Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Fancypants

Peak Oil Fans

Recommended Posts

The IEA says the world has enough oil supplies to last until 2030

Well the IEA are bloody liars. That 'assumption' is based on unknown actual reserves!!

No OIL producing Nation has EVER released their true reserves - it has all been based on estimates!

The organisation estimates that the global oil industry now needs to invest $20.3 trillion (£12 trillion) in fresh facilities by 2030, or else the wider global economy could suffer.

It's because there is hardly anywhere else left, Globally, to explore or invest 'profitably' in or because they have been told to stop investing due to a Global conspiracy between the Multinational Oil companies!

Multinational Oil companies are now buying heavily into HYDROGEN based energy/services - the party is over - VISIBLY :o

It says that under current consumption trends, energy demand will also rise by more than 50% over the next 25 years

Assumes "NO MORE BOOM OR BUST" :lol:

How did I do?? :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "Hydrogen-based energy" to invest in - there is only "hydrogen as a means of storing and transporting energy".

Hydrogen is made by electrolysing water. That takes slightly more energy than you can get back out by burning it. The energy has to come from somewhere.

It's like claiming the world's energy shortage will be solved if we invest in "electricity-based energy".

The biggest problem for planning the world's energy future is the lack of knowledge about the amount of oil in the ground. If the OPEC countries allowed the western oilco's in to do a proper appraisal we would doubtless be shocked by the results.

I worked on an area of Saudi Arabia that was offered to the world's oilco's as hot gas-rich acreage for us to bid on. The seismic data was dire, structures were few and far between, and those that we found were relatively small. We couldn't justify a bid and bowed out. In the end the Russians and Chinese got the acreage for an insane 9 and 7 well bid respectively (at $30 million a pop, that's serious dosh). I watch with interest - no sign of any wells being drilled so far.

I suspect the acreage (a huge area of desert encompassing a large fraction of the south of Saudi Arabia) is moose (camel?) pasture. I suspect the Saudis have allocated billions of barrels of yet-to-be-discovered reserves to the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radio 5 live at 7.15 this morning said something about Fossil Fuels running out in 2030 and then on beeb news about mp calling for reopening of coal mines...

Apart from the fact I really must retune the clock radio did anyone else hear about this fossil fuels report?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like claiming the world's energy shortage will be solved if we invest in "electricity-based energy".

:lol: exactly, the hyrdrogen thing always makes me laugh.

i) how do you create it if you refuse to use nuclear energy? How

ii) if you don't use nuclear/renewables it will actually produce more CO2 than using petrol.

iii) how does it work for aeroplanes?

iv) if/when these problems are solved, what is the estimate of how much it will cost? 5x petrol? 10x petrol?

Enjoy the last decade or so of cheap energy. You've never had it so good! :D

Has anyone thought of putting Oil in their SIPP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "Hydrogen-based energy" to invest in - there is only "hydrogen as a means of storing and transporting energy".

Hydrogen is made by electrolysing water. That takes slightly more energy than you can get back out by burning it. The energy has to come from somewhere.

It's like claiming the world's energy shortage will be solved if we invest in "electricity-based energy".

The biggest problem for planning the world's energy future is the lack of knowledge about the amount of oil in the ground. If the OPEC countries allowed the western oilco's in to do a proper appraisal we would doubtless be shocked by the results.

I worked on an area of Saudi Arabia that was offered to the world's oilco's as hot gas-rich acreage for us to bid on. The seismic data was dire, structures were few and far between, and those that we found were relatively small. We couldn't justify a bid and bowed out. In the end the Russians and Chinese got the acreage for an insane 9 and 7 well bid respectively (at $30 million a pop, that's serious dosh). I watch with interest - no sign of any wells being drilled so far.

I suspect the acreage (a huge area of desert encompassing a large fraction of the south of Saudi Arabia) is moose (camel?) pasture. I suspect the Saudis have allocated billions of barrels of yet-to-be-discovered reserves to the area.

So I was right in every assumption I made, as an amateur?

Couldn't you add anything more - as a pro, rocky? The challenge is to pull the BBC post apart :)

"There is no "Hydrogen-based energy" to invest in"

Thanks for reminding us.

I did have in mind/mention SERVICES. In Germany they are really going for it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back of the envelope calculations are not as bad as I thought.

1 barrel of oil is around 1,700 kWh equivalent

If we use say 30 million barrels per day for transport, that’s 51,000,000,000 kWh for 24 hours,

Ie 2,128 GW of extra electricity generation world wide.

