The Crude Truth About Oil

[mustang84isu]

Just for you, Trim.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0973579402.html

 

But when new exploration technologies do take root, the results are remarkable. In the past few years, the industry has succeeded in striking oil at depths below 10,000 feet of water and 20,000 feet below the seabed—as in the Gulf of Mexico and the Brazilian offshore. Moreover, new technologies have enabled geologists to see what lies beneath layers of underground salt, which are unevenly distributed beneath the seabed and sometimes thicker than 15,000 feet. The removal of this obstacle is leading to several major ultra-deep offshore discoveries. Fifteen years ago, all this was simply unthinkable.

 

Technology, thus, is key to discovering and recovering oil from underground. To better grasp this notion, the reader must recall one thing: Contrary to common belief, oil is not held in great underground lakes or caves. Unfortunately, it's imprisoned in a rocky structure, in which there seems to be no room for oil. But beyond the reach of the human eye, a world of often-invisible pores and micro-fractures entrap minuscule droplets of oil, like pumice entraps water. All this makes oil exploration and production so complex, challenging, and often highly expensive.

 

But a new era is coming, and not only because oil prices are historically high (at $50 per barrel, most EOR technologies become profitable). Other more important factors are at work as well.

 

To start with, many of the largest oil basins in the world are approaching what I call technological maturity—they are reaching their production limits using conventional technology. This istrue of fields from the Persian Gulf countries to Mexico, Venezuela and Russia. In order to maintain their production in the future, new technologies will be required in these fields.

 

The second factor is the limited access to oil resources for Western oil companies. Today, more than 90% of the world's oil is under the direct control of producing countries through their national oil companies. The current wave of resource nationalism can only worsen this situation, because several important producers are already able to manage the development of their "easy" oil on their own. Recovering more oil from mature oil fields and discovering it in new, daunting frontiers is the only way to open up new growth opportunities in an otherwise shrinking world for Western oil companies.

 

Critics may argue that there may actually be plenty of oil left underground, but "easy" and cheap oil is gone forever. This view is partially true. But it is also true that today's difficult oil will turn into tomorrow's easy oil, thanks to cost reductions due to large-scale application of currently expensive technologies. In the 1970s, North Sea oil was considered among the most difficult and expensive oil on our planet. But a decade after initial production had begun, the cost of extracting it had been cut in half.

 

For these reasons, I dare to make a prediction. By 2030, more than 50% of the known oil will be recoverable. At the same time, the amount of known oil will have significantly grown by then, and a larger portion of unconventional oils will be commonly produced, bringing the total amount of recoverable oil reserves to something between 4.5-5 trillion barrels. What's more, a significant part of "new" reserves will come from the ability to better exploit what we already have.

 

By 2030 we will have consumed another 650-700 billion of our reserves. Added to the oil burned so far, this implies a reduction of around 1.6 trillion barrels from the 4.5-5 trillion figure. Yet, if my estimates are correct, we will have plenty of oil for the 21st century.

[stephenhawkings]

Just for you, Trim.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...0973579402.html

wow new technology is great, but we still have a finite supply of oil on our globe, unless we get hit by a meteor made of oil!

[stephenhawkings]

Trim is starting to get a following on BON

[Edstock]

Trim is starting to get a following on BON

You really know how to scare people . . . .

[Versa-Tech]

Good news at any rate... and if we can find alternate sources of energy to power motor vehicles, we'll have that much more left in reserve for other uses

[Trimdingman]

Oil which is difficult to produce may be plentiful, but it is slow. Daily production from the Alberta tar sands is only 1.25 million barrels a day This is scheduled to increase, but probably will never be over 2 million. There are said to be reserves of 1.5 trillion barrels. It would take a million days, or over 2700 years to get it all out assuming that production would not slow down as the supply ran low. We need around 80 million barrels a day, and that amount is increasing. As oil becomes more difficult to produce, the rate slows down. It doesn't matter how many years' supply is in the ground. The problems is getting 80 million barrels out of the ground each day, and increasing this by 3% per year. If we reach the point where these lines cross; say we need 90 million barrels a day and we are only producing 85 million, we are screwed. Everything will grind to a halt.

[Edstock]

If we reach the point where these lines cross; say we need 90 million barrels a day and we are only producing 85 million, we are screwed. Everything will grind to a halt.

Everything will not grind to a halt, as we will be using alternative fuels. This has been pointed out to you numerous times, but you just keep on spouting the same-old, same-old discredited concepts.

[Trimdingman]

Everything will not grind to a halt, as we will be using alternative fuels. This has been pointed out to you numerous times, but you just keep on spouting the same-old, same-old discredited concepts.

 

 

I am talking about a few years into the future, not decades. To-day we need 80 million barrels a day globally. Say, we are capable of producing 100 million. Next year it is 82.5 million, and capacity is 97 million. Then, 85 million and 94 million; 88 and 91; then 91 and 89. That scenario is only five years away. Switching to alternative energy is decades away. With everything shut down, it won't be able to happen. The US oil production peaked in the 1970s. They have to import more oil each year. Soon we will be fighting wars over the remaining oil. Maybe we are already. Global Warming isn't really about global warming. It is about peak oil. Global Warming oil conservation is a feeble attempt to delay peak oil without causing a panic.

