THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT WE ARE IN TROUBLE WITH OIL

[Jcrowley]

AS THE AMERICAN PUBLIC CONTINUES sleepwalking into a future of energy scarcity, climate change, and geopolitical turmoil, we have also continued dreaming. Our collective dream is one of those super-vivid ones people have just before awakening. It is a particularly American dream on a particularly American theme: how to keep all the cars running by some other means than gasoline. We'll run them on ethanol! We'll run them on biodiesel, on synthesized coal liquids, on hydrogen, on methane gas, on electricity, on used French-fry oil . . . !

The dream goes around in fevered circles as each gasoline replacement is examined and found to be inadequate. But the wish to keep the cars going is so powerful that round and round the dream goes. Ethanol! Biodiesel! Coal liquids . . .

And a harsh reality indeed awaits us as the full scope of the permanent energy crisis unfolds. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, world oil production peaked in December 2005 at just over 85 million barrels a day. Since then, it has trended absolutely flat at around 84 million. Yet world oil consumption rose consistently from 77 million barrels a day in 2001 to above 85 million so far this year. A clear picture emerges: demand now exceeds world supply. Or, put another way, oil production has not increased despite the ardent wish that it would by all involved, and despite the overwhelming incentive of prices having nearly quadrupled since 2001.

There is no question that we are in trouble with oil....

Check it out:
http://www.orionmagazine.org/pages/om/07-1om/Kunstler.html

[jobycom]

1. And with cap locks. nt

[Bobbieo]

3. Bush can start by limiting his Air Force One flights. That is one fuel

guzzling sucker - huh?

[RB TexLa]

2. Demand has not exceeded supply n/t

[Jcrowley]

4. The future is being

stolen by the consumptive habits of the present. Demand has not exceeded supply only in the most myopic sense of the term.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. And the evidence is ...

... what?

Oil reserves are, indeed, in decline, and the world's five largest oil fields are in bad shape. Discoveries of new oil fields have been flat or very low since the middle 1990s; total discoveries have been below consumption since the 1980s, IIRC.

This isn't just reflected on Peak Oil websites, but from ARAMCO/ExxonMobil/Shell, OPEC, and EIA figures, all of which tend to put a happy face on data that are anything but good news.

If we had possessed the foresight to deal with this, say, in the 1970s, it would not be a worry. But we spent over 30 years cracking wise about singing kumbayah and eating granola. Now, our vulnerability has reached the point where Bush and Cheney are trying to "go green".

When oilmen start recommending non-petroleum energy, you know there are problems. "The game's afoot!"

--p!

[Extend a Hand]

6. yes it has

At least in some places...

3rd world countries priced out at $60+/barrel
people that live in oil producing countries are dying illegally tapping into pipelines.
Hospitals don't have oil to run generators

China went to a 4 day week last year for a number of industries because of power shortages.

US demand is being met at the expense of poor countries that can't afford to pay the high prices.

[Jcrowley]

7. Oil depletion

Peak Oil: an Outlook on Crude Oil Depletion

by Colin J.Campbell

INTRODUCTION

This paper is about Peak Oil. It truly is a turning point for Mankind, which will affect everyone, although some more than others. Those countries, which plan and prepare, will survive better than those that do not. It is a large and difficult subject, but the essentials are clear.

In summary, these are the main points that have to be grasped:

Conventional oil - and that will be defined - provides most of the oil produced today, and is responsible for about 95% all oil that has been produced so far.
It will continue to dominate supply for a long time to come. It is what matters most.
Its discovery peaked in the 1960s. We now find one barrel for every four we consume.
Middle East share of production is set to rise. The rest of the world peaked in 1997, and is therefore in terminal decline.
Non-conventional oil delays peak only a few years, but will ameliorate the subsequent decline.
Gas, which is less depleted than oil, will likely peak around 2020.
Capacity limits were breached late in 2000, causing prices to soar leading to world recession.
The recession may be permanent because any recovery would lead to new oil demand until the limits were again breached which would lead to new price shocks re-imposing recession in a vicious circle.
World peak may prove to have been passed in 2000, if demand is curtailed by recession.
Prices may remain weak in such circumstances but since demand is not infinitely elastic they must again rise from supply constraints when essential needs are affected.

http://greatchange.org/ov-campbell,outlook.html

[patrice]

9. What's the point? That's opinion until you give your evidence.

And you know what everyone says about opinions and anuses . . . .

[bananas]

11. What always amazes me

is when a bunch of people agree with the OP about something so important,
but nobody recommends the thread.

[patrice]

12. Sorry, I don't know anything about recommending threads. n/t

[mainegreen]

25. Demand can't exceed supply. Prices rise to reduce demand. nt

[RB TexLa]

30. Ya think?

:toast:

[Jcrowley]

34. Only cornucopians

steeped in the false presumptions of economic theory hold to such notions. Sorry, geology does not cater to the whims of the market and the abstract concepts of fiat currency as some sort of regulatory device for scientific realities is laughable were it not such a cry.

Here's what is happening at the world's second largest oilfield. See post below to see what is happening to the world's first largest.