Sizewell B is 0.85GW, so will only need ~2,500 Sizewell B’s. Maybe that’s quite a lot.

Mind you, wind power has just reached 50GW globally apparently, so we only need 40x more to generate enough power to produce enough hydrogen for our current transport needs. Annoying when there's no wind though.

Whatever happens, it’s going to cost an awful lot of money…

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always amuses me how they claim that the price will go up a bit if the increases in production aren't matched by increased production capacity.

Absolute crap. With production already running flat out there simply won't be any increased production without increased capacity. If demand's going up 52% with flat production then we're talking about more than just a few extra $ per barrel!

The way the oil issues are popularly discussed are a bit like saying that someone will have to get their savings accounts better organised in order to lift their spending from 80K a year up to 120K whilst only earning 10K. What sort of savings account you have isn't going to make a lot of difference to the fact that you are heading for bankruptcy. Likewise no amount of messing about with figures and making assumptions about who drills what and where are altering the fact that production consistently exceeding discovery leads eventually to being unable to maintain production volumes.

Using metal doesn't solve the problem of still needing a primary energy source to produce and recycle the metal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MARIJUANA; The fuel of the Future !

http://www.terraseetch.com/hemp.htm

And I will raise up for them a plant of renown, and they shall be no more consumed with hunger in the land.

-Ezekiel 34/2

...eyree eyree man.

---

Now thats the best idea i heard all day. As long as we use the proper stuff i offer my services for the job of quality control manager. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i) how do you create it if you refuse to use nuclear energy? How

ii) if you don't use nuclear/renewables it will actually produce more CO2 than using petrol.

iii) how does it work for aeroplanes?

iv) if/when these problems are solved, what is the estimate of how much it will cost? 5x petrol? 10x petrol?

Enjoy the last decade or so of cheap energy. You've never had it so good!

You are completly missing the point. Hydrogen is not about making energy its a store of energy used for transporation. There are 3 major uses of fossil fuels:

a) A means of generating energy (oil, coal, gas power stations)

B) A method to store energy (petrol, jet fuel etc)

c) Other uses (plastics, fertilizers etc)

Now, a) is easy to replace. Build nuclear or renewable power stations. Renewable electricty is only about 20 to 25% more expensive than generating electricity using fossil fuels. Of course that is current costs with negligable investment; increase the investment and per unit costs will go down a lot - I would be surprised if we can't product renewable electricity at current electricity prices in 10 years.

B) This is more problematic. Petrol is quite a good store of electricity but this is where hydrogen comes in. We use a) to make hydrogen which is the store that is used in cars. Jet fuel is more probelmatic which is exactly why we should be moving on a so we can use oil for what we actually need it for.

c) Again, back to using oil for what we should be using it for.

If we get a shortage of oil it won't be electricity thats going to be in shortage, you might however find airlines cost more to use and there is higher costs in goods that require oil (plastic, food etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Renewable electricity is only about 20 to 25% more expensive than generating electricity using fossil fuels. Of course that is current costs with negligible investment; increase the investment and per unit costs will go down a lot - I would be surprised if we can't product renewable electricity at current electricity prices in 10 years.

They are trying to get permission for an wind farm near where I live.

The NIMBY's are up in arms over it, I've never seen them so motivated(except for the fox hunting ban).

Can you guess what their major gripe is?

The effect they'll have on house prices.

C***s!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disgusting really. How can anyone complain against Wind Farms because of a spoiled view etc. These people just haven't got a clue. Its the same with 4x4s you would think anyone with one of those wouldn't have children as they clearly have no respect for anyone else most of all their own childrens future but no they use them for the school run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4414000.stm

a few dicey assumptions in this piece of typically probing journalism from the Beeb

Well, for such an important subject, it is a rather disappointingly short article. But the "predicted rise in oil production" chart looks more like "we'd really like this to happen" chart. There is a lot of evidence to suggest that Saudi Arabia will never produce more than 10-15 million barrels a day EVER AGAIN. Not because they won't want to, not because the price won't suit, not because the investment is wrong, but just because it ISN'T PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE.

I sometimes think that oil production is thought of by lay people in terms of producing corn or beef; if you need more you just expand farms. It isn't that simple. For a lot of oil fields if you crank the production rate up you ruin the field, and get far less out of it over the long run than you would if you take it out slowly. For that reason alone, it may just not happen that Saudi Arabia will pump more out per day.

In my view, the solution is to look at ways of scaling back oil use. "Predicting" a 50% increase in consumption is not particularly helpful, and is probably just fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guy_Montag

Using metal doesn't solve the problem of still needing a primary energy source to produce and recycle the metal.

