“What If India And China Used Natural Gas And Oil Like The U.S.?”… What a wonderful world it would be!

Guest salivating by David Middleton, petroleum geologist

From Forbes

JUN 17, 2018

What If India And China Used Natural Gas And Oil Like The U.S.?

Jude Clemente , CONTRIBUTOR

BP’s just released Statistical Review of World Energy 2018 has got my wheels turning. The first thing you should know is that global energy consumption has essentially just begun: around 85% of the global population – 6 in every 7 humans – still lives in developing nations. They don’t live in rich cities, like San Francisco, Toronto, New York City, Los Angeles, London, or Tokyo; they live in poorer ones, like Mumbai, Lagos, Jakarta, Guangzhou, Calcutta, and Karachi. This is where the future energy action is man: at least 90% of future demand will be in nations that are currently not developed. We rich, “all the energy that we want at our fingertips” Westerners still aren’t grasping a sad and cold reality: most of the world is poor and energy deprived.

Given that economic growth, especially in the still developing nations where energy demand structures are still immature, is directly tied to more energy usage. So, this has got me thinking about the future energy demands of the world, which of course naturally focuses on the most most critical giants, India and China. These two coal-based titans have really just started to consume natural gas and oil. For the first graphic, don’t forget that “wealth is health.”

[…]

Natural gas and oil supply 60- 65% of the energy used in the world’s richest nations. India and China have 37% of the world’s population but consume just 9% of the world’s natural gas and 17% of the oil. So it becomes very apparent: latent gas and oil demand in India and China is immense.

So now the punch line. How much natural gas and oil will the future world need? Surely a lot more, but what if Indians and Chinese were to consume natural gas and oil like we rich Americans do? International energy markets would quake. Even using half of what we use would cause the gas and oil markets to explode.

The final graphic demonstrates why U.S. oil and gas exporters, as well as the others in the world, are salivating at the opportunity that lies ahead.

[…]

https3a2f2fblogs-images-forbes-com2fjudeclemente2ffiles2f20182f062fcapture

[…]

When considering how even in rich, developed Europe, where incremental demand was tiny, the Kyoto protocol to drastically curtail fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions was a complete failure, and then considering the huge incremental energy needs of the poor countries that signed the latest climate agreement back in December 2015, is it any wonder: “The global Paris climate failure.”

After how rich, healthy, and long living, India and China have watched us oil and gas devouring Westerners become, can you really blame them for wanting to use more? But, somebody else summed up my “hey you can’t use the energy that I use” frustration much better. The headline of the decade: “Should climate scientists fly?”

Forbes

If Red China and India used oil & natural gas like Americans, we’d know pretty quickly how close the world is to Peak Oil and Peak Natural Gas.

What if India and China

The solid green line raises Red China and India crude oil consumption to current US levels while holding all other nations at 2017 levels. The dashed green line drops UK, France and Germany oil consumption to zero-point-zero in 2040. The solid red line raises Red China and India natural gas consumption in BOE to current US levels while holding all other nations at 2017 levels. Historical data from BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy.

It’s nice to dream big! Note what a huge difference it would make if the UK, France and Germany kicked to oil habit (of course that was a sarcastic remark, that’s why I made it.)

What’s more likely by 2040? A 150% increase in crude oil and 177% increase in natural gas production or a 2,898% increase in lithium, 1,928% increase in cobalt, 655% increase  in rare earths  and a 524% increase in graphite production?

Advertisements

88 thoughts on ““What If India And China Used Natural Gas And Oil Like The U.S.?”… What a wonderful world it would be!

    • You calling China a shithole?. They have 45% of the worlds skyscrapers. If you are referring to their lack of freedom and pollution then I agree with you

      • You can tell from my handle that yes, I have spent more than my share of time in China (I lived there full-time for 6 years, married a local Shanghai lady, and still spend 5-6 months a year in China due to my technical skills and linguistic/cultural abilities to “bridge East and West”).

        Walk down most of the streets in Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chengdu – the big cities in China. You’ll smell- excuse the language – shit rolling through the sewer right under you. Do you know why they keep the drains plugged in your sink all the time? Because P traps are basically unheard of – thus sewer gas comes right up. Check the feces and trash floating in all the canals in Shanghai.

        And of course, just take a drive down any major road or freeway and you’ll see people pulled over to the side, defecating and urinating wherever – including in fields of food.

        To a large extent, China is a 3rd world country with a few small islands (Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chengdu, etc.) containing 1st world veneers – but it’s it’s over a 3rd world country.

      • I have been to China and walked under the apartment blocks and the residents have emptied their rubbish out of the windows into the streets. Yes it is a shithole!

