Is peak oil for real, or not? Give me answers, especially if it is NOT.

[Deja Q]

Poll question: Is peak oil for real, or not? Give me answers, especially if it is NOT.

If it's for real, we have ~5 years before the end.

If it's not, we have ~30 unless our "need" for it increases, in which case it's more like 20 before the inevitable destroys us.

If you are sure peak oil is a phony scare tactics, please tell us WHY. A bunch of "No, it's not real" votes with no substance behind it will NOT be considered.

I've seen lots of web sites clearly suggesting peak oil is possible.

Now it's time for a rebuttal.

Please calm our fears.

[whistle]

1. The answer is obviously YES!

....take a look for yourselves:

http://americanassembler.com/issues/peak_oil/

Anyone know anyone who can share the $32,000.00 proprietary oil reserve study with the world?

[NCLib23]

2. Peak Oil is 30+ years off

Current reserves are available for possibly that long but we have more expensive/harder to get untapped reserves.

These are off the coast of the USA, in North America, in Africa, in South America. They will not be as productive, and they will eb more expensive, but the idea of having no oil in 6 years is flat out hyperbole.

[arcos]

4. you obviously don't understand what peak oil means...

Peak oil doesn't mean we are suddenly going to have no oil at all. It means a gradual but steep decline in reserves, which in turn cause a sharp increase in prices. We will never "run out of oil", since eventually it will be much too expensive to extract. Once you have to use more than 0.99 barrels of oil to extract 1 barrel, it is just not worth it.

[bpilgrim]

6. guess that explains the missing link ;-) n/t

peace

[NCLib23]

9. I understand that

BUt right now we are still running 10+ to 1 ratio of EPR, with no immediate signs of sharp decrease by 2010, and that barring no new recovery technology. Also we know we have reserves in the rold that are untapped for non-price reasons, that when push comes to shove can and most likely will be used. If we don't explore new reserve

All I was responding to is the statement that we ahd 5 years till the end, which I think is way off base.

ALso, I am somewhat troubled by the Eugene Isalnd phenomenon as detailed in 1995 by the NYT "Geochemist Says Oil Fields May Be Refilled Naturally."

[arcos]

15. "reserves untapped for non-price reasons"...

such as?

[NCLib23]

32. I am not supporting the use of these regions but

ANWR, the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska

Some Sub-Saharan fields where security isn't good

Lease Sale 181 Area off the gulf coast of Florida

That's only a few, I'm sure there are more.

[arcos]

36. I knew the first would ANWR...

do you really think ANWR will help even one bit?

The average oil consumption rate in the US is 19.5 million barrels per day, while at maximum capacity, it is estimated that ANWR could produce 1 to 1.35 million barrels per day, that is, 5% of daily consumption in 2000.

I don't know how much oil the other places you mentioned have, but if it is something similar to ANWR then they won't help much.

[NickB79]

40. Will the security ever improve?

The massive oil fields of Iraq come to mind. Second-largest oil reserve in the world, and we can't pump it because Iraqi resistance fighters keep blowing up the pipelines. There is no forseeable solution to this problem, because thousands of miles of pipeline are inherently unguardable.

[NCLib23]

59. That's a fallacy

Thousand's of miles of pipeline aren't guardable now because of cost, much like Shell's situation in Nigeria (I think). If the cost of oil were high enough, these pipelines could be sufficiently guarded so as to protect from sabotage.

Also, I don't see Iraq still being as intensely attacked in say 10 years. It is possible however, I just like to think it will mellow by then. And I am still hoping for more progress in Africa.

[Sterling]

77. Who is attacking Iraq?

We are last time I looked. Maybe in 10 years Iraq will be safer but I doubt that by that time the Gov their will be very friendly to US energy interests.

[NCLib23]

90. I never said Iraq was being attacked

I mean the pipeline and regardless of Iraq being freindly to US interests is of no concern. Oil pipelines are defensible, just depends on their value.

[SidDithers]

64. Canada has the second largest oil reserves in the world...

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn32355.htm

Since oil is becoming more expensive, it is becoming more feasible to extract oil from the Alberta oil sands.

I guess we're next to be invaded...

Sid

[JohnyCanuck]

71. See posts #25, 28 and 33 n/t

n/t

[Wednesdays]

79. Not invaded with armies...

But I've been watching with great concern about that new conservative whom everybody is saying might become the next PM.

THAT is the strategy.

[Th1onein]

84. Not worth the extraction costs........

[Deja Q]

11. Precisely. My posts #s 7 and 8 go into some small but frightning detail.

As Bender might say, "We're boned."

[Deja Q]

51. That website states that as early as 2005 the cost outweighs the benefits.

:scared:

So much for 'competitive growth'. We grew out of the petri dish....


Economists argue that scarcity will result in price increases, making it more profitable to access poorer deposits. That seems plausible only if one thinks only about dollar costs. The fact is, as an oil field ages, increasing amounts of energy must be exerted to pump the oil out. The cost of this energy must be subtracted from the total value of the energy in the oil retrieved. According to a 1992 study, these two curves actually will intersect around the year 2005. Beyond that point, the energy required to find and extract a barrel of oil will exceed the energy contained in the barrel.

There is reason to believe that the oil industry is well aware of oil field depletion. No new supertankers have been built for 20 years, while interest in squeezing oil from shale deposits seems to be growing.

What, then, is the solution to our acute energy problem? There isn't one.

Natural gas resources are about as limited as petroleum and gas use recently has been growing at a rate of 9 percent per year.

Relying on nuclear energy to provide 11 billion people with First World living standards would require a system of 250,000 giant breeder reactors using around 1 million tons of plutonium.

The tremendous amount of energy necessary to build fusion reactors (if they ever could work on a commercial scale) would guarantee a far worse greenhouse problem than what we face already. Even then, fusion power could supply perhaps only 2030 years of energy for an affluent 11 billion people.

There is no question that we should convert to renewable energy sources as quickly as possible, but even "clean" energy is not capable of bringing the Western world's energy-intense way of life to all people.

Beyond 2005, the energy required to find and extract a barrel of oil will exceed the energy contained in the barrel.

There is not enough plant matter to fuel the world's transport fleet. To supply 11 billion people with the number of cars used by people in rich countries would demand 10 times as much fuel as used today. Because the wind does not blow all the time, wind-energy never will be able to contribute more than 5-30 percent of the world's present electricity demand.

[0007]

68. Thanks for the explanation. Now I know what 'Peak Oil" means!

[Deja Q]

7. Clarification: 6 years of society as we know it. Not just 'no oil'.

As oil gets more expensive... More people can't afford it... end result is more homelessness and suffering. And it will all be disguised in such a way that the masses don't figure it out and start a justified uprising (hey, Carter knew about this shit. Reagan, Bush I, CLINTON, and Bush II did zilch about it. Hell, Clinton removed the 55MPH speed limit - he added to the problem too.)

There might be an economic crash, making the oil crunch of the 1970s combined with the Great Depression "the good ol' days" - literally.

That's why Patriot Acts I, II, and III are in various stages of implementation. It's to force the populace to lie back and take the broomstick up the tailpipe, or even go to war to get more oil for our corporate masters. It's a simple choice: Die for corporate oil or die in pain.

Of course, India and China need oil too - you remember china, the places all our jobs went to. Especially when China smells the stench, they might retaliate using bigger weapons.

Nuclear armageddon is not out of the question.

[rapier]

10. notes

To elaoborate. Peak Oil means the peak of production. It has nothing to do with running out of oil. I continue to be astounded that people think so little about words and what they mean.

Identifying the day or month or year of peak worldwide oil production will be a task for historians. The moment won't be obvious. I suspect it won't be a momen but rather some sort of plateau. we are in the area of that plateau.

I think it might be fair to say that rising prices will play a part in keeping oil flowing at somewhere near current levels for quite some time. To put it another way, we have reached peak oil at $20bbl. It looks like $35 plus might squeeze a bit more onto the market. Someday in 1 or 5 years it might be $50 to keep the world supplied a near current levels.

