When will the world reach peak fossil fuel production?

[mheslep]

You are again confusing the difference between "reserves" and "oil in place." Reserves refers to only the portion of the oil in place which we have the current knowledge technology to extract. Thus, you could have 1T bbls of oil in place, half of which is recoverable i.e. reserves. If you invent a way to get out another 200B bbls, your reserves increase to 700B bbls, all without finding a single additional drop of oil...

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OPEC_declared_reserves_1980-now_BP.svg" is clear; it refers only to reserves: OPEC 1980, 410B bbls; OPEC 2009, 1137B bbls, almost tripling in that time. That much is empirical fact. No doubt part of that increase is due to the inevitable improvements in removal technology, and part is due simply to additional discoveries.

 

[DoggerDan]

The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OPEC_declared_reserves_1980-now_BP.svg" is clear; it refers only to reserves: OPEC 1980, 410B bbls; OPEC 2009, 1137B bbls, almost tripling in that time. That much is empirical fact. No doubt part of that increase is due to the inevitable improvements in removal technology, and part is due simply to additional discoveries.

Now you're steaming on a few more boilers. :) <--- am I dating myself? All the jumps are due to locating new reserves. The very slight upwards slope of the lines is due to incremental improvements in technology. The problem is, most new finds are beyond the ability of our technology to extract them, so they add to oil in place, but not reserves. Exceptions in your graph are noted.

To be honest, I don't think removal technology will increase all that much. We had a devil of a time trying to cap the BP leak at Macondo. The fact we can establish a well-head in a mile of water still amazes me, given all the issues involved in just a couple hundred feet of water.

My point is that technology is much more of a factor than cost, but there haven't been quantum improvements in technology in decades. Only incremental ones. Thus, the only reason we haven't pumped more has been cost, as no company will pump the costly oil if they can pump the easy oil.

Without radical technological advances, we can't get to it. Injection of water, natural gas, steam, surfactants, and CO2, the use of submersible pumps, which cover primary (5-15%), secondary (35-45%), and tertiary (40-65%) recovery methods aren't radical, and they've been used for decades. Until you mine the oil-laden rock itself, the rest of the oil is unrecoverable. There it sits. This is why I made that comment about Star Trek transporter technology, because we sure as heck can't start digging mines under a mile of ocean.

Oh, well, if we had Star Trek force fields we could...

No, I'm afraid even the most radical advances in foreseeable technology over the next 100 years will only allow us to get a few more percent out of the mix.

By the way - you like graphs? Here are some interesting ones: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2010/gulf.coast.oil.spill/interactive/numbers.interactive/index.html

 

[mheslep]

...
To be honest, I don't think removal technology will increase all that much...

Well put your money on the table then. :tongue: People keep betting against the trend and keep losing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/28/s...l=1&adxnnlx=1317073238-sZfLE7biv6f3wU4wF1/PIQ

The fact we can establish a well-head in a mile of water still amazes me, given all the issues involved in just a couple hundred feet of water...

That's a common line but it seems myopic to me. Day after day 300 ton aircraft constructed w/ literally millions of parts travel seven miles up in -50C temperatures at 600 miles per hour. Dams hold back cubic miles of water. Professional soccer players have heart transplants and keep playing. Nuclear aircraft carriers displacing 100,000 tons travel the seas at up to thirty knots for twenty years without refueling. This all is now taken for granted, yet come an accident and suddenly drilling a hole in the ocean floor becomes the impossibly risky task without comparison.

 

[DoggerDan]

Me:

The fact we can establish a well-head in a mile of water still amazes me, given all the issues involved in just a couple hundred feet of water...

That's a common line but it seems myopic to me. Day after day 300 ton aircraft constructed w/ literally millions of parts travel seven miles up in -50C temperatures at 600 miles per hour. Dams hold back cubic miles of water. Professional soccer players have heart transplants and keep playing. Nuclear aircraft carriers displacing 100,000 tons travel the seas at up to thirty knots for twenty years without refueling. This all is now taken for granted, yet come an accident and suddenly drilling a hole in the ocean floor becomes the impossibly risky task without comparison.

Myopic?

When aircraft malfunction, they can usually make an emergency landing. If they can't, fatalities rarely involve people who weren't on the passenger list.

When dams burst, there's often warning signs and subsequent evacuations in advance. If not, they might wipe out a relatively (compared to the Gulf of Mexico) valley.

We've yet to loose a nuclear carrier under any circumstances.

When a mile-deep oil well in the gulf blows out, it's difficult to stop. It killed half the life in the Gulf of Mexico.

I don't think my point of view is in any way "myopic."

 

[mheslep]

National Petroleum Institute just released a report stating that North American oil production could be as high as 20 million barrels per day in 2035, in other words 100% of US current consumption, requiring no OPEC imports. This would be accomplished mainly by using hydraulic fracturing techniques to recover oil and expansion of production in the Canadian Oil sands.

http://downloadcenter.connectlive.com/events/npc091511/Resource_Supply-091511.pdf

 

[DrClapeyron]

NGL and lease condensates are not crude oil. Crude oil reserves in the US have dropped from 39 billion barrels in 1970 to 25 billion barrels in 2009. Consequently crude oil production has been dropping just the same. The US produces something like 5.3 million barrels of crude oil per day. The rest of the "oil" or "petroleum liquids" production is from NGL (including refined gases) and lease condensates.

 

[mheslep]

NGL and lease condensates are not crude oil...

Yes, what is the point? Industrial society does not require crude oil, it requires gasoline, Jet-A, diesel, etc that can be made from all sources shown in the figure.

 

[DrClapeyron]

I can say with some certainty that the most recent large reserve increases are due to higher prices. The Venezuelan and Canadian oil sands have been known for decades, unproduced due to cheap oil - until recently.

Reserves are based on price, market and technology constraints. These reserves will change (grow) as price increases, but the OIP need not increase the same and in fact will decrease if no new OIP is found.

Public interest has changed from peak crude oil to peak fossil fuels. This clearly shows that both of these reserves are depleting and peaking at rates which affect everyone. It is no longer the price today people are concerned with but the price 10-20 years from now.

NGL and lease condensates are natural gas production byproducts. Texas' (my home state) last great oil play is in fact an unconventional shale gas play which produces lease condensates (oil) around Gonzales. The Eagle Ford resource is something like 22 trillion cubic feet. By comparison the Marcellus resource is something like 440 trillion cubic feet. Recently the USGS published a study stating they believe the Marcellus resource to be 80% less than 440 trillion cubic feet.

Considerably bigger than the Eagle Ford the Marcellus however does not have an oil window (condensates) like the Eagle Ford, and likely won't produce the same volume of NGL and lease condensates. Can't say much about the Bakken Shale other than it is much like the Eagle Ford because of the wet gas that is found in the formation. These gas plays, I am certain, are produced to provide natural gas to both utility and industrial natural gas power plants.

 

[mheslep]

I can say with some certainty that the most recent large reserve increases are due to higher prices. The Venezuelan and Canadian oil sands have been known for decades, unproduced due to cheap oil - until recently.

...

A similar opinion is held by Harold Hamm, Oklahoma-based founder and CEO of Continental Resources and pioneer of horizontal drilling, in today's WSJ Weekend Interview:

One reason for the renaissance has been OPEC's erosion of market power. "For nearly 50 years in this country nobody looked for oil here and drilling was in steady decline. Every time the domestic industry picked itself up, the Saudis would open the taps and drown us with cheap oil," he recalls. "They had unlimited production capacity, and company after company would go bust."Today OPEC's market share is falling and no longer dictates the world price. This is huge, Mr. Hamm says. "Finally we have an opportunity to go out and explore for oil and drill without fear of price collapse."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6602524023932438.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

 

[DrClapeyron]

A similar opinion is held by Harold Hamm, Oklahoma-based founder and CEO of Continental Resources and pioneer of horizontal drilling, in today's WSJ Weekend Interview:

It's not just the OPEC countries losing their edge:

Russian Oil Boom’s End Means Lower Tax That Risks Unrest: Energy

Russia’s 12-year oil boom is nearing its peak, forcing the next president to decide whether to cut taxes and revive production or use the windfall from $100 oil to boost public spending and quell mounting unrest.

As Vladimir Putin campaigns for a second stint in the Kremlin, the nation’s existing fields are losing pressure and oil companies OAO Rosneft, OAO Lukoil and TNK-BP (BP/) say production taxes give little incentive to invest. Since Putin first became president in 2000, crude output has grown 57 percent to 10 million barrels a day, surpassing Saudi Arabia and flooding the state treasury.

http://webfarm.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-20/russian-oil-boom-s-end-means-lower-tax-that-risks-unrest-energy.html

Is peak oil now cause for social demonstrations in Russia? I heard rumors that Egypt's net oil exports had been declining fast in the couple years prior to Mumbarak's removal. Decreasing revenues hurting the state coffers?

And how about this publishing by Scientific American (Nature journal reference):

Has Petroleum Production Peaked, Ending the Era of Easy Oil?

A new analysis concludes that easily extracted oil peaked in 2005, suggesting that dirtier fossil fuels will be burned and energy prices will rise

Despite major oil finds off Brazil's coast, new fields in North Dakota and ongoing increases in the conversion of tar sands to oil in Canada, fresh supplies of petroleum are only just enough to offset the production decline from older fields. At best, the world is now living off an oil plateau—roughly 75 million barrels of oil produced each and every day—since at least 2005, according to a new comment published in Nature on January 26. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) That is a year earlier than estimated by the International Energy Agency—an energy cartel for oil consuming nations.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=has-peak-oil-already-happened

Maybe some hipocrasy on Bloomberg's part, publishing this after the Nature and Scientific American publications, and published before making claims about Russia's peaking oil production:

Peak Oil Scare Fades as Shale, Deepwater Wells Gush Crude

When Daniel Lacalle, in his early 20s, took a job with Spanish oil company Repsol YPF SA in 1991, friends chided him for entering a field with no future. "They all said, 'Why do you want to do that? Don't you know only 20 years of oil is left in the whole world?'" he recalls.

Two decades and four energy crises later, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that more than 2 trillion barrels of untouched crude is still locked in the ground, enough to last more than 70 years at current rates of consumption. Technological advances enable companies to image, drill and shatter subterranean rocks with precision never dreamed of in decades past. Trillions of barrels of petroleum previously thought unreachable or nonexistent have been identified, mapped and in many cases bought and sold during the past half decade, from the boggy wastes of northern Alberta, to the arid mountain valleys of Patagonia, to Africa's Rift Valley.