Cantarell, The Second Largest Oil Field in the World Is Dying
Copyright 2004 G.R. Morton  This can be freely distributed so long as no changes are made and no charges are made.

http://home.entouch.net/dmd/cantarell.htm


The second largest producing field in the world is the Cantarell complex in Mexico. It lies 85 kim from Ciudad del Carmen.   The field was discovered in 1976 and put on production in 1979.  This is one of the geologically interesting oil fields because the producing formation was created when the Chicxulub meteor impacted the earth.  The upper reservoir is a brecciated dolomite of Uppermost Cretaceous age. The breccia is from a shelf failure (underwater landslide) when the meteor hit.  This 950 foot thick rubble became the reservoir for one of the biggest fields in the world. The lowermost part of the field is a Lower Cretaceous dolomitic limestone.  The field is made up of a number of sub-fields or fault blocks. It has an overthrusted geological setting. These are  Akal, Chac, Kutz and Nohoch.  Akal was found first and the original well started producing at the rate of 34,000 barrels per day.  A cross section of this field from Guzman and Marquez-Dominguez (2001, p. 346) is shown below:


Originally the field had 35 billion barrels of oil in place.  Now, in place oil is not reserves.  They expect to get around 50% of that oil out of the ground to market. The field reached an early peak in production of 1.1 million barrels per day in April of 1981 from 40 oil wells. By 1994 the production was down to 890,000 barrels of oil per day.  At that time, cumulative production was 4.8 billion barrels.  In 1995 it was producing 1 million barrels per day and the Mexican government decided to invest in that field to raise the production level.  They built 26 new platforms, drilled lots of new wells and built the largest nitrogen extraction facility capable of injecting a billion cubic feet of nitrogen per day to maintain reservoir pressure.  Doing this raised the oil production rate in 2001 to 2.2 million barrels per day.  Today the field produces 2.1 million barrels. 


To put this amount of production into perspectives, the largest field discovered in the US Gulf of Mexico will produce about 250,000 barrels per day.  That field has about a billion barrels of reserves.  If I were to find a field of that size, the company I worked for would probably make me president.  For the world production, Cantarell represents 4 of the largest fields ever found in the US side of the Gulf. In 50 years of exploration in the US side of the Gulf of Mexico, only one one-billion-barrel oil field has been found.  Bear this in mind as you read the rest.


A couple of weeks ago I ran into this from the oil industry rags I read. It is a chilling thought since this is the 2nd biggest producer of oil on earth. Ghawar produces 4.5 million bbl/day, Cantarell, 2.2 million bbl/day, Da Qing and Burgun around 1 million per day.


       "Supergiant Cantarell continues to be the mainstay of Mexican oil production, with 2.1 MMb/d of output in 2003 up from 1.9 MMb/d in 2002. However, Cantarell is expected to decline rapidly over the next few years, falling as far as 1 MM b/d by 2008. This has given particular urgency to Pemex's efforts to develop other fields and move into deepwater." For now, Pemex's best alternative project is the heavy-oil complex known as Ku-Maloob-Zaap, in Campeche Bay close to Cantarell. Output from this complex was 288,000 b/d in 2003 and is expected to rise to about 800,000 b/d by the end of the decade."  David Shields, "Pemex Ready to Drill in Deepwater Perdido Area," Offshore, June 2004, p. 38


Even the largest fields we find offshore in the deepwater today only produce about 250,000 bbl/day. It will take about 4 of them to replace this decline in Cantarell.


And even the heavy oil field they mention won't replace the loss of Cantarell by the end of the decade. And one must remember that all oil fields which are producing today, are in the process of declining.


The implications of this upcoming decline are tremendous to the world. This field produces half of what Ghawar does and it won't be doing that much longer.  The effect on the energy supply will be felt and there is no way for that not to happen.  On Aug. 3, 2004, the OPEC president stated that OPEC has no more spare capacity.  They are pumping all out and can't satisfy the demand for oil.  If fields like Cantarell begin declining, the problem of supplying the world with oil will only get worse.


 References. 


 Alfredo E. Guzman, and Benjamin Marquez-Dominguez, "The Gulf of Mexico Basin South of the Border: The Petroleum Province of the Twenty-First Century," in M. W. Downey , J. C. Threet and W. A. Morgan, editors, (Tulsa: AAPG, 2001). 


E. Manceau, et al "Implementing Convection in a Reservoir Simulator: A Key Feature in Adequately Modeling the Exploitation of the Cantarell Complex," SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exibition in  Villahermosa, Mexico, Feb. 1-3, re                                      2000, SPE paper 59044


G. Murillo-Muneton et al, Stratigraphic Architecture and Sedimentology of hte Main Oil-Producing Stratigraphic Interval at the Cantarell Oil Field: the K/T Boundary Sedimentary Succession," SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in Villahermosa,Feb. 10-12, 2002, SPE paper 74431


A. G. Rojas and A. R. Torres, "Akal Field (Cantarell Complex) Conditions of Exploration, Analysis, and Prediction," SPE International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition in Veracruz, Mexico, Oct. 10-13, 1994. SPE paper 28714

[RB TexLa]

35. Economics is not a theory, it is a science.

[Jcrowley]

36. I'm very

aware of and well-versed in both the neo-liberal and neo-conservative schools of economic theory. They are both perverse abstractions and wrecking balls. Neither of them are based in reality in the least. Both are about as UNeconomical a scientific proposition as you could possibly devise.