  1. It’s not a “what if ?”. It is a “when ?”, and at current rate it will be in ~20 years

    • @paqyfelyc- I think 20 years is too optimistic because the big fields have been in production for a long time now and like Mexico and Saudi they are running on empty.
      .
      .
      There have been fewer new field’s discovered each year because the majors cut way back on exploration in the fourth quarter of 2013. We have not been replacing the oil used each year with a new field at least that big.
      .
      .
      I would predict that the production of oil will be down by 70% at the end of 2022.
      .
      .
      Sandy,
      Minister of Future

        • @Dave- We’ll be here in 2022, wait for it. As a card-carrying skeptic you are not allowed to use government statistics, heh. Do you believe the unemployment rate or the annual consumer purchasing statistics or gross domestic product hahaha. Would you like to buy a bridge?
          .
          .
          Sandy,
          Minister of Future

          • Sandy,

            I routinely use government data and statistics to shoot down AGW and other left-wing nonsense. No crystal ball is perfect. Global crude oil and liquids production could be flat or even drop a little between now and 2022. However, it would be physically impossible for it to decline by 70% or any number close to that over a 4-5 year period.

          • @Dave said- However, it would be physically impossible for it to decline by 70% or any number close to that over a 4-5 year period.
            .
            .
            Well, mabe not. This is the 21st century, post 9/11. A smart terrorist would not want to destroy an oilfield so he would probably destroy the terminal where the oil got shipped from. Or he might just take over the port infrastructure. Look at what has been happening at the port for Nigeria oil.
            .
            These are close to correct and for today assume world prodoction of 80 Mbpd.
            .
            1. The USA – 14.9
            2. Saudi Arabia – 12.4
            3. Russia – 11.2
            4. China – 4.8
            5. Canada – 4.6
            6. Iraq – 4.4
            7. Iran – 4.2
            8. UAE – 3.8
            9. Brazil – 3.2
            10. Kuwait – 3.1

            Top ten= 66.6 Mbpd, 83%
            Smaller= 13.4 Mbpd, 17%
            .
            from …
            https://www.bizvibe.com/blog/top-oil-producing-countries/
            .
            .
            So, a few lone wolf terrorist here and there and 70% production might be offline. Hopefully not all in the same month, heh.
            .
            .
            Sandy,
            Minister of Future

        • Or, perhaps, and utterly without prejudice, perhaps you, Sandy, s h o u l d have your head buried in oil sands.
          Your call, absolutely, as to whether it is normally attached at that time!

          Your prediction [nightmare] requires the end of civilization in about 48 months.

          Oooo-er, Missus!!

          Auto, with good wishes to all non-fantasists, of course.

  2. Hi Dave. Thanks For highlighting the energy consumption and production problem. I believe going forward it will be a zero-sum game. As the underdeveloped countries try to grow they will take energy from the Big Ten.
    .
    .
    Actually, the decline of civilization began in 1960 with the widespread use of the electric can opener. Long before flying Greenies, heh.
    .
    .
    Mexico, a.k.a. Gangland, was the seventh-largest oil producer in the world as of 2006, producing 3.71 million barrels per day of petroleum products, of which 3.25 million barrels per day was crude oil.
    .
    Mexican oil production has started to decline rapidly. The U.S. Energy Information Administration had estimated that Mexican production of petroleum products would decline to 3.52 million barrels per day in 2007 and 3.32 million barrels per day in 2008.
    .
    Mexican crude oil production fell in 2007, and was below 3.0 million barrels per day by the start of 2008. In mid-2008, Pemex said that it would try to keep crude oil production above 2.8 million barrels per day for the rest of the year. Mexican authorities expected the decline to continue in future, and were pessimistic that it could be raised back to previous levels even with foreign investment.
    .
    Most of Mexico’s production decline involves one enormous oil field in the Gulf of Mexico. From 1979 to 2007, Mexico produced most of its oil from the supergiant Cantarell Field, which used to be the second-biggest oil field in the world by production.
    .
    Because of falling production, in 1997 Pemex started a massive nitrogen injection project to maintain oil flow, which now consumes half the nitrogen produced in the world.
    .
    As a result of nitrogen injection, production at Cantarell rose from 1.1 million barrels per day in 1996 to a peak of 2.1 million barrels per day in 2004.
    .
    *However, during 2006 Cantarell’s output fell 25% from 2.0 million barrels per day in January to 1.5 million barrels per day in December, with the decline continuing through 2007.
    .
    .
    So … Mexico has been running on fumes for 10 yrs. Just like the Saudi. Notice the lack of promotion for their $5000 Bn IPO? They wouldnt let any experts audit, heh. The barn’s empty, hahahaha.
    .
    .
    Sandy,
    Minister of Future

    • We will never run out of oil. Peak oil is bullshit. We have enough reserves for 50 years. If the reserves get drawn down the price goes up we then use less and explore and FIND more. That cycle has been going on for 100 years and will never stop.

