A Saudi Oil Well dries up

[aaron]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

Peak oil is bunk and has been proven to be bunk. With all due respect, I think people need to take another look at what EJ has written on PCO.

It is not bunk. We have hardly increased oil production for several years now, even though the price has gone through the roof. Look at it this way: if you were willing to pump a million barrels at 25 dollars per barrel, why are companies not pumping 4 million barrels at $100? What has changed?

No, oil will not run out tomorrow. However, when it does start declining, people will starve to death (just not in north America, yet).

This article is helpful, although EJs writings are the best. The good stuff is in subscriber section, however. I forget that some might not have read them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

As I pointed out in another post, I think we are doing the right thing. We should use up all the oil in the Middle East. It is a long-term strategy to insure our grandchildren do not have to memorize the Koran and prostrate themselves to some mythological being in the sky.

[BadJuju]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

The point where digging up the oil takes more energy than the actual oil you get out. For example, you can use electricity to power your equipment to bring up the black stuff, and still be oil positive, but energy negative. Prices will by high.

There has been talk about building a couple of nuclear power stations by the Canada oil sands projects, so instead of using up diesel and natural gas, they can use nuclear power to get more oil. It will probably use more energy than you can get out of the ground in black form, but until we have portable nuclear generators in our cars and trucks, oil is the most useful form of energy.

Anyway, North America is not going to really change petrol policy. We will burn as much as we can of our enemies' oil until they have been driven back to the sand. After that, if we must, we can exploit our own resources and start conserving. Until then, we are at war with an enemy that procreates jihadists faster than we can burn up their future. Give it time, and I am sure we will see Malthusian wonderfulness all through the Middle East.

I understand that, sir, but I was curious as to which negative energy extraction techniques are being used or espoused. Although the unconventional sources are certainly less efficient than conventional reserves, they still have a positive energy balance. Based solely on economic viability, the EROEI of oil shale is around 2-16:1 based upon Bandt's 2008 study. I am not sure about oil sands or coal-to-gas and so forth.

You are probably right about the collapse of oil resulting in a Malthusan disaster in the Middle East, though.

[Shakespear]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

However, peak power demand is growing at almost 8% pa.

What the heck are they producing? Ice Cream

For those who do not believe in Peak Oil. So US is in Iraq because of Democracy?

[BadJuju]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

It is not bunk. We have hardly increased oil production for several years now, even though the price has gone through the roof. Look at it this way:.

I should have clarified that I think that peak oil supply is bunk. Peak cheap oil is the proper theory that should be adhered to, not the other junk that is being pushed by people like Orlov. We have a massive supply of costly oil to use in the future. Oil is not going to disappear. Oil is here to stay. More importantly, most of that oil is not in the Middle East and a lot of it is in the Americas.

[radon]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

Based solely on economic viability, the EROEI of oil shale is around 2-16:1 based upon Bandt's 2008 study.

Due to the small number of oil shale facilities I remain skeptical of accuracy of that ratio. Furthermore even if it is accurate it is based on the richest and most accessible deposits and will inevitably decline in the future. Even the high point of the range, 1.6:1, doesn't leave much room for that.

[radon]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

I should have clarified that I think that peak oil supply is bunk.

I, for one, don't think you have been ambiguous in your position.

[BadJuju]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

Due to the small number of oil shale facilities I remain skeptical of accuracy of that ratio. Furthermore even if it is accurate it is based on the richest and most accessible deposits and will inevitably decline in the future. Even the high point of the range, 1.6:1, doesn't leave much room for that.

I am not sure why you would be skeptical of it. It actually came from a study that was not particularly kind to oil shale at all. I am also not exactly sure where you get this idea that the data was based upon the richest, most accessible deposits. Also, I said 2:1 to 16:1. If you average the difference, then you end up with 9:1. Of course, I am not sure what the EROEI of all fields will be, but all of the studies produced thus far have demonstrated a positive EROEI. Oil shales have also not had the benefit of a hundred years of technological development and optimization that came with light crude oil.

