Author Topic: Peak Oil  (Read 1883 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Peak Oil
« on: November 14, 2005, 04:37:00 PM »
"My father rode a camel; I drive a car; my son flies a jet; his son will ride a camel."
 --Saudi saying

"The solution is to pray. Under the best of circumstances, if all prayers are answered, there will be no crisis for maybe two years. After that, it's a certainty."
-- Matthew Simmons, energy investment banker and adviser to George W. Bush

The world faces enormous energy challenges. There are no easy answers. ? ExxonMobil Oil Company, 2005

One thing is clear: the era of easy oil is over. ? Chevron Oil Company, 2005

 
The world has never faced a problem like this. Without massive mitigation more than a decade before the fact, the problem will be pervasive and will not be temporary. Previous energy transitions (wood to coal and coal to oil) were gradual and evolutionary; oil peaking will be abrupt and revolutionary. ? SAIC Report to the U.S. Department of Energy, 2005

 

"The fifth revolution will come when we have spent the stores of coal and oil that have been accumulating in the earth during hundreds of millions of years... It is to be hoped that before then other sources of energy will have been developed... Whether a convenient substitute for the present fuels is found or not, there can be no doubt that there will have to be a great change in ways of life. This change may justly be called a revolution, but it differs from all the preceding ones in that there is no likelihood of its leading to increases of population, but even perhaps to the reverse."

Sir Charles Galton Darwin, 1952

 

This is not the wacky proclamation of a doomsday cult,
apocalypse Bible sect or conspiracy theory society. Rather,
it is the scientific conclusion of the best-paid, most widely
respected geologists, physicists and investment bankers in
the world. These are rational, professional, conservative
individuals who are absolutely terrified by the phenomenon
known as global peak oil."
March 14, 2005 Congressman Roscoe Bartlett (Republican, Maryland) speaking on the floor of the House of Representatives

 

?The oil crisis is very, very near.?
Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, Vice President of the National Iranian Oil Company

 

?The looming oil crisis will dwarf 1973?

CBS News, Market Watch?s story: ?The Petro-Apocalypse? 2004



 

Why we need to be concerned with Peak Oil


Ever since this most unusual hurricane season, ?Peak Oil? has plagued the news, from the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, BBC, USA Today, CBS, etc. Most news agencies refer to the peak as the time when roughly half the recoverable oil resources are exhausted and the age of cheap oil is over. The real key to understanding peak oil is the time when production of oil reaches its peak and goes into decline, regardless if  the oil is ?half gone? or not, although traditionally maximum production happens fairly near the 50% depletion mark but this is certainly not always the case, especially with natural gas where the production peak can be anywhere from 50% to 80% depleted mark. For the past couple of months, I?ve gotten heavily involved in Peak Oil, getting involved with Portland Peak Oil group and even meeting senior energy policy makers on both the city and state government level,  reading books,  and personally preparing for peak oil, an event as inevitable as death and taxes. The implications of peak oil are enormous; it will affect every human being on the planet, and affect every aspect of day to day life. Shell Oil predicts that once we are past peak, that all oil extraction will come to its logical conclusion and completely end in 37 years. There will be plenty of oil still left in the ground at this point, but this will be the point where you have to burn a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil out of the ground, the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (ERoEI) will drop to 1:1 and simply will no longer work as an energy source. In other words, the second half of Hubbert?s peak will happen much faster than the first half, even with the more optimistic predictions of the Major oil companies. Exxon Mobil has launched a multi million marketing campaign to educate the public about peak oil. Peak oil plagues environmentalist?s web sites, socialist websites, and investor websites and even Republican's websites like Dr. Barlett, Congressmans from Marlyland. To put it another way, both the Catholic Church and Galileo are signing the same exact tune: Peak Oil is coming and it?s coming soon!

 

To get this in perspective, lets do a simple thought experiment. Lets say you wake up tomorrow and gas costs $10/gallon. You may be thinking that now would be a great time to buy a Prius or other hybrid and lose the SUV. Sounds like a great idea right? Well there?s only one simple problem. It takes an enormous amount of heat to create steel. In fact, to create a ton of copper from ore requires 112 million BTUs (Brithish Thermal Units) and it requires 22 billion  BTUs for a ton of aluminum, the equivalent of 356 barrels of Oil! This is why the energy costs of building a car are enormous. Not only will gas at $10/gallon seem unaffordable, but now that Prius is going to cost a fortune as well.  ALL alternative energy, be it solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, bio-mass, thermal depolarization, methane hydrates, geothermal, et al are all heavily subsidized by cheap oil and you cannot separate the costs of these alternatives independently of the cost of oil. This is why something like bio-diesel will forever be a moving target. Since bio-diesel costs $5 a gallon now, you maybe waiting to make the switch once gas reaches that level, the trouble is, bio-diesel will follow the same exact trajectory, not to mention there?s not enough farm land in America to support our current consumption level with bio-diesel crops.  In fact, you cannot separate the cost of energy we get from food from the cost of oil as there is no organic replacement of natural gas based fertilizers, the cost of which has doubled in the last year alone and is already  on its path to the stratosphere.