I could be all wet of course. Maybe the world can continue to demand 3% growth compounded and get it for quite some time. I wouldn't bet on it. The day when no amount of money can squeeze more oil onto the market will come but probably at least not before next decade.

[Deja Q]

13. And the more we demand our "growth", the sooner the noose strangles us

to death.

Unfortunately, our "society" is based on greed and unfettered expansion.

Can you spell "disaster"?

I think we're at the start of the falloff, where it will cost more to collect the stuff.

And when it costs more to extract than it is to use it to keep our "society" expandin' all the doo-dah-day, we're toast.

Not to forget China, India, and the other countries of the world who use massive amounts - mostly for the benefit of the American economy, ironically.

[gandalf]

63. Why don't they appear in the official sources?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/international/iea2002/table81.xls

Are the reserves you mean in this sheet?

If yes, END OIL is 30 years off (not the peak)

If no: Who says these reserves are usable if they don't appear in these official reports from the eia?

[NCLib23]

67. Those aren't research numbers

those are separatley reported numbers, and don't reflect 'official' anything. read the note.

[arcos]

3. Regardless of whether we have 5 years or 30, peak oil IS REAL...

I do believe we are just on the verge of it, but no one disputes the fact that it is real. Some say it will take a few decades though...

Try to get this month's National Geographic... it is the best article I've read about it, very complete and accurate. It is titled "The End of Cheap Oil". The preview is here:
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0406/feature5/

[Colin Ex]

30. Peak Oil is very real.

They're a hardcore band from the East side of Michigan.

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~m3haney

My friend from college plays in it.

-C

[mom cat]

5. I can calm your fears, but only if you are willing to believe Dick Chaney.

If you can't do that, then start serious conservation and support energy alternatives.

[Deja Q]

8. Our society is based on disposable materials... NO high prices...

Which includes people.

Our society is based on disposable materials AND EXPANSION. It is not meant for a continued STABLITY. We can only expand so far before we collapse. There's a bumper sticker saying something about "insatiable is not sustainable". Too right. The phrase "oops" covers what our society has become.

If it isn't cheap, people will avoid it. Or 'society' has been training people with this despicable mentality for decades, especially in the last 2.5 decades.

People will not stand for higher energy prices. The gas prices having gone to $2 should have been obvious enough.

Also, how much does it cost to make the materials needed FOR the energy?

Also, many things come from oil. Namely PLASTIC. Plastic is used for solar and wind power. Many plastics are not recycleable and none of them is biodegradeable. As oil diminishes, the cost of energy, once again, rises.

Carter had a clue. He unfortunately spoke his mind to a nation of spoiled babies. He lost his job because of it. (Amazing, when somebody who truly gives a fuck about this country opens their mouth, they lose their job...) Am I being too harsh? Not in the slightest. I can think of far worse epithets for the American public than "spoiled babies".

[Sterling]

12. Change your poll.

All anyone can tell from this poll as it is is that you don't understand the issue very well.

[Deja Q]

52. Change your attitude.

At least I'm generating conversation. All you can do is be annoying and rude, with little desire to engage in worthy discussion.

Oh, I made my clarifications in other responses yesterday because it was too late to edit the post.

I may be ignorant, but I sure am learning. Are you?

[Magical]

14. Read Exxon Annual Report

http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/Newsroom/Publications/eTrendsSite/chapter1.asp

Scroll down....
It shows demand outstripping supply about NOW and huge new investment required.

Interesting read...

Magical

[Left_Wing_Fox]

16. Hubbert Peak

http://www.hubbertpeak.com

Based on analysis of oil exploration records, Dr. M. King Hubbert developed a model and predicted in 1956 that the USA would peak in its production of oil around 1970. He was discouraged from disclosing this foreboding news by his employers. He felt morally obligated to disclose the truth, and yet when he did so, his peers laughed at him. As we all know, he was right on, and the USA and the world suffered the first oil shock soon after the USA reached the peak he predicted.

That shock was because The US has gone from being a net exporter of petroleum to a net importer. With 17% of our oil being imported from OPEC (and approximately 36% from worldwide sources) just before 1973, we were at the mercy of the economic action taken by OPEC.

Today, we import nearly 52% of our oil.

There are theories that may indicate oil supplies are greater than predicted (an indeed the peak was moved forward by about 10-15 years from 1995), and one theory regarding the replenishment of oil, but that's an awfully thin thread to hang one's hopes on.

The fact is the technology is here NOW to move away from fossil fuels. Solar power is becoming much more affordable per megawatt hour, and is likely to decline as demand rises, encouraging research and development and enhanced production facilities. Wind power is also highly viable, with some scientists predicting that there is enough wind power within the Mississippi basin to power America 3 times over using current technologies. Hybrid Electric automobiles have also become highly popular, with a long waiting list for Toyota's mid-sized hybrid.

The trick is that we need to make the move NOW, when oil is cheap, instead of later, when oil is either expensive or unavailable. Factories and mines to gather the materials for wind and solar generators require oil to power them right now. We also depend on oil-derived hydrocarbons for plastics, fertilizer, pesticides, and many other essential products. The sooner we move away from oil as the foundation for our society, the easier the transition will be.

And if indeed we discover that oil is NOT running out, then we'll happily gain the benefits of energy independence from the Middle East, reduced pollution, cheaper long-term energy prices, and a massive "Moon-shot" job boost and "dot-com" economic boom in the short term.

[rJames]

29. Hubbertian Analysis has been famously wrong over the past 50 years-

Because the rest of the world is a lot different from the United States. Political upheavals, widely varying technologies, etc. prevent world oil extraction data from fitting a nice curve, and attempts to fit these data to a Hubbertian curve have traditionally greatly underestimated the time we have left. Though that article does not cover the latest set of Hubbert-inspired articles, I haven't seen anything to show that they are any different in kind from their predecessors.

Also, while obviously a lessened dependence on oil would cause us to give off fewer emissions and would lessen our dependence on the Middle East, both worthy goals, there's no reason to think a massive government program would cause an economic boom. The tech boom began because people believed that new technologies would make things cheaper, whereas these new sources of energy will be by definition more expensive, at least in the short term. A switch to more expensive energy source would have at least a short term depressing effect on the economy.

[Left_Wing_Fox]

37. Tech boom

Interesting article. One thing I have to wonder about though, is whether improved extraction technologies are simply shifting the peak to a sharper drop. I also tend to be wary of predictions that dismiss warnings regarding oil supply as "doom and gloom", since it encourages industry and lobbied governments to procrastinate on the issue.

As to "no reasons to expect a boom" I disagree. Government-sponsored programs always have an effect on the economy in the short term because they become a massive consumer on the part of the people. Public works programs that created the hydro dams in the Western US, and the Interstate program, and the space industry all created an infrastructure upon which industry could take advantage of. Military spending also creates significant short-term economic benefits, which are typically offset by the burden of debt incurred by such spending. That's the catch: The government either needs to allocate enough money from the budget to pay for such a project without incurring significant debt, or produce enough of an economic increase to raise revenues and pay back those debts at existing tax rates.

The current difference in cost per megawatt hour also doesn't take into account existing legislation that favors the oil industry. Shifting the tax burden from non-polluting technologies towards coal and oil-based electrical generation may very well result in an equalization of energy prices, while freeing up oil supplies for other industries, bringing down the price. Then there's also the reduction of trade deficits from the importation of oil and electricity.

Even if we accept that the Hubbert Peak and similar estimates of oil reserves are too apocalyptic, I think the effects of our dependance on fossil fuels (approval of mountaintop removal, the effects of pollution from coal power plants, inflationary effects of high oil prices, high rates of import of a vital resource, the suspicious nature of two recent wars in oil-related areas) are obvious, and the risks of conflict with emerging industrial nations (especially China, which has slipped from communism to fascism without bothering with democracy) are reason enough to move away from fossil fuels in a meaningful way.