There are many theories within The Science and at present the economic theories that hold sway, in our everyday lives and the highest academic institutions, are very bad theoretical constructs. That leads to much confusion which we see as one uses such models to try to understand oil depletion.

[hunter]

65. Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell...

This quote from Edward Abbey is always relevant in any discussion of economic theory.

Tweaks to the "science" of economics do not change the fact that markets are always unsustainable because the actual science of ecology, the actual facts of life on this planet, always trump the fantasy worlds of the economist.

I'm guessing that global warming is going to knock down the current market; it is a very fragile house of cards. The "scientific" economic foundations of this market will be utterly repudiated by a very grim reality.

Even with all our monkey smarts, we are no different than any other animal that has ever existed. At this time in our development we have much more in common with animals that have quickly gone extinct than we do with animals that are long-term survivors.

We can choose to live within the means of the earth's environment or we can die. Money is nothing more than a monkey's ass, and everything we are will be little more than a curious layer in the geological record unless we learn to live lightly upon the earth.

[hunter]

66. Economics is a shared fantasy, not a theory or a science.

It's sort of like a game of Dungeons and Dragons that gets out of control with freakish guys running around in the tunnels under the school wearing bizarre costumes and believing they've become the characters they play.

It's like you ask someone about themselves and they say, "Oh, I'm an economist."

Or a banker, or a computer programmer, or a field worker, or anything else.

No you're not. You are a monkey in a funny suit.

Myself, I'm a monkey in a funny suit (wearing Levis jeans and a teeshirt, to be precise) and I am a husband and a father and a computer geek and an amateur evolutionary biologist. But I'll be damned in hell if I ever believe I'm the character I play in this fantasy game of market economy. There are too many people dying in this game, and it pains me to be part of it.

[endarkenment]

39. Sure it can.

For example the demand for water can exceed the supply of water. Of course the price will increase, but that will not reduce, beyond a certain point, the demand. That point is the minimal requirement for existence, that demand is inelastic. Oil has become essentially a vital fluid, economic activity is so dependent on a continuous supply of cheap oil that the demand also becomes inelastic.

Google 'inelastic demand oil' for an overview, or go read any of the dozens fo excellent books that deal with the issues of peak oil.

[mainegreen]

40. Sorry, I meant it rather tongue in cheek.

;-)

[drthais]

8. Read the entire article

I found it a few days ago
and it is worth the time
and there are several people you would email it to as a result

it is extremely provocative

one rather profound centre of this article
is based on our insistence that we find ever more stuff to put in cars to keep them going
and how absurd that thought really is, when you get right down to it...

[Jcrowley]

13. Complete agreement

Car culture is nuts.

Biofuels also has it's own set of problems to say the least.

[valerief]

10. I want my electric car. Whatever happened to the electric car? nt

http://www.pluginamerica.com/wktec.shtml

[LSK]

14. Plug-in Electric Car technology was viable 10 years ago

Toyota will soon have a plug-in Prius. GM has come out with a new electic car concept. The GM EV1 was a perfectly fine car 10 years ago.

Cars can remain.

Make jokes about ethanol or biofuels or electric cars, but the solution is out there.

[Jcrowley]

15. Yes that's true

and it has naught to do with our obsession for the rubber wheel.

I'm wondering how much coal and/or natural gas would be required to power even half the fleet of US autos?

[hogwyld]

16. Which is exactly why

We as a species, need to get rid of cars. If we taxed gas an additional buck a gallon, earmarking th emoney for public transit, we would have no need to be in the Middle East.

[BelgianMadCow]

58. Quite right. We do and we aren't

[LSK]

17. there was a study posted in the environmental forum

It was about a month ago and it concluded that the electric grid can sustain charging electric cars assuming that most cars charge during the night. Im sure car charging units can eventually be programmed as to when to start charging and such.

I know many do not like nuclear power but I am open to it and if we are really smart and we could free ourselves from the Power Companies, I dont see why most homes couldnt utilize solar power to some extent.

There are solutions out there. Convincing the American public to give up there extravagent lifestyle is just not going to happen. Lets try and replace what we currently have with as much alternative energy sources as we can and see where we stand then.

[The2ndWheel]

20. "we could free ourselves from the Power Companies"

No, they'll just be new power companies. Also, simply because they're green doesn't mean they also won't consolidate and merge like every other corporation. Then one day we'll all end up protesting Big Solar. Eventually solar and wind companies will centralize their power, and we'll have just one corporation owning both. Where do we go then?

[LSK]

23. your solution?????

Nationalized utility companies?

:shrug:

[The2ndWheel]

33. Hardly

I'm not a fan of the state, or the corporation.

I have no solution. Whatever ends up as the solution will be done on an increasingly large scale. My solutions aren't practical for the reality we live in today.

Either way, power companies will have control over us, and we'll have to like it.

[lectrobyte]

24. How come everyone demonizes GM for dropping the EV1, but no

one ever mentions Toyota and those electric RAV4s they used to sell about the same time period?

[LSK]

28. not exactly demonizing GM here

However who has the best hybrid and was the earliest with them?

And who continues to sell Hummers?

[lectrobyte]

29. Good point. Just wanting to highlight that GM wasn't the only company

that had backed off from electric cars.

[RPM]

51. I demonize GM for killing the trolleys in the 40s, 50s & 60s

Those ran on electricity.... too bad their gone.

