A critical look at the future (oil)

[mubs]

I was pointed to this web site in an email. The very first link at the top of the page is a Real Video presentation; it's the only thing I read/saw on that site. It's set my mental gears spinning. I think every serious person needs to see it. You may disagree, but you cannot deny that it's food for thought. It appears that lifestyles will change significantly. Self-reliance and dependance on local resources will become key.

The presentation was made sometime in 2000 or 2001. Be warned, though, that it is 1-hour long. What is amazing to me is that the speaker appears to predict military action by the U.S. to secure oil.

 

[blakerwry]

wont stream for me.. looks to be overloaded at the moment.

 

[HellDiver]

The presentation was made sometime in 2000 or 2001... <snip> ...What is amazing to me is that the speaker appears to predict military action by the U.S. to secure oil.

Come think of it, it's not that amazing at all. People were talking about it for a hell of a long time. In fact, I think I can recall this flick with Robert Redford, "Three Days of the Condor" (dating back to mid-70's, IIRC, even though I've seen it sometime during the '80s), that had pretty much this kind of scenario in the center of the plot. Kind of. Nice movie, BTW, I think I can remember myself enjoying it back then...

If you want to talk about "amazing" (or rather "amusing") why not go with "Wag the Dog" and Clinton's Yugoslavia crusade? :lol:

 

[HellDiver]

He-he... I did look it ("...Condor") up, after all... It's a 1975 movie. And here's a nice quote from it (where Higgins is the Deputy Director of CIA) :

Turner : Do we have plans to invade the Middle East?

Higgins : We have games, that's all. We play games. "What if...?" "How many men...?" "What would it take...?" "Is there a cheaper way to destabilize a regime?" That's what we're paid to do.

Turner : So Atwood just took the games too seriously. He was really going to do it, wasn't he? Supposing I hadn't stumbled on the plan? Say nobody had?

Higgins : Different ball game. The fact is, there was nothing wrong with the plan. Oh, the plan was alright. The plan woulda worked.

Turner : Boy, what is it with you people? You think not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth?

Higgins : No. It's simple economics. Today, it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years... Food. Plutonium. And maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

Turner : Ask them.

Higgins : Not now. Then. Ask them when they're running out. Ask them when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask them when their engines stop. Ask them when people who've never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna
know something? They won't want us to ask them. They'll just want us to get it for them.

 

[ddrueding]

It's amazing what fiction writers can drum up based on reality. I remember a Clancy novel at least a decade old where the primary plot point was terrorists using passenger jets as bombs in Washington DC...

 

[mubs]

HD, here's the difference. Even a fool knows oil is going to run out some day. But Campbell is a geologist who's been in the oil industry most of his carrer (he's an old guy), and his 1-hour presentantion is mostly about building a case with as many facts as possible to back his conclusions. Which are that oil is going to run out way way sooner than most people know and Govts. and oil companies are willing to admit for a host of reasons. The critical points in his presentation are about the timing of events. It is the time-frame for his predictions that are interesting, not the predictions themselves. You missed the point, and I'm not going to quote the presentation here verbatim.

 

[time]

It's reported that Nixon considered invading during the oil embargo of 1973-74. Certainly, the British thought he might.

I actually found the 1996 paper by James J MacKenzie even scarier. It offers an awful lot of data and cold reasoning to back up the assertions.

It's becoming clear that the current increase in prices may not go away at all, and may even get worse next year.

 

[sechs]

The problem is that proven oil reserves go up every year. As the price of oil increases, the economic feasibility of getting the next few drops of oil increases, and so there's more oil that the petroleum giants can say they can pump out. This is bolstered by the fact that some nations, such as Saudi Arabia, do not pump out their oil very fast, inflating the cost beyond what normal demand would carry.

This is why we should all switch to coal. There's at least a hundred years' worth of mineable coal in the US known today, and 500 or so years world-wide.

 

[timwhit]

Strip mining coal has a pretty devastating effect on the envirornment.