[Deja Q]

50. Procrastinate and continue 'expanding' their need for it... How... oh how.

Humanity will survive, I'm sure. How it wants to deal with the masses who will likely suffer in the process is a different story.

[JHBowden]

17. Economically it doesn't make much sense.

The thesis seems to suggest all of the world's oil reserves will become depleted simultaneously, something I cannot understand the plausibility of. As a kid in the late 80s, I read a fiction book written during the 70s oil crisis where the world's supply of oil ran out in 1985. Clearly chicken-little ideas are not new.

If the fields do not become depleted simultaneously, then that implies a continuity between the rise in price and greater incentives to conserve, drill, and provide other sources of power.

[NewHampshireDem]

23. I'm with you ...

Remember "The Population Bomb" from 1968?

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate...

Replace the word "oil" with "whale oil" and any dates in the 21st century with the 19th century and you begin to realize how silly the whole peak oil debate is. Of course oil production will peak and fall, but it is not going to be armageddon. The world will adjust.

This is one issue where I believe in the self-correcting forces of the marketplace. Demand for oil is rising because of China and once oil is no longer cheap, the demand will go down--especially in China, which is not as economically prosperous as the US. Rising prices and the tensions in the Middle East will also create more calls for energy independence of a popular demand for fuel-efficient vehicles.

I do believe that there will be changes to our way of life, but positive rather than negative changes. Will it really be the end of the world if I can't walk into any grocery store in the US and get bananas from South America at $.49/per pound? I doubt it.

I also am not advocating that we all stick our fingers in our ears and say "Peak oil is a myth, peak oil is a myth" until our mommies come home. Obviously we need to conserve and explore alternative fuels.

Call me a pollyanna, if you will. I can take it.

[davekriss]

31. The Green Revolution

The reason the "population bomb" did not explode was the advent of the Green Revolution. Which was, of course, an oil-driven industrialization of agriculture. Take away the oil -- for fertilizer production, for running the myriad of industrial farm machinery, for transport and distribution -- and you've taken away the Green Revolution. Guess what happens then? Well, that population bomb finally gets to go off.

It's called die-off. The bacterial bloom-and-collapse in the exhausted petri dish. The carrying capacity of the earth pre-oil seems to be about 1.8 billion. We have over 6 billion now. oops.

If you're interested, there's a great thread at Urban75 (a UK site) that has been going more then a year: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=45251 It has lot's of good and brief posts with great supporting links. Take a look.

A good primer on the topic is available from Richard Heinberg, The Party's Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies. A good article from about the time Richard published his book can be found at http://www.museletter.com/archive/135.html .

Happy reading.

[NewHampshireDem]

46. I knew that argument would come up ...

"Take away the oil -- for fertilizer production, for running the myriad of industrial farm machinery, for transport and distribution -- and you've taken away the Green Revolution. Guess what happens then? Well, that population bomb finally gets to go off. "

The basic premise of that position is that nothing else but oil could ever be used to support agricultural production. Hogwash! We use oil because it is both cheap and abundant. Farming is a business, and when oil becomes more expensive and less abundant, the agri-industry will have ample incentive to find alternatives to oil-rich production methods.

Secondly, the "Green Revolution" did not diffuse the population bomb. The improving condition of women around the world diffused the population bomb. Don't forget that, lest we ignore the real benefits of promoting equal rights and access to education for all women around the world.

You would all also do well to remember that it was Thomas Malthus who first promoted this idea of of spiraling over-population by the poor and disadvantaged. It was used to justify myriad social evils--I guess he'd be happy to see it promoted by the left now, too.

<edit>
BTW, here's an intersting issue ... how falling birth rates are a threat to prosperity ... things that make you go "hmmm."

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465050506/ref=wl_it_dp/102-1900903-2722526?%5Fencoding=UTF8&coliid=I3AJ0Y80IYO37R&colid=2BMZW6IBJWVFF

[davekriss]

58. Timing is everything

There are optimistic arguments that economics will drive technology to an as yet unseen solution, postponing the debacle forecast by post-peak pessimists much as the Green Revolution, unseen by the neo-malthusians, postponed previously predicted debacles. Then there are the pessimists who see our current trajectory in terms of overshoot, the bacterial-blossom-in-the-petri-dish phenomenon. (And what happens when the food in the petri-dish is exhausted? -- the bacteria eat eachother!)

"If we simply permit the optimistic and pessimistic arguments to cancel eachother out, at the end of the day we are still left with something like two billion as an educated guess for planet Earth's sustainable, long-term, post-petroleum carrying capacity for humans. This poses a serious problem, since there are currently over six billion of us and our numbers are still growing. If the carrying-capacity estimate is close to being accurate, then the difference between it and the current population size represents the number by which human numbers will likely be reduced between now and the time when oil and natural gas runs out." (Heinberg, The Party's Over, p 179)

On your point that falling birth rates "are a threat to prosperity", my answer is yes, precisely (so is post-peak draw down of oil); but it depends on how you define "prosperity". If it's the ever-expanding ruthlessly consuming viciously exploiting neo-capiltalistic plutocracy of today, then the threat is a good thing. To the third of the world that goes to bed hungry every night the threat is moot and meaningless. To you, the driver of an SUV (I make up to illustrate) and a 3,000 sq ft home with a stocked refrigerator and cable-connected PC always turned on and a color TV in every bedroom and with trash cans twice-weekly filled to the brim with discarded plastic packaging -- well, a little curtailing of this "prosperity" might be a good thing. An even better thing post-peak.

I'd raise and discuss Tainter here, but I have to run...

[Sterling]

76. There is NOTHING

in the pipeline to replace fossil fuel for agro puropses or just about anything else we rely on it for.. Why not? That is open to your speculation but the fact is we are not making an effort to see that transition.

[davekriss]

87. Agreed

There is NOTHING in the pipeline to replace the cheap, easy, versatile, high-EROEI kick of conventional oil. I come down on the pessimistic side of the fence. Some further speculation...

Everything is political.

Think back to the string of events: The first Bush Presidency, the Glaspie green light given to Iraq to invade Kuwait, resulting in the establishment of major military bases in Saudi Arabia -- perhaps the intended goal -- and resulting in the blowback of 2001.

Note the 1992 draft Defense Policy Guidance, written for Dick Cheney by Wolfowitz and Libby, applauded and included by reference in the 2000 PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses", though rejected by GHWB as too radical. Was Cheney ready to proceed even back then?

Then the disruption of the Cheney-Wolfowitz-Libby vision by the election of a Democratic President; this President, notably, is hounded into eventual ineffectiveness by the rabid right wing, culminating in the impeachment in 1998 which decreased the probability of a Democrat winning in 2000 despite a strong economy.

Picture the Baker Study (done by the James Baker III Institute at Rice University), Hubbert's peak, Zbigniew Brzezinski's The Grand Chessboard, December 12, 2000, the fact that both GWB and Cheney are oilmen, speculation about 9-11 as LIHOP or worse, the Carnahan and Wellstone plane crashes, Patriot Act I, HSA, the draft of Patriot Act II, the many last minute ballot "surprises" in 2002, the Afghanistan War and the Unocal pipeline, and of course the march, starting in the spring of 2002, toward war against Iraq with its Orwellian manipulation of the media. All these things taken together could lead one to envision briefly the frightening prospect that what me might be witnessing now is a viscious and conscious circling of the wagons by elites in both the U.S. and U.K. to defend and preserve their rapacious way of life. The hell with everything else (which includes all of us)!

Could it be that leadership within these elites recognize the seriousness of Hubbert's peak and are positioning themselves now to protect their way of life? Could it be that our Middle East and Caspian Basin posture, enhanced by the Iraqi and Afghanistan Wars, are preparing the way for a future dystopia where the few continue to consume as they do today, enforced at gunpoint when necessary, while conditions rapidly deteriorate for the rest of us?