[Edstock]

I am talking about a few years into the future, not decades.

And so am I. The problem is that you are technologically ignorant, and you are intellectually lazy, and thus we get the benefit of your "spraymissing".

[goinbroke2]

[jpd80]

The problem has nothing to do with peak oil, it has to do with refining capacity and supply.

In the boom before the GFC, excess production was bought up by China building up its

stockpiles and maintaining supply to its own growing infrastructure.

 

All that needs to happen is enough recovery to allow China to resume its internal development

and all that excess diesel and gasoline will disappear driving up the price again. The Chinese

will pretty much pay whatever they have to but lifestyle based USA will be stuck with $6/gal

gas and diesel when refueling their gas guzzling F Trucks and SUVs.

[Edstock]

but lifestyle based USA will be stuck with $6/gal

gas and diesel when refueling their gas guzzling F Trucks and SUVs.

Until they are replaced by non-gas guzzling F Trucks and SUVs. It's going to be great for biz.

[Trimdingman]

And so am I. The problem is that you are technologically ignorant, and you are intellectually lazy, and thus we get the benefit of your "spraymissing".

 

Do you understand the simple mathematics of geometric progression? It doesn't take any technology or intellect. All you need is to have completed grade 8 math. If demand is increasing by a factor of 3% per year, and productive capacity is decreasing by, depending on who you believe, 3% to 12% per year, it isn't rocket science that soon we will not be producing enough to supply the need. They even have it all explained on Wikipedia.

 

It doesn't matter if the Alberta tar sands have 1.5 trillion barrels in the ground. They can only produce 1.5 million barrels a day. That isn't enough. Conservation efforts and alternatives will only slightly slow down the march of geometric progression. If you wanted to be paid a grain of rice per day, doubled each day, by the end of a month, there wouldn't be enough rice in the world to pay you.

[Edstock]

It doesn't matter if the Alberta tar sands have 1.5 trillion barrels in the ground. They can only produce 1.5 million barrels a day. That isn't enough

Sure it is, if it is used to make E-85. As well, if you've been following the news recently, the Sands output is being increased. Then there's natural gas . . .

 

Conservation efforts and alternatives will only slightly slow down the march of geometric progression.

That's your opinion, with no facts to back it up.

 

As we see from current developments in our technology, like the Coskata process and Polywell fusion to name just two of hundreds, maybe thousands of technological developments, we will have alternative sources of energy, and as much of it as we need.

 

Perhaps you should stop under-estimating the intelligence and creativity of all those who are working on solutions to this energy problem.

 

When gas gets to $8-10 a gallon, you will see an explosion of entrepreneurial efforts to make fuel. Probably 99% will be failures, but that's OK, because the 1% that are successful will fix the problem.

 

You need to watch James Burke's series on science and engineering development: "Connections", and "Connections 2", and "The Day the Universe Changed". All are on Google video. You might even learn something, as unlikely as that might seem. :happy feet:

[xr7g428]

I believe that we will someday look at extracting oil from the ground in the same way we look at harvesting whales for oil today.

 

Green Freedom is a concept developed by the Los Alamos National Lab to make synthetic hydrocarbon fuels like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Green Freedom in-visions using conventional nuclear to power the process. Imagine how the combination of Polywell fusion would dove-tail into this technology.

 

I have written many times about the WindFuels program that uses off peak wind power to make synthetic fuels. This process makes wind power generation much more viable in addition to creating the alternative we need to petroleum.

 

The solution to our problems is almost never at hand when the problem presents itself. It is only when the necessity presents itself that the effort to solve the problem is adequately rewarded.

[Trimdingman]

I believe that we will someday look at extracting oil from the ground in the same way we look at harvesting whales for oil today.

 

Green Freedom is a concept developed by the Los Alamos National Lab to make synthetic hydrocarbon fuels like gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Green Freedom in-visions using conventional nuclear to power the process. Imagine how the combination of Polywell fusion would dove-tail into this technology.

 

I have written many times about the WindFuels program that uses off peak wind power to make synthetic fuels. This process makes wind power generation much more viable in addition to creating the alternative we need to petroleum.

 

The solution to our problems is almost never at hand when the problem presents itself. It is only when the necessity presents itself that the effort to solve the problem is adequately rewarded.

 

 

Good luck. This is like a football team with one play left in the game and the other team has the ball on your one yard line. Miracles do sometimes happen. Maybe if everybody prays real hard. The whole world is intertwined with oil. It would take the better part of a century to wean off it. Oil shortage can happen quickly. It could happen in five years. The world's population is doubling in half the time, each time. Demand for oil is increasing at a similar rate. Alternative energy is only a small percentage of the total. It is taking more and more energy to produce the same amount of oil. Windmills are 10th century technology. We need 22nd century technology, now. I don't see any mammouth projects to replace oil as the primary source of energy happening. All I see is desperate attempts to get people to consume less. It isn't enough. Nuclear fusion is a pie in the sky. If it ever becomes viable, it would take decades to build the infrastructure. We don't have decades. The simple mathematical laws of progression will not bend.