[JCMach1]

63. I think Ford also had an electric truck at the time as well

the Ranger EV

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0117-03.htm

So, let's not just demonize GM.

[rman]

31. Doesn't solve the problem as long as the electricity is generated

by power plants than run on carbon fuel.

[LSK]

37. there is no one size fits all solution

But there has to be different tracks of solutions that can combine to get us out of this hole.

Battery technology will only get better, solar and wind power will continue to grow, and theres always nuclear power although many are against it.

[OneBlueSky]

18. k/r . . . well worth your time, and highly recommended . . . n/t

.

[LSK]

19. kick - folks need to read this

[Porcupine]

21. Please read the whole article!!! 5th recc. nt..

.

[Swamp Rat]

22. k&r

[lectrobyte]

26. Excellent article. His blog is always worth reading, too.

http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/

[hunter]

27. It's like we're all riding the space shuttle...

Only the odds are worse.

A safe landing does not seem likely.

[Jcrowley]

32. Ghawar is fading

"The big risk in Saudi Arabia is that Ghawar's rate of decline increases to an alarming point," said Ali Morteza Samsam Bakhtiari, a senior official with the National Iranian Oil Company. "That will set bells ringing all over the oil world because Ghawar underpins Saudi output and Saudi undergirds worldwide production." Unfortunately for the world, few know the actual state of Ghawar. Cumulative production from the field is 55 billion barrels. In 1975 Exxon, Mobil, Chevron and Texaco estimated that the ultimate recovery from the field would be 60 billion barrels. Without a doubt, new technologies have moved EURs from that which was possible in the mid 1970s. But the Saudis claim that the field can recover another 125 billion barrels. For someone like me who has spent a lifetime in the oil industry trebling the recovery factor is a fantasy we all wish we could do. But no one has ever figured out how. Thus, I doubt very much their claims, especially in light of the maps shown below.

But this is what is happening

"Saudi oilmen are usually a taciturn bunch, guarding their data like state secrets. But this was post September 11 and Riyadh was wooing western journalists and trying to restore the Saudis' image as dependable, long-term suppliers of energy--not suicidal fanatics nor terrorist financiers. And it was working.

"Then the illusion slipped. On a whim I asked my hosts about another , older oilfield called Ghawar. It is the largest field ever discovered, its deep sandstone reservoir at one time had held perhaps one-seventh of the world's known oil reserves, and its well produced roughly one of every 12 barrels of crude consumed on earth. In the iconography of oi, Ghawar is the mythical giant that makes most other fields look puny and mortal. . . .

"At Ghawar,' he said, 'they have to inject water into the field to force the oil out,' by contrast, he continued, Shayba's oil contained only trace amounts of water. At Ghawar, the engineer said, the 'water cut' was 30%."

"The hairs on the back of my neck stood up. Ghawar's water injections were hardly news, but a 30% water cut, if true, was startling. Most new oilfields produce almost pure oil or oil mixed with natural gas--with little water. Over time, however, as the oil is drawn out, operators must replace it with water to keep te oil flowing --until eventually what flows is almost pure water and the field is no longer worth operating."

<snip>

http://solutions.synearth.net/2004/08/23?print-friendly=true

[Jim Warren]

67. Kick

[MadHound]

38. While I agree with the man's premise that we're approaching the end of the oil age

I disagree with him about the viability of alternative fuels. Wind alone can provide all of our electrical needs, the DOE did a report on this back in '91, and found that the harvestable wind energy found in Kansas, North Dakota and Texas is sufficient to fill all of our electrical needs, including the growth factor, through the year 2030. And remember, this is with fifteen year old wind tech. Wind tech has improved drastically since then, leading to lower tip speed and greater turbine efficiency.

It has been shown that biodiesel, using algae as the feedstock, can fill all of our fuel needs<http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html> It would only require 15,000 sq. miles of water space. Yes, that sounds like a lot, but to but it into perspective 15,000 sq. miles is only one tenth the size of the Sonora desert. Also, there is another benefit from using algae as the biodiesel feedstock, it will help clean up our wastwater. Many municipal wasterwater treatment plants use algae ponds aas the initial stage in treating their wastewater. Make this mandatory nationwide, and we would have abundant space to grow algae, at a very low cost. In addition, the only waste products from the production of biodiesel is glycerin(useful in soapmaking) and water. Biodiesel is non-toxic and emits ninety percent less pollution than gasoline.

I don't know why this person is so against these alternatives, but he is being a fool. I agree with him that we need to do more to conserve, and yes revive our rail system. But ruling out alternative energy sources is just plain foolish, especially since it is a fact that they can provide our country with the energy it needs.

[Ezlivin]

46. Viability of alternative fuels depends upon petroleum inputs

I'm a big fan of alternate energy sources. A field full of wind turbines is a beautiful thing.

But the point that Kunstler makes at length in his book "The Long Emergency" is that while we can manufacture wind turbines, we can only do it with immense petroleum inputs. In other words, there is no such thing as a wind-powered plant that is manufacturing wind turbines. Right now we've got ample petroleum and can mass produce wind turbines, but what happens when the price of oil skyrockets? And with reduced petroleum feedstock we won't be able to manufacture additional wind turbines at the same frequency. Nor will we be able to adequately service them.