(Note how many permanent military bases were established in Iraq and around the Caspian basin as a result of these wars; note our actions in Africa and with regard to Venezuela.)

This is nothing new; note these words from George Kennan, the father of post-WWII(US) foriegn policy (this from PPS 23, 1948):

The US has about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives.

We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease talks about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights and raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

Ring any bells...?

The GWB administration is dominated by neo-conservatives heavily influenced by the political philosophy of Leo Strauss, who believed that elites lead out of innate superiority over the led, and that it is proper and right to lie to the masses in order to keep the latter aligned with the wishes of elites. LIHOP, dissembling over WMD -- these are all consistent with Straussian political philosophy.

If we are indeed witnessing a "circling of the wagons", and projection of Strassian power is really underway, we can all kiss "democracy" and "liberty" goodbye and prepare ourselves for the growing arrival of 1984. "Pax Americana" means the American Peace. The question is, which America? The Land of the Free of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison? Or Leo Strauss's, Ken Lay's, Richard Perl's, and Donald Rumsfeld's? A land of gated lush bubble communities well guarded and well lubricated ... for just the few? The rest of us deemed "useless eaters" (Kissinger) and "cannon fodder" (GHWB).

The illusion of freedom in America will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre.
--Frank Zappa

We're about to see the brick wall in the coming decades. I mention Joseph Tainter (above), Tainter views society as an energy-processing system that increases energy capture (and thus sustains population growth) by re-arranging itself toward increasing complexity. The problem is this investment in complexity is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Eventually a dying social structure collapses in on itself when the prole is forced to invest increasing value in the maintenance of complex institutional structures that yield no obvious benefit except to elites at the top (yes, I'm stretching Tainter). Then the society stalls, erodes from within, dissipates -- along with it the successful energy-capture-and-processing system that enabled the population to bloom.

I think we in the Industrialized West are in one of those "stalls" now. It is complicated still further because, as a result of energy draw-down (oil), it's apparant that the return on energy invested will decline rapidly in coming decades (has already markedly declined). So already the USG engages in massive propaganda campaigns (and possibly worse) to manufacture consent for wars that will enable control over those diminishing energy flows. We've already reverted to an energy "takeover" strategy (Iraq and Afghanistan), the first and most primitive human strategy to gain and sustain a population-enabling energy subsidy (see Heinberg -- the other strategies include tool-use, specialization, scope-enlargement, and draw-down).

The overwhelming problem with this, I think, is that the advantaged, those who hugely profit from current arrangements, are not about to relinquish their priviledged status without first exercising every means possible to retain it. That includes exercising their oil-driven armies while the spigot is still open wide.

As Hunter S Thompson says (somewhere), Big Dark Coming Soon.

.
.
/end alarmist tin-foil mode

[Deja Q]

56. I hope you're right. Except, as our economy is not based on conservation

It is based on expansion. I've said this before, who hasn't?

We use more oil every year and demand it remain cheap and plentiful, that "p" word still being used in the media.

Oil is a big crutch for our economy and our civilization as we know it.

The "self-correcting" aspect of our laughable "marketplace" never occurs until costs outweigh the benefits. Take a look around, most of everything we do is based on oil and expansion. From anything made with plastic to how food is even grown (let alone shipped), we are dependent on oil. If it's true that, by 2005, the cost to procure one barrel outweighs the benefit the oil within that barrel can deliver, there's going to be a big problem and there's going to be big suffering.

Unless our marketplace can make a shift without collapsing in the process. Maybe that can be done short-term. This whole talk of peak oil is ultimately meaningless. If/when it happens, there's nothing we can do for the masses, though we'll change our way of life so some can still survive.

I think the reality is somewhere between the Chicken Littles and Pollyannas of this world. But the decline will not be pretty.

[Sterling]

75. Ummmm... millions did starve.

You need to pay attention.

[treepig]

86. sure, due to political factors

not because of technological factors involving oil

[NCLib23]

91. Besides the potato blight (which was preventable)

I've heard of no famine based on a shortage of food, only a shortage of desire to give people food.

Political regimes throughout history have used forced starvation to control sectors of their populations.

[NickB79]

41. That is not the thesis at all

Imagine a typical Bell curve. That is the situation with Peak Oil. The beginning of the curve originates in the 19th century with the early extraction of oil for the new generation of machinery that ran off of gasoline and other oil products. Fast-forward to today, and we are still climbing the curve. Peak Oil occurs when you hit the TOP of the curve, not the bottom. This is where you have extracted the most possible oil you can. After this, its a sharp, unpleasant drop down the other side of the curve. No one is saying we will one day wake up and there will be no oil at all. What Peak Oil says is that after we hit the top of the curve, every barrel of oil becomes more expensive to extract, and thus its derivatives become more expensive for us to buy. Eventually, it will require more energy to extract the oil than the amount of energy in it. If it requires 2 barrels of oil worth of energy to extract 1 barrel of oil, where's the return?

Just because the oil doesn't become depleted simultaneously doesn't mean it will be an easy switch based on standard free-market principles. The downside of the curve increases VERY fast. For example, if we were told today that we only have 10-15 yrs to find a replacement for %50 of our oil needs, could we? Probably not. We should have been working on oil substitutes decades ago, but we wasted valuable time without making a serious impact on alternate energy production.

[mmonk]

18. Not if one considers

more drilling in North America and ocean areas around the gulf and the Caribbean. However, current usages, I think so in the not too distant future. It's time to move to hybrids and then to fuel cells. No need to wait anymore.

[Must_B_Free]

27. Interesting thing about Hybrids

From what I have read - they don't get the actual effecience they claim. In fact, the Hybrid Honda gets WORSE fuel efficiency than the non-hybrid version of the car.

Here is a link to support that
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/alternative/112_0405_hybrid/index10.html

[Left_Wing_Fox]

38. I don't see that...

Um, perhaps I'm dense but I don't think the link supports it. Here's what I saw:

"Applying the same formula the EPA uses to achieve combined fuel economy, our mileage champ was the Insight at 59.8 mpg, followed by the 2004 Prius at 53.0 and the 2003 Prius at 51.7, with the Civic Hybrid well behind at 45.9 mpg. That the big, heavy, roomy Prius trailed the feathery Insight so closely and outperformed the Civic so decisively proves the value of Toyota's more complex full-hybrid approach."

According to Consumer Guide, the regular civics average closer to 30 mpg... that's still a 50% savings in fuel. Not as miraculous as the EPA tags claim, but certainly not WORSE fuel efficiency.

http://auto.consumerguide.com/auto/new/reviews/full/index.cfm/id/37581

[lapfog_1]

19. Read the June 2004 National Geographic

cover story.

It's real. And possibly a lot closer than many believe.
"Peak" oil may have already happened... from now on, new oil
strikes will be more difficult, more expensive, and smaller.

According to the article, current production is 22,693 million barrels
per year. Current proved reserves, including unconventional
reserves like tar sands in Canada, are 1,237,573 million barrels.
That's about 54 years of remaining oil, assuming no increase in
consumption AND assuming that unconventional sources are fully
exploited AND that there has been no overstatement of proven
reserves. Of course, there could also be new significant deep
water or other location finds. I take the downside assumptions
as being more problematic than the upside (proven reserves are not
as stated and new finds will be much smaller and more expensive).
The middle east accounts for 725,812 million barrels of the
known conventional and unconventional reserves, or about 58 percent.
Canada account for 178,500 or 14.5 percent of the known reserves.
Only Russia and Venezuela are over 50 billion barrels each of
all the other players with known reserves.

Take away the Canadian tar sands and you reduce the known reserves
to 1,063,573 million barrels or about 46 years at current production
rates. Take away the middle east (but leave Canada in) and you have
516,710 million barrels or about 22 years left. Take away all
Muslim countries AND Canada's tar sands and you have 277,696
million barrels left or around 12 years left (perhaps a bit more
since Muslim countries WILL provide oil for themselves).
The implications about middle east policies are immense.


As their peak oil graphic says...

