rate, because there will always be some that are being held back by politics or conflict or accident, etc.
What I have been trying to suggest is that Peak Oil won’t be like that. We might be there already, or nearly there, and it’s no big deal. Yes, oil prices will fluctuate quite a lot, but we’re fairly used to that. Yes, there will be scare stories in the media, and wildly optimistic ones too, but we’re fairly used to that too. But if we’re sensible there is no brick wall or cliff.
Poptech – You say “According to your logic if Saudi Arabia bans oil production tomorrow even though it has massively huge reserves still in the ground that means peak oil is reached!“. Yes, that is correct, if other countries don’t or can’t in due course fill the gap, and if the Saudis don’t later on change their minds and bring world production back up above the old mark. That might seem to you to be unreasonable, but we don’t live on the amount that we could have if the Saudis produced more, we live on the amount we actually have.
The situation at present appears to be that (a) more than half of the world’s oil producers have peaked or are near their peak, (b) compared with the past, a much larger proportion of oil reserves is now difficult to produce at high flow rates, and (c) the oil price has risen a lot in recent years, making alternatives more attractive. [Thanks, John Garrett, for the Boone Pickens quote “The solution to high prices is… high prices.”]
A certain amount of faith in technology has been expressed, and it is certainly the case that in the past technology has kept finding ways of increasing oil reserves and production. It is absolutely possible that it can continue to do so, and there is more than enough oil in the ground for that. But technology advances in other ways too. It can make alternatives to oil more attractive. It can make our use of oil more efficient.
As I said before, it’s dangerous to try to predict the future, but personally, I look forward to the day when electric vehicles (EVs) succeed. As with many new technologies, there are problems at present, often reported with schadenfreude, but technology does keep progressing and I think the EV will soon be viable for many. There are major advantages.
• Our cities will be quieter and cleaner.
• Our wind turbines and solar PVs will become more useful because instead of disrupting the grid for baseload they can be used, when available, to re-charge EV batteries.
• We can generate electricity using whatever methods are best – coal, gas, nuclear, geothermal, etc – and we can even out demand by using some of it to re-charge EV batteries when other demand is low.
• We will need a bit less oil, at a time that increases in oil production are becoming more expensive and difficult.
Of course, in order to succeed, EV’s must compete successfully with alternatives, such as CNG (Compressed Natural Gas). There should be room for both.
RE: John Bronson: (January 7, 2012 at 8:29 pm)
“Renewables provided 16% of total energy, and 20% of electricity production in 2010. Of course the 2011 numbers will be higher because of the large growth rates.
“Also, comparing 19th century energy production technology to the 21st century is beyond absurd.”
The actual source quote was from about 9:50 minutes in a Kirk Sorensen presentation where he says that “We have been trying to put solar and wind on line for decades. It is still on the order of about one percent of total energy production in the United States.”
Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
If you take 16 percent of our current global population of eight billion, the result is 1.28 billion which corresponds to the global population around 1870.
@Spector
There’s more to renewable (green) energy than wind and solar. There’s also hydro, biomass, geothermal, and waste (garbage to energy etc), and some others. The latest EIA data for the first 9 months of 2011 quotes 82% fossil fuel, 9% renewable, and 8% nuclear in the US.
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/mer.pdf
The argument that current world population could not be supported without the use of fossil fuels is a weak one. For one thing, many heavily populated areas in Africa, India, and Asia are not large per capita users of fossil fuels. They rely on the ancient use of manual labor, and draft animals for production. And wood, and cow dung for fuel. It is the western countries that would suffer most from a reduction in fossil fuel production. A commonly reported fact is that the US has 5% of the world’s population, and uses 20% of the world’s oil. However, it is logical to assume that priority would be given to food production and distribution industries, if there were ever a shortage of energy supplies.
RE: John Bronson: (January 8, 2012 at 12:11 am)
“The argument that current world population could not be supported without the use of fossil fuels is a weak one. “
That may be true; however, global human population has a true ‘hockey stick’ shape following the mass exploitation of coal and more particularly petroleum. A recent article here, ‘The Contribution of Fossil Fuels to (a) Feeding Humanity and (b) Habitat Conservation?’ by Indur M. Goklany expounded on this relationship. I believe that ‘fossil’ fuels have allowed the manufacture of fertilizers and the mechanization of agriculture, which have greatly augmented food production, and a forced return to more primitive agricultural methods as carbon power is exhausted would reduce human populations unless this loss can be made up by an alternative source of energy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/11/the-contribution-of-fossil-fuels-to-a-feeding-humanity-and-b-habitat-conservation/#more-52842
How many of the armchair experts that cite EIA energy stats have actually held up samples of crude oil from the Bakken shale to the light to compare it to traditional crude oils? Most crude oils are black as ink and with varying degrees of viscosity. And what does the Bakken crude look like? And why does it require minimal refining or none in the case of diesel engines with some filtering on the front end? And why are producers willing to ship it by rail while waiting for pipeline upgrades? One other point, the Bakken extends well into Canada from ND and MT. Have you factored that into the relative importance of this methodically developed resource?
Re: John Bronson
You might want to go read the current media stories of the financial collapse and taxpayers losses incurred in Georgia by renewable energy fraud using pine trees for ethanol.