 

CNN and other news agencies, when discussing the topic of peak oil, are quick to point out: Canada has massive reserves of oils sands, the US has massive reserves of coal which can be converted into fuel, and we also have massive reserves of shale oil, perhaps enough to last 200 years! This may be true although 200 years is quite optimistic. This is like finding out that you have a bank account with one million dollars! There?s only one small catch: The maximum amount you can withdraw on any given day from your million dollar bank account is $13 dollars and you currently  have a $260 a day spending habit. The coal sands of Canada are an open pit mining operation in permafrost, they use natural gas to heat water which heats  the soil to dig, and use natural gas to ?cook? the oil out of the sand. They want to build several nuclear plants to help in this process. Given several nuclear power plants, massive amounts of trucks and all the infrastructure in the world imaginable to dig and process these sands, one million barrels a day would be a fantastically optimistic production level for these resources, barely enough to satisfy Canada, let alone America?s 20 million a day habit. You simply cannot get these fossil fuels out of the ground and to market at the same pace you can pump oil out of Texas or elsewhere. Again, the point to stress with Peak Oil is not to simply ask ?how much do we have left? but rather ?How much can be bring to market on a daily or yearly basis??.  Shale Oil and Synfuel (made from coal) face the same dilemmas. Yes, we will surely be using these resources and they will come to market, just not at anything like the rate we currently consume oil and the fuel from these sources will be very very expensive.  

 
Peak Oil will change every aspect of your life. Prepare now for an energy depleted future.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Peak Oil
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2006, 04:05:00 PM »
What was the original name of Exxon?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Humble Oil



.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Peak Oil
« Reply #2 on: February 10, 2006, 05:11:00 PM »
It's only a matter of time until humans are slapped back down into equalibrium with nature. It's arrogant to think this is OUR earth to destroy so our lives can be easier. At least we thought, now the world is turning into a concrete cage, with six billion slaves to keep it going. Fark it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

dragonfly

  • Guest
Peak Oil
« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2006, 05:26:00 PM »
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Peak Oil
« Reply #4 on: February 10, 2006, 05:30:00 PM »
Quote
On 2006-02-10 14:11:00, Anonymous wrote:

"It's only a matter of time until humans are slapped back down into equalibrium with nature. It's arrogant to think this is OUR earth to destroy so our lives can be easier. At least we thought, now the world is turning into a concrete cage, with six billion slaves to keep it going. Fark it."

 ::soapbox::  ::soapbox::  ::soapbox::
I totally agree with you, though...Frank.  :grin:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Peak Oil
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2006, 05:35:00 PM »
:lol:  :lol: Good stuff.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Peak Oil
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2006, 09:12:00 PM »
news.com.com/2300-11398-6037543-1.html

Photo of four micro wind turbines on a building

AeroVironment is developing what it calls Architectural Wind, a modular wind power generation system for placement on top of buildings.

Credit: AeroVironment


'Micro' wind turbines are coming to town

By Martin LaMonica

news.com.com/Micro+wind+t...37539.html


Story last modified Fri Feb 10 08:00:00 PST 2006

A handful of start-ups are floating an idea that could change the face of the wind power industry.

Rather than build farms of towering wind turbines in rural areas, some companies are designing "micro," or small-scale, turbines that fit on top of buildings. The idea is to generate electricity from wind in urban or suburban settings.

"We want to integrate these small wind turbines on buildings in plain sight," said Paul Glenney, director of energy initiatives at Monrovia, Calif.-based AeroVironment. "We think this can really communicate the generation of clean electricity."
News.context

What's new:
A handful of "micro" wind turbine companies are trying to bring small-scale wind power generation to urban and suburban settings.

Bottom line:
On-building wind turbines are still an emerging technology, but they could fill a viable niche among different products for generating energy.

More stories on clean technologies

In their pitch for the technology, the companies are going beyond satisfying the growing interest in clean forms of energy. AeroVironment, Aerotecture and a handful of other businesses are marketing their turbines not just as power generators, but also as attractive additions to existing structures.