"either way, time is short."

The front picture to the article showing the belongings of a family
of 2 adults and 5 kids which are made primarily from oil is quite
disturbing too when you start thinking about our lifestyles.

[mmonk]

20. Yes

Imperial Oil of Canada has done well (was a stockholder) as well as other exploration companies. It's time to move towards alternative fuel choices, hybrids, and fuel cells.

[Massacure]

21. Hybrids will only delay the inevitable.

Besides, it's a bit late. By the time the world switched entirely to hybrids, the peak will have passed.

Fuels cells are only a carrier, not a source of energy.

[mmonk]

26. Hybrids

to bridge the time gap until the best technology emerges. It slows consumption and buys time for the best choices if done on a large scale.

[Left_Wing_Fox]

34. True, but...

True, hybrids will only delay the inevitable, but right now, delay is necessary. As you say, Fuel cells are a carrier, not a source of energy. We need the time either to generate enough wind and solar power to crack water for hydrogen, or to find a catalyst that can break down water more effectively. Hydrogen is simply not ready for prime time. While other fuel sources like biodiesels and electricity are available,

Hybrids would work well as part of a comprehensive national plan to move to clean renewable resources while alternate fuels (biodiesel, vegetable grease and other renewable hydrocarbons, electricity, hydrogen) are finalized.

[Karenina]

22. Forgive me if I be blunt here

this evenin' y'all.

In 1960 when they were making us jump under our desks to "protect" our jenky butts from the Nu-ku-lar bomb those commies were sure to send our way, we also Social Studied "resources." It was CLEAR W-A-A-Y back then that a) Oil was a non-renewable resource b) It was choking and polluting EVERYTHING c) We needed to get a clue and develop alternatives.

So Nancy redid the interiors and Ronnie DISMANTLED the solar panels.

It is SO FAR GONE now that Mother Nature will do our species a great service by reclaiming what is hers...

[Deja Q]

54. It's good to see a wide variety of opinions on this topic

from those who want to generate worthwhile discussion...

Assuming peak oil is for real (in economic terms, which is the cost of the product), the collapse could happen fairly soon, depending on indicators.

If terrorists blow up the Saudi's major processing plants or if the upcoming Saudi regime hates us, then we're done for anyway...

[Karenina]

72. Another kick disguised as a quip

Hey, Hypno Toad, Super info you've drwan out here (but pssst... the real deal-breaker is potable water. ;-) )

[dutchdemocrat]

24. No

Canada alone has more oil than the middle east in oil sands... not to mention Venezuela's similar stash in the Orinoco Basin.

Between them we are talking close to two trillion barrels of oil. It just costs more to refine. When oil is expensive it becomes more viable and, yes, pure crude sources are on the decline most likely.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1699596

[lapfog_1]

25. and your numbers are based on what, exactly?

The published numbers are 174,000 million barrels in the Canadian
tar sands (which, when added to Canada's 4,500 million barrels of
more ordinary crude, brings them to a total of 180 billion barrels.
Even the most optimistic projection is more like 300 billion barrels,
nowhere near the 2.5 trillion that you state in the other thread.

Not to mention the other resources required to process tar sands,
namely water (lots of it), and natural gas (even more of that), to
the point that recovering crude oil (and then gasoline) from tar
sands that are not easily processed may, in fact, require more
energy to produce the barrel of oil than is contained in the barrel
of oil. Not very smart.

Not to mention the environmental impact.

I'm happy that someone says they will reduce the greenhouse gases
PRODUCED by tar sand conversion process by 45 percent (someday)
... but the over all greenhouse gas produced by each barrel of
tar sand oil is huge compared to the amount from, say, sweet
light crude pumped from the ground.

I have no ideas what the reserves are that you are referring to
in Venezuela, but the published reserves are 77,800 million
barrels, not over a trillion that you stated.

Excluding the middle east, the big reserves are Venezuela, Russia,
and Canada (but only if they process the tar sands).

Here is a stmt on the reality of tar sands (from Nat'l Geo):

The sand has to be strip mined, two tons of it for each barrel of oil.
Dump trucks the size of mini-mansions haul 400 tons in a single load,
in beds heated during the subarctic winters so the sand doesn't freeze
into a giant blob. Next to the mine, the sand goes into the
equivalent of giant washing machines, where torrents of warm water
and solvent rinse out the tar, or bitumen, leaving wet sand that is
dumped in tailing ponds. Even then the bitumen is not ready to be
piped off to a refinery like crude oil. To turn it back into crude
oil, the operations either cook it in cokers, where temperatures of
900 degrees F break up the giant tar molecules, or heat it to lower
temperatures and churn it with hydrogen gas and a catalyst. The
result is a clean, low sulfur crude - "beautiful stuff". But
producing it is not so pretty... "It has a big footprint too, and
we don't hide that - a big environmental and social imprint."

Oil sand operations have left the land north of Fort McMurray
pocked with mines and lakes of sludgy gray tailings. So far, less
than 20 percent of the disturbed land has been restored to grassland
and forest. Dust, diesel exhaust, and sulfurous fumes pollute the
air. It takes three barrels of water to extract each barrel of
bitumen, and although the plants are careful to recycle water, they
still draw heavily on the Athabasca River. Heating all that water
takes vast amounts of natural gas. Worried about Canada's dwindling
natural gas supplies, Alberta has even considered someday building
a nuclear reactor smack in the tar sands region to supply power and
steam. The local First Nations people - Canada's Native Americans -
mourn the loss of once pristine land...

[dutchdemocrat]

95. I simply answered the question. More links if you want.

Defining Oil Reserves (Part III)
There are several kinds of unconventional petroleum reserves:


Heavy oils, which can be pumped and refined just like conventional petroleum except that they are thicker and have more sulfur and heavy metal contamination, necessitating more extensive refining. Venezuela's Orinoco heavy oil belt is the best known example of this kind of unconventional reserve. Estimated reserves: 1.2 trillion barrels.
Tar Sands, which can be recovered via surface mining or in-situ collection techniques. Again, this is more expensive than lifting conventional petroleum but not prohibitively so. Canada's Athabasca Tar Sands is the best known example of this kind of unconventional reserve. Estimated reserves: 1.8 trillion barrels.


http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/3unconventional.html


As we have seen, there is far more oil in the world than the oil reserve estimates given for the Middle East. If the Veneuelans are right, there is enough oil in Venezuela alone to power the world for 44 years (at 27.3 billion barrels of world consuption per year). Similar or greater reserves exist in the Athabasca tar sands and other unconventional reserves that push actual world reserve life well out into the 22nd century. These are not as cheap as Middle Eastern reserves, but they are not prohibitively expensive either. Nor can all of the unconventional oil be recovered. Estimates range from 15 percent upwards. On the other hand, there may be a number of these unconventional oil fields in other nations -- Russia and Madagascar also have heavy oil fields.

The argument here is that it is a fallacy to entirely omit unconventional oil from strategic thinking.

World oil estimates presented by the Department of Energy are grossly inaccurate and should be corrected, at the very least to conform with US Geological Survey estimates, but also to take into account all kinds of oil deposits.

The premise for US involvement in the Arab Middle East -- its oil wealth -- is not wrong per se. However, the idea that the Middle East is the ONLY area of the world with large oil reserves, or that US involvement is inevitable, is, rather plainly, a fallacy of staggering propotions.

Certain conclusions may be drawn:

First, to the extent that oil reserves are a factor in Middle Eastern politics, it would be possible to greatly reduce the stakes and open some avenues to peace. US and European disengagement from oil dependency on the Middle East is not at all impossible, nor does it depend on renewable, nuclear or other alternative energy with varying degrees of reliability.

Secondly, it's going to be a long time before we run out of oil. There is plenty of it in Venezuela, Canada, Russia and other parts of the world. At current consumption rates, oil reserve life will be measured in centuries. As consumers we may see this as good news. Whatever happens in the Middle East, there will be plenty of oil in the end. As people concerned about the environment, we may see it as very bad news. Oil will remain cheap long after serious damage from climate change starts to mount.