RE: Mike Jonas: (January 7, 2012 at 9:55 pm )
“We can generate electricity using whatever methods are best – coal, gas, nuclear, geothermal, etc – and we can even out demand by using some of it to re-charge EV batteries when other demand is low.
On the other hand, with a new prolific, low-cost source of energy, we may be able to manufacture easily portable transportation fuels that are compatible with existing vehicles. This is probably the only solution practical for aircraft. While the purported ‘peak oil’ signals we are seeing now may not be signaling the beginning of the end, they do seem to be indicating the end of the beginning.
John Bronson, “The argument that current world population could not be supported without the use of fossil fuels is a weak one. For one thing, many heavily populated areas in Africa, India, and Asia are not large per capita users of fossil fuels. They rely on the ancient use of manual labor, and draft animals for production. And wood, and cow dung for fuel.”
They also are much poorer and have lower life expectancies. Why would we want to makes our lives worse and de-industrialize?
“A commonly reported fact is that the US has 5% of the world’s population, and uses 20% of the world’s oil.”
The U.S. uses 25% of the world’s oil supply because it produces over 25% of the world’s economy (World Bank)
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DATASTATISTICS/Resources/GDP.pdf
Poptech wrote:
“Why would we want to makes our lives worse and de-industrialize?”
I never suggested that. I was merely refuting the common doomer argument that population levels would collapse without the use of fossil fuels.
Spector, I would give more credit to medical technology, vaccines, erradication of disease, etc., as the reason world population has increased so rapidly.
Resourceguy wrote:
“You might want to go read the current media stories of the financial collapse and taxpayers losses incurred in Georgia by renewable energy fraud using pine trees for ethanol.”
There are millions of news stories, blog posts, etc. about how bad ethanol is, or that it doesn’t work, or that the industry has failed. I am more impressed with an industry that produces 12 billion gallons of fuel/yr, and has growth year over year, than I am with the various naysayers.
There are many advantages to biofuel over fossil fuels. The production potential is larger. It only takes one growing season to produce (not millions of years). It’s cleaner, because it’s not mixed with toxic elements like mercury, and sulfer.
Peak oil will be from demand not supply, because alternatives are cheaper, cleaner, and more abundant.
RE: John Bronson: (January 8, 2012 at 12:30 pm)
“Spector, I would give more credit to medical technology, vaccines, erradication of disease, etc., as the reason world population has increased so rapidly.”
Perhaps, but that would presume that the death rate from these diseases increased dramatically with population density and would always defeat the high birth rates typical of underdeveloped nations. This concept might merit a scientific article entitled “Theory of Population Stabilization by Disease.”
One would have to presume that the large quantities of cheaply produced food by a newly mechanized agriculture, and cheaply exported all over the world, played no role in the modern population increase. Of course, we might all be able to live on the starvation diet provided by green energy alone, but I doubt our current population would be sustainable under those conditions.
The operational presumption here is a hypothetical future where only green renewable energy sources are allowed after carbon power has run out. I think such a restriction would be likely to cause a population reduction because I have found no evidence that this default energy source could be made to match the rate of energy use obtainable with carbon power. As general renewable energy now only represents about 16 percent of our current energy use, a worst-case assumption is that this restriction might cause an 84 percent population reduction. Reality would probably be somewhat less severe.
RE: John Bronson: (January 7, 2012 at 8:29 pm )
Thanks for providing the 16 percent contribution factor for general renewable energy. I do seem to have taken a statement meant to apply to what might be called the ‘designer’ renewable energy sources of wind and solar and made it more universal. While the proportionality of global population to global energy available may be controversial, sixteen percent of our current population does yield a value equivalent to that of a date late in the nineteenth century before any significant petroleum exploitation. In the absence of any official scientific estimate, I regard this as a good guess for a *worst-case* fallback population assuming that nuclear energy is not allowed.
RE: John Bronson
We will see what the Brazilian ethanol exporters have to say next. They have the absolute cost advantage and still have production subsidies and no special interest U.S. tariff to deal with now. It is also fitting that Bill Clinton’s former home state is taking one of the larger relative hits from overpriced feed inputs. But then again that is a minor historical footnote for a win-the-day lawyer politico.
At least you got the peak oil from demand part right, but it will come from an impoverished nation with Greek-style debt load from special interest payoffs to ethanol and all manor of other payoffs from back in the day when we had the wealth to spread.
Spector wrote:
“While the proportionality of global population to global energy available may be controversial, sixteen percent of our current population does yield a value equivalent to that of a date late in the nineteenth century before any significant petroleum exploitation.”
16% was the estimate for 2010. I suspect 2011, and every year after that the numbers will be higher, until fossil fuel use represents a small percentage of total energy used.
With regards to the amount of renewable energy available, wiki quotes 3,850,000 EJ for solar, 2,250 EJ for wind, 3,000 EJ for biomass, and 487 EJ as the total amount of energy the world used in 2005. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
The only real issue are the costs, which have been declining, whilst fossil fuel prices have been increasing.
Resource guy wrote:
“At least you got the peak oil from demand part right, but it will come from an impoverished nation with Greek-style debt load from special interest payoffs to ethanol and all manor of other payoffs from back in the day when we had the wealth to spread.”
According to Exxon, it will come from alternatives, and increased efficiency.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/02/energy-exxon-demand-idUSN0182993220091002
Exxon on Peak Oil: