Petroleum and the future of civilization

  • Thread starter Thread starter Doug50
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be helpful to the discussion, if the peak oil people would kindly upgrade and update their graphs with the TWO gignormous oil discoveries that were just now found off the coast of Brazil.

And also, if they would be so kind as to add some other asyet undiscovered oil discoveries.

[Oops. Sorry. They didn’t KNOW about the Brazilian discoveries two months ago.]

[Soooo … ummmm … what else do they not know about?? Hmmmmmm.]
 
Al_Masetti said:
It would be helpful to the discussion, if the peak oil people would kindly upgrade and update their graphs with the TWO gignormous oil discoveries that were just now found off the coast of Brazil.

And also, if they would be so kind as to add some other asyet undiscovered oil discoveries.

[Oops. Sorry. They didn’t KNOW about the Brazilian discoveries two months ago.]

[Soooo … ummmm … what else do they not know about?? Hmmmmmm.]
Click to expand...
Like I said, Al, Brazil is no secrete and what the heck is gignormous. So let’s look at some relevant facts:
cnn.com/2007/WORLD/americas/11/08/brazil.oil.ap/index.html

Petrobras says the Tupi field, off Brazil’s southeastern Atlantic coast, has between 5 billion and 8 billion barrels – equivalent to 40 percent of all the oil ever discovered in Brazil.

Brazil’s total oil reserves currently rank 17th in the world, with 14.4 billion barrels of oil equivalent, Gabrielli said.

The US is the thrid largest oil producer
eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.htm

The world uses about 31 billion barrels per year (the US over 7 billion). 14.4/31 = .46 years worth of world oil usage…if you could extract it at the desired rate of use. 14.4/7 = 2 years worth of usage by the US.

But oilfields are not like gas tanks (to use a common example). You can deplete the gas in your car’s tank at a steady slow rate or at steady fast rate…right up to the point where the tank is depleted/empty. IOW there’s no decline cures for your gas tank.

Nobody denies peak oil. The debate is over when it will happen, not if it will happen. There are those in the oil industry who say we are at peak oil now: T Boone Pickens, Matt Simmons, Ken Deffeyes, etc. Or that the world will reach maximum production within a few years: Chris Skrebowski editor of the journal Petroleum Review, Peter Tertzakian, C Campbell. Colin Campbell. etc. The optimists have the world not reaching max produciton out to about 2030.

Back to decline curves: The early peak oilers believe there is about 1 trillion barrels of oil left in the ground to be produced and that we’ve only used half of the total oil reserves that were in place (origionally 2 trillion bbls). So your Brazilian reserves that you like to parade is only 1/70th of that 1 trillion total left. So, hey, there’s a lot of oil to be brought on line. No? You ignore decline curves and logistics of bring production to market, Al. In this graph notice how far to the left the first half is produced while the second half takes a lot more years to get out of the ground.
eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/depletion/images/figure_1.jpg

And to illistrate a typical natural gas well which deplete much faster than oil wells
mnforsustain.org/images/gas%20primer%20depletion%20fig4.gif

Notice in these illistrations the peak is at the far left, at the begining of production. Now if you keep drilling what will happen is that you’ll have a field/region with a peak that scews to the right since not all the wells are put on line at the same time. BUT to cut to the chase, Al, the second half of production, including the world, is going to be a longer, slow process. Just because the reserves are there it won’t mean you will be able to extract them at the rate you need to maintain the current economic health.

