Comments on: Staking Out the Middle Ground http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/11/staking-out-the-middle-ground/ Energy Action for a Healthy Economy and Clean Environment Tue, 07 Sep 2010 17:31:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Some Holiday Reading :: ASPO-USA: Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/11/staking-out-the-middle-ground/#comment-3595 Some Holiday Reading :: ASPO-USA: Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:50:04 +0000 http://www.aspousa.org/?p=2868#comment-3595 [...] forecasts shown match my own (and Sadad al-Husseini’s) view as I described last week in Staking Out the Middle Ground. I’ve pointed out the one closest to my view in the left graph. See page 144 of the report [...] [...] forecasts shown match my own (and Sadad al-Husseini’s) view as I described last week in Staking Out the Middle Ground. I’ve pointed out the one closest to my view in the left graph. See page 144 of the report [...]

]]> By: Terrell Larson http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/11/staking-out-the-middle-ground/#comment-3591 Terrell Larson Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:27:11 +0000 http://www.aspousa.org/?p=2868#comment-3591 In his book, Simmons suggests that the giant Gahwar field is likely to keel over and water out at some unpredictable point in the not too distant future. He points to the rapidly declining production from the North Sea and Canterral. Since so much of Saudi production comes from Gahwar, when this happens it will leave them in a position where they will have to sharply curtail exports. Meanwhile in Alberta the development of production from the Tar Sands has been greatly cut back due to price uncertainty, lack of investor confidence, and opposition from people who seem to live in la la land thinking petrol comes from the service station and not from a natural resource. I should like to draw people attention to the nuclear situation. Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor And more specifically here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Integral_Fast_Reactor I quote from the discussion on fuel efficiency: "IE 93% of the mined uranium is discarded. Next you burn only 3% of the 140 lbs so that means you burn 140*0.03 = 4.2 lbs. 4.2/2000 = 0.21% There are at least two reactor designs which can burn 100% of the actinides. The IFR is one of them. My point is this. We've had fleets of reactors running for more than 40 years. These reactors have been burning about 0.2% of the uranium we mine. The other 99.8% is sitting around as tank armor & tank bullets (depleted U), or in swimming pools as waste (spent U). There terms make no sense to reactors like an IFR because it can burn everything. If we use the 475 factor then 475*40 = 19,000 years. This means we can produce the same amount of energy as we presently do for the next 19,000 years without mining a single gram more uranium. If we wanted to produce 100% of the energy we need we can do it for probably more than 2,000 years. This does not include uranium which is not yet mined nor thorium. It also does not include what we can achieve through conservation, super insulation of our homes, renewables, wind and so forth. With a crash building program we can migrate to synthetics. This also leaves a LOT of room for new battery and energy storage systems which can migrate a large part of the population off fossil fuels. Then here is another point. A large percentage of the urban population do desk jobs. Our communications and computer technology can easily accommodate a "virtual commute". There is little reason for many people to sit in tons of metal (read SUV) in grid lock traffic for hours at a time, with their A/C cranked up and their radios cranked up, while they make their daily pilgrimage to and from the office. But without re-thinking and re-designing how we do things, I fear we will face major oil shocks and perhaps economic melt down. I feel much of the recession we have now has been precipitated due to an inability to increase production despite very high prices. I agree this will happen again as the economy recovers. But the shock I really worry about is the one Simmons wrote about when Gahwar waters out. If we lose 5 million BOPD production in a few short years then we will be facing the ugly truth and it will be undeniable. In his book, Simmons suggests that the giant Gahwar field is likely to keel over and water out at some unpredictable point in the not too distant future. He points to the rapidly declining production from the North Sea and Canterral. Since so much of Saudi production comes from Gahwar, when this happens it will leave them in a position where they will have to sharply curtail exports.

Meanwhile in Alberta the development of production from the Tar Sands has been greatly cut back due to price uncertainty, lack of investor confidence, and opposition from people who seem to live in la la land thinking petrol comes from the service station and not from a natural resource.