Biodiesel will work but only on a very small scale. We can never hope to power our industry nor keep our roads filled with automobiles using biodiesel. Again the problem revolves about petroleum inputs. As far as I'm aware there is not one single example of a biodiesel or ethanol plant that is self-sustaining (that is, it runs off the fuel it produces). Remove the subsidies to corn growers and ethanol becomes prohibitively expensive.

The difficulty in finding a substitute or a group of substitutes for oil is immense. Oil is a very compact and usable form of energy that took millions of years to form. Nothing else comes close or we'd already be using it.

[MadHound]

47. Apparently you didn't bother to read the material at my link

I would suggest that you do so, and that you do other research as well. As it states, 15,000 sq. acres of water will produce enough algae to fill all of our fuel needs. And that algae, well, it won't need petrol based fertilizers, human waste fulfill that role.

The energy difference between gasoline and biodiesel is relatively small, aprox 4MJ/L. Not a big whoop there. And on the much more positive side, biodiesel is a RENEWABLE resource, with no toxic by products, and is much cleaner burning than any fossil fuel. Oh, and biodiesel is much easier on engines due to its greater lubricity. Thus, engines last longer and we don't have to expend so much energy building new engines:shrug:

And I agree with you, ethanol is not the answer. Not enough land. But there is more than enough water to make algae derived biodiesel a viable option.

As far as wind goes, no, I haven't seen a wind powered turbine factory. However I have seen many other factories that are wind powered, along with TV and radio stations, and many, many towns, homes and businesses:shrug: I would suggest that you check into this new generation of wind turbines, they're absolutely amazing.

I don't understand why you are persisting in this negative view of alternate sources of energy. Your position isn't grounded in sound science or research. And frankly, your over-all negativity concerning alternative energy sources is disconcerting. You are positing a grim future, MadMax in scope. Yet we don't have to take that route. We have the ability to wean ourselves off the oil tit, and instead plan for an energy future that is clean, renewable, and doesn't require a drastic shift in our lifestyle. If you don't want to help us, fine. But stop being so negative about alternative energy sources. Not only is it very much a downer, but you are making yourself look foolish by speaking on topics you obviously have no clue about.

I would suggest that you go do some research into this subject, and then get back to us. I'd be willing to bet that if you do so, your POV would change.

[Ezlivin]

48. My "negativity" is warranted

As I said in my previous post I'm a big fan of alternate energy sources. I've steadily replaced my appliances with Energy Star appliances, upgraded my insulation, upgraded my HVAC to the most energy-efficient model available and I do not commute (I probably put an average of 20 miles a month on my van). I've worked hard to reduce the amount of energy I consume and would love to be able to live totally self-sufficient. However that will take years of effort, mainly due to the costs involved. (If that sounds "negative" to you, oh well.)

However, when people tout the wonderful nature of alternate energy sources they often act as if these substitutes are without serious drawbacks and that they will allow us to continue our current car-crazy and subdivision-making culture without changes. For instance in the article you linked to author Michael Brigg states "In the United States, oil is primarily used for transportation - roughly two-thirds of all oil use, in fact. So, developing an alternative means of powering our cars, trucks, and buses would go a long way toward weaning us, and the world, off of oil." This implies that the biodiesel solution he's discussing will allow us to continue our current lifestyle with very few changes.

And you say "and doesn't require a drastic shift in our lifestyle." This starts to sound a bit like, sorry, Dick Cheney who infamously said "The American lifestyle is not negotiable."

I believe it is. I have made changes. (Is that negative?) Others have made changes. We are already getting ready for Peak Oil and the instability it will bring.

I don't posit any sort of "Mad Max" future. That is imagery you have applied, not I. The future will be what it will be, regardless of speculation on the part of either of us.

We can sit around and hope that some scientist somewhere will come up with the magical solution that will allow us to continue to live our dissipative lifestyle or we can start making changes to the way we live right now. Don't get sucked into a "cargo cult" mentality. While we are waiting for the wonderful 15,000 square acres to generate our fuel needs the world marches on and the remaining oil continues to decrease.

Get back to me in a year or two and we'll compare notes. Let's see if any algal biodiesel "factories" are up and running yet or if they are still on the drawing board.

[MadHound]

52. You want biodiesel refineries using algae feedstock? Then help move this country

In order that we have them. I've hooked into various groups who are doing just that. Promoting biodiesel as a viable aquaculture crop, helping small farmers. Other groups that are applying political pressure, locally, at the state level and nationally. Gee, guess what, Missouri has started building fifteen biodiesel refineries last year alone. We have passed laws mandating increasing percentages of alternative, renewable resources be used to generate electricity in cities across the state, and promoted the use of alternative fuels and cars for various city and state vehicles. If you wish even more changes to come to pass, then hey, pitch in where ever you are and start applying pressure. Granted, you're going to be working with an odd coalition, lots of freepish farmers out there who are still liking the idea of crop based fuels and wind turbine eletricity, strange bedfellows for sure, but hey, who uses lots of petrol products at high costs? Oh yeah, the farmers, big and small. Sure, some of these folks are probably more motivated by the market, but a suprising number of farmers still think, and act, like they are the stewards of the earth, there to take care of it, not ravage it.