Gas Hydrates is where the most energy is stored. We should learn to extract this energy cost effectively.

 

[Buck]

We should use less of our precious resources.

<soap box>

We can start by reducing the amount of electricity we use. Let's shut down half of the city lights. Not only would that same electricity, but also it would help improve our view of the beautiful stars and planets normally visible in the night's sky.

</soap box>

 

[Will Rickards WT]

I had a nutty chemistry professor in high school (so about 10 years ago or so). I forget his exact claim. But the jist of it was that back in the day he worked for one of the oil/gas companies. He worked on a project to convert some natural resource we have loads of here in the US, I'm thinking slate or shale or something like that but I can't remember exactly, to the stuff they make gasoline out of. So we would no longer be dependent on the Middle East for fuel.

 

[Buck]

I had a nutty chemistry professor in high school (so about 10 years ago or so). I forget his exact claim. But the jist of it was that back in the day he worked for one of the oil/gas companies. He worked on a project to convert some natural resource we have loads of here in the US, I'm thinking slate or shale or something like that but I can't remember exactly, to the stuff they make gasoline out of. So we would no longer be dependent on the Middle East for fuel.

I have heard the same thing, and it was about shale. We have a huge, and I mean massive shale deposit in the Western US.

 

[mubs]

Thanks for that link, time.

Campbell says that the reserves are boosted from time to time not based on facts but for political / strategic / posturing reasons. He urges that the remaining oil be used to find/develop alternative sources of energy.

I couldn't agree with Buck more; we waste too much energy now. And we need to start with renewables like solar and wind in a big way, not the half-hearted attempts that are made now.

While I'm no scientist, factoring in the west as well as the third-world countries, I see no alternative to nuclear power in the short-medium term. That brings a host of its own problems, including that of terrorism and how to safeguard spent fuel.

No matter what, the time for action has come.

 

[HellDiver]

mubs :

HD, here's the difference. Even a fool knows oil is going to run out some day... <snip> ...You missed the point...

Actually, I don't think I did. I responded to one very specific statement in your post :

The presentation was made sometime in 2000 or 2001... <snip> ...What is amazing to me is that the speaker appears to predict military action by the U.S. to secure oil.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my statement : "People were talking about it for a hell of a long time". I was referring to an "ill-considered military intervention", not to the fact the "oil is going to run out some day".

As for the whole "prophet of disaster" thing and "time-frames" in the original presentation... In my lifetime, I've seen enough papers about global warming, ozone holes, oil shortages, killer bees, killer sheep and "toothpaste is evil" (GTA for those wondering). Some of the predictions seemed to be spot on for a while, but after some time things somehow have always taken a tad different direction - new solutions were found, facts got re-evaluated, or even the trends themselves changed.

Based on what I've read in the last decade, I think that the number of geologists who've been in the oil industry most of their careers (and quite a lot of them are old farts!) who claim that we're doomed is about equal to the amount of geologists who've been in the oil industry most of their careers (and quite a lot of them are old farts!) that claim that we still have more than enough time on our hands. As I personally neither know who's on whose payroll nor have sufficient knowledge and data in this particular field, I just don't know which Special Interest Group, so to speak, is right.

Myself - I'm not overly alarmed. Yeah, sure, Yanks could end up being forced to drive <=2L engined compacts - as Europeans do for ages. Yeah, sure, US may have to start building nuclear power stations in quantities - as French do forever (well, relatively). And then, before you know it - you'll have cold fusion, turbines in the Gulfstream, solar panels all over Nevada, people driving around on Suburban Utility Segways, and a sub-20W 60nm Dothan successor in your desktop.

I'd quote Iron Maiden's "Die With Your Boots On", but I don't want to abuse Doug's storage & B/W...

 

[Buck]

World Energy Council
OIL SHALE

United States Of America

It is estimated that nearly 62% of the world’s potentially recoverable oil shale resources are concentrated in the USA. The largest of the deposits is found in the 42 700 km2 Eocene Green River formation in north-western Colorado, north-eastern Utah and south-western Wyoming. The richest and most easily recoverable deposits are located in the Piceance Creek Basin in western Colorado and the Uinta Basin in eastern Utah. The shale oil can be extracted by surface and in-situ methods of retorting: depending upon the methods of mining and processing used, as much as one-third or more of this resource might be recoverable. There are also the Devonian-Mississippian black shales in the eastern United States.

Data reported for the present Survey indicate the vastness of US oil shale resources: the proved amount of shale in place is put at 3 340 billion tonnes, with a shale oil content of 242 billion tonnes, of which about 89% is located in the Green River deposits and 11% in the Devonian black shales. Recoverable reserves of shale oil are estimated to be within the range of 60-80 billion tonnes, with additional resources put at 62 billion tonnes.

Oil distilled from shale was burnt and used horticulturally in the second half of the 19th century in Utah and Colorado but very little development occurred at that time. It was not until the early 1900’s that the deposits were first studied in detail by USGS and the government established the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves, that for much of the 20th century served as a contingency source of fuel for the nation’s military. These properties were originally envisioned as a way to provide a reserve supply of oil to fuel US naval vessels.

Oil shale development had always been on a small scale but the project that was to represent the greatest development of the shale deposits was begun immediately after World War II in 1946 - the US Bureau of Mines established the Anvils Point oil shale demonstration project in Colorado. However, processing plants had been small and the cost of production high. It was not until the USA had become a net oil importer, together with the oil crises of 1973 and 1979, that interest in oil shale was reawakened.

In the latter part of the 20th century military fuel needs changed and the strategic value of the shale reserves began to diminish. In the 1970’s ways to maximise domestic oil supplies were devised and the oil shale fields were opened up for commercial production. Oil companies led the investigations: leases were obtained and consolidated but one-by-one these organisations gave up their oil shale interests. Unocal was the last to do so in 1991.

Recoverable resources of shale oil from the marine black shales in the eastern United States were estimated in 1980 to exceed 400 billion barrels. These deposits differ significantly in chemical and mineralogical composition from Green River oil shale. Owing to its lower H:C ratio, the organic matter in eastern oil shale yields only about one-third as much oil as Green River oil shale, as determined by conventional Fischer assay analyses. However, when retorted in a hydrogen atmosphere, the oil yield of eastern oil shale increases by as much as 2.0-2.5 times the Fischer assay yield.

Green River oil shale contains abundant carbonate minerals including dolomite, nahcolite, and dawsonite. The latter two minerals have potential by-product value for their soda ash and alumina content, respectively. The eastern oil shales are low in carbonate content but contain notable quantities of metals, including uranium, vanadium, molybdenum, and others which could add significant by-product value to these deposits.

All field operations have ceased and at the present time shale oil is not being produced in the USA. Large-scale commercial production of oil shale is not anticipated before the second or third decade of the 21st century.

Oil Shale Information

 

[HellDiver]

Now, about those "turbines in the Gulfstream"... Before someone familiar with aviation reads my post, let me rephrase that one : "turbines in the Gulf Stream"!

 

[sechs]

Campbell says that the reserves are boosted from time to time not based on facts but for political / strategic / posturing reasons.

Reported reserves can, as he mentioned, be manipulated for such purposes. That does not change what I mentioned.

Campbell's bone was mostly the temporal accounting, not the changes. He realises that, through the life of a field, technology can and has increased the amount of oil is extractable. The case is that no new oil has been discovered, yet it appears that way.

 

[time]

Sechs, I think you should read the link I posted. It's a real education, and I believe you would retract some of your earlier comments if you did.

I could recommend the same to HD, but I doubt he'll bother.

 

[HellDiver]

time :

I could recommend the same to HD, but I doubt he'll bother.

Hmmm... :-?

Actually, time, I read both the paper you linked to and the "notes & slides" mubs linked to (admittedly, I skipped the .RAM itself as I don't have - and likely never will have - RealPlayer installed) pretty much as soon as I read your posts. I may disagree with the "Oh-mah-gawd-we're-doomed!" parts of some papers, but I normally tend to at least make myself familiar with the subject before discussing it.

So, yes, I have read both papers, and no, I don't really feel like retracting any of my previous comments. No, I don't believe that doubling the current gasoline price or having to switch from a 4500cc vehicle to a 2000cc one can honestly be called Armageddon's opening shot. No, I don't believe that mankind will go back to sticks and stones as soon as oil price goes over a hundred bucks a barrel.

Once upon a time people used horses and oars to move around. Then they switched to wood. Then to coal. Then to oil, gasoline and JP5. Tomorrow they'll switch to something else. Same applies to heating one's home (except I can't recall horses being burned in fireplaces ), producing electricity, etc.

I don't shrug off the "problem" of dwindling oil reserves. I just don't see it as that much of a show-stopper for mankind. It's a matter of perspective, you see... That's all. (Well, almost. I also hate "prophets of disaster").

 

[Handruin]

HD, there is a link to an alternative option for real player. Some of us here us it (self included) and it works fine.

Check this thread:

http://www.storageforum.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2931

 

[HellDiver]

Thanks, Doug, I am familiar with those two. I just don't see any urgent need to install any software to playback anything RealAudio - I can recall just three cases in the last several years (one of them being in this very thread) in which I was even mildly intrigued by contents of RealAudio containers, and none of the three were important enough for me to do anything about it.

Thanks anyway, though. :thumbleft:

 

[Pradeep]

It's amazing what fiction writers can drum up based on reality. I remember a Clancy novel at least a decade old where the primary plot point was terrorists using passenger jets as bombs in Washington DC...

Debt of Honor, is the title I believe. And it wasn't terrorists, but a JAL pilot who's son had been killed by US forces during the battle for one of the islands. Plowed his 747 right into the Capitol building, killing pretty much everyone in the House and Senate, who were there to ratify Ryan as V.P. or something. He narrowly survives, and in the end that's how Jack Ryan becomes President of the USA.

There was another author, who had a book about terrorists using cargo planes and dropping bombs out of them, I forget the name now.

 

[time]

Sorry HD, I just couldn't resist goading you into a response. :mrgrn:

I'd like to counter on two fronts:

1. The time frame is much shorter than with previous energy source transitions, and the ramifications far more serious. When going from wood to coal, consumers were not running out of wood. Similarly for coal to petroleum products.

There is no magic solution. The ideas currently vaunted have been around for an incredibly long time, yet are still not viable or even demonstrated. I'm speaking primarily of the consequences to transport, obviously.

The only hope on the horizon for road vehicles is the fuel cell, something invented 165 years ago. If it takes as little as twenty more years to refine this to the point that it becomes standard equipment, it may still be too late to avoid economic and social collapse.

2. You underestimate the effect that even a small shortage has. For example, the 1973/74 embargo caused a net loss of 4 million barrels per day and represented 7 percent of the free world production.

Prices increased 400 percent in just six months!

If production declines 3% per annum as predicted, five years ought to be more than enough to bring on Armageddon for the world economy.

 

[jtr1962]

It's becoming clear that the current increase in prices may not go away at all, and may even get worse next year.

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :mrgrn:

I have a lot more to say on this topic and in the hybrid cars thread. When I collect my thoughts later today or tomorrow I'll state my piece.

 

[HellDiver]

time :
Hmmm! I guess I'll have to repeat it : we seem to view the issue from entirely different angles.

1. The time frame is much shorter than with previous energy source transitions, and the ramifications far more serious. When going from wood to coal, consumers were not running out of wood. Similarly for coal to petroleum products.

Let me answer you with a quote from a great old Kubrick's flick "Full Metal Jacket" : "Believe it or not, but under fire, Animal Mother can be a wonderful human being. All he needs is somebody throwing grenades at him 'til the end of his life." Well, mankind as a whole is very much like the wacko machine-gunner Animal Mother from that movie : being under fire brings [both] the best [and - unfortunately - the worst!] of what we're capable of to light.

Look at the wars mankind had to endure. The amount of technological breakthroughs, of technologies previously known but only developed to a moderately useful state during the wars, engineering advances, physical discoveries, you name it! Considering the state in which the warring factions were at the time, one would have thought things would be quite the other way around, but no, surprisingly necessity turned out to be the mother of invention every time...

2. You underestimate the effect that even a small shortage has... <snip> ...Prices increased 400 percent in just six months! ...<snip>...to bring on Armageddon for the world economy.

Let's put it this way. Those who can really influence world economy already have their pennies spread evenly among enough industries to ensure their own prosperity, even if tomorrow oil becomes worth its weight in gold, diamonds become worthless, and air is being rationed based on your body weight. You'll be surprised what R&D automotive/aviation/shipbuilding industries have on back burner today, and how many billions of dollars can be poured into this R&D virtually overnight tomorrow, when conventional car/bus/truck/plane/ship/train sales plummet to zero due to unreasonable oil prices (or rather : some comfortable while before those sales plummet to zero!).

I'm not saying that absolutely nothing bad isn't going to happen to Joe Sixpack in the foreseeable future when oil prices will start to skyrocket (like giving up the aforementioned pair of SUVs and a Crown Vic in favor of Segway). I'm just saying that I'm not very worried about mankind in general, and I don't treat going to work by tram, trolley bus, subway, bicycle, carriage or horseback as the end of the world. That's all. :wink:

Take it easy, bro. Gonna be fine. I promise!

 

[sechs]

Once upon a time people used horses and oars to move around. Then they switched to wood. Then to coal. Then to oil, gasoline and JP5. Tomorrow they'll switch to something else.

The problem with this argument is that horses and people (oars), and wood and coal are substitutes. From muscles to burnable fuel was a major paradigm shift.

From oil (and gasoline and JP5 a*are* oil) to whatever is next will be another paradigm shift. Unfortunately, we are not quite sure what the "something else" is.

It's kind of hard to transition to a question mark.

 

[time]

... and I don't treat going to work by tram, trolley bus, subway, bicycle, carriage or horseback as the end of the world

Why do you assume you will still have a job to go to?

I admire the way you have conveyed a warm fuzzy feeling without a single fact to back it up. Have you considered a career in politics?

 

[The JoJo]

On a related note, the price for one liter of fuel (95 octane) is about 1.25euros here.

Saw a funny short interview of an American woman refueling her car. According to her the environmental effects of fuel are not her problem, but the oil companies. I unfortunately don't remember her exact words, but her point was very clear, not her problem, she's not responsible for anything. :roll:

 

[Handruin]

I'm not sure if my conversion is right, but that works out to 4.7 euros per gallon.

That would be $5.6 USD per gallon of gas here in the US. I'm not complaining about my gas increase to $2.30 per gallon (for 93 octane). It might make SUV owners reconsider their purchase.

 

[HellDiver]

I admire the way you have conveyed a warm fuzzy feeling without a single fact to back it up.

I'm not quite sure about the "warm" and "fuzzy" part, but heck, everyone is free to interpret my words in whatever way he chooses.

As for "without a single fact"... I have no formal education in economics, I have no access to reliable (and factually correct!) data about global economy, I have no education in geology and other oil industry-related fields, and I certainly don't have access to reliable up to date data on the subject. It would be very strange if I attempted to present some statements as "facts" and then prove you with a mathematical precision something based on those! In fact, if I did that, that would sound very much like some elections speech. That's what polititians normally do when they present their programs : blabber nonsense about subjects they've no idea about while trying to convince public that whatever they say is the god-given truth.