      • @Allan Tomalty- We may never run out, but if the price stays above $60, the global economy collapses, so will be left in ground. The majors cut back explore & develope 4Q 2013, and new discoveries have not replaced consumption. Shale plays are a subsidized banking scam.
        .
        .
        Get a bicycle while they are still affordable, heh.
        .
        .
        Sandy,
        Minister of Future

        • The only reason the price of gasoline is high is that 50% of it is government taxes. The price was already above $60 many times and the world economy did not collapse. Your alarmist take on oil reserves is just as bad as CO2 alarmists.

        • Every barrel of oil pulled out of the ground is literally creating wealth. New wealth, not redistributed wealth (like paying for a service) or a black hole that sucks wealth in and drains society (i.e. windfarms and ethanol fuel), but new wealth that stimulates the economy, creates jobs, and funds governments. Oil didn’t collapse the economy at $120/bbl (corrupt bankers/politicians did that) so I don’t know where you’re dreaming up that current oil prices will do that.

          • Services create wealth. That’s why we are willing to pay for them rather than do it ourselves.

        • The world’s economies are doing pretty good with oil prices having been above $60 for the last 6 months or so.

      • The stone age didn’t end because of a shortage of stones.

        I’ve been following ammonia as an energy storage medium. What impresses me is the number of projects going on. example

        As you say, we don’t have to worry about running out of fossil fuels any time soon. Before that happens, the need for fossil fuels will probably be obviated by new, cheaper, technology.

        I have way more faith in the working of free markets than I do in the prognostications of greenies and economists.

    • Actually, the decline of civilization began in 1960 with the widespread use of the electric can opener. Long before flying Greenies, heh

      That’s funny! I use my Swiss Army knife or Leatherman tool to open cans. I used to use one of these…

      https://i.ytimg.com/vi/d3ZbygdHCCE/maxresdefault.jpg

      My brother gave me several John Wayne can openers when he got out of the Marine Corps in 1968… I used them for a long time, but eventually lost them.

      • David, serious question….cause I really don’t know for sure
        There has to be millions of places on this planet where drilling, etc is either banned, not allowed, etc I’m thinking Calif coast, Florida, national parks…some where remote too hard to get to
        When they figure “reserves”….those places do not count, right??

        • “Reserves” has a very specific legal definition. In the US, “reserves” generally means proved reserves (1P). In less regulated nations, “reserves” often includes probable (2P) and/or possible (3P) reserves. Most of the “off limits” areas would fall under “prospective resources”…

          https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/spe_reserves.png

          Although there are some proved reserves in off limits areas, like Murphy Oil & Chevron’s Destin Dome discovery offshore Florida.

          • What made me think about it….was I was just reading how much gas and oil they think is under the Sahara…and can’t get to it….ISIS, wars, etc

    • Mexico’s declines have more to do with Mexico’s internal problems with corruption and incompetence.

    • You can’t claim a zero-sum game if you don’t know how much total resource there is and how long we will need to continue relying on it.

      • @Paul Penrose said- You can’t claim a zero-sum game if you don’t know how much total resource there is …
        .
        .
        Well, under the circumstances I did. Practically, if one developing country starts buying crude at a faster rate the price may go up marginally until the Big Ten discover what is going on. A lot will depend on how much production can be increased and how fast. Suppose one of the developing countries secretly makes long-term contracts for an extra 10 Mbpd. Then one of the Big Ten decides it needs an extra 3 Mbpd for it’s military to power tanks, aircraft carriers, and aircraft, so it can save some failing democracy. Because of the limited ability to make a rapid production increase, it can’t get it. It could take a few months to ramp existing fields if they arent at max output now ( i think many are). To get a new deposit online might take 3-5 yrs. Or they might just invade some small oil producing country and take what they need. That has always worked out well.
        .
        .
        Sandy,
        Minister of Future

  3. If we started using natural gas like there’s no tomorrow, it would become economic to run freighters to Titan where there are oceans of the stuff.

    Technically we could do this now – but there is no economic justification. Gas demand would provide this…

  4. The plants are going to love this. mmmmmmmmmmmmmm much more CO2 into the atmosphere hopefully and more photosynthesis going on. The downer is that no matter how much CO2 we humans add, the oceans always find a way to take it out of the atmosphere. But in any case the more CO2 emitted the better. We need more CO2 NOT less. The alarmists have it completely backwards.

    • That’s why I picked this song…

      I see trees of green
      Red roses too
      I see them bloom
      For me and you
      And I think to myself
      What a wonderful world

      I see skies of blue
      And clouds of white
      The bright blessed day
      The dark sacred night
      And I think to myself
      What a wonderful world

      The colors of the rainbow
      So pretty in the sky
      Are also on the faces
      Of people going by
      I see friends shaking hands
      Saying, “How do you do?”
      They’re really saying
      “I love you”

      I hear babies cry
      I watch them grow
      They’ll learn much more
      Than I’ll never know
      And I think to myself
      What a wonderful world

      Yes, I think to myself
      What a wonderful world

      Oh yeah

      https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/louisarmstrong/whatawonderfulworld.html

      The greening and the other kind of green that would accompany a 150% increase in crude oil demand.

      • David, there might be a 150% increase in the DEMAND of petroleum (at the current price) but there will never be a 150% increase in the SUPPLY (at the current price)

        There might be a significant increase in Supply with an increase in price, but demand increases will be tempered by by those prices.

        You ask what is more likely: 150% increase in petroleum (production), or a 2800% increase in lithium and 600% in cobalt. The coralary to “Twice nothing is still nothing” is 10% of a very big number is still a big number.

        I suspect the capital investment to raise lithium production 29x and cobalt 7x is but a fraction of raising petroleum production to 2.5x

        • If demand climbed 150%, the price would climb until supply came into balance with demand. If demand and prices rose, capital would flow in.

          That said, I don’t think demand for crude oil will climb by 150% by 2040… 15-25% is more likely. Nor, do I think the demand for lithium will climb by 2900%… Those are two extreme scenarios: No EV’s vs All EV’s. Reality will likely be in the lower end of the middle.

          • @David, you talk as if price was a function of demand, but demand was not a function of price. Supply, Demand, and Price are involved in simultaneous “equations” which involve all possible alternatives.

          • That’s why we have the boom-bust cycle. However, with oil, supply and demand aren’t as “elastic” as most other commodities and products.

            When demand outpaces supply, prices rise, capital flows in, drilling increases and then production increases. It takes time for supply to catch up with demand and prices continue to rise.

            Eventually supply outpaces demand. This can be due to higher prices suppressing demand, recessions or other economic disruptions. However, oil production can’t just be dialed back quickly. As prices drop, capital dries up, drilling slows down and production gradually declines until the glut is worked off.

        • Increasing lithium supply by 29X over 2017 levels would be 6.8 million metric tons. At that demand and the current price, known economic reserves would run out in about 2 years…2 years! Even more startling, that is under 7 years of all known lithium resources.

          Now propose to me a scenario where lithium prices will not skyrocket in the coming years using more than supposition. You’d better get to lithium prospecting if you expect that to happen.

          • If UBS’s global EV production forecast is accurate, lithium and cobalt production will have to roughly double relative to 2014. The cumulative consumption of lithium from 2014-2015 will be equivalent to 69% of 2015 proved reserves. Cobalt consumption will be equivalent to 47% of proved reserves. This sort of production is not impossible; but it will be highly disruptive, particularly since most cobalt production is a byproduct of copper and nickel mining. According to the IEA…

            “In order to limit temperature increases to below 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, the number of electric cars will need to reach 600 million by 2040”.

            600 million EV’s would consume 907% of the 2015 proved lithium reserves and 615% of the 2015 proved cobalt reserves. That’s a lot. That’s disruptive.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/31/wall-street-loves-electric-cars-america-loves-trucks-tesla-news-cobalt-cliffs-lithium-landslides-and-real-disruptive-innovation/

            I couldn’t make this schist up if I tried… LOL!

      • David

        Imagine our descendants blasting off our planet before it’s engulfed by the sun, and a child says “Daddy, why the f**k did we leave so much coal, oil and gas in the ground of that beautiful planet. We could have left the damn place a thousand years ago if we had used it in the 21st Century to speed technology. It’s your fault you know!”

        🙂

        • More likely having to leave a devastated planet because we retarded technological advancement and were unable to detect and deflect a large rock that came out of space and hit the earth.

          • Paul Penrose

            That would be the concept of nuclear fusion, for example, which would have benefited immensely from the tens of trillions of taxpayers money chucked at climate change over the last 40 years.

            And the best solution for all those trillions of dollars is? Windmills, a technology abandoned centuries ago.

            40 years wasted, just so you can make a daft comment like that.

    • I caught the tail end of a report this morning about protein content being up in winter wheat this year, averaging 12.5% which is 0.5% above premium. So much for the vegetable nutritional crisis.

  5. quote
    We rich, “all the energy that we want at our fingertips” Westerners still aren’t grasping a sad and cold reality: most of the world is poor and energy deprived.
    endquote

    This may be so but are they:
    stressed out of their heads by endless do-gooders and contradictory advice on every aspect of their lives
    relentlessly bombarded by Junk Advertising and other people wanting wanting wanting money money money
    likely to engage in Road Rage, Supermarket-trolley Rage, standing in a queue Rage or simply Rage Rage
    paranoid about almost everything – from CO2 to plastic to PM this that and the other
    robbed at every turn by tax collectors and lawyers
    fat & diabetic
    subject to any one of 192 different autoimmune disorders
    using opiates, alcohol, dope, caffeine in ever increasing amounts (also Ibuprofen, Paracetemol etc etc)
    being made lonely & suicidal by so-called Social Media
    being dumped by their wives in ever increasing numbers
    spending the last 5 years of their lives as brain dead cabbages with the physical abilities of a new-born
    as adults using more diapers than the babies within their society

    Maybe they are happy in their little shit-holes
    Maybe their children make them happy
    Maybe, making their children happy, by simply being there, makes them happy
    Maybe they don’t like the supposed ‘freedom’ to piss in waste paper bins while the richest guy in the world watches and records
    Maybe they have friends and acquaintances who will help with almost anything and not send a bill, invoice, demand letter or legalised thug around to get the money
    Maybe they don’t want endless ‘do-gooding’ folks swanking, loud mouthing and showing off
    Maybe they just want to be left in peace.
    Like the Boabab Trees

    Maybe, Less is More.

    • Oh yeah I’m sure they rather enjoy problems like clean water to drink or even enough water to shower, reliable electricity, rationing food, and insanely dangerous infrastructure.

    • Yeah, I’m sure they don’t mind watching their children die at a young age of entirely curable diseases, or hell, just simple starvation. As long as they can avoid a stressful job and road rage. Sure.

  6. Something tells me that even if both nations were to become as economically robust as the USA, we’d find that there is still plenty of petroleum for a century. Only a few of the world’s resource rocks have been tested for their potential, and if the same ~50% success rate was had elsewhere than the world could easily produce 150 million bbl/day. Throw in more expensive untraditional plays, like the Green River Fm., and known stimulation methods just waiting to become feasible, then 200 M bbl/d @ $100/bbl is within the realm of possibility.

    Imagine the wealth that would be created.

  7. Oil projections are useless. These are International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook projections since 2000.

    https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0306261918303428-fx1_lrg.jpg

    My experience of adding a few bacteria to a sterile 100 mL culture medium flask is that you can project the exponential growth for a few hours, but then growth slows down as nutrients become more scarce and waste metabolites accumulation produce unfavorable conditions. Then the number of bacteria reaches a peak and starts decreasing.

    One of the most amazing things is that if you use a 1 L or 10 L culture medium flask you get very little extra growth time.

    So yes, we can project growth to infinity and beyond, but when growth will stop is anybody’s guess. There is no way to tell if we are reaching peak growth, but given the fast growth rate of the second half of the 20th century I would say it cannot be too far away regardless of the initial amount of resources. We can think of all the people that should become middle class and get their fair share of the world’s resources, but when growth stops, a lot of people will be too late to the party, and they are going to be pretty pissed off that the party ended before they got their share of the pie.

    • Say the ‘nutrient limited’ endpoint for 1ℓ of bugjuice is 100,000,000,000 cells.
      And that you start with 10 cells. That’s 10,000,000,000× the number of starting cells.

      ln(10,000,000,000) / ln(2) = 33.2 doublings.

      If you have a 10ℓ culture, same starter:

      ln(100,000,000,000) / ln(2) = 36.5 doublings.

      36.5 ÷ 33.2 = 1.10

      Or about 10% longer to fill up the larger medium. Just saying. In really naïve numerical terms.
      GoatGuy

      • You did catch the phrase “very little extra”, right?? Ten percent longer time for ten times the amount of medium is counter-intuitive to the man-in-the-street.

    • Resource extraction works a bit differently. Growth can’t actually be projected to infinity because the resource is finite. Peak resource extraction generally occurs when about half of the recoverable resource has been extracted. The trick is in knowing what the total recoverable resource is… And no one knows that answer.

      And… Yes… Predictions about the future are not easy.

      EIA did not predict a significant increase in US crude oil production from 1994-2012…

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/aeo_oil_forecast.png

      As recently as 2008, EIA didn’t forecast the shale boom, which had already started…

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/aeo_oil_forecast_2.png

  8. Here’s an excerpt about declining oil by Gail the Actuary ( link at end).
    .
    .
    Matt Simmons was an energy investment banker and spoke frequently about peak oil. Matt was Chairman of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil-USA (ASPO-USA) Advisory Board. Matt was also founder and chairman of Simmons & Company International, and author of Twilight in the Desert.
    .
    .
    Anyone who has attended a meeting of the ASPO-USA will remember hearing Matt speak. One of Matt’s big concerns was the lack of availability of transparent data with respect to oil and gas reserves, as explained in slides such as this one (from his talk at the 2009 ASPO-USA conference).
    .
    .
    In his view (and in ours, too), way too many people hear about the huge reported reserves of Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries, and assume that this oil is really available for extraction. Matt makes the point that these reserves, and many others around the world, have not been audited. In fact, they seem to be political numbers, so we cannot depend on them. He also points out that we also do not have detail data with respect to historical oil extraction from individual fields in the Middle East, so we really do not know how close to decline Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries really are.
    .
    .
    In 2005, Matt Simmons wrote a book called Twilight in the Desert. In it, he summarized what he learned about Saudi Arabian oil production by reading 200 academic papers. He concluded from his analysis that the oil extraction techniques being used there were techniques that one might use if the fields were quite depleted. Because of this, he doubted that we should believe stories that Saudi oil production can be greatly expanded. Instead, he raised the possibility that in the not too distant future, Saudi oil production will suddenly decline. Matt’s research underlying the book was no doubt behind his concern that oil reserves and oil production rates are not audited.
    .
    .
    Another thing Matt is known for is his educational graphics about “what is really going on” with respect to oil extraction. For example, in his talk at the 2009 ASPO–USA conference, he shows this graphic of the amount of conventional oil discovered by decade.
    .
    .
    It is pretty clear from the above graphic that “conventional” oil discoveries have declined since the 1960s, suggesting that most of the oil in liquid form in the world has already been discovered. While one can argue that there are other kinds of oil (oil sands, oil shale, and other non-conventional oil) that are not included in this graph, these other oil sources can be extracted only very slowly (and at great expense). Because of this, we cannot expect their growth in extraction to offset a decline in conventional oil production.
    .
    .
    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6831
    .
    .
    Sandy,
    Minister of Future

      • @Rocky, minister of common sense- according to the wiki article unbridled optimism over methane hydrate is not justified.
        .
        .
        ~ ~ Excerpt-
        Both Japan and China announced in May 2017 a breakthrough for mining methane clathrates, when they extracted methane from hydrates in the South China Sea.  However, industry consensus is that commercial-scale production remains years away.
        .
        .
        Get a bicycle while they are still affordable, heh.
        .
        .
        Sandy,
        Minister of Future

        • InterZonKomizar

          Just in time for when the oil and coal run out.

          Mine’ll be a methane hydrate powered bicycle, about 1,000cc, heh.

          Rocky,
          Minister of common sense.

          • @Rocky- I’ll buy one of those. When I was younger I rode an 850cc Suzuki street trail bike. I never had an accident but it would go 0 to 60 in 4 seconds.
            .
            .
            Sandy,
            Minister of Future

          • InterZonKomizar

            I still have a 1200cc Suzuki Bandit. 0-60 in 3.5 seconds.

            Would yours have gone faster if you had an accident?

            Rocky,
            Minister of common sense.

        • “commercial-scale production remains years away”

          Not a problem, we’ve got a couple of hundred years before we’ll need them.

          • Commercial scale production probably remains years away because fracked gas is so darn cheap.

    • Matt Simmons doesn’t know jack schist about reservoir engineering.

      Ghawar was discovered in 1948. When first discovered, the estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) was in the neighborhood of 60 Bbbl. It has produced over 65 Bbbl and it is estimated to have about 70 Bbbl remaining (EUR ~130 Bbbl). Half of Ghawar’s EUR was recognized at its discovery. Half of it, or more, will be the result of field development and reservoir management.

      https://assets.geoexpro.com/legacy-files/2010%20-%20Vol%207/No%204/The%20King%20of%20Giant%20Fields%20Ghawar/08productionwatercut.jpg

      Oil production of Saudi Arabia (total) and the Ghawar field and the percentage of water cut in Ghawar 1993-2003. Ghawar production accounts for over half of annual Saudi crude. Water cut is the ratio of water to total liquids production from an oil field; in water-driven mature reservoirs water cut can reach up to 80-90 %. (Modified after A.M. Afifi, 2004 AAPG Distinguished Lecture; total oil production from BP Statistical Review of World Energy)

      https://www.geoexpro.com/articles/2010/04/the-king-of-giant-fields

      Ghawar has a long way to go before Twilight’s Last Gleaming.

      Most reserve additions aren’t from new discoveries. They are from revisions and extensions…

      https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/chart-14.png

      Global crude oil production & proved reserves…

      https://debunkhouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/bloomberg_irrelevance.png

      The bar chart, barely visible at the bottom, is the Bloomberg chart of shrinking new discoveries plotted at the same scale.

      Oil produced from shale is conventional oil. The boom in US oil production is due to oil produced from shale. “Oil shales” are unconventional oil, solid kerogen… This has not played a role in the boom in US oil production.

      • @Dave- Any ideas on why MbS isnt pushing the Aramco ipo?
        .
        ~ ~ You said-
        Ghawar has a long way to go before Twilight’s Last Gleaming.
        .
        *I guess that explains why they are trying to steal the oil from Yemen that they haven’t developed.
        .
        .
        ~ ~ You said-
        Oil produced from shale is conventional oil. The boom in US oil production is due to oil produced from shale.

        *Not so fast there; shale is much lighter than ‘conventional’ … Excerpt …
        .
        US tight oil: Too light, too sweet … International buyers’ appetite may start to wane in 2018 …
        Product consumption patterns outside the US argue for processing middle-gravity crudes such as Arab Light, Iranian Light and Russian Urals, rather than extra-light barrels such as 48°API gravity Eagle Ford.
        .
        (Also we dont have many refiners that can handle light, so we export most, for now)
        .
        Link …
        .
        http://www.petroleum-economist.com/articles/markets/outlook/2017/us-tight-oil-too-light-too-sweet
        .
        .
        Sandy,
        Minister of Future

        • Everyone tries to drain offsetting acreage. If the reservoir extends across the border, Saudi Arabia can drain it, unless Yemen drills competitive wells on its side of the border. The oil doesn’t know where the border is. That has no bearing on Ghawar.

          The oil in the Eagle Ford is the same oil that was produced from conventional Cretaceous clastic and carbonate reservoirs in East Texas and the Gulf Coast regions. The Eagle Ford is a source rock for those formations.

          “Conventional” crude oil ranges from API 10.0° to API 45°. “Unconventional” crude oil is generally solid.

          Generally speaking, oil with an API gravity between 40 and 45° commands the highest prices. Above 45°, the molecular chains become shorter and less valuable to refineries.[4]

          Crude oil is classified as light, medium, or heavy according to its measured API gravity.

          -Light crude oil has an API gravity higher than 31.1° (i.e., less than 870 kg/m3)
          -Medium oil has an API gravity between 22.3 and 31.1° (i.e., 870 to 920 kg/m3)
          -Heavy crude oil has an API gravity below 22.3° (i.e., 920 to 1000 kg/m3)
          -Extra heavy oil has an API gravity below 10.0° (i.e., greater than 1000 kg/m3)

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/API_gravity

          Two of the most common benchmarks are WTI and Brent…

          West Texas Intermediate
          WTI is probably the most famous of the bench mark oils. It is a light, sweet crude with an API gravity of 39.6 degrees. That gives it a specific gravity of 0.827, which means that at 60 degrees Fahrenheit, WTI is only 8/10 as heavy as water. It contains 0.24% sulfur and is refined in the Midwest. It comes from the Southwestern United States

          Brent Crude
          Brent Crude, named after a goose, comes from the North Sea. It is a light, sweet crude with an API gravity of 38.06 and a specific gravity of 0.835, making it slightly “heavier” than West Texas Intermediate. The sulfur content is 0.37%. The price of Brent Crude is used to set prices for roughly 2/3 of the world’s oil. It is mostly refined in Northwest Europe and is also called Brent Blend, London Brent, and Brent petroleum. The Brent field is located in the East Shetland Basin, halfway between Scotland and Norway.

          Eagle Ford API gravity ranges from 30-45°. Liquids lighter than 45° are classified as natural gas condensate.

          https://btuanalytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Gravity-by-Region.jpg

          The oil is conventional. The extraction process (massive frac jobs on horizontal wells in shale formations) is what’s unconventional.

  9. So the USA and EU are reducing their CO2 emissions increasing our energy cost and the greens are demanding we reduce our use of fossil fuels so the Chinese and Indians can have more. Have I got that right?

  10. All these comments and zero mention of Methane Hydrate.

    “methane hydrate deposits are believed to be a larger hydrocarbon resource than all of the world’s oil, natural gas and coal resources combined. ”

    https://geology.com/articles/methane-hydrates/

    We have 50 years in which to develop extraction techniques. Japan, which has soured on nuclear energy, has already successfully performed test extractions. This technology will also, naturally be available to produce natural gas for India and China.

    https://res.mdpi.com/energies/energies-10-01447/article_deploy/energies-10-01447.pdf?filename=&attachment=1

    • @Lokki said- All these comments and zero mention of Methane Hydrate.
      .
      .
      * I guess you didn’t actually read all the comments. Methane hydrates were mentioned previously and this is another clip from the same Wiki.
      .
      However, in the majority of sites deposits are thought to be too dispersed for economic extraction. Other problems facing commercial exploitation are detection of viable reserves and development of the technology for extracting methane gas from the hydrate deposits.
      .
      .
      Sandy,
      Minister of Future

      • Extracting the methane gas requires the highly technical, delicate, and complicated process of…dropping the pressure. You’re welcome for the solution. My invoice is in the mail.

  11. And in conclusion …
    .
    It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. Mark Twain
    .
    .
    In 600CE a Zen Master said, “Dont let your ego prevent enlightenment.”
    .
    .
    The progress of canonical science is often held back by torchbearers, until their torch goes out.
    .
    .
    Sandy,
    Minister of Future

  12. When I did my early work on energy to create a lay presentation on the absolute realities of policies in terms of resources and sustainability under population pressure it was helped by the excellent Canadian engineer Douglas Lightfoot, who has always made the ultimately inevitable case for nuclear power very clearly. First saw his lecture at the UK IET (IEEE to Americans) in 2008, he had done all the work I was setting out to, David MacKay’s “arithmatic”, but in a more consumable way for lay people. I became even more KISS in approach at that moment..

    If you consider about 1.5Billion people were using fossil fuels at sensible European developed economy rates until recently, not even at profligate waste rates as in USA, and then assume the future developed population may be 11 Billion at the same rates of energy use, how fast will that consume what fossil energy there is? Its the opposite of the rate of emptying of a reservoir, demand accelerates as supply is falling. But humans now have the technology to cope, and take us through the next ice age successfully, further south and lower down on the new shore line.

    Nuclear is the ONLY option then, particularly for the USA, as it is the only energy source intense enough to support the profligate waste of energy and deliver all the health, wealth and happiness you can then afford, for as long as it rains and Uranium flows to the sea. Of course the American greens don’t want everyone else to enjoy what they have, hence the opposition. There is more nuclear binding energy available than most people could possibly imagine, or 11 Billion will need, with no environmental impact on a planetary scale. We can synthesise petrol for the resource intensive monster cars and global air travel for all from atmospheric CO2 and H2O, wholly sustainable recycling of hydrocarbons with nuclear energy, cleaner than diesel. David MacKay even helped me cost this, not cheap but doable, 5 or 6 times current cost of production? So we won’t ever run out of hydrocarbons, just natural hydro carbons, synthetic hydrocarbons will become available as the economics support the cost. Synthetic Ethylene for plastics as well.

    The future will be fine, if energy use is the determinant, we have the (nuclear) technology when fossil inevitably disappears at an accelerating rate, and renewables just can’t meet even a subsistence energy economy demand level in most countries., on the physics facts. Just need some scientific reality to settle on the nonsense of climate change = renewables, when they cannot help as claimed re CO2 por anything else, and the effect of CO2 is probably insignificant compared to natural change, without the bogus assumptions re water vapour amplfication.

    The CO2 control knob on the climate is a dummy, stuck there by the subsidy collectors of the climate industrial complex, using rigged models that cannot predict reality for that single inevitable reason. The guess is wrong. Doesn’t matter who makes it, if the PR doesn’t match nature, it’s WRONG! (Feynman composite.)

    Hope the great CO2 fraud and its snake oil remedy don’t have to be seen to fail before the racket is ended, as it must on the science facts, and its proponents driven from power and office, as the lumpen proletariat who were told to believe in it realise they were very deliberately lied to on every aspect of the policies they were told must be supported to “save the planet” – by a greedy system of government, for the easy profit and jobs for insiders who sold the story, as well as the renewable subsidy collectors. The physics says the end of the state organised crime that is the climate change protection racket of renewable subsidy laws must come, the question is whether we can avoid an economic recession by ending the renewable energy / CO2 rackets before the serious effects arise?

Comments are closed.