I know you have to subscribe to read the full article, but the gist of the article is that you can use finely powdered iron, aluminium & boron as a primary energy source. Of course, just like oil, they will need to be refined before use, but effectively you would buy a tank of iron filings instead of filling up with petrol.

It's not a long term (hundred-thousand year*) solution, but it will keep us going for a century or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disgusting really. How can anyone complain against Wind Farms because of a spoiled view etc. These people just haven't got a clue. Its the same with 4x4s you would think anyone with one of those wouldn't have children as they clearly have no respect for anyone else most of all their own children's future but no they use them for the school run.

We get sent a community magazine once a month, several editions have been devoted to the wind farm.

It's mainly full of rantings from the self appointed rural elite. They are so badly researched it's hilarious.

None of them seem to realise that wind farms are only a cure for the symptoms of the disease they have created. I bothered to mention this to one of the upper class pricks, it was like a revelation to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4414000.stm

a few dicey assumptions in this piece of typically probing journalism from the Beeb

The IEA are behaving like children proposing that Saudi, Iraq and Iran will ramp up oil production to serve the west, and they omit that non-OPEC depletion will be severe by 2030. Matt Simmons makes a good case that Saudi will never produce more than about 10m barrels per day and decline is more likely than not to set in long before 2030. Iran's oil fields are heavily depleted. Iraq may produce 6-7m barrels/day after 2010 with stability and strong control by the West. Even leaving aside geological realities, why should Saudi want to risk its oil fields by sucking them dry to serve the West? Once their oil is gone will we care what happens to Saudi? Quite. I am alarmed that the response to a possible peak in oil production is bureaucratic fantisising. Bunch of brats.

The idea that metal could replace oil for transportation is.. well I won't be rude. Try to consider air pollution, and the awkward point that producing iron dust might be quite costly. Even now a litre of petrol only costs about 25p to produce and distribute. What would its calorific equivalent as iron filings cost? More than 25p, I would wager.

Wind farms? They have some application, but they can't provide reliable baseload and will be a peripheral power technology for that reason, in the forseeable future (yes, I know it's not very forseeable). I'd go for geothermal and tidal barrages myself. The most effective way of generating power is to use less of it, at least while we are wasting so bl00dy much of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most effective way of generating power is to use less of it, at least while we are wasting so bl00dy much of it.

ah yes, the solution that dare not speak it's name. And no wonder, it's so ridiculous!

you might as well say that we should be paying less for housing.

;)

why coax the human race back from the edge when you can urge them to charge over the precipice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back of the envelope calculations are not as bad as I thought.

1 barrel of oil is around 1,700 kWh equivalent

If we use say 30 million barrels per day for transport, that’s 51,000,000,000 kWh for 24 hours,

Ie 2,128 GW of extra electricity generation world wide.

Sizewell B is 0.85GW, so will only need ~2,500 Sizewell B’s. Maybe that’s quite a lot.

I thought it was Sizewell was about 1.2GW? Your point still stands though, that would soon lead to problems with the uranium supply, and extracting from sea water isn't going to be fun.

Anyway, as for an exact peak in oil it would be hard to see until way after the event, what will happen is a sort of 'jagged saw' of mini peaks where prices spike then there is consequent demand destruction and new supply brought online thanks to higher prices thus leading prices lower again until increased consumption then drives up prices again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disgusting really. How can anyone complain against Wind Farms because of a spoiled view etc. These people just haven't got a clue. Its the same with 4x4s you would think anyone with one of those wouldn't have children as they clearly have no respect for anyone else most of all their own childrens future but no they use them for the school run.

At least they would be able to apply for a council tax rebate if their view was spoiled.

ah yes, the solution that dare not speak it's name. And no wonder, it's so ridiculous!

you might as well say that we should be paying less for housing.

;)

why coax the human race back from the edge when you can urge them to charge over the precipice?

We are running out of time. There is no time to build new nuclear plants and train the staff and mine and process the uranium. There is no time to develop fusion or hydrogen. Only conservation will buy us the time we need.

Edited by gone west

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All alternatives cost more money, otherwise they would be used already. So expect overall prices to increase comensurate with increased *portable* energy costs. We've seen scant evidence of this so far, but I predict we'll see something by 2010.

Whether central bank respond with interest rate hikes is the point of speculation. The idea of increased costs coupled with high interest rates and tanking asset markets is not a pleasant one.