The tiny problem that we have here, is that for all I know, none of the posters on this forum have the required knowledge base and up to date data in the aforementioned fields. Therefore I view any attempt to drag out some "undeniable facts", throw in some "well proven theories" and then to demonstrate some "unquestionable conclusions" as... I don't know, as a pile of dung, to put it gently. All I can rely on in my analysis of the situation is common sense and some basic knowledge of history - and that's exactly what I do.

Besides... Let's suppose for a second that :
1. I believed every word in the two of the papers that were mentioned in this thread like I would the word of God (if I were religious, anyway).
2. I trusted the authors of both of these studies to pursue just one single goal - to forewarn the mankind of the inevitable doom (that would be Doom III, I presume), and that I didn't have even the tiniest suspicion that they had other interests in mind, monetary or otherwise.
3. I somehow got convinced that all of the other studies out there were in fact erroneous or plain deliberately misleading.
4. I believed all the claims that no alternatives to oil can possibly be developed in time, and that I somehow got convinced overnight that all the studies I've read in the last decade - that showed that given sufficient investments such alternatives can be developed within reasonable timeframe - were nothing but a hoax.

Now that we assume all of the above (which we really shouldn't!), what is it precisely that you'd expect me (or anyone else, for that matter) to do? Cease typing this post up, go packing right away, head for the Rockies and start digging the fallout shelter? Run around like a headless chicken screaming "The Russkies are coming... er... the oil is running out!" and start to convince everyone I know that they should head out for the Rockies to dig fallout shelters? Join Greenpeace and generally start hugging the rainbow? No, really! :-?

 

[HellDiver]

Note to self : the left button is "SpelChek(TM)", the right button is "Submit", the left button is "SpelChek(TM)", the right button is "Submit"...

 

[Pradeep]

I'm not sure if my conversion is right, but that works out to 4.7 euros per gallon.

That would be $5.6 USD per gallon of gas here in the US. I'm not complaining about my gas increase to $2.30 per gallon (for 93 octane). It might make SUV owners reconsider their purchase.

Yup if the price of petrol in the US went up to $5 per gallon overnight there would be panic in the streets. Thankfully there isn't so much regressive taxation on petrol in the US like there is in Europe, and to a lesser extent Aus.

Assuming a thirsty SUV getting 13MPG, people would be looking at close to US 50 cents per mile. Glad I get around 30mpg from my Hyundai

 

[time]

Pradeep, with the benefit of hindsight, is it not a good thing that your SUV died? :mrgrn:

 

[Pradeep]

Indeed in the short term I think it was a good thing. Especially since it was a pickup and could only seat three. However I think my next vehicle will certainly have a big V8 in it, there are now lots of cars/trucks with the 350 Hemi in it via the Chrysler/Dodge/soon to be Jeep brands. The Dodge Magnum station wagon looks like a good family car with 335 HP to the back wheels Who knows if my Hyundai makes it 10 years they will prob have a hybrid version by then.

Also with the ever growing average size of the cars/trucks in the US, it's almost a neccessity to also have a larger vehicle to even the odds if a crash should occur. When some vehicle bumpers are above the window sill of an average car that's pretty scary.

 

[Buck]

Pradeep, I think the Unimog would be perfect for your family.

 

[Pradeep]

Indeed. And recommended by Dr. Carl as well

 

[Buck]

Indeed. And recommended by Dr. Carl as well

Although he drives a Volvo. :wink:

 

[HellDiver]

While we were busying ourselves with discussions of such an insignificant crap as oil, some people are about to run out of some truly necessary stuff!!!

 

[sechs]

Saw a funny short interview of an American woman refueling her car. According to her the environmental effects of fuel are not her problem, but the oil companies.

Another reason why we need a sin-tax on gasoline. Stupid people have no idea what they're doing.

 

[time]

Mubs' post here reminded me to revisit this thread.

Fifteen months have elapsed and gasoline prices have risen 40%, although the pace is picking up.