Right now, giant turbines built by the likes of GE Energy and Siemens are still the norm in the wind power industry, and on-building versions are rare. Newcomers are trying different tacks to break into the market. While some such as Clipper Windpower are producing entire devices, others are focusing on providing specific components of a turbine.

"We're tracking over 20 different emerging wind technology companies in our proprietary deals database, and that list keeps growing," said Robert Day, a partner at Expansion Capital Partners which specializes in clean technologies.

Overall, the wind industry is booming, experts said. The American Wind Energy Association said that last year 2,500 megawatts of new generation equipment were installed in 22 states, valued at $3 billion.

Wind architecture
AeroVironment, which is perhaps best known for its unmanned aircraft technologies, has a project under development from its Architectural Wind energy technology division.

The turbines look like large fans in square housings. They are specifically designed for placement on the top of steel-reinforced, flat-roofed commercial buildings such as a warehouse or "big box" retail store like Home Depot, Glenney said.

The turbines can be lined up next to each other to aggregate power generation, and the fans will spin even in a very slow wind of a few miles an hour.
micro wind turbines

The company has set up a few beta sites to test various factors, including its cost-effectiveness, the amount of noise it generates, and the potential impact on birds and bats (the turbines have a grate on both sides).

AeroVironment has not yet decided whether to commercialize the products. But in presentations with potential customers, the company has gotten a good reception, Glenney said. Business owners and municipalities are eager to find sources of clean electricity for a variety of reasons, including concerns over global warming and dependence on oil from unstable parts of the world.

"Lots of companies just want to reduce the footprint that a business leaves" on the planet, Glenney said. "And they want to educate their stakeholders--their customers, their pupils--on these issues."

Chicago-based Aerotecture is taking a similar "architectural" approach to wind power generation, although with a substantially different design.

Invented by University of Illinois professor Bil Becker, the company's Aeroturbine product uses a helix-shaped turbine placed inside of a cylinder. The turbines, which are 10 feet long, can be placed in many positions and take advantage of variable wind, according to the company.

"It's not fussy about gusty or turbulent winds. It's very amenable. It's the microclimate of the building that you have to look at," said Lesleigh Lippitt, co-founder of Aerotecture.

The company, which is in the process of commercializing the product, is negotiating with Chicago city officials over an installation at the Daley Center, which would set Aeroturbines at the top of the 650-foot building, she said. Other placements are under discussion, including underneath San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge, Lippitt said.

Other companies building similar micro wind products for urban or suburban areas include Finland's Windside, and the U.K.'s Windsave and Renewable Devices. There's also a product line called Urban Turbines, from Dutch company Ecofys.

Also on the market are several turbine products, such as Southwest Windpower, designed for remote homes or boats.
Mix and match
Expansion Capital's Day said that small-scale wind technologies have a viable role in the bigger picture of power generation.

Placing a 300-foot high turbine in downtown San Francisco is problematic. But distributed, or on-site, electricity generation systems can help customers get around the transmission bottlenecks and reliability problems of the wholesale electricity grid, Day said.

He added that even small-scale turbines are not immune to the challenges that the overall wind industry faces, such as concerns over noise and cost efficiency.

Wind power also has had some cases of "not in my backyard," or NIMBY, opposition from local residents to construction of large wind turbines. The proposed 420-megawatt Cape Wind project, for example, which would place huge turbines off the coast of Cape Cod, has proved divisive and has not yet been approved.

AeroVironment and Aerotecture argue that their products can enhance the look of existing structures. New "green buildings" could be designed with these turbines in mind to take advantage of the structure's wind dynamics as well, they said.

In terms of usage, an on-site wind turbine would supplement the electricity supply of the building and could be combined with other forms of electricity generation, such as solar panels.

Indeed, Day said that it's unlikely one wind power technology will emerge as a "winner," just as there probably won't be a dominant wastewater treatment or solar technology.
In other news:

* Wind power's winds of change
* Vonage: An IPO filing like it's 1999
* Newsmaker: The anti-control freak at IBM

"Eventually, you'll also see some aggregation of these varied technologies by large players who want to be able to offer a full suite of options to meet customers' varied needs," Day said.

Clean technology firms tend to focus on a particular niche because the field is dominated by larger, diversified companies such as GE Energy. And if they are successful, these start-ups tend to get acquired, and don't usually make a stock market launch.

Aerotecture is in its early phases of development as a company, but Lippitt said the idea of micro wind in the city has a lot of potential. "There are more possibilities than rules at the moment," she said.

AeroVironment's Glenney, too, said that the demand for wind power is being fueled by the desire of society overall to have more diversified sources of energy.

"I think this (wind) technology matches up very well with photovoltaic (solar) panels. I think it can be both competitive and complementary," Glenney said. "It's an area that needs more innovation."