I think central bankers around the world will act in different ways. Some, like the new Ben Benanke, may strip enery costs and look to core inflation, others, the ECB perhaps may tend to look at headline inflation. If real interest rates go negative, we know we're struggling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2030 : The year the lights will go out

In a display of absolutely no understanding of the Peak Oil issue, the London Metro newspaper, read by many London commuters each day, had the headline of '2030 : The year the lights go out".

This story was based on the IEA 2005 World Energy Outlook report and gave the impression that everything will be fine until 2030 as far as energy needs go (assuming enough investment and finds are made). And from the headline, you'd think that suddenly, the lights would go out in 2030.

" Reserves of fossil fuels will meet rapidly rising demand only until 2030 - and only if hundreds of billions of pounds are poured into new facilities in flashpoints in the Middle East and North Africa," writes Suzy Austin of The Metro without realising that it is not reserves that are the key issue but the rate of extraction and supply.

What the article did make clear though is that if this 2030 scenario is met, carbon dioxide emissions will have risen by 52%. Also, Britain, still aiming to cut emissions by 12.5%, instead saw them rise by 2.5% in the first half of this year.

Overall, this was dangerous and misrepresentative of the real situation and will make the uninformed reader think there is nothing to worry about for 25 years. Except global warming. And that is something to seriously worry about!

link

I don’t believe it is possible to evaluate the available data and reach a defensible conclusion that peak oil is more than 20 years away and even such an unrealistically optimistic conclusion of 2025 demands radical action now. I see the evidence pointing to peak extraction rates no later than 2010.

A simple calculation shows what would be required for even a 2025 peak. Peak in 20 years time assuming a very conservative 1% annual increase from today (the last 5 years has seen ~1.8% growth) would require an additional 675 billion barrels extracted before peak (suggesting a URR of over 3 trillion barrels) and an extraction rate of just over 100 million barrels per day. A 5% decline in today’s 84 mbpd would leave us with just 31 million barrels of today’s extraction still available in 20 years time so we’d need 70 mbpd of new production.

To push peak extraction rate 20 years into the future requires the discovery of an additional ~1 trillion barrels of reserves (an average of 50 billion per year compared with today’s rate of 5 billion and falling) and the identification of another 70 million barrels per day of extraction capacity (another seven Saudi Arabia’s or Russia’s brought on line). It just isn’t going to happen.

If the IEA are suggesting peak oil in 2030 they are dreaming, if they are looking at the total amount of oil (known and unknown) and just dividing that by 25 years of increasing use such than by 2030 it's all gone they are stupid.

Looking at oil globally we know the rate of oil extraction from some major producers has peaked (America, Norway, Venezuela, UK, Indonesia etc.) already. We also know that the rates of extraction from Western companies (ie non-OPEC/Russia) are falling and that the most desirable grade of oil (light, sweet stuff) has peaked globally. It is that global peaking of light sweet oil that has had the largest impact on price since we don't have the refinery capacity to handle the increasingly heavy, sour mix.

Regarding nuclear I think there is little doubt the government will try for a new build.

Decommission schedule:

Seven closed by 2010(-31% capacity)

All but three closed by 2014(-70% capacity)

One remaining past 2023(-90% capacity)

Within nine years we lose 70% of the capacity which is currently responsible for 22% of our electricity supply

See this presentation: Britains Energy Future

There was a debate in the House of Lords a couple of months ago and every other speaker was talking up nuclear.

Edited by clv101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: exactly, the hyrdrogen thing always makes me laugh.

i) how do you create it if you refuse to use nuclear energy? How

ii) if you don't use nuclear/renewables it will actually produce more CO2 than using petrol.

iii) how does it work for aeroplanes?

iv) if/when these problems are solved, what is the estimate of how much it will cost? 5x petrol? 10x petrol?

Enjoy the last decade or so of cheap energy. You've never had it so good! :D

Has anyone thought of putting Oil in their SIPP?

hydrogen is quite easy to produce...all you need is a good supply of acid(sulphur from volcanic areas such as yellowstone is ideal),and metal.....mix together and hydrogen is emitted as a biproduct!!....it's really basic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the IEA are suggesting peak oil in 2030 they are dreaming, if they are looking at the total amount of oil (known and unknown) and just dividing that by 25 years of increasing use such than by 2030 it's all gone they are stupid.

Indeed, I did this very simple calculation two years ago using reserve figures from National Geographic and steady consumption @80million bpd.

2032 would see the last drop.

I believe consumption is now 83 million bpd.

We have no chance of cutting demand. The economic ramifications for heavy use industries would be dire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.