Finally, the "invisible hand" of the marketplace will not come to our rescue. Energy, is in the end, a political matter. We will have to rely on government, not oil scarcity, for limits to environmental damage and politically destabilizing dependencies.

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/oil/6oilbiblio.html

Bill Kovarik, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor at Radford University in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. He teaches communications history, media law, Web design and science writing. He earned his Ph.D. in Communications, with a cognate in history of technology and the environment, at the University of Maryland in 1993. Kovarik has worked with a number of news organizations over the past 25 years, including the Associated Press, the Baltimore Sun, the Charleston (SC) Post-Courier, the New York Times and Time Magazine. He has taught science writing at Radford, Virginia Tech and the University of Maryland. He was also a writing coach in the Chemical Engineering Dept. at Virginia Tech and an instructor for a course in Energy Resources at the University of Maryland's Dept. of Geography.

His books include Mass Media and Environmental Conflict: America's Green Crusades, published in 1996. The book was named one of the best academic books of the year by the American Library Association in 1997. He also publishes the Environmental History Timeline on the Web. http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/hist

He is also working on a broader global history of environmental conflict called "Green Crusades."

Dr. Kovarik has also served as an expert witness in legal cases on behalf of Peter Angelos of Baltimore, Lloyds of London and others concerned with environmental history.

He is currently working on a history of auto fuel technology for Chemcases, a Kennesaw State University chemistry curriculum development project funded by the National Science Foundation.

[JohnyCanuck]

28. What 's the EROEI for tar sands crude compared to conventional crude

Right now they're using stranded natural gas (natural gas from isolated pockets of gas not connected to pipelines) for the energy to fuel the process of extracting crude from tar sands. However there is some evidence apparently that this source of energy is running out and North American natural gas is peaking in general as well. While the Energy Returned on Energy Invested in the production of tar sands crude from tar sands might be positive i.e. you get more out than you put in, from all the material I've seen so far it's significantly lower than the EROEI from conventional crude which ranges from 5 to 1 for deep offshore wells to 30 to 1 for productive land based wells. In other words there is a small net gain in energy but not nearly the net gain we're accustomed to getting from our convention crude oil sources. This will obviously make the oil more expensive to produce and add to the cost. Bear in mind that the whole point of peak oil is that oil will become more and more expensive as it becomes more difficult to extract from the ground and the competition for the oil becomes more intense.

If you have some sources showing a significant positive EROEI for tar sands produced crude, I'd be interested in seeing them because the only figures I've seen are usually in papers etc. by the Peak Oil people and they pretty well all take the position that the EROEI for tar sands crude is significantly lower than the EROEI we get from pumping conventional crude today. Admittedly as all the conventional crude production goes past peak the EROEI will drop and tar sands crude will become more competitive, but at that point all oil,whether from tar sands or conventional production, will be selling at a much higher price than we are accustomed to paying today. Here's a table showing EROEI for conventional crude, tar sands and various other alternatives. EROEI Table (Give it a couple seconds to jump to the table after you first connect)


Another drawback of processing tar sands for oil is that the process is very polluting in that it emits large quantities of greenhouse gasses and it pollutes large quantities of water. Water is not in plentiful supply in the areas of Canada where the tar sands are located, droughts are an ongoing problem and there's competition with farmers, cattle ranchers etc. for access to the water. The process is also extremely polluting and the water after being used for oil production is pretty much useless for irrigation or for supplying to towns without incurring some major costs to clean it up.

Oil project tarred with uncertainty

<snip>

Collin Campbell, a senior geologist, says the companies in the tar sands are using "stranded gas", or gas from fields near the tar sands that have too little in them to warrant building a pipeline. This gas can be purchased very cheaply because there are no other potential customers for it. "But it is running out fast," he says. "No one is going to use ordinary oil and gas to produce from the tar sands because they are too valuable."

Campbell also believes that a lack of water will limit tar sands processing. Apparently, the supply is so tight in Alberta that the government is considering charging companies for it.
In the 2003 book, The Party's Over, Richard Heinburg also believes water is a big problem.

<snip>

He observes that the wastewater pond for Syncrude is 4.5 miles in diameter and 20-feet deep. In his book, he calculates that it would take 350 similar plants the size of Syncrude to meet the world's oil needs and together, their wastewater would be half the size of Lake Ontario.

<snip>

Gallon believes that it takes so much energy to extract the sand from the bitumen that it isn't almost worth it.

He says, "If they were to do a net energy analysis, they would find that it almost takes as much energy to mine, process, refine and upgrade the bitumen oil they get from the tar sands as the energy in the light oil they are producing. There is a small net energy gain, but it is estimated that five to 10 times the greenhouse gases are released processing tar sands as released processing conventional oil."

Oil project tarred with uncertainty from London Free Press March 2004 (That'll be London Ontario, not London England)

Debunking Mainstream Media's Lies About Oil

To inflate his data on oil reserves, Mr. Yergin accepts industry and EIA (Energy Information Association) figures without question (rather like the embedded journalists reporting on the invasion of Iraq). He refuses to backdate discoveries (account for the fact that oil companies routinely under-report new finds to reduce taxes) and he accepts inflated numbers for Caspian reserves even as the oil majors pull out of the area for lack of interest. But one of the most interesting techniques he uses to inflate his data is to include all hydrocarbon deposits regardless of source or extraction techniques. Whether tar sands, deep sea deposits or conventional oil, it is all one to Mr. Yergin.

Never mind that harvesting tar sands is energy and water intensive. Tar sands are extracted and processed utilizing stranded natural gas.(Small pockets of gas that are not profitable to pump at current prices). But as the price of natural gas has increased, so has the price of using NG to harvest and process tar sands. As natural gas prices rise, the stranded gas is sold in the marketplace leaving little for tar sands. Industry analysts have all but admitted that North America is falling off the natural gas cliff (i.e. natural gas reserves are almost empty). Allowing for seasonal changes, the price of NG will only increase from now on.2 3 Tar sand processing also utilizes a vast quantity of water. Production has heavily taxed local aquifers and left large retention ponds of tainted water needing to be purified at an energy and economic expense. Due to these factors, various companies are beginning to cancel tar sands projects or place them on hold.4 Beyond this, tar sands are harvested by strip mining, not by pumping. Production from tar sands comes at the additional cost of destroyed landscape, and the additional expense of remediation and waste disposal. And in any mining operation, there is always a notable portion of the resource that is deemed unrecoverable, either because the seam is too small, or because of fault or other physical factors that limit the viability of production.

For all these many reasons and more, tar sands and other unconventional forms of hydrocarbons should be considered separately from conventional oil. Once conventional oil production begins to decline worldwide, non-conventional production will be constrained by the rising price of energy input. Furthermore, even if unconstrained, non-conventional sources will not replace conventional oil, they will only help to ease the decline. The following graph, based upon the most current of data, incorporates non-conventional sources into the energy picture.

Debunking Mainstream Media's Lies About Oil

[treepig]

80. the good news is that nuclear methods can be used to extract tarsands

in one plan, doomed by our current lack of 1950s-style-can-do-ism:

NUCLEAR DYNAMITE cracks open Russian and American archives, interviews nuclear scientists and traces the traces the roots of the environmental movement back to the 1950s as it presents the untold story of US and the Soviets plans to use nuclear explosives for huge "geographical engineering." project. Superpower plans included hundreds of explosions to blast out oil from the Athabasca tar sands, dig an instant harbour in the Arctic, reroute rivers in Siberia, and dig a new Panama Canal. Scientists were even designing huge interplanetary rocket ships that would be launched into space by nuclear explosions.

today, plans have been tamed a bit, being limited to use of steam generated by a candu reactor:

http://www.aecl.ca/index.asp?menuid=21&layid=3&csid=404&miid=519

[davekriss]

33. EROEI a dismal 1.5

Since it takes the energy equivalent of 2 barrels of oil in to get three out, an EROEI (energy return on energy invested) of just 1.5, the potential energy yield from the tar sand reserves are a fraction from what we get from proven conventional reserves (which still yield EROEI in the area of 8.0 or higher and was as high as 23.0 just as recently as the seventies -- demonstrating that it's getting harder and harder to find, pump, transport, refine, and distribute remaining oil, a sign that we're bumping along at the peak now).

The Alberta Tar Sands would need to hold 5.3 times the known reserves of conventional oil to match energy output and it just ain't there. Besides, it would create several slurry ponds, each the size of Lake Ontario.

While Tar Sands and Oil Shale are indeed alternative sources of oil that will be exploited when prices rise sufficiently high, combined they don't replace the conventional oil energy kick we exploited during the Industrial Interval, now beginning to end. Instead, alternative sources can soften the slope down the backward tail of Hubbert's Peak.

Aside: One unfortunate result of GWB's adventurism in the middle east is that if he does succeed and secures control of future oil flows for a generation, he would have postponed addressing these very real problems with possibly jarring, tragic results. It's a missed opportunity, and now that the fuel meter is half-way to empty (with still rapidly growing demand), we have less and less time to find Richard Heinberg's soft landing.

[dutchdemocrat]

96. nuclear power will ultimately be used . . .

nuclear power will ultimately be used.

Canada has vast reserves of oil in its tar sands deposits in northern Alberta. These are worldscale deposits relative to known conventional oil reserves and will play an important role in theworld's economy in years to come. Substantial energy is required to extract the oil andupgrade it into usable products. This energy is currently derived from fossil fuels and releasesof carbon dioxide are a consequence. Additionally, hydrogen may be produced as a materialcomponent used to upgrade the oil. This hydrogen is currently produced by reforming ofmethane to remove the hydrogen component which also produces carbon dioxide which isgenerally discarded. This paper examines a relatively new extraction and processing concept(Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) which can use steam and electricity from CANDU reactors and also produces oxygen, and heavy water.

These products, in turn, can be used toincrease energy production while reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The paper focuses onthe magnitude of carbon dioxide emission avoidance which is anticipated based on data fromcurrent and projected projects.The paper reviews the current status of development of the oil sands industry and projectscarbon dioxide emissions which would be expected if current extraction and upgradingtechniques are continued.

The scope of a project using a CANDU nuclear reactor as an alternate energy source toproduce steam and hydrogen for upgrading is outlined.It is concluded that the carbon dioxide emissions that could be avoided by deployment ofnuclear energy powered oil sands projects would be a substantial fraction of Canada'semission reduction goals for Kyoto.

more at: (caution, it's a PDF):

www.cns-snc.ca/events/CCEO/nuclearenergyindustry.pdf

[gandalf]

43. Your are wrong!!!

Canada alone has definitely not more oil in sand than the middle east. See my post below which cites the official figures.

Your referenced thread doesn't say that, either.

[Deja Q]

48. According to that website, by 2005 it will cost more to procure the energy

in one barrel than what the energy the oil in that barrel can give.

[TexasBushwhacker]

35. More than 5 but Peak Oil isn't the biggest problem ....

at least not to me. The worst thing that could happen is that we discovered an enormous reservior of oil that was relatively easy to "exploit". That's was they call it in the oil business. You've got exploration and exploitation. Anyway, the last thing we need to do is to continue our fossil fuel addiction because the environmental cost is just too great. We need concentrate on conservation and step up our development and use of clean, renewable sources of energy whether peak oil is a problem or not.

US oil consumption is over 20 million barrels PER DAY and half of it is imported. That's more than the next 6 countries combined (Japan, China, Germany, Russia, Brazil, India). We consume 25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas per year, almost twice as much as the #2 NG consumer, which is Russia. Our coal consumption is over 1 billion tons per year, second only to China.

Having a continued supply of cheap fossil fuels is like putting several pounds of heroin in front of a junkie. We could use it wisely and make the supply last longer, but we won't. We'll just kill ourselves with it.

[gold_bug]

39. some peak oil critics...

Not that I necessarily agree with any of them, but here's some samples of critical views on peak and Hubbert's...

SLICK NEW OIL THEORY
by Bruce Bartlett
Monday, June 7, 2004
(NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS)
http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2004/200400607.htm

Is the world's oil running out or is there more untapped?
Current oil reserves will last past 2100 - shale and sands add 500 years more
By H. Sterling Burnett
LINK

Report says world faces no danger of oil shortage for now
May 21, 2004
LINK - ToledoBlade

Are We Out of Gas Yet?
The continuing "oil crisis" crisis
http://reason.com/rb/rb021804.shtml

The New Pessimission about Petroleum Research
by Michael C. Lynch
http://www.energyseer.com/NewPessimism.pdf
(380k PDF)

[NewHampshireDem]

45. The quote that sums of much of what I feel about this "research"

"These kinds of doom and gloom energy predictions become popular every 10 years or so," says Michael Lynch, president of Strategic Energy and Economic Research, a Massachusetts consulting firm. "In this case there's very little original research and everybody is citing the same handful of articles. It's an example of how the herd instinct drives the psychology of scientific consensus."

It's a scientific circle-jerk with a little plain old misanthropy ("let the earth take back what's hers") and apocalysm ("it's called die-off") thrown in for good measure.

[gandalf]

42. Here are the very official figures, and my static calculation:

Source:
Energy Information Administration

Here is an Excel-sheet that lists the world reserves as of Jan. 1, 2003. It already shows the Canadian tar sand.

On the same site you find an Excel sheet that shows the daily oil demand (currently 80 million barrels a day, or 29.2 billion barrels a year) worldwide.

Assuming in a very simplified calculation that the demand stays constant (due to the economic growth of India and China it will probably increase) and that no significant new reservoirs are found, these figures imply that the known oil reserves would last 41.5 years (taking the figures of Oil & Gas Journal; the figures of World Oil imply a reach of 35 years).

I think it's plausible to assume that the price would rise sharply long before the end.

[Deja Q]

49. Gee, info from a government site... and calling in on NAFTA too...

I can't exactly trust them at face value, can I? The last thing the government wants to do is cause unrest.

I know the world swallows 80 million barrels per day.

More from that web site:

Economists argue that scarcity will result in price increases, making it more profitable to access poorer deposits. That seems plausible only if one thinks only about dollar costs. The fact is, as an oil field ages, increasing amounts of energy must be exerted to pump the oil out. The cost of this energy must be subtracted from the total value of the energy in the oil retrieved. According to a 1992 study, these two curves actually will intersect around the year 2005. Beyond that point, the energy required to find and extract a barrel of oil will exceed the energy contained in the barrel.

There is reason to believe that the oil industry is well aware of oil field depletion. No new supertankers have been built for 20 years, while interest in squeezing oil from shale deposits seems to be growing.

Natural gas resources are about as limited as petroleum and gas use recently has been growing at a rate of 9 percent per year.

Remember, NAFTA allows us to freely take the oil of countries who signed it (though getting drugs from them is a big no-no :eyes: )...

[gandalf]

55. Trust?

Don't know. I assume they are not overly pessimistic; just as you said, they don't want to cause unrest.

[beachman]

44. Hope we start running out soon. it'd be a good thing

There is no reason to fear. We don't have to be dependant on oil, and the sooner we start running out of it, the sooner we will switch over to clean technology to produce electricity cheaply and cleanly.

Clinton said something interesting on Letterman after he left office. He said the technology to solve the energy problem is there, but the issue was decentralization, and how that would affect our society. He did not elaborate, but I knew what he was talking about.

The new technology will collapse the power grid making it obsolete nearly overnight. There are powerful forces oppossed to that. It will also create electricity cheaply such that electric cars will replace gasoline cars.

But I am not sure we are ready yet.

When we run out of oil, or if the public demands the switch, powerful interests be damned, well, then it will happen.