"Betting against human ingenuity has been a mistake," says Lacalle, who today helps oversee $1.3 billion as a portfolio manager at Ecofin Ltd. in London. "The resource base is absolutely enormous, so much so that we will not run out of oil in my lifetime, your lifetime, our children's lifetimes or our grandchildren's lifetimes."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-06/peak-oil-scare-fades-as-shale-deepwater-wells-gush-crude.html

 

[CaptFirePanda]

Predicting when Peak Oil will occur is the greatest downfall of the the theory, imo. There are so many factors that need to be considered and forecasted that arriving at any sort of confident prediction requires a fair amount of naiveté.

The concept itself is quite sound, however, even if we assume vast amounts of untapped resources out there somewhere.

We need to consider the following factors:

1) What has been discovered and exploited to date represents the easiest to find and most accessible resources. Sometimes it was bubbling right up to surface, or leaking from the banks of rivers. Ultimately, it was right there in our own backyards and all we needed to do was sink a well down to begin production;

2) Unconventional sources are becoming a greater part of overall production as we move forward. This is because, our original methods used to recover the hydrocarbons didn't get it all (some fields can have very low recovery factors less than or equal to 5%) or because we've developed technologies that allow us find more remote or more 'nebulous' resources. The rather large numbers associated with some of these resources (especially shale gas) are misleading in that they reference what is in-place and not what is recoverable. There are about 50 kgs of gold in every square kilometre of seawater, but we aren't extracting gold from it any time soon;

3) These new methods (like enhanced oil recovery, hydraulic fracturing, SAGD, etc...) all require advances in techology which, in turn, required increased R&D on the parts of oil and gas companies. Increased R&D is a result of greater cash flows and broadened exploration brought on by price increases;

4) There new methods fundamentally require more energy to undertake. If they didn't, we would have already accessed them. If new methods aren't required and we are producing conventional sources, they are generally more remote and require greater energy to travel to and develop infrastructure for;

5) This greater amount of energy required to produce resources must be coupled by incremental increases in oil/gas prices, otherwise it would not be economic for companies to go after them. Growing demand also puts stresses on production and the only way to produce more, is to drill/discover more. This also requires incremental increases in cost.

6) At some point, the energy required to access and produce new resources will begin to conflict with the value of the energy extracted. I'm sure we could send out deeper and deeper oil rigs, or (perhaps) drill through the Antarctic ice sheet to access possible resources there, or microfracture the entire Bakken/Duvernay to produce all of the gas captured in the unforgiving shales. This, however, comes at greater and greater cost.

7) So, with the need to expend more energy to find and produce more hydrocarbons while dealing with ever increasing demand we are running into an inevitable breaking point (aka Peak Oil). When this will happen exactly, is next to impossible to predict. Will it happen in our lifetime? Maybe. Will it happen in our children's lifetimes? More likely.

The question arises: Can we change policies and regulations quickly enough to allow for the development of other energy sources to a degree that they can replace hydrocarbons? Maybe. I am pessimistic about this because we will also be faced with many other challenges in the coming decades and they will all be of very significant proportions. Assembling vast amounts of wind farms, hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants, etc... will become increasingly more difficult if/when crude prices rise and supply dwindles. What kind of pressures will this put on the agricultural industry which relies heavily on hydrocarbons?

Even with another 50 -100 years, we're going to be challenged.

 

[mheslep]

4) There new methods fundamentally require more energy to undertake. If they didn't, we would have already accessed them. If new methods aren't required and we are producing conventional sources, they are generally more remote and require greater energy to travel to and develop infrastructure for;

While possibly true I don't think it is fundamentally true that new(er) methods must use more energy, just because they have not been used before. There are several other possibilities. It may well be that the new(er) methods such as frac jobs are simply more expensive (for now) than traditional methods. It may be that the technology was not available. Continental's CEO Hamm, per the interview above, suggests the reason is that the investment in unconventional drilling in the US was too risky given the Saudis could in the past had the ability turn on the taps and bankrupt everyone with expensive rigs, and now the Saudis are maxed out (maybe).

Calculating the energy use of frac drilling of oil/gas may not be as straightforward as it seems. Most observers seem to concentrate on how much energy it takes to drill one frac well, which by itself is clearly more than a traditional vertical well. However, I've yet to see consideration of various other factors: with vertical drilling the oil/gas and narrow bores if the well missed by 10 feet that was as dry a hole as if one missed by a mile. A dry hole, and there were many, was utterly wasted drilling energy. With shale geology it appears to me the oil is almost always found given the virtually wide bore, if more difficult to extract. So dry holes may be very rare, eliminating setup and take-down, transport from here to there, etc. This is all supposition; I have not seen data to back it up.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

While possibly true I don't think it fundamentally true that new(er) methods must use more energy, just because they have not been used before. There are several other possibilities. It may well be that the new(er) methods such as frac jobs are simply more expensive (for now) than traditional methods. It may be that the technology was not available. Continental's CEO Hamm per the interview above suggests the reason is that the investment in unconventional drilling in the US was too risky given the Saudis could in the past had the ability turn on the taps and bankrupt everyone with expensive rigs, and now the Saudis are maxed out (maybe).

Hydraulic fracturing is more expensive now because it requires more energy. The permeability of these shales and tight plays is significantly lower than conventional pools. That cannot be altered by technology unless energy is added into the equation. We can, of course, reduce the overall amount of energy added, but it will still be more than that of conventional sources. You can't (as far as I know) transcend the basic laws of nature with current or foreseeable technology.

Like I said, new technology requires energy (in this case, it is often in the form of currency) and is only applied when and if it is economically feasible. Increased hydrocarbon prices are what makes new technologies economically feasible. Like I've mentioned previously, these increased prices may be the result of market speculation, but long term trends are the result of requiring more and more unconventional sources to meet demands.