You scorn the notion of replacing one fuel with another, and to an extent I can see your point. Conservation is a good and worthy thing for all of us to do, and yes, I do much conservation myself. I grow much of my own food, I drive one of these 55-60mph, 100mpg. My tractor runs on biodiesel I make myself, and the next truck I buy is going to be a diesel, and I will fuel that myself. Sure, I thought about buying a new truck right away, but when you take into account the amount of resources used in making a new car, I think I'll wring as many miles as I can out of my old truck. Besides, there is that affordability factor that comes into play. Many people are starting their own conservation/alternative program lately. But many more are limited in their options due to varying life circumstances. Hard to upgrade one's appliances when you're having a hard time making the bills. Tough to buy a new Prius when all you can afford is '76 Buick. And frankly, we've all seen what happens when a center city area starts gentrifying, rents and housing go up exponentially.

It took generations to develop the car based culture that we have, and quite frankly it is going to take generations to reign it in. Human nature, being what it is people are going to want to drive. In fact the way our cities and lifes are set out, most people have to drive. There's only so much room in the inner city, factories and businesses are no longer centralized, the vast majority of workers in this country can't telecommute, the economic transition alone mandates that we make such infrastructure changes over the course of decades rather than years. Our rail infrastruture alone is going to take at least ten years to repair and expand to the point where we can reliably move freight where it needs to go in a decent time.

But in the meantime, we have to do something. So let's switch to biodiesel. Gee, we can make enough of it, even being the gas hogs that this country currently is. Every single eighteen wheeler on the road can burn the stuff, with no current alteration to their engines. We can mandate that within ten years time, every single vehicle manufactured burns biodiesel. The infrastructure for distribution is in place. Sure, it will take awhile for everybody to actually drive a biodiesel powered vehicle, but hey, the stats state that the average person buys a new car every 3.7 years. Use that good ol' American consumer spirit for some good now. This isn't sounding like Dick Cheney, but hey, thanks for the gratuitous slam. This is recognizing the economic, sociological and historical realities of our society.

Oh, and what serious drawback does biodiesel have? Let's see, production would massively help out the small farmer. Burning biodiesel releases 90% less pollution than gas engines, waste products from manufacture are water and glycerin, it is non-toxic(I've drunk it once, not tasty but it did no harm). What more could you want? Wind turbines, let's see here, other than some people not liking them in their backyard, I don't see what the problem is there. And if you're worried about that bird dieoff thing, well, Altamont was a one time thing and turbine installers have gotten much savvier about putting turbines out of birds flight patterns, and manufacturers have lowered the tip speed. So, what, exactly, are these serious drawbacks that you're refering to?

So hey, join us, help us if you want to see an alternative energy future as much as you claim. We can convert over to renewables, completely. But you know as well as I do that it is going to take pressure on both government and corporations. Wind, solar, biodiesel all are becoming economically viable alternatives. You don't have to buy them, but start getting on the horn to your local reps and demand that they start buying energy from renewables. Next time you buy a van, get a diesel one and run it on biodiesel that you will soon be able to get at the pump down the block. Let your Washington reps know that you would like to see some movement on this issue. This country does indeed have the potential to energize itself with alternative fuels. Let's all start doing that.

[Jcrowley]

53. Long post

and there is alot there that folks would do well to read and re-read.

But let's be clear about this that all of the "solutions" that are out there are in fact not solutions at all. That's not necessarily bad. But that requires us to rethink pretty much all aspects of our living arrangements, which is also a good thing.

The absolute best energy ratio I've seen on any crop to fuel ratio is 4 to 1. If you have any other info send it along. That pales in comparison to even the lowest and worst form of oil EROEI.

What I'm saying is that proposing solutions within the same framework that created the disease is very deceptive intentionally or not.

Many of the underlying assumptions within your post are based on the same disasterous modality of living which will not be around for generations one way or another.

All of the discussions must start with the fact that the US, in particular, must learn to live with much less in order for us to even survive. If this is not the starting point then all of the calculations and all of the "solutions" are merely exercises in futility.

3 Quotes from Albert Einstein:

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

"Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal."

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

[MadHound]

54. Well, given the time frame that developing a sustainable energy future is going to take

We absolutely are going to have to start within the framework with which we have. That's the problem with hydrogen, we simply don't have the infrastructure to support it. Biodiesel fits very neatly into our current infrastructure and technical capability. It is going to take generations to develop the infrastructure for more and more people to live in cities rather than burbs, just as it took generations to go out from the cities to the burbs. Therefore we need an intermediate step, which is what renewable fuels are all about. It allows us to continue on while this infrastructure is developed, and to do so in a sustainable, clean way. I would love to have a rail system akin to Europes. But to develop one will take at least a decade, if not more. So in the meantime, let's reduce pollution, greenhouse gases, and the use of petroleum by having all of our trucks switch to biodiesel, they can do so today.

And even if all of what you wish were to appear tomorrow, it would still be powered by highly polluting, non-renewable fuel sources such as coal and oil. So in other words, we would be choking on our own wastes, just at a slower rate. Rather than follow that route, let us combine your solution with my solution in order to develop a sustainable yet prosperous mode of living.

Like I said upthread, biodiesel comes in with 30.6 megajoules/liter, four less than gasoline. Not a very large difference.

[Ezlivin]

59. "Next time you buy a van..."

How'd you know? :)

A van is necessary for me because I use a wheelchair. I'm planning on getting a Ford diesel van when the time comes to upgrade. (I have no car payments right now and it's wonderful.)