[radon]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

I am not sure why you would be skeptical of it. It actually came from a study that was not particularly kind to oil shale at all. I am also not exactly sure where you get this idea that the data was based upon the richest, most accessible deposits. Also, I said 2:1 to 16:1. If you average the difference, then you end up with 9:1. Of course, I am not sure what the EROEI of all fields will be, but all of the studies produced thus far have demonstrated a positive EROEI. Oil shales have also not had the benefit of a hundred years of technological development and optimization that came with light crude oil.

Are you referencing this study?
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es800531f

Energy outputs (as refined liquid fuel) are 1.2−1.6 times greater than the total primary energy inputs to the process

It is pretty clear. Or is this the wrong one?

[BadJuju]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

Are you referencing this study?
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es800531f



It is pretty clear. Or is this the wrong one?

One thing that isn't made clear by that excerpt is that the energy output is not based on economic viability. It accounts for the environmental costs of GHG and the use of char and shale gas as co-generative byproducts as opposed to making them available on the market. Based solely on economic viability, like your typical EROEI for light crude oil, it ranges from 2:1 to 16:1.

I feel very strongly that the best way to address the forthcoming problems of PCO is not to look towards new sources of oil. It is to look at ourselves and change our habits. I've given up on driving. I might occasionally take a ride with someone else, but largely, I get around 95% of the time on my own two feet. And the largest part of oil consumption is from personal transportation. People will need to just change what they drive, how they drive, and whether or not they drive at all in the days to come. The world needs far less oil than it consumes, but it is going to take a real price shock to jolt people away from their oil addiction.

[radon]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

One thing that isn't made clear by that excerpt is that the energy output is not based on economic viability. It accounts for the environmental costs of GHG and the use of char and shale gas as co-generative byproducts as opposed to making them available on the market. Based solely on economic viability, like your typical EROEI for light crude oil, it ranges from 2:1 to 16:1.

When you externalize the costs you are bound to get a high number, but that doesn't make them disappear.

In the old days you could just drive out in the desert and drill a hole in the ground and hook up a pipe. Now we tow offshore platforms to the arctic and pressure wash asphalt. The latter require enormous capital investment before you see any return at all, and as the rich and easily accessible deposits are depleted the necessary machinery and required energy will continue to grow.

Also is this the study you are referencing?
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es800531f

I'm trying to decide whether I should bother to read it. Based on the abstract your 2:1 - 16:1 looked like a typo.

[BadJuju]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternew...-for-water.pdf

Thar be the study, me hearty!!!

You are certainly correct, my friend, which underscores and validates the theory of Peak Cheap Oil.

It certainly wasn't a typo. The figures you quoted are based on the assumption of the costs of greenhouse gases and the use of byproducts in co-generation as opposed to selling them.

[shiny!]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

One thing that isn't made clear by that excerpt is that the energy output is not based on economic viability. It accounts for the environmental costs of GHG and the use of char and shale gas as co-generative byproducts as opposed to making them available on the market. Based solely on economic viability, like your typical EROEI for light crude oil, it ranges from 2:1 to 16:1.

I feel very strongly that the best way to address the forthcoming problems of PCO is not to look towards new sources of oil. It is to look at ourselves and change our habits. I've given up on driving. I might occasionally take a ride with someone else, but largely, I get around 95% of the time on my own two feet. And the largest part of oil consumption is from personal transportation. People will need to just change what they drive, how they drive, and whether or not they drive at all in the days to come. The world needs far less oil than it consumes, but it is going to take a real price shock to jolt people away from their oil addiction.

I take it that you're young, in good health, without children or elderly to care for, and live in either a densly urban area with abundant mass transit, or in a rural area where you have few needs and grow your own food in a garden. Most Americans do not fall into these categories.

The elderly, people who live too far from work or grocery stores to walk or ride a bike, parents who have to take kids to school, take themselves to jobs, take their parents to the doctor, do grocery shopping for the whole family... they can't easily switch to your lifestyle. It's not like they can just sell their houses and move to San Francisco, Chicago or New York just to enjoy the convenient mass transit. What is your solution for these people? We're going to be in a world of hurt when it becomes too expensive to drive, but what are your solutions? Scooters? Bicycles? It doesn't work for most people.