The oil sands, for instance, were identified more than 200 years ago and they've been commercially developed for almost 100 years. They haven't become a viable source of crude until just recently, however. So, why leave a vast amount of potential fuel in the ground for so long? Well, because the economicsand technology weren't there first of all. Then, once the technology became available, the economics still weren't there. It wasn't until about 2003 that production reached levels of real significance.

Economics was the limiting factor and when the supply/demand requirements were met, the oil sands were produced. This supply/demand is driven by the fact that consumption is catching up (if not surpassing) production and this is happening because of the energy required to produce the same amounts of hydrocarbons now is greater than the energy required 20 years ago.

Calculating the energy use of frac drilling of oil/gas may not be as straightforward as it seems. Most observers seem to concentrate on how much energy it takes to drill one frac well, which by itself is clearly more than a traditional vertical well. However, I've yet to see consideration of various other factors: with vertical drilling the oil/gas and narrow bores if the well missed by 10 feet that was as dry a hole as if one missed by a mile. A dry hole, and there were many, was utterly wasted drilling energy. With shale geology it appears to me the oil is almost always found given the virtually wide bore, if more difficult to extract. So dry holes may be very rare, eliminating setup and take-down, transport from here to there, etc. This is all supposition; I have not seen data to back it up.

Actually, the size of the well bores has very little to do with recovery of the resource. With unconventional resources, horizontal drilling from well pads is the new status quo. The horizontal holes can be as long as 3500m and run as deep as a couple thousand meters. From these pads, the often drill several holes in various directions (in plan view, they would look like spiders, in a sense). The reasoning behind this is that the gas within the shales is so finely disseminated that it is being treated as a statistical play (eg. there's going to be gas in there, so the more you drill it and fracture it, the greater your chances are for production). Typically, these wells produce at very high rates initially and then drop off quickly. Thus, more pads and more horizontal wells must be drilled.

They definitely do have a much better success rate based on the simple fact that the gas is pervasive. But it isn't a simple one to one comparison (simply based on the intensity of unconventional drilling).

 

[mheslep]

The question arises: Can we change policies and regulations quickly enough to allow for the development of other energy sources to a degree that they can replace hydrocarbons? Maybe. I am pessimistic about this because we will also be faced with many other challenges in the coming decades and they will all be of very significant proportions. Assembling vast amounts of wind farms, hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants, etc... will become increasingly more difficult if/when crude prices rise and supply dwindles. What kind of pressures will this put on the agricultural industry which relies heavily on hydrocarbons?

Even with another 50 -100 years, we're going to be challenged...

Yes the issue you describe, sometimes called the energy trap, after a close look gives me little concern. I find that the US economy has i) an enormous amount of energy consumption slack in it that is ignored, and likewise ii) has an enormous capability to produce alternatives.

For case i), reference the 1979/Iranian oil crisis. US energy use per capita had been continually increasing every year as far back as the data shows. In 1978 it was at its all time high, and by 1983 after the crisis had dropped 14%. Yet during that same 5 year period GDP rose 32% (not inflation corrected). Here's another narrower example. A US family summer vacation might be 1000 miles round trip, consuming 5GJ (5e9 Joule) in the average 25 mpg car. This source claims the construction of http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html, so that if 100 million families decided to forego a single summer vacation (gasp!) twenty new nuclear power plants could be built from the energy savings. If all those skipped family vacations were air travel, 2 people one flight, then 340 nuclear plants could be built.

For case ii), the ability to quickly produce alternatives, look at ethanol. Yes corn ethanol is a poor energy crop, is a dumb subsidy, using up arable land, etc, but this is beside the immediate point, which in this case is volume. US ethanol production, going from almost nothing a decade ago, is now one million barrels per day, and it would be greater if not for the 10% blend limit imposed by the EPA that has leveled off production. For comparison the US produces almost six million bbls / day of crude oil (and rising).

 

[mheslep]

...
Actually, the size of the well bores has very little to do with recovery of the resource.

By virtual bore diameter, I refer to the reach of the created fissures shown in this illustration:

http://assets.nybooks.com/media/photo/2012/02/15/mckibben_2-030812_jpg_630x511_crop_q85.jpg

This increases the explored volume well beyond the bit diameter and thus the odds of success.

Typically, these wells produce at very high rates initially and then drop off quickly.

Last I looked, yes hydro frac gas drops initially in the first months and then stabilizes to a slow decrease. Is that your understanding?

They definitely do have a much better success rate based on the simple fact that the gas is pervasive. But it isn't a simple one to one comparison (simply based on the intensity of unconventional drilling).

I don't follow the last sentence. Can you please explain further?

 

[SixNein]

While possibly true I don't think it is fundamentally true that new(er) methods must use more energy, just because they have not been used before.

Advances in technology cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics. We can find more efficient methods of extraction from sources like oil sands; however, we will never match the energy efficiency of conventional wells. And here is why:

"About two tons of oil sands are required to produce one barrel (roughly 1/8 of a ton) of oil."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands#Extraction_process

Lets pretend for a moment that we were pumping oil sand like a conventional well. We would need to pump 16 tons of sand in order to produce 1 ton of oil. In a conventional well, we would get much closer to 16 tons of oil. So just from the extraction standpoint alone, we have lost a great deal of efficiency. And we still have to separate the oil from the sand.

We are very close if not at peak production of oil. But the peak should not worry people nearly so much as the long terminal decline. How do we manage the long term?

 

[SixNein]

The question arises: Can we change policies and regulations quickly enough to allow for the development of other energy sources to a degree that they can replace hydrocarbons? Maybe. I am pessimistic about this because we will also be faced with many other challenges in the coming decades and they will all be of very significant proportions. Assembling vast amounts of wind farms, hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants, etc... will become increasingly more difficult if/when crude prices rise and supply dwindles. What kind of pressures will this put on the agricultural industry which relies heavily on hydrocarbons?

Even with another 50 -100 years, we're going to be challenged.

There is going to be a need for lifestyle changes. Historically, we can divide the modern era into two parts: Expansion of oil production and decline of oil production. My best guess is that we are going to be seeing a great deal of demand destruction. In addition, we may begin to measure economies by how fast they decay.

Renewable technology is going to be very difficult without massive energy storage systems. And nuclear is going to be difficult from a psychological perspective, and it will be difficult from a military perspective.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

For case i), reference the 1979/Iranian oil crisis. US energy use per capita had been continually increasing every year as far back as the data shows. In 1978 it was at its all time high, and by 1983 after the crisis had dropped 14%. Yet during that same 5 year period GDP rose 32% (not inflation corrected).

That's all well and good, but since the 1980's the gap between US production and consumption has widened significantly. Anomalous drops in consumption reveal that, to some degree, conservation may help. The bigger picture, however, reveals that production is hitting a plateau and nominal drops in consumption will not be enough.

(taken from here)

Also, I am highly doubtful that the US economy will be making strides like it did in the 80's.

Here's another narrower example. A US family summer vacation might be 1000 miles round trip, consuming 5GJ (5e9 Joule) in the average 25 mpg car. This source claims the construction of http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html, so that if 100 million families decided to forego a single summer vacation (gasp!) twenty new nuclear power plants could be built from the energy savings. If all those skipped family vacations were air travel, 2 people one flight, then 340 nuclear plants could be built.

The construction of 340 nuclear power plants would be a very significant contribution to alternative sources of energy in the US. These plants, of course, could not be built overnight and, seeing that the Plant Vogtle in Georgia (which was approved earlier this year) was the first in 34 years to be approved and likely won't be operational until 2017, I would suggest that the time required to get 340 plants proposed, approved and built would be significant. Also, nuclear power isn't what keeps the US transportation industry driving, nor does it keep any of those tourist-laden planes aloft.

For case ii), the ability to quickly produce alternatives, look at ethanol. Yes corn ethanol is a poor energy crop, is a dumb subsidy, using up arable land, etc, but this is beside the immediate point, which in this case is volume. US ethanol production, going from almost nothing a decade ago, is now one million barrels per day, and it would be greater if not for the 10% blend limit imposed by the EPA that has leveled off production. For comparison the US produces almost six million bbls / day of crude oil (and rising).

The US consumes ~19.2 million bbl, so that would meet 5% of the consumption for the country. Increasing production beyond current numbers, even without EPA restrictions, is likely not going to happen. Food/arable land is just as (if not more) valuable, so offsetting hydrocarbon consumption by taking up valuable agricultural land is something that would be far from an easy sell.

I pointed out that pulling oil out of shale is not the only place where energy is consumed. In response you ignore that point and repeat what you said previously. Why?

Let's not have anyone fool us or fool ourselves. What about Hamm's reasoning?

I didn't ignore it, I just missed the addition you made to that post. As for Hamm's reasoning, he does a very good job at saying what any CEO of an oil & gas company should say.

By virtual bore diameter, I refer to the reach of the created fissures shown in this illustration:

This increases the explored volume well beyond the bit diameter and thus the odds of success.

The term "virtual" well bore is something I am not familiar with and does not seem to come up on any sort of regular basis in discussion around hydraulic fracturing.

Please note that fracturing of wells is something that has been done in vertical wells throughout the history of oil and gas production. It is not a new concept. Techniques have changed and adapted to suit new resources (eg. shale gas), but it has been used for decades.

Last I looked, yes hydro frac gas drops initially in the first months and then stabilizes to a slow decrease. Is that your understanding?

Production drops off significantly throughout the first year of production. New wells are therefore required in order to compensate for this drastic drop-off in order to maintain production levels.

I don't follow the last sentence. Can you please explain further?

I was addressing your statement about how much more successful the shale gas wells are based on the drilling techniques. As I'd mentioned, the gas in these plays is pervasive, but very disseminated throughout the entire play (which can cover vast geographical areas). Thus, the chances of getting some gas are very high. However, drilling intensity has to increase in order to see viable rates of production. Your typical vertical well, on the other hand, may have a limited areal extent, but they are drilled to intersect much more productive gas horizons.

 

[mheslep]

...
We can find more efficient methods of extraction from sources like oil sands; however, we will never match the energy efficiency of conventional wells. And here is why:

"About two tons of oil sands are required to produce one barrel (roughly 1/8 of a ton) of oil."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands#Extraction_process

Lets pretend for a moment that we were pumping oil sand like a conventional well. We would need to pump 16 tons of sand in order to produce 1 ton of oil. In a conventional well, we would get much closer to 16 tons of oil. So just from the extraction standpoint alone, we have lost a great deal of efficiency. And we still have to separate the oil from the sand.

Comparisons are not well served by examining one side of the problem. How much energy do you imagine is required to pull oil up a vertical well from two miles below the surface, or set up an off shore drilling platform, or drill dry wells? Oil sands projects don't have failed exploration problems, the resource is near the surface. We've already seen the energy comparison of oil sand production to traditional production courtesy of CaptFP. Yes oil sand requires more energy than *average* traditional oil, but not all all traditional, and certainly not as much more as you story indicates. Anyway the thread above (recently) is about shale oil and gas and hydraulic fracturing, not the tar sands.

We are very close if not at peak production of oil.

<shrug> Maybe, but saying it does not make it so.

But the peak should not worry people nearly so much as the long terminal decline. ...

Why? Energy consumption in the developed world is in a long decline.

 

[SixNein]

Comparisons are not well served by examining one side of the problem. How much energy do you imagine is required to pull oil up a vertical well from two miles below the surface, or set up an off shore drilling platform, or drill dry wells? Oil sands projects don't have failed exploration problems, the resource is near the surface. We've already seen the energy comparison of oil sand production to traditional production courtesy of CaptFP. Yes oil sand requires more energy than *average* traditional oil, but not all all traditional, and certainly not as much more as you story indicates. Anyway the thread above (recently) is about shale oil and gas and hydraulic fracturing, not the tar sands.

<shrug> Maybe, but that's saying it does not make it so.

Why? Energy consumption in the developed world is in a long decline.

 

[SixNein]

Anyway the thread above (recently) is about shale oil and gas and hydraulic fracturing, not the tar sands.

On the topic of shale gas, a great deal of companies are pulling back on drilling because price is too low.

http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/as-gas-drilling-boom-slows-worry-sets-in-1.1273569#axzz1nLG40ovC
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/02/09/bg-group-to-cut-us-shale-gas-drilling/

Here is an interesting quote form the first link:

As recently as last week, natural gas futures were trading at $2.69 per million BTU, less than half the price it was as recently as September 2008 and far below the $5 to $7 level that many say is the average price required in North America to produce shale gas economically.

Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/as-gas-drilling-boom-slows-worry-sets-in-1.1273569#ixzz1nLGLeN2J

 

[mheslep]

That's all well and good, but since the 1980's the gap between US production and consumption has widened significantly.

Since 2005 the gap has closed significantly as those graphs show, and continues to close. US oil imports have dropped ~25% since the peak back then.

The construction of 340 nuclear power plants would be a very significant contribution to alternative sources of energy in the US. These plants, of course, could not be built overnight and, seeing that the Plant Vogtle in Georgia (which was approved earlier this year) was the first in 34 years to be approved and likely won't be operational until 2017, I would suggest that the time required to get 340 plants proposed, approved and built would be significant. Also, nuclear power isn't what keeps the US transportation industry driving,...

Sure, please don't overdraw the example, which was to show the amount of slack in the system. I provided it in response to the earlier

...Assembling vast amounts of wind farms, hydroelectric dams, nuclear power plants, etc... will become increasingly more difficult if/when crude prices rise and supply dwindles.

so substitute whatever energy infrastructure you care to build.

The US consumes ~19.2 million bbl, so that would meet 5% of the consumption for the country.

Sure, and falling. Again I cited the explosive growth in corn ethanol in response to the query about energy changes being made "quickly enough", not to promote more ethanol. If you don't like corn ethanol (I don't), substitute your favorite biofuel approach (I like this one at 500 bbls/acre-year). I don't know what may or may not work, but once an approach is proven I have little doubt of industrial ability to scale up rapidly - as shown by corn ethanol.

Increasing production beyond current numbers, even without EPA restrictions, is likely not going to happen.

Ethanol production is somehow fixed at today's levels? What is proven by a "not going to happen" assertion?

I didn't ignore it, I just missed the addition you made to that post. As for Hamm's reasoning, he does a very good job at saying what any CEO of an oil & gas company should say.

Sorry I responded before your edit/update and since deleted the comment. Whatever Hamm's motivation, his explanation for the growth in US domestic oil production is logical.

Please note that fracturing of wells is something that has been done in vertical wells throughout the history of oil and gas production. It is not a new concept. Techniques have changed and adapted to suit new resources (eg. shale gas), but it has been used for decades.

Yes I'm aware, though the current technique and scale is little like that of decades ago.

Production drops off significantly throughout the first year of production. New wells are therefore required in order to compensate for this drastic drop-off in order to maintain production levels.

Sure, another reason why success rate is important. Drill (for instance) ~150,000 frac shale wells at 100 bbl/day and domestic supply meets demand (after refinery gains, some NG liquids, and some ethanol)

 

[mheslep]

<shrug>
As we've seen before:
http://www.oilsands.Alberta.ca/images/FS-CES-GHG-Chart-Well2Wheels.png

 

[apeiron]

And nuclear is going to be difficult from a psychological perspective, and it will be difficult from a military perspective.

This is one aspect of the story that still really puzzles me.

I get that the gas and coal plays extend the dependence on fossil fuels past peak cheap oil for maybe 20 to 30 years, but why is the world not buying the nuclear play (apart from India perhaps, and those who want to make bombs)? Especially as green house gas emission targets are another reason to go nuclear, if it is in fact economic.

The maths was discussed earlier in this thread. Although I am no enthusiast of nuclear, I think Mheslep made a prima facie case for its viability - certainly enough to make me ask why it is not happening, and instead we have the likely far more environmentally damaging course of the gas and coal plays.

Answers anyone?

 

[apeiron]

<shrug>
As we've seen before:
http://www.oilsands.Alberta.ca/images/FS-CES-GHG-Chart-Well2Wheels.png

Those are the figures from one study, paid for by the state doing the exploitation. Other studies paint a worse picture for tar sands.

And of course, the "tank to wheels" part of the chart is utterly irrelevant to the point the chart argues. It is a blatant perceptual massaging of the message.

So the chart I would like to see is a metastudy of just the well to tank figures. That would be the start of a fair judgement.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

Since 2005 the gap has closed significantly as those graphs show, and are continuing to close. US oil imports have dropped ~25% since the peak back then.

The over-riding reason behind those recent drops in consumption/import numbers is the extremely significant recession that we experienced in 2008.

Sure, please don't overdraw the example, which was to show the amount of slack in the system. I provided it in response to the earlier...so substitute whatever energy infrastructure you care to build.

I could substitute any sort of energy source in there but it doesn't make your point any more valid. All I have to do is expand the picture to global consumption because, as we know, the US is not the only consumer of hydrocarbons in the world and there are at least 2 developing countires that will more than pick up any slack US citizens are willing to give.

Sure, and falling.

No, not falling. Recovering perhaps, but definitely not falling.

Again I cited the explosive growth in corn ethanol in response to the query about energy changes being made "quickly enough", not to promote more ethanol. If you don't like corn ethanol (I don't), substitute your favorite biofuel approach (I like this one at 500 bbls/acre-year). I don't know what may or may not work, but once an approach is proven I have little doubt of industrial ability to scale up rapidly - as shown by corn ethanol.

As I've mentioned, land-use issues will inevitably arise with respect to any of these sorts of technologies. Whether they are taking up arable land or otherwise, there will be significant limitations on how large they can grow.

Ethanol production is somehow fixed at today's levels? What is proven by a "not going to happen" assertion?

The bit where I mention the difficulty in trying to use arable land and food supplies to satisfy energy needs rather than actually putting food on people's table. That has not been and will not be an easy sell.

Yes I'm aware, though the current technique and scale is little like that of decades ago.

They are different because they are being used to produce from very different geological horizons with very different physical properties that require far more intensive multi-stage fracturing techniques.

Sure, another reason why success rate is important. Drill (for instance) ~150,000 frac shale wells at 100 bbl/day and domestic supply meets demand (after refinery gains, some NG liquids, and some ethanol)

Since the 1980's the US had drilled about 220,000 gas wells so the 150,000 number equates to about 25 years of drilling (certainly not an overnight fix). Also with gas prices where they are now, it would take a lot of incentive and recovery for anyone to keep pace with historical rates of drilling (especially when drilling techniques are far more expensive).

By 100 bbl/day are you talking "barrel of oil equivalent" (BOE)? If so, average productivity of gas wells peaked in the 70's near 450,000 cubic feet/day/well. 100 BOE/day/well equates to about 600,000 cubic feet/day/well. Thus, you're hoping for a 33% increase in productivity for these wells. This seems optimistic to me.

 

[ThomasT]

What about the North Dakota oil field(s). Won't this, as well as the exploitation of Canadien oil, push the peak fossil fuel date back a bit?

 

[SixNein]

This is one aspect of the story that still really puzzles me.

I get that the gas and coal plays extend the dependence on fossil fuels past peak cheap oil for maybe 20 to 30 years, but why is the world not buying the nuclear play (apart from India perhaps, and those who want to make bombs)? Especially as green house gas emission targets are another reason to go nuclear, if it is in fact economic.

The maths was discussed earlier in this thread. Although I am no enthusiast of nuclear, I think Mheslep made a prima facie case for its viability - certainly enough to make me ask why it is not happening, and instead we have the likely far more environmentally damaging course of the gas and coal plays.

Answers anyone?

The EORI graph I posted should explain it. Compare nuclear to coal...

 

[SixNein]

What about the North Dakota oil field(s). Won't this, as well as the exploitation of Canadien oil, push the peak fossil fuel date back a bit?

No, in fact, those unconventional sources are a sign of peak oil. But understand, peak oil is more of a misnomer for cheap oil.

 

[apeiron]

The EORI graph I posted should explain it. Compare nuclear to coal...

Yes, but that shows nuclear in the middle of the pack and tar sands down the tail.

So the logic of cheap coal for electricity baseload generation is clear. And coal-to-fuel may pay for itself above other transport and fertiliser plays. (Although you would have to factor in future carbon taxes that may be added to get a truer picture of EROEI.)

However there are plenty who claim nuclear is already cheap enough and could get much cheaper.

See earlier posts about what the pro-lobby claim...https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3131150&postcount=299

we find that the levelized cost of electricity from nuclear power is 8.4¢/kWh, denominated in 2007 dollars. The levelized cost of electricity from coal, exclusive of any carbon charge, is 6.2¢/kWh, denominated in 2007 dollars. The levelized cost of electricity from gas, exclusive of any carbon charge, is 6.5¢/kWh

[EDIT: sorry, that was those questioning the pro-lobby - I meant the earlier cites from Mheslep like https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2814081&postcount=54.]]

Regarding cost for nuclear, this varies considerably by country, another reason why addressing the problem world wide is complicated. In the US yes nuclear capital costs appear to be $5-7 / W(e). However China is throwing up PWBs for $1.6/W(e), or $1.6B for a one GW(e) reactor (as pointed out by signerror)

So either such figures are an exaggeration when all externalities are taken into account (the cost of insuring plants, the cost of decommissioning plants, etc) or there are other non-economic factors that I don't understand.

Personally, I believe it most like is just economics.

And the fact that tar sands/shale gas are now being produced are evidence of this. Even though they may be "economic" only because they are flowing into an existing economic infrastructure that has the hidden subsidies and political capture, as well as the refineries, pipelines, capital and vehicle lock-in, to make them viable. As well as no serious accounting of environmental impact.

I don't believe that any fear of nuclear or other psychological barriers would be allowed to stand in the way of nuclear alternatives. You would only have to dim a country's lights for a weekend and citizens would be screaming at governments to get on with building reactors.

The anti-nuclear mentality seems more fueled by the anti-proliferation movement, which countries already with nukes would encourage for reasons of military strategy. So the psychology is encouraged because it suits the world's biggest energy users at present, and keeps the bigger energy exporters at bay.

So no, I'm still not clear of the real reasons why nuclear is not yet the play. It could be clear-cut EROEI. But then that would only mean that fossil fuels economics are so distorted that the price signals are not getting through. It is irrational market behaviour that needs good international regulation to fix.

 

[SixNein]

Yes, but that shows nuclear in the middle of the pack and tar sands down the tail.

So the logic of cheap coal for electricity baseload generation is clear. And coal-to-fuel may pay for itself above other transport and fertiliser plays. (Although you would have to factor in future carbon taxes that may be added to get a truer picture of EROEI.)

However there are plenty who claim nuclear is already cheap enough and could get much cheaper.

See earlier posts about what the pro-lobby claim...https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3131150&postcount=299

Economically, we don't have an alternative that can compete with coal on price. If the future environmental damage was calculated as a part of the price, alternatives might be priced into the market. On the other hand, it could be suicide for the economy unless all players in the global market agreed to participate. And I don't foresee any agreements like that any time soon. The Kyoto Protocol went down the toilet fast because China and India were exempt.

Personally, I believe it most like is just economics.

And the fact that tar sands/shale gas are now being produced are evidence of this. Even though they may be "economic" only because they are flowing into an existing economic infrastructure that has the hidden subsidies and political capture, as well as the refineries, pipelines, capital and vehicle lock-in, to make them viable. As well as no serious accounting of environmental impact.

They are also becoming priced into the market because conventional wells are in decline. Peak oil is mostly about the economics of oil once the conventional wells dry up.

I don't believe that any fear of nuclear or other psychological barriers would be allowed to stand in the way of nuclear alternatives. You would only have to dim a country's lights for a weekend and citizens would be screaming at governments to get on with building reactors.

The anti-nuclear mentality seems more fueled by the anti-proliferation movement, which countries already with nukes would encourage for reasons of military strategy. So the psychology is encouraged because it suits the world's biggest energy users at present, and keeps the bigger energy exporters at bay.

So no, I'm still not clear of the real reasons why nuclear is not yet the play. It could be clear-cut EROEI. But then that would only mean that fossil fuels economics are so distorted that the price signals are not getting through. It is irrational market behaviour that needs good international regulation to fix.

Good luck on getting the international stuff worked out.

 

[ThomasT]

This is one aspect of the story that still really puzzles me.

I get that the gas and coal plays extend the dependence on fossil fuels past peak cheap oil for maybe 20 to 30 years, but why is the world not buying the nuclear play (apart from India perhaps, and those who want to make bombs)? Especially as green house gas emission targets are another reason to go nuclear, if it is in fact economic.

The maths was discussed earlier in this thread. Although I am no enthusiast of nuclear, I think Mheslep made a prima facie case for its viability - certainly enough to make me ask why it is not happening, and instead we have the likely far more environmentally damaging course of the gas and coal plays.

Answers anyone?

Just guessing, but maybe the technology isn't advanced enough to label nuclear a sure thing. Plus nuclear is really expensive up front. So, the vast shale oil deposits, coal deposits, etc., which don't require the building of immensely expensive nuclear facilities, or even new refineries, and which promise a quicker return on investment, will be emphasized for at least the foreseeable future.

Coupled with the already existing oil and coal infrastructure, then nuclear is a nonstarter.

 

[SixNein]

Just guessing, but maybe the technology isn't advanced enough to label nuclear a sure thing. Plus nuclear is really expensive up front. So, the vast shale oil deposits, etc., which don't require the building of immensely expensive nuclear facilities, or even new refineries, and which promise a quicker return on investment, will be emphasized for at least the foreseeable future.

Nuclear competes more with coal than oil.

There really is no good alternatives to oil for the combustible engine that can meet our demand. We are simply just stuck.

 

[ThomasT]

Nuclear competes more with coal than oil.

There really is no good alternatives to oil for the combustible engine that can meet our demand. We are simply just stuck.

That agrees with what I've read. I wonder about the future prospects of hydrogen, etc., fuel cells (mostly for individual vehicles, a large part of the consumption of oil, afaik). Obviously wind and solar are limited by current storage capability technology, as well as the cost to individual consumers who might choose to implement, say, solar technology and live free of the grid.

 

[apeiron]

Nuclear competes more with coal than oil.

There really is no good alternatives to oil for the combustible engine that can meet our demand. We are simply just stuck.

I think this may be at the heart of it. We need everyone to switch to electric cars. And then even if we do that, trucks, planes, farm equipment and military hardware still needs the grunt of diesel.

So we are still on track for economic adjustments like we are seeing in Greece right now.