I want to run my *new* diesel van off of biodiesel; there's one of Willie Nelson's BioWillie biodiesel outlets only two miles from my home. I'd also like to get a diesel back-up generator (also to run off of biodiesel) in the future.

Honestly I don't see why we can't decentralize our power system so that every home is self-sufficient. We wouldn't have to worry about the vast electrical infrastructure (which has not been properly maintained) and it would give every family some independence. I know that biofuels will be a part of that as well.

I'm just hoping for the price of PV cells to plummet and the efficiency to rise substantially!

[JCMach1]

41. There is plenty of oil... our wars are about price

Greg Palast does an awesome job bebunking the peak oil theory in 'Armed Madhouse'...

[Jcrowley]

42. Palast

while doing yeoman's work in many areas is quite wrong as regards to amount of oil and how much we use and how long it will last. His research in this area has been extremely shoddy and his assertions based on his preconceptions of how the so-called "Economics of Oil" operate.

There is plenty of oil to be sure and as a point of fact we will never actually run out it has more to do with industrial/growth economies, enery return on energy investments (the oil is simply harder to find and more energy-intensive to extract), and financial arrangements pegged to the oil.

Peak Oil as it is called is very real. And that's just one component. An examination of copper supplies and other minerals shows a similar dilemma. It's a finite planet after all.

Almost forgot. Peak Water.

[IDemo]

43. No he didn't

While I am normally a huge fan of Greg's, in this case he got it flat wrong.

Richard Heinberg: An Open Letter to Greg Palast

[LSK]

44. tell me, does oil regenerate itself naturally in nature?

[JCMach1]

45. No, but how much reserve is left in more expensive and less

desirable forms?


...From what we know for sure plus what we think we may know about Venezuelan "total" oil reserves, I suggest the reader first take a seat and buckle up. In previous articles, I reported Venezuela may have reserves of about 350 billion barrels if all their known heavy and light crude are counted. That total is far more than is now officially recognized by OPEC which means unofficially the country has greater reserves than Saudi Arabia by that number alone.

But wait, there's more, a lot more. Palast reports a US Energy Department expert believes Venezuela holds 90% of the world's super-heavy tar oil reserves - an estimated total of 1,360,000,000,000 (1.36 trillion) barrels. Let me repeat that - 1.36 trillion barrels. That alone is more oil than Hubbert believed 50 years ago lay under the entire planet.

Again, back to the key issue. Whatever the true highest estimate of reserves is from all varieties of oil, those reserves are only available at a price. If it ever gets too low again, which looks unlikely, those heavy reserves and tar sands oil will again go off the charts and be uncounted. However, with today's heavy demand and the likelihood of it continuing to grow in the future, the price of oil may continue to rise and all reserves from all sources may be needed and used to supply the market.

So with a report like this coming from an apparent credible source (according to Palast) in the US Energy Department, it takes little imagination for VHeadline readers to understand more than ever that Venezuela is likely viewed by any US administration as the world's most important source of future oil supply. And to readers who understand US imperial intentions, it takes even less insight to realize the Bush administration intends to go all out to get its hands on it even if it takes a war to do it. The US goal isn't access to the oil. It's control of the supply and its price, what countries get it and how much and which ones don't, what companies profit from it, and overall how this ocean of oil can be used as a strategic resource and weapon. Beyond question, the stakes are enormous, and the battle lines are now drawn more clearly than ever... http://www.stwr.net/content/view/915/37/

...The U.S. government said Thursday Canada holds the world's second-largest oil reserves, taking into account Alberta oil sands previously considered too expensive to develop.

The Energy Information Administration, the statistical wing of the U.S. Department of Energy, has included recent private sector estimates that an additional 175 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from resources known to exist in Western Canada since the 19th Century.

At a briefing on this year's EIA International Energy Outlook, EIA Administrator Guy Caruso cited a December report in the Oil and Gas Journal that raised Canada's proven oil reserves to 180 billion bbls from 4.9 billion bbls, thanks to inclusion of the oil sands - also known as tar sands - now considered recoverable with existing technology and market conditions. ...http://www.rense.com/general37/petrol.htm

...Over the past several months, news organizations and experts have regularly cited Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Information Administration (EIA) figures claiming that the territory of Iraq contains over 112 billion barrels (bbl) of proven reserves—oil that has been definitively discovered and is expected to be economically producible. In addition, since Iraq is the least explored of the oil-rich countries, there have been numerous claims of huge undiscovered reserves there as well—oil thought to exist, and expected to become economically recoverable—to the tune of hundreds of billions of barrels. The respected Petroleum Economist Magazine estimates that there may be as many as 200 bbl of oil in Iraq; the Federation of American Scientists estimates 215 bbl; a study by the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute at Rice University claimed that Iraq has 220 bbl of undiscovered oil; and another study by the Center for Global Energy Studies and Petrolog & Associates offered an even more optimistic estimate of 300 bbl—a number that would give Iraq reserves greater even than those of Saudi Arabia. In a Guardian interview before the war, Taha Hmud Moussa, Saddam's deputy oil minister, said that all of Iraq's oil reserves "will exceed 300bbl when all Iraq's regions are explored."...http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/luft20030512.htm


Just a few examples...