Spread-out population centers like LA and the Phoenix Metro Valley need to relax zoning restrictions to once again allow mixed-use residential-commercial-industrial neighborhoods. Requiring residential neighborhoods to be separate from commercial and industrial areas makes urban infill difficult and forces people to commute. Mixed-use neighborhoods will mean people living next to and on top of polluting factories and noisy, smelly auto shops and the like, but it'll make a lot of commuting unnecessary. There are no perfect solutions.

[photon555]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

When gas gets too expensive, Costco will start selling cheap electric cars so that their 60 million customers can still come to shop. They will offer free charging and probably a partial rebate on the purchase price of the car every tiime you spend over a hundred dollars.

[doom&gloom]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

It isn't right, though. It ignores simple things like conservation or alternative sources of energy or the massive supply of oil that exists that simply isn't cheap. Contrary to popular thought, little of the oil we consume is used for agriculture. 60-70% of the world's oil consumption goes towards PERSONAL transportation. Much of the rest goes towards commercial transportation. And of the oil that goes to agriculture, most of that goes to livestock which uses far, far more energy. The scenarios you posted are the kinds of things that would be devastating regardless. Peak oil is bunk and has been proven to be bunk. With all due respect, I think people need to take another look at what EJ has written on PCO.

That is true, and in a PCO environment that may include rationing, farmers will be much further up the allocation pyramid than your avge urban commuter.

[radon]

Re: A Saudi Oil Well dries up

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternew...-for-water.pdf

This paper relies heavily on Brandt 2008 which examines in situ production of synthetic crude from shale

Brandt, A. (2008), “Converting Oil Shale to Liquid Fuels: Energy Inputs and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions of the Shell in situ Conversion Process,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol.
42, no. 19, August 23, 2008.

and Brandt 2009 which explores mining combined with an above ground process:

Brandt, A. (2009), “Converting Oil Shale to Liquid Fuels with the Alberta Taciuk Processor:
Energy Inputs and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” Energy & Fuels, vol. 23, no. 12, August 25,
2009.

Some key points:

much of the discussion regarding the EROI for oil shale should be regarded as preliminary or speculative because of the very small number of operating facilities that can be assessed. We do not have a large “sample size” of operations from which to draw robust conclusions.

Translation: We studied a couple Shell research facilities.

For every barrel of oil produced in an oil shale operation, between 1 and 3 barrels of water are required, confirming the conventional wisdom that this technology places significant demand on freshwater supplies. Pumping the large volumes of water required for industrial-scale oil shale 2 operations would be yet another energy investment negatively affecting oil shale’s already thin EROI.

In situ process place large demands on fresh water supplies.

By a wide margin, Brandt’s (2008, 2009) studies are the most credible. Brandt’s work suggests that the EROI for oil shale falls between 1:1 and 2:1 when internal or self-use energy is included as an energy cost. This choice of system boundary is consistent with method used to calculate the EROI for conventional oil and coal extraction (Cleveland, 2005).

Return on energy is less 1/10 of conventional oil production when we compare apples to apples.

There remains considerable uncertainty surrounding the technological characterization, resource characterization, and choice of the system boundary for oil shale operations. Even the most thorough analyses (Brandt, 2008, 2009) exclude some energy costs. These two observations lead to the conclusion that oil shale cannot yet be “certified” as a clear net energy producer. Put another way, we cannot yet say with certainty that the EROI for oil shale is unequivocally greater than 1.

If it is positive at all.....

One could argue that the char and gas produced and consumed within the shale conversion process has zero opportunity cost—i.e., that energy would not, or could not, be used somewhere else in the economy, so it should not be treated as a “cost.” The EROI calculated using this perspective is in the range of 2 to 16. On the other hand, the internal energy is an essential expenditure of work necessary to produce the liquid fuel.

If we build nuclear reactors or use coal generators to supply the power for heating and pumping but exclude this energy from our accounting because it has zero opportunity cost then the ratio jumps much higher.


Your right in that the article doesn't paint it in a particularly good light. But I would agree that preliminary studies of a few research facilities doesn't necessary invalidate it as an energy source.