Because offshore wells are soooo expensive to operate and maintain, a what point do you plug the well, Al? When the wells simply quite producing or when they no long generate a profit? Because of decline curves you could plug a well/field even though half the remaining producable oil is still left in the ground simply because they’re no longer profitable. Oh I guess the goverment could deem the wells of national interest and give subsidies to the companies to keep the wells producing for a while longer…

Now let’s bring in exponential growth in demand/usage not only coming from the US but from developing countries with much bigger populations than in the West. So even if world production remaind flat (or even alowing for some increases) the US and West is going to have reducing supplies due to growing usage by countries like China, India, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Got quize for you: barzilai.org/mentor/lewis/oil-barrels.html
 
  1. Coal is the largest single source of fuel in the world for the generation of electricity.
  2. 75%of coal is used for the production of electricity.
  3. The USA consumes about one billion tons of coal each year
  4. China and India use about 1.7 billion tons annually
  5. Coal is the fastest growing energy source in the world
  6. China was the top producer of coal with almost one-third world share
  7. US is the second largest producer of coal
  8. The largest exporter of coal is Australia.
  9. Coal is found on all continents except Antarctica.
  10. There is enough coal to provide the entire planet with all of its energy for 155 years, 285 years, or 600 years, depending on what source you use.
 
The arguments that we are running out of petroleum and that civilization is doomed unless we immediately cut the human population constitute a red herring … misleading and false.

Just oil shale alone in parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming holds at least 800 billion barrels … that’s triple the reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Go to the library … or maybe on line, and read the November 12, 2007 issue of Fortune Magazine. Start with page 106, but it’s a long and detailed article … even mentions Mr. Hubbard.

It may be that ONE oil discovery ALONE won’t sustain the world for very long, but we don’t use ONE oil field ALONE to sustain us. We dribble the oil out from each and each makes a significant contribution to the overall energy stream.

Thus the new northern Alaska oil field, if they are ever allowed to be developed, would make a measurable contribution. Ditto, off-shore drilling. And the new Brazilian discoveries. And next month’s new discoveries.

Yes, the low-hanging fruit has been picked. But there is still a lot more petroleum out there. Just waiting to be discovered and developed.

Consider the “model” of the earth as a 7000 mile diamter ball of molten metal … a giant chemical reactor … with our thin hospitable crust. And we have barely explored our earth. New startling discoveries are made every day.

Have you seen the videos of the hot mineral plumes from deep under the ocean … [how hot are they, Al?] … hot enough to melt the windows on the deep sea submarines … so don’t get too close. Most folks didn’t know they existed. There is no mapping yet of all of these vents. But we now guess that there are somewhere around 20,000 undersea volcanoes (or the equivalent), pumping out heat and minerals. [By comparison, we think there are around 2000 volcanoes on dry land.]

Amazing discoveries are still out there waiting for us.

No need for pessimism.

There is a need for optimism and exploration. It’s still largely an unexplored world.

Visit your minerology shop and buy a fish fossil from the Sahara Desert. And just stare at it and wonder at all that this planet … that God created for us … has to offer.

Meditate on it this Christmas … think of all the amazing things that God has provided for us … that He created for us … many of which we have not yet discovered.
 
drpmjhess said:
How many suburbanites carry 1500 pound hay bales? When I see huge Ford F350s they usually have one ladder on them, or a couple of 2 x 4s, or a wheelbarrow. When I see them in a filling station fuming at paying $100.00 for a tank of gas, I’m amused, and grateful they are making me rich through my oil stocks, for now, at least.
Click to expand...
I think those whose biggest carrying load is a Christmas tree once/year, would do well to drive one of those little toy pickups. However, and this is my point, simply asserting that everyone should be limited to toy pickups because they suffice for the needs of some, and adopting governmental policies making larger “workhorses” impossible or penalizing those who use them, is not adequate for the needs of everyone in the economy. There are lots of things that need doing all the time that you just can’t do with one of those little pickups; commonplace things in farming/ranching, like hauling a tractor or skid steer or hay wagon or creep feeder or horse/cattle trailer or carrying quantities of bag feed or sufficient fencing supplies for serious fencing. And it doesn’t save any fuel at all to oblige a rancher to go to town three times at 30 mpg to haul what he could do once at 20 or even 17 mpg. I agree that most “urban cowboys” don’t need big pickups, but real ones do.

The same is true of passenger vehicles. It is absolutely impossible for a family with, say, six children, to even comply with seat belt laws unless they have a very large vehicle. For that, you have to have seating capacity, which requires a larger body, heavier frame, bigger engine, etc.
 