[Jcrowley]

49. Two brief points

The first point has to do with the physical amount of reserves and the real cost of extracting them. It doesn't matter an iota what the dollar figures are it comes down to how much energy it takes to get to the energy source and how much energy you get in return. I suggest Palast take the time to introduce himself to The Second Law of Thermodynamics which isn't go away in the near future no matter how much money you throw at it.

The second point has to do with stated reserves and the fraudulent figures put forth by OPEC countries. An astonishing thing happened a while back. When OPEC introduced quotas for oil-producing countries years back these countries all of the sudden and in unison declared their reserves to be much greater than they had listed at the time. Now what is also interesting here is that they did not declare any new discoveries. They just padded the figures so they could sell essentially the same amount as they were at present without the new quotas impinging on their deals.

So yes there is still alot of oil out there but it is deeper and in more difficult to get to locales. Of course they wouldn't be exploring at 20,000 feet in heavy seas if there was easy to get to stuff. Of course they wouldn't be excited about the Athabasca Tar Sands if there was an abundance of easily processed light crude. The EROEI on tar sands is not very good and of course it is an ecological disaster.

Before drawing conclusions you will definitely want to investigate this more deeply and examine what Palast says in more detail. His analysis in this instance is not only very incomplete but rife with errors.

[rman]

57. The primary issue is the production rate

of those more expensive and less desirable forms of oil.

Certainly the increased price of oil from these "more expensive" sources will cause a reduction in demand. But that doesn't mean supply is not also lower than it was before.

To demonstrate the Peak all you have to do is compare production rate of a few years ago with the production rate from these less desirable forms of oil.

[JCMach1]

60. it's relative... production rate will not rise much

until cheaper sources become less common... simple economics in-play there.

I also think that technology is quickly being bought to bare.

Of course oil will run out... I just don't agree with the peak-oil framing.



Anwer this, why does production continue to go up? Hubbert's predictions were way off.

It's clear he didn't have all the variables, so why should we base our entire energy policy on something that was inaccurate at best?

Where is the hard research that reserves are running out?

While it is true we would have a crisis if supply were to drop significantly between now and say 2015, the timeline most likely extends much farther out. 2025, 2050, perhaps not into the next century.

It's true the Iraq war was about oil, but not quite the way you would think. Instead it was about keeping Iraq's supply under wraps.

What is Iraqi production now? Answer: less than before the war.

Remember the first Gulf War. Exactly how long did it take Halliburton to get those fields up and running again despite the damage? Makes you say hmmmmm. Oh, and those fields were on fire!

[rman]

64. you say production rate will increase as cheaper sources become less common?

Don't you mean production rate will decrease as cheaper sources become less common?


Cheaper sources are becoming less common now - in so far that globally on average we're just about at the half-way point of depleting the cheaper sources, which is the point were production rate of a source starts to decline due to technical and geographic factors.

The graph you included clearly shows that production rate has been slowing down over the past decades and that it's near flat just about now. It's no secret that most of the large fields are already past production peak: Northsea/UK/Netherland/Norway, Sirya, Gwahar.

Also Hubbert's prediction about domestic US Peak Oil in the 70's was entirely correct. The official version has it that oil crisis was caused by OPEC, and while OPEC was a factor, all they did was take the opportunity created by the peaking of US domestic production.

And again, the claim is not that reserves are running out. The claim is that we're just about the half-way point and that production rate is leveling off, and that it will only decline in the future.

[rman]

56. Sure it does -

very very slowly.

In less than a century we have released into the environment about half of the carbon that took millions of years to transform from organic matter to carbon-hydrates.
At that rate of production and consumption it's inevitable we'll run out.

[rman]

55. Palast is so wrong about peak oil

He claims that Hubbert et al say the Peak means that we're dead out of oil. But Peak Oilers have never claimed that's what the Peak is about. The claim is that the Peak means production starts to decline.

Also it ignores one undisputed historic fact: Peak Discovery was in the 60's and 70's - ever since we find ever less new oil.

[tom_paine]

50. An intelligently written, well researched article

[Zorra]

61. Then we should nationalize our domestic reserves immediately.

Apparently, the private industry that has been controlling the entire spectrum of oil exploration, production, and distribution has been extremely irresponsible about using this resource in a wise manner.

It's really too bad Jimmy Carter did not get a second term; if he had, we probably would not be facing this dilemma right now.

Reagan, in his childish, arrogant ignorance, basically ended oil conservation efforts, and took all consideration of developing alternative energy systems off the table.

[Jim Warren]

62. RENEWABLE ENERGY — CAN’T SAVE CONSUMER SOCIETY.

This will get lost in the din about renewable energy but Ted Trainer offers some of the most clear thinking on the subject I've seen.
He makes the point that it's about what we in the "rich world" have come to expect with the always on consumerist ethic and that any and all alternative sources of energy cannot supply that huge demand. The wind doesn't blow all the time. The sun doesn't show itself on cloudy days. Because of the often times variability of alternative energy sources, the always on expectations of consumer culture will require fossil fuel back-up, thereby doubling (or tripling with wind-solar-fossil fuel systems) the cost.

The problem is about demand. Read some of Dr. Trainers work and know this is coming from a guy who has personally lived off-grid in a solar-wind generated house for twenty years.


http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D100.RE.cant.save.25.7.o6.html