I should like to draw people attention to the nuclear situation. Look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor

And more specifically here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Integral_Fast_Reactor

I quote from the discussion on fuel efficiency:

“IE 93% of the mined uranium is discarded. Next you burn only 3% of the 140 lbs so that means you burn 140*0.03 = 4.2 lbs. 4.2/2000 = 0.21%

There are at least two reactor designs which can burn 100% of the actinides. The IFR is one of them.

My point is this. We’ve had fleets of reactors running for more than 40 years. These reactors have been burning about 0.2% of the uranium we mine. The other 99.8% is sitting around as tank armor & tank bullets (depleted U), or in swimming pools as waste (spent U). There terms make no sense to reactors like an IFR because it can burn everything. If we use the 475 factor then 475*40 = 19,000 years.

This means we can produce the same amount of energy as we presently do for the next 19,000 years without mining a single gram more uranium. If we wanted to produce 100% of the energy we need we can do it for probably more than 2,000 years. This does not include uranium which is not yet mined nor thorium. It also does not include what we can achieve through conservation, super insulation of our homes, renewables, wind and so forth.

With a crash building program we can migrate to synthetics. This also leaves a LOT of room for new battery and energy storage systems which can migrate a large part of the population off fossil fuels.

Then here is another point. A large percentage of the urban population do desk jobs. Our communications and computer technology can easily accommodate a “virtual commute”.
There is little reason for many people to sit in tons of metal (read SUV) in grid lock traffic for hours at a time, with their A/C cranked up and their radios cranked up, while they make their daily pilgrimage to and from the office.

But without re-thinking and re-designing how we do things, I fear we will face major oil shocks and perhaps economic melt down. I feel much of the recession we have now has been precipitated due to an inability to increase production despite very high prices. I agree this will happen again as the economy recovers.

But the shock I really worry about is the one Simmons wrote about when Gahwar waters out.

If we lose 5 million BOPD production in a few short years then we will be facing the ugly truth and it will be undeniable.

]]> By: Allt under en grå himmel · Ett missvisande val http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/11/staking-out-the-middle-ground/#comment-3574 Allt under en grå himmel · Ett missvisande val Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:23:54 +0000 http://www.aspousa.org/?p=2868#comment-3574 [...] av fossila bränslen är inte ett val vi måste göra utan oundvikligt. [...] av fossila bränslen är inte ett val vi måste göra utan oundvikligt.

]]> By: William Davison http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/11/staking-out-the-middle-ground/#comment-3568 William Davison Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:11:50 +0000 http://www.aspousa.org/?p=2868#comment-3568 "Regrettably, the IEA specifies that there are exactly 257 Gb of new reserves in fields-to-be-developed, so the Uppsala team runs with that number." Well there is your answer Uppsala don't believe the figure either and has probably taken the URR to include all reserve growth in future (if so they should of stated that), I suspect the IEA's URR includes a lot reserve growth in its estimates on the quiet as well. Simmons and Campbell do not believe the Saudi and other OPEC reserve claims after the revisions of the late 80's and nor do Uppsala. You also have be a bit sceptical of the claim the Russia can continue at 10mbd when their oil reserves are not that great in comparison to their production, they could be in the same position as US lower 48 was in 1970. Arctic oil is the big unknown here, i.e. how much and what price. What is know is not before 2020. I think you are being a bit arrogant to suggest Uppsala is just bunch of academics, they got APSO going in the first place in 2002 in Uppsala with Simmons, Campbell and others. They have a whole dept working on it full time and you quote a couple of industry people to trump their detailed research. “Regrettably, the IEA specifies that there are exactly 257 Gb of new reserves in fields-to-be-developed, so the Uppsala team runs with that number.”

Well there is your answer Uppsala don’t believe the figure either and has probably taken the URR to include all reserve growth in future (if so they should of stated that), I suspect the IEA’s URR includes a lot reserve growth in its estimates on the quiet as well.