Man, Al, I thought for sure you’d at least watch the Prof. Richard Smalley video as he was on the cutting edge of new technology…guess not though, huh?
 
Doug50 said:
Man, Al, I thought for sure you’d at least watch the Prof. Richard Smalley video as he was on the cutting edge of new technology…guess not though, huh?
Click to expand...
How much less food will we get when we stop using fertilizer?
 
Neil_Anthony said:
How much less food will we get when we stop using fertilizer?
Click to expand...
Interesting question. I googled “crop yields before synthetic fertilizers” and got this oacd.org/factsheet_12.html

"In 1900, each American farmer produced enough food and fiber for 10 people. Today, with advances such as synthetic fertilizers, that number is 129 people. This abundance of food and fiber brings with it the responsibility to keep fertilizers on the land and out of the water. Nutrient management is a practice that applies fertilizers efficiently without polluting water. The benefits are:

High Crop Yields with Lower Fertilizer Costs: In one study, Oregon dairy farmers applied manure as a fertilizer. They saved $30 to $70 in commercial fertilizer costs per acre without decreasing yield."
 
You see very few station wagons anymore.
Ridgerunner said:
I think those whose biggest carrying load is a Christmas tree once/year, would do well to drive one of those little toy pickups. However, and this is my point, simply asserting that everyone should be limited to toy pickups because they suffice for the needs of some, and adopting governmental policies making larger “workhorses” impossible or penalizing those who use them, is not adequate for the needs of everyone in the economy. There are lots of things that need doing all the time that you just can’t do with one of those little pickups; commonplace things in farming/ranching, like hauling a tractor or skid steer or hay wagon or creep feeder or horse/cattle trailer or carrying quantities of bag feed or sufficient fencing supplies for serious fencing. And it doesn’t save any fuel at all to oblige a rancher to go to town three times at 30 mpg to haul what he could do once at 20 or even 17 mpg. I agree that most “urban cowboys” don’t need big pickups, but real ones do.

The same is true of passenger vehicles. It is absolutely impossible for a family with, say, six children, to even comply with seat belt laws unless they have a very large vehicle. For that, you have to have seating capacity, which requires a larger body, heavier frame, bigger engine, etc.
Click to expand...
 
Not strictly petroleum, but a new hydrocarbon fuel development: Peru is joining the community of fuel producing/exporting nations: it’s getting a new $4+ Billion liquid natural gas operation.

That should add some additional capacity to the planet.

The mountain chain … from the Rockies to the Andes … seems to be the source of a lot of petroleum/natural gas/coal.

Every week … another new development.
 
Al_Masetti said:
Not strictly petroleum, but a new hydrocarbon fuel development: Peru is joining the community of fuel producing/exporting nations: it’s getting a new $4+ Billion liquid natural gas operation.

That should add some additional capacity to the planet.

The mountain chain … from the Rockies to the Andes … seems to be the source of a lot of petroleum/natural gas/coal.

Every week … another new development.
Click to expand...
whatever you say Al…whatever you say. Maybe you should argue for algae in the making of biodiesel

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiesel
More recent studies using a species of algae with up to 50% oil
content have concluded that only 28,000 km² or 0.3% of the land area
of the US could be utilized to produce enough biodiesel to replace all
transportation fuel the country currently utilizes."

sounds good too, No? Oops there a problem…

i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/05/algal-biodiesel-fact-or-fiction.html
Monday, May 14, 2007
Algal Biodiesel: Fact or Fiction?
The following is a guest post by John Benemann. John has many years of expertise in biomass conversion, and previously co-wrote a guest piece on cellulosic ethanol. On the subject of biodiesel from algae, he literally wrote the book.

I’m doing my homework, Al. But like Richard Smalley I don’t see a solution…yet. If there is a solution, there’s money to be made as just an investor.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
Isn’t fusion reactors the solution?
Click to expand...
You have to get past the engineering problems. Such as Neutron Flux distroying the containment vessel in short order.

