| Thread Closed |
peak fossil fuels by 2017 |
Share Thread |
| May16-12, 11:33 AM | #460 |
|
Mentor
|
peak fossil fuels by 2017
Noted, but there are two interesting statements in there that seem to contradict the alarmist view:
1. A "permanent doubling of oil prices" does not fit my understanding of Peak Oil, which afaik predicts a continuous (accelerating?) increase. 2. Small continued supply increases is radically different from an accelerating drop. These two statement to me paint a picture of no near-term peak oil risk. What I've been seeing lately appears to be pretty strong contradictions of peak oil. The gist of a recent Time article for example is that there are vast untapped reserves out there that require twice the cost to extract as current reserves. Thus a doubling of the price could cause a decades-long stabilization of oil economics. |
| May16-12, 12:15 PM | #461 |
|
|
|
| May16-12, 01:06 PM | #462 |
|
|
It seems to me there are several replacements, using existing technology, that would prevent a price doubling. The first that comes to mind is gas to liquids. The largest plant in the world is Pearl, in Qatar, which cost $24 billion, and produces 192 thousand bbl oil/day from 1.6 billion cf/day of gas. If the twenty year cost of the plant is $30 billion, then the bbl price amortized over the plant life is $30/bbl, plus the cost of the gas to make a GTL bbl of oil is ~$45/bbl @ $4/1000 cf, so ~$75/bbl is the top price from GTL. Apparently a GTL plant is about to break ground in the US, brought on by the spread between natural gas and oil prices. *The IMF authors mention this, but discount them due to 'problems' with the 'elasticity' of 'replacements'. |
| May17-12, 05:27 PM | #463 |
|
|
Here's another another low cost 'replacement' that negates the price doubling thesis:
|
| Dec22-12, 02:34 PM | #464 |
|
|
Brazil's crude production still increasing. 2.1 mbpd now in 2011, leaving the peak production forecast further in the dust. ![]() All oil production for Brazil, including ethanol, is 2.68 mbpd |
| Dec23-12, 02:06 PM | #465 |
|
Mentor
|
I've been meaning to update this thread or start a new one: looks like peak oil is over for a while. Fracking is causing an energy revolution in the US, with explosive growth in oil and gas production, which will probably make us energy inndependent in 15-20 yrs: http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/...s-independence
|
| Dec23-12, 02:35 PM | #466 |
|
|
Some have predicted liquid fuel independence in North America, i.e. including oil production from Canada and Mexico, in eight years by 2020. I think they'll be proven right, given governments do not interfere. N. Dakota shale oil production is accelerating at 250K barrels per day, per year. Texas production is accelerating at 500K barrels per day, per year. Add that to Canadian tar sands oil, the liquid by-products coming from natural gas production, a little more offshore oil production, the replacement of oil with gas feed stocks in the chemical industry, the increasing efficiency of consumption, a little more biofuel, and the supply numbers roughly equal US demand of ~18 million barrels per day by 2020.
|
| Dec23-12, 04:05 PM | #467 |
|
Mentor
|
Still, would be nice to have a few more north-south pipelines built to help make that happen...
|
| Dec23-12, 04:16 PM | #468 |
|
Blog Entries: 14
|
I think focus should be on energy efficiency in addition to production as pointed out in the article. |
| Dec23-12, 04:30 PM | #469 |
|
|
The fact that gas is still less costly per gallon then milk amazes me considering one is a finite resource which is being consumed in vast quantites.
While peak oil may not happen yet, it will happen and happen long before the sun destroys the planet. |
| Dec23-12, 07:40 PM | #470 |
|
|
|
| Dec23-12, 09:54 PM | #471 |
Recognitions:
|
AFAIK "high milk prices" are not an major election issue, but "high gas prices" certainly are. |
| Dec23-12, 10:35 PM | #472 |
|
Mentor
|
|
| Dec23-12, 11:03 PM | #473 |
|
Blog Entries: 14
|
Heating: Gas: |
| Dec23-12, 11:45 PM | #474 |
|
Mentor
|
|
| Dec24-12, 09:49 AM | #475 |
|
|
Viewing only the cost of the energy, not what utilities charge for transporation and distribution:
Current December price is $US 0.4415 per therm. - I'm at New Mexico Gas Company. This is actually the wholesale price the company pays - we are mandated to charge customers what we pay per therm. Projected price for January is about $0.49. Retail January projected price for propane here is $2.63/gal. A gallon of propane is close to a therm in energy content: .91994 therms. So in NM, the projected net difference for a therm of energy is $2.85 for a therm of propane versus $0.49 a therm of natural gas is a factor of ~5.8. Russ, you should switch sooner rather than later. Also as a side note: one of the liquid by products of raw natural gas is propane. As Russ alluded to earlier. |
| Dec24-12, 10:09 AM | #476 |
|
Mentor
|
I made a spreadsheet a while back for comparing prices and updated it a few weeks ago. Propane was $2.24/gal delivered, so I think you are comparing the commodity/energy price of gas to the delivered price of propane. That said, I didn't get an exact cost from my dad, who is my source for natural gas prices: he thinks he's paying about a dollar.
That equates to a ratio of 2.5:1. My problem isn't the ratio of the prices though, its the $ per therm difference. If both drop by the same $/therm (for example), the ratio widens but the economics of switching don't actually improve because the amount of heat we use stays the same. And actually, I thought propane came from oil only, so I looked it up. Seems it comes from both: |
| Thread Closed |
Similar discussions for: peak fossil fuels by 2017
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | Replies | ||
| The Origin of the term 'fossil' fuels | Earth | 7 | ||
| Fossil fuels | General Physics | 8 | ||
| Fossil Fuels | General Physics | 9 | ||
| Reduction in consumption of fossil fuels | Earth | 66 | ||
| Fossil fuels-- rescue me plz | Chemistry | 2 | ||