[NewHampshireDem]

47. We don't need to run out, exactly, but make the price higher ...

If gas were as expensive in the US as it is in Europe, it would go a long way to slaking our thirst. Al Gore advocated that in "Earth in the Balance." I'd agree.

[Deja Q]

53. It would not be a good thing. It would mean the suffering of millions.

Unless we are prepared.

Many of these websites say there it will be impossible to even approach the amount of energy we currently use, don't forget how our need for expansion in our "economy" requires us to use more.

[NewHampshireDem]

73. How would it cause the suffering of millions?

Are millions dying off in Europe because they have higher gas prices than we do?

I would challenge you to demonstrate a stronger correlation between famine and oil prices than between famine and political instability. And don't cop out by saying "high oil prices cause political instability" without giving a pretty clear example of when that has happened.

[NCLib23]

61. It will also cause a depression in the short term

[Blue Wally]

57. It isn't pretty but................

Coal and coal gassification projects can replace petroleum in many applications. Lots of research was done on this in the past. It has been sidetracked because oil and natural gas have been so cheap. Apparently, the US has about 500 years worth of proven coal reserves.

[gandalf]

62. Please be a little bit more precise...

500 years, assuming the curent demand, or 500 years if you assume that the whole oil demand would switch to coal?

Besides, can you offer a source?

[Blue Wally]

92. No I can't

Little data element that I remembered from an article years and years ago about how long petroleum would last versus how long coal would last. Lots of coal still down there, though we may have to strip mine very, very deep for it. Trains would have to switch to steam turbines to burn the coal unless we could convert it to run in a diesel type engine. Shipping would also have to convert from oil to coal as would electric plants other than hydroelectric and nuke.

[treepig]

93. lot's information here

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/coal.html

btw, in a nutshell, EIA says 210 years of coal reserves exist at current rates of consumption.

the good news about coal is that it releases alot of radioisotopes into the environment, for example, in the usa alone, already this much

Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)
Thorium: 357,491 tons

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

has been released into the environment. for comparison, weapons use of "depleted uranium" in iraq is less than 1% this level. so, we're way of them on exposure already.

[NCLib23]

94. Just some physics

Uranium is radioactive, but in a very limited sense.

Over 99% of all Uranium is U-238, with a half-life of 4.5 Billion years. Doing the math means that of all the mass you have, less than 1% of the uranium decays in a year. That radiate is alpha emission, which are basically only harmful if uranium is ingested. Some of its by products are gamma (BAD) emitters, but at much lower levels.

U-235 is worse, with a HL of over 700 Million years, but Uranium has never been sought after for its radioactivity. U-235 is highly fissionable and can 'chain-react' if found in high enough density.

[Az]

60. With all the uses for oil it is mind boggling that we keep burning it

Its not just about energy. We build most of our products out of oil. And yet we burn this stuff up at a fantastic rate. Oil is finite. We better decide what we really want to do with it because it will run out one day. This is not a question of what we drive. Its a question of our entire civilization crumbling around us.

[treepig]

65. perhaps an historical perspective is in order

perhaps many readers aren't old enough of this forum don't remember the previous "peak oil" crisis of the 1840's and all the accompanying weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth:

this, of course, was the peak whale oil crisis:


The peak year for American whaling activity was 1846, when 736 vessels and 70,000 people were engaged in the industry. In terms of production, however, sperm oil peaked in 1843, at 19,910,000 liters (5,260,000 gallons), whale oil at 43,884,000 liters (11,593,000 gallons) in 1845, and whalebone at 2,564,000 kg (5,652,000 lb) in 1853.

A gradual decline in whaling activity, which began in 1847, was hastened by the reduction in the numbers of whales of many species, including right whales, gray whales, and humpback whales. This reduction was due to significant overhunting. The decline was also hastened by the introduction of kerosene as a cheap illuminating fuel, the sinking of numerous whaling vessels by Confederate commerce raiders during the American Civil War (1861-1865), and two disasters that destroyed nearly 50 vessels in the Arctic Ocean . . .

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572529/Whaling.html


back then americans were ingeneous, they adapted and the economy contined to grow. this planet is still awash in energy, there's no technological crisis - only a political one in contries such as the usa.

other countries are right now actively seeking solutions - for example, the danes are world leaders in wind power and the chinese are embarking on a major nuclear power plant construction binge.

we're invading iraq.

ultimately if the world in general takes the first or second path depends much more on human nature and politics than technology.

btw, the economic doomsayers really have their heads up their asses - all studies show that jobs in developing new energy technologies are better paying (and less dangerous) than those in current oil and coal extraction - in short peak oil is a wonderful opportunity to improve the economy and benefit the environment

[NewHampshireDem]

74. Thanks for expanding on my idea ...

I was too lazy to do the research myself. :toast:

[treepig]

78. what's a bit scary, though

is all the gloom and doom on a supposedly 'progressive' website.

guess it's just another example of american stupidity alive and well; europeans on the other hand seem to be developing future supplies of energy right now - plenty of information here:

http://www.cea.fr/gb/publications/Clefs44/contents.htm

let's see if the o'reilly and his ilk are still laughing at the french in 20 years. my guess is that they'll have ditched the hummer and be paying top $$ to the frogs for some of their technologies.

[StopThief]

66. I would like to register my NO vote as. . . .

not to be considered. Just in case you were going to spend much energy hunting down those who believe this but aren't willing to try and prove a point that will be completely disregarded no matter what the substance.

[yella_dawg]

69. The Peak Oil crisis is secondary.

In any useful sense, we've already reached the "peak" for any economic purposes. At present, demand has exceeded supply, due to the rapid rise of petroleum consumption by China. The Peak Oil effect is only important in that there is no way to significantly boost production because we're so near peak production worldwide. As China's demand grows further, prices will rise to a new equilibrium. From a purely economic standpoint, we have a static supply with a rapidly rising demand. From there, it's simply Economics 101. It doesn't matter if the peak occurs last year, next year, or in twenty years. Demand has exceeded supply. That's what will trigger the economic bomb, not the actual supply. And it's not the traditional effects of fuel costs that pose the real threat. The US Treasury is highly dependent on the inflow of petro-dollars to finance our debt. Should that inflow flatten out or decrease, we are in real trouble.

[CrispyQ]

70. Peak oil = die off?

An interesting collection of articles.

dieoff.org

[Renew Deal]

81. That's a major part of the debate.

Does Peak Oil mean a die off? How bad? Those are significant arguments. I believe that the die off is the worst case scenario if everything is done wrong (no conservation, no alternatives). The wars and famine will wipe the place out.

I think it's possible if Peak Oil is real. I believe Peak Oil is real and may be within this decade.

[Gruenemann]

82. Fuck oil. The REAL problem

is gonna be WATER.

[Th1onein]

85. Water IS going to become a problem after Peak Oil, yes.

That's why it's important to get a well of your own, or be prepared to use some kind of mechanism that can get it from the atmosphere.

[ieoeja]

83. No on the timing.

They keep reporting new findings in places where they have never even looked before. A recent report, for instance, had Hudson Bay with the largest oil reserves outside the Middle East. Up til then Hudson Bay was considered a fairly minor source.

While oil is, in fact, a renewable energy source, its renewal is on such a large timescale that it is for practical purposes nonrenewable. This means that eventually we will run out which means peak oil must be true. But I don't think it is coming any time soon.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

88. It's real, but it's farther than 5 years away, so I voted no n/t

[dpbrown]

89. Yes, but reaching the peak is the middle of the bell curve

The rest of the time is declining supply. So reaching the peak in 5 to 20 years means that after that time there will be a declining supply of oil. Cheney and his henchman are already positioning themselves to take maximum financial advantage of a declining supply of oil (and that's largely what PNAC is about) so it's obvious if you look at it clearly that they believe in it, too. That fact alone should scare the bejeesus out of regular people. The oil nuts are trying to keep people in the dark about peak oil while they garner riches to themselves and set themselves up for the Mad Max/Castles and Moats world to come.