Copyright ©1995-2006 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Peak Oil
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2006, 09:19:00 PM »
I, for one, will not read this long-ass fucking article about oil.  :rofl:  :rofl:  :tup:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Peak Oil
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2006, 09:23:00 PM »
get a job
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Peak Oil
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2006, 09:27:00 PM »
What part of "it's friday night" didn't you understand?  :lol:  :lol:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Peak Oil
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2006, 08:11:00 PM »
Government Could Lose Billions In Oil Royalties
Lawmaker Says Americans Are Being 'Hung Out To Dry'

February 15, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Despite record profits, oil and gas producers may avoid billions of dollars in royalty payments to the government because of a decade-old law designed to spur production when energy prices are low.

The Interior Department estimates that as much as $66 billion worth of oil and natural gas taken from the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico between now and 2011 will be exempt from government royalty payments.

That could amount to the government losing an estimated $7 billion to $9.5 billion based on anticipated production and current price projections for oil and gas, according to an analysis in the department's five-year budget plan.

The analysis assumes oil prices will hover around $50 a barrel and natural gas in the $8 to $9 per thousand cubic feet range between now and 2012.

Johnnie Burton, head of the department's Minerals Management Service, said Tuesday the actual revenue losses would be subject to many variables, but that more than $7 billion was "in the range" of probability.

The industry windfall was first reported by The New York Times.

The disclosure prompted calls in Congress on Tuesday to curtail or end the royalty relief that lawmakers made available in 1995.

"The American people are getting stood up and hung out to dry by an administration that favors sweetheart deals with Big Oil," said Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., one of six Democrats who said they planned to introduce legislation to end the royalty relief.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said he planned to introduce a resolution putting the Senate on record against the royalty break. "No one in their right mind think oil companies turning record high profits and squeezing Americans at the pump should now get to keep $7 billion," Kerry said.

Although Kerry was among those who voted for the royalty relief in 1995, his spokeswoman said that the relief is no longer needed when oil prices are near $60 a barrel.

Oil cost an average of $18.43 a barrel in 1995, according to the Energy Department. At the time there was a widespread view that incentives were needed to spur production in the deep-water Gulf region.

Like Markey, Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., opposed the 1995 "royalty holiday" for oil companies.

"It's one of the most egregious giveaways of taxpayer money in our history and it can and should be stopped," said Miller.

Republicans also have expressed second thoughts about the royalty relief. Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., chairman of the House Resources Committee, told the Times: "I don't think there's a single member of Congress who thinks you should get royalty relief at $70 a barrel."

Oil prices reached that level briefly in recent months.

The 1995 law includes a provision that if oil and natural gas prices pass a certain level -- $34.71 a barrel for oil and $4.34 per thousand cubic feet for gas -- royalties will be imposed even in leases covered by the royalty relief.

According to the Interior Department, those annual thresholds were exceeded repeatedly over the last five years for natural gas and in the last two years for oil.

Last December, the department sent letters to the companies demanding royalty payments, and $425 million was collected from 38 of 41 companies, according to Walter Cruickshank, deputy director of the Minerals Management Service.

But Cruickshank said nine companies have challenged the legality of the price threshold on leases issued between 1996 and 2000. Kerr-McGee, a major gas producer, has said it will fight the issue in court.

Cruickshank, in a Feb. 9 department memo, said that the department needs to "carefully consider how to approach this issue" because an adverse court ruling could "place more than $500 million of past royalties and an undetermined amount of future royalties at risk."

Even with the price threshold, millions of barrels of oil and billions of cubic feet of natural gas will not be subject to royalty payments.

The 1995 law exempted leases issued in 1998 and 1999 from the price threshold, accounting for about two-thirds of the royalty-free gas and millions of barrels of oil.

Last year an estimated 247 billion cubic feet of natural gas and 16.5 million barrels of oil were taken from the Gulf without royalties having been paid either because they were exempt from the threshold or because "companies have chosen not to pay even though the (price) thresholds have been exceeded," Cruickshank wrote in another memo.

Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Peak Oil
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2006, 11:00:00 PM »
Nobody seemed to inform my local gas station that energy prices are low, as they claim in this article. What other product has doubled in price in just a couple of years?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Peak Oil
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2006, 11:53:00 PM »
pussy.  :lol:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Peak Oil
« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2006, 12:06:00 AM »
:nworthy:  :nworthy:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Peak Oil
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2006, 01:18:00 PM »
Quote
On 2006-02-10 18:19:00, Anonymous wrote:

"I, for one, will not read this long-ass fucking article about oil.  :rofl:  :rofl:  :tup: "


homo says what?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »