Is the World Approaching the Inevitable Hubbert's Peak of Oil Production?

[apeiron]

Peak coal - something else to think about...

Peak coal production could hit around 2030.

http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/Coalarticle.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/05/13/2569143.htm

 

[apeiron]

Peak copper as well...

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6307

Of course modelling for a substitutable and reusable mineral like copper is a little different than for oil or coal, but the exercise is worth it if we want to understand the various constraints to economic growth.

The logistic curve does seem a better fit for the future than unconstrained exponentials, no matter how much technological ingenuity we may credit humans with.

 

[aquitaine]

No doubt, birds of a feather flock together. Peak uranium is even more crackpotish than peak oil. It was cited earlier in the thread with an utterly absurd claim, but the reality is that we have a relative eternity's worth of nuclear fuel available compared to what's left of our oil. Hundreds of years at the very least. No reputable scientist sees a uranium production problem in the next century. Heck, in the US, we're already storing as "waste" enough perfectly good nuclear fuel to keep our existing plants going for another couple of centuries.

Indeed, as well as create more nuclear fuel through breeder reactors. Uranium is a very common element, a little bit of it is in everything. IIRC, the Japanese even found it on the moon. If that isn't enough we can always switch to Thorium, which is even more bountiful.

and BTW, a further blow to "PO is the end of the world" theory, recently we discovered a way to make plastic without crude oil. PO being the end? Sure doesn't look that way to me.

 

[apeiron]

and BTW, a further blow to "PO is the end of the world" theory, recently we discovered a way to make plastic without crude oil. PO being the end? Sure doesn't look that way to me.

But this is plastic from natural gas. So part of the peak oil story still.

Gas buys extra time. But how many years do you think that is?

 

[aquitaine]

But this is plastic from natural gas. So part of the peak oil story still.

Gas buys extra time. But how many years do you think that is?

They also said it can be modified to use bio fuels. Granted, bio fuels will not replace gasoline or diesel in vehicles, but the amount required to make plastics is significantly less and plastic can be recycled, further cutting the required amount down.

 

[apeiron]

Peak asphalt!...where the EROEI hits the road

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6349

The problem, as usual, is not one of quantity, but one of energy . With minerals, we are not running out of anything except of the energy needed for extraction. It is the principle that I called the universal mining machine. Bitumen doesn't seem to be an exception; we are not running out of bitumen, but we have increasing problems in being able to afford it; just as with a lot of other minerals. For this reason, the proposal of substituting conventional bitumen with products not coming from crude oil doesn't appear to be very practical. There has been talk of "bioasphalt;"

 

[russ_watters]

Here's a former peak oil catastrophe advocate who now believes the rising price of oil will cause the law supply and demand to take over and limit demand without social upheval.

What has changed is his opinion of the price impact and implications for fuel consumption after the spike of July 2008 to nearly $150 a barrel was followed by world economic recession, a deep drop in fuel use and a crash in oil futures to just above $30 in December 2008.

"I have changed my point of view about future prices," said Campbell, who used to think the peak in conventional oil production, which he believes happened in 2005, would lead to a relentless price surge.

Instead, the record rally led to a peak in demand in the developed world.

"Peak oil drives prices up in the first place. It has its own mechanism. We're sort of at peak demand right now," Campbell told Reuters from his home in the village of Ballydehob, West Cork. "I think presently the price limit is about $100."

For those who have painted alarming pictures of civil unrest as the world economy is forced to move away from conventional fuel and pay high prices for it in the interim, an inbuilt price mechanism to limit demand and move the world to other forms of energy should be a good thing.

"We have no alternative but to go green," Campbell said.

But he does not think reduced demand is enough to offset the gravity of peaking supply. He still sees a possibility of social anger as millions are forced to change their lifestyles in a too-sudden structural shift from economic growth driven by cheap conventional fuel.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63539420100406

While I applaud his open mindedness, how did he not consider what is a basic economics 101 issue before now?

 

[Office_Shredder]

While I applaud his open mindedness, how did he not consider what is a basic economics 101 issue before now?

Historically when natural resources are limited supply and demand doesn't regulate the usage economically

 

[apeiron]

Here's a former peak oil catastrophe advocate who now believes the rising price of oil will cause the law supply and demand to take over and limit demand without social upheval.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63539420100406

While I applaud his open mindedness, how did he not consider what is a basic economics 101 issue before now?

That is not exactly what the article quotes Campbell as saying. For example...

But he does not think reduced demand is enough to offset the gravity of peaking supply. He still sees a possibility of social anger as millions are forced to change their lifestyles in a too-sudden structural shift from economic growth driven by cheap conventional fuel.

So what is being said here?

1) The era of cheap oil has peaked, or is very close to peaking.

2) The EROEI of known alternatives are not in the same ballpark (though maybe we will crack fusion, do something magical with nanotechnology, etc).

3) This is not a classic Economics 101 supply and demand equilbrium equation as we are talking about a finite resource and a supply inelasticity (with no easy substitutions, see 2).

4) The unknown here - as Campbell is "admitting" - boils down to how people may respond to an inevitable fundamental change.

Will they move smoothly towards a power-down scenario where they kiss goodbye to the old consumerism that never really made them happy in the first place? (And I really hope that is the case, hence my warm feelings for Transition Towns, Oooby, Permaculture and other nascent social responses).

Or will people fight to preserve the growth escalator they have become so used to for the past three generations? (Or in China, India, etc, just getting that first taste for).

Economics 101 does not teach energy descent - how to run an economy smoothly in the reverse de-growth mode. I doubt you even get to study that in 401.

 

[russ_watters]

Historically when natural resources are limited supply and demand doesn't regulate the usage economically

Um...is that supposed to be facetious or was that just a poor choice of words?

 

[russ_watters]

That is not exactly what the article quotes Campbell as saying.

It's a paraphrase, not a quote, so I guess...yeah, you're right! But it is exactly what he meant.

For example...

1) The era of cheap oil has peaked, or is very close to peaking.

Yes, he says that - he actually believes it was 2005. But even that characterization "the era of cheap oil" is different from the more straightforward supply peak that peak oil used to be about.

2) The EROEI of known alternatives are not in the same ballpark (though maybe we will crack fusion, do something magical with nanotechnology, etc).

He doesn't mention that and in any case, I don't agree. Regular nuclear power is cheap precisely because it is high output for the input - and would be even a lot cheaper still if we didn't have fake political barriers. Regular nuclear power could provide for the vast majority of our energy needs, assuming a phase-in conversion of a large fraction of our cars to electric. The fusion and nanotechnology quip - that's just technobabble/non sequitur.

3) This is not a classic Economics 101 supply and demand equilbrium equation as we are talking about a finite resource and a supply inelasticity (with no easy substitutions, see 2).

What it means is that the doom and gloom scenario assumes/requires an extremely low price elasticity of supply and the evidence from the recent recession implies a more reasonable level of elasticity.

Will they move smoothly towards a power-down scenario where they kiss goodbye to the old consumerism that never really made them happy in the first place? (And I really hope that is the case, hence my warm feelings for Transition Towns, Oooby, Permaculture and other nascent social responses).

That's all non sequitur. It has nothing to do with energy. I have a nuclear power plant 5 miles from my house and am confident I'll always have the power I need to run my computer and big-screen home theater system. If a lack of oil means I have to buy an electric car in a few years, so be it. I'll be fine. You think that's "consumerism" and a bad thing? Fine, but it doesn't have any bearing here.

Economics 101 does not teach energy descent - how to run an economy smoothly in the reverse de-growth mode. I doubt you even get to study that in 401.

This "reverse de-growth mode" is the doom-and-gloom, collapse of civilization type scenario that is the essence of "Peak Oil" and is now what he is saying he doesn't believe will happen! You can't learn it in an economics class because it isn't economics, it's just fearmongering. But you can learn why it is just fearmongering by understanding elasticity in your econ 101 class.

I don't see this change of position to be a very good marketing strategy. The decrease in fearmongering will result in a decrease in demand for books on peak oil! Though perhaps the strategy works as a hedge against having to keep pushing back the date of peak oil.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Um...is that supposed to be facetious or was that just a poor choice of words?

I'm referring to beyond economic activity... you know, war.

 

[apeiron]

It's a paraphrase, not a quote, so I guess...yeah, you're right! But it is exactly what he meant.

I don't think you are accurately paraphrasing what is being said (but then the article is badly written and we could analyse its true meaning endlessly).

But it seems clear enough that Campbell is just saying that the run-up in oil prices by speculators was so sharp that it punctured the economy and led to the credit crunch - all the wild derivative bets unravelling. So this knocked consumption, and thus prices, on its heels again.

De-growth in other words. Every peak oiler indeed says this. And they say as economic activity takes off again, we will again be banging our heads on the ceiling.

At that point, we either need permanent degrowth or energy substitution. Coal and nuclear maybe some people's choice for "alternatives".

I happen to live around 5000 miles from the nearest nuclear power plant. That may colour my views too.

 

[apeiron]

What the U.S. Joint Forces Command’s Joint Operating Environment (JOE) 2010 thinks about peak oil...

Summary - The immediate issue is a lack of investment in production that will create oil shortage and price spikes (thus economic problems and international tensions) within a few years.

Longer term (next decade), not much prospect of the large new fields that will be needed to meet current growth in demand. Any production increases will have to be environmentally "dirty".

The big question is why aren't oil companies investing in more production? Is it just that they were so sensitive to the credit crunch that they were forced to shelve investment?

Or is it that they can see down the road and are asking why bother in pumping out what's left even faster when a more intelligent business strategy is to stick with current number of oil rigs and make more profit as prices rise?

Energy Summary

To generate the energy required worldwide by the 2030s would require us to find an additional 1.4 MBD every year until then.

During the next twenty-five years, coal, oil, and natural gas will remain indispensable to meet energy requirements. The discovery rate for new petroleum and gas fields over the past two decades (with the possible exception of Brazil) provides little reason for optimism that future efforts will find major new fields.

At present, investment in oil production is only beginning to pick up, with the result that production could reach a prolonged plateau. By 2030, the world will require production of 118 MBD, but energy producers may only be producing 100 MBD unless there are major changes in current investment and drilling capacity.

By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD.

http://www.peakoil.net/files/JOE2010.pdf