[Edstock]

Windmills are 10th century technology.

 

Spain passed an alternative-energy milestone when the wind production from 3

a.m. until 8:30 a.m. covered more than 50% of the Spanish national demand which

ranged between 21,700 MW and 19,700 MW.

 

 

More at http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.c...isplay/id/19220

 

 

Not bad, for 10th century tech.

 

 

Sigh, you have so much to learn and so much reluctance to acquiring knowledge.

[xr7g428]

Edstock, I know what you read sounds good, but actually it is a catastrophe. The problem we face now is Grid Regulation. This requires a little thinking through, but in the near future you will hear more about the problem. Everyone knows that too little power (brown-outs, rolling black-outs) is a problem, but too much is just as dangerous.

 

A more correct term for "alternative energy" is intermittent energy. That is to say that there is a lot of potential, but only during the intermittent intervals when it is available. Obviously for solar, night time is a problem. The big lie of solar is when they quote the dollar per watt numbers, they don't add the foot note: sunny days only. The same is true for wind power: no blow, no go.

 

From an economic standpoint, in order for intermittent power to make sense, you must have a market for the power when ever you can generate it. Governments have created the incentives to make sure this happens, but how does that effect the rest of the system?

 

To effectively use an intermittent source, you have to be able to rapidly increase or decrease the output of the back up. This is not the case with gas, coal, or nuclear power. Nuclear power was developed as a source of base load power. Most plants require days to come on or off line. Coal is better, but most plants require at least six hours to tamp down, and may require even longer to ramp back up. Emissions are also greatly increased during both tamp down and ramp up. Natural gas is more flexible than coal, but still requires significant time to adjust. Only hydro electric power has the ability to respond quickly when needed.

 

The utilities use an exchange to buy and sell excess power. In the Midwest, one such exchange is the Minnesota Hub. With addition of less than 5% additional generating capacity in the form of wind power, we are already seeing periods in the off peak hours where there is negative pricing due to more power production than there is demand. You read that right: they will pay you to take electricity. Some cities have actually installed bright lighting to use the power, thereby generating revenue for the local city operated utility. Obviously when this happens, the cost of generating the power doesn' go away, just the revenue. This increases the total cost with no benefit to consumers.

 

We have to develop ways to store, or other wise put to productive use, the excess power. There is a reason that wind power was not being used more widely in the past.

[Edstock]

We have to develop ways to store, or other wise put to productive use, the excess power. There is a reason that wind power was not being used more widely in the past.

XR. you're right, no argument there.

 

But, the end-of-the-world predictions like the Ding of Doom's are based on an attitude that nothing can be done. And as we see with Polywell and lots of other developments, that ain't true.

[xr7g428]

My sense of it is that Trim is trolling a bit. He has a very dry sense of humor that would lend itself to finding sport in a little thread baiting. The other possibility is much darker; that he really does believe what he is saying is more than just a possibility. In that case, I would hope that he might get some new data or counsel or what ever it might take to put more balance in his views. And Trim, I know you read this and so in effect I am saying this to you directly.

 

Oddly enough, the best outcome on a site like this is not when you are proven right, but when you are proven wrong: that is when you actually learn something.

[mettech]

Good luck. This is like a football team with one play left in the game and the other team has the ball on your one yard line. Miracles do sometimes happen. Maybe if everybody prays real hard. The whole world is intertwined with oil. It would take the better part of a century to wean off it. Oil shortage can happen quickly. It could happen in five years. The world's population is doubling in half the time, each time. Demand for oil is increasing at a similar rate. Alternative energy is only a small percentage of the total. It is taking more and more energy to produce the same amount of oil. Windmills are 10th century technology. We need 22nd century technology, now. I don't see any mammouth projects to replace oil as the primary source of energy happening. All I see is desperate attempts to get people to consume less. It isn't enough. Nuclear fusion is a pie in the sky. If it ever becomes viable, it would take decades to build the infrastructure. We don't have decades. The simple mathematical laws of progression will not bend.

 

Worked for the Colts last night.

[Trimdingman]

My sense of it is that Trim is trolling a bit. He has a very dry sense of humor that would lend itself to finding sport in a little thread baiting. The other possibility is much darker; that he really does believe what he is saying is more than just a possibility. In that case, I would hope that he might get some new data or counsel or what ever it might take to put more balance in his views. And Trim, I know you read this and so in effect I am saying this to you directly.

 

Oddly enough, the best outcome on a site like this is not when you are proven right, but when you are proven wrong: that is when you actually learn something.

 

Just because something is unthinkably horrible, doesn't mean that it cannot happen. I don't believe in religion, so I don't believe in Bible prophesies laid out in Revelations. I also don't believe that if you pray, some higher being is going to save your ass. Look on the bright side. There could be a war, and enough of the population on the other side of the world could be wiped out so that the rest of us would have enough oil to survive until we switch over to something else. I would call that a long shot, though.