Simmons and Campbell do not believe the Saudi and other OPEC reserve claims after the revisions of the late 80’s and nor do Uppsala. You also have be a bit sceptical of the claim the Russia can continue at 10mbd when their oil reserves are not that great in comparison to their production, they could be in the same position as US lower 48 was in 1970. Arctic oil is the big unknown here, i.e. how much and what price. What is know is not before 2020.

I think you are being a bit arrogant to suggest Uppsala is just bunch of academics, they got APSO going in the first place in 2002 in Uppsala with Simmons, Campbell and others. They have a whole dept working on it full time and you quote a couple of industry people to trump their detailed research.

]]> By: Bill Simpson in Slidell http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/11/staking-out-the-middle-ground/#comment-3565 Bill Simpson in Slidell Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:54:58 +0000 http://www.aspousa.org/?p=2868#comment-3565 Once oil production peaks, probably before 2020, any oil exporting nation would be a fool to not reduce their oil exports, since doing so must then raise the oil price. There will be nowhere else for the importers to go, once there is no longer any surplus oil on the market. Other countries will no longer be able to replace any oil kept off the market by anyone, if everyone is producing flat out, but production is still falling. It won't take long before all the exporters start reducing production in an attempt to maximize their income by driving the oil price higher and higher. Once production starts falling, many oil producing countries will also realize that they had better accumulate as much money as possible before their oil runs out, since most don't have much else to support their rapidly growing populations. They will want to produce the oil later, when it cost a fortune, not now, while it is still cheap. That is the real peak oil problem, the impending purposeful withholding of oil from the market to explode the price. The electric car had better be ready before that starts to happen. You think Washington has a plan for all that? Once oil production peaks, probably before 2020, any oil exporting nation would be a fool to not reduce their oil exports, since doing so must then raise the oil price. There will be nowhere else for the importers to go, once there is no longer any surplus oil on the market. Other countries will no longer be able to replace any oil kept off the market by anyone, if everyone is producing flat out, but production is still falling. It won’t take long before all the exporters start reducing production in an attempt to maximize their income by driving the oil price higher and higher.
Once production starts falling, many oil producing countries will also realize that they had better accumulate as much money as possible before their oil runs out, since most don’t have much else to support their rapidly growing populations. They will want to produce the oil later, when it cost a fortune, not now, while it is still cheap.
That is the real peak oil problem, the impending purposeful withholding of oil from the market to explode the price. The electric car had better be ready before that starts to happen. You think Washington has a plan for all that?

]]> By: Don Dwiggins http://www.aspousa.org/index.php/2009/11/staking-out-the-middle-ground/#comment-3560 Don Dwiggins Thu, 19 Nov 2009 23:49:43 +0000 http://www.aspousa.org/?p=2868#comment-3560 One other factor that might be worth considering: all production scenarios assume that the industry (extraction, transportation, refining, etc.) can be kept going over the next N years at pretty much the capacity that it now has. However, this depends very much on the viability of the economic system that provides the "other fuel" for the industry. Given that the dominant economic model (perpetual growth) is a "dead man walking" and that no alternative models have been seriously tried, there's a pretty good chance that the economic system will "seize up" before any viable alternative can be put in place, and that this will seriously damage the industry's ability to keep the oil flowing. In this case, the rate of extraction will drop off the cliff shortly after the economic system does, and it won't matter how much oil is left in the ground -- we won't have the "human systems" in place to recover and use it. One other factor that might be worth considering: all production scenarios assume that the industry (extraction, transportation, refining, etc.) can be kept going over the next N years at pretty much the capacity that it now has. However, this depends very much on the viability of the economic system that provides the “other fuel” for the industry.

Given that the dominant economic model (perpetual growth) is a “dead man walking” and that no alternative models have been seriously tried, there’s a pretty good chance that the economic system will “seize up” before any viable alternative can be put in place, and that this will seriously damage the industry’s ability to keep the oil flowing. In this case, the rate of extraction will drop off the cliff shortly after the economic system does, and it won’t matter how much oil is left in the ground — we won’t have the “human systems” in place to recover and use it.

]]>