"Artificial neutron flux refers to neutron flux which is man-made, as by weapons or nuclear energy production. A flow of neutrons is often used to initiate the fission of unstable large nuclei. The extra neutron(s) pushes the nuclide over the edge, causing it to split to form more stable products. This effect is essential in fission reactors and nuclear weapons.

“Neutrons are produced during nuclear fusion. While this effect is used in most modern nuclear weapons in various ways to achieve sometimes dramatic increases of yield, it is a major drawback for proposed applications of nuclear fusion as an energy source: As the particles do not carry a charge, they cannot be deflected by electric or magnetic fields but inevitably collide with the containment vessel, leaving it radioactive. As this is one of the main obstacles to fusion power generation, the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility has been founded as an initiative to invent a suitable containment vessel.”

Now some people are looking to Helium-3 as an answer to this little problem: “Some fusion processes produce highly energetic neutrons which render reactor components radioactive with their bombardment, and power generation must occur through thermal means. However, the appeal of helium-3 fusion stems from the nature of its reaction products. Helium-3 itself is non-radioactive. The lone high-energy proton produced can be contained using electric and magnetic fields, which results in direct electricity generation.”

ah…a little problem with, though…we have to go to the moon to mine it and bring it back to earth assuming it will even work.
“The Moon’s surface contains helium-3 at concentrations on the order of 0.01 ppm.[19][20] A number of people, starting with Gerald Kulcinski in 1986,[21] have proposed to explore the moon, mine lunar regolith and using the helium-3 for fusion. Because of the low concentrations of helium-3, any mining equipment would need to process large amounts of regolith,[22] and some proposals have suggested that helium-3 extraction be piggybacked onto a larger mining and development operation.”
 
Neil_Anthony said:
But they’re building a fusion reactor in france right now, the ITER reactor. And they have plans already for the first commercial reactor after that…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO
Click to expand...
BBC News Q&A: Nuclear fusion reactor
When will the first commercial fusion reactor be built?

Not for a long time. Experimental fusion reactors like the Joint European Torus (Jet) at Culham in the UK currently use more energy than they release.

There are therefore many major scientific and engineering hurdles to overcome before the technology becomes commercially viable. A commercial reactor is not expected before 2045 or 2050 - if at all. Indeed, there is no guarantee that Iter will succeed.

The running joke is that fusion has been “just decades away” for several decades.

Reactor carries scientists’ hopes
Planned French facility may be last chance for dreams of cheap power through fusion

But after all that time and tens of billions of dollars that the United States and other nations have poured into research, fusion energy has yet to power a single toaster, TV or iPod. So there’s a lot riding on the prototype reactor, which emerged from a scientific effort by the United States and six other nations.

If it fails, it will be another in a long series of fusion-research duds. Only this time, it would be such a colossal failure that it could kill all fusion research for good.

Scientists, engineers and energy experts are sharply divided over whether controlled fusion has a future.

Steve Chu, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist who heads Lawrence Berkeley, drew laughter in September when he told an audience at an energy conference at Stanford: “I’m going to skip (discussing) fusion because it will probably skip the 21st century.”
 
Not strictly petroleum, but a new hydrocarbon fuel development: Peru is joining the community of fuel producing/exporting nations: it’s getting a new $4+ Billion liquid natural gas operation.
Click to expand...
That should add some additional capacity to the planet.
Click to expand...
The mountain chain … from the Rockies to the Andes … seems to be the source of a lot of petroleum/natural gas/coal.
Click to expand...
Every week … another new development.
Click to expand...
liquid natural gas is gas at high pressure/low temp. at atmospheric conditions it is gas in phase. the foreland basin of the rockies or any mountain range has always been found to be a prospective area for hydrocarbon exploration.

natural gas resources are far more plentiful than high gravity oil. coal bed methane deposits are particularly prolific. while gas is clean burning, it’s not considered ‘green’ as their combustion contributes substantial amounts of carbon into the evnironment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top