When will the world reach peak fossil fuel production?

  • News
  • Thread starter apeiron
  • Start date
  • Tags
    2017 Peak
In summary: Venezuelan oil.Australia's Newcastle University has modeled the Earth's fossil fuel reserves and come up with this massive study (warning: 13mb). The study found that the world's conventional oil reserves will be depleted by 2020 and that all shale oil will have been extracted by then. The study also suggests that the world will have to move to more expensive and less accessible sources of energy by 2050.
  • #351
The latest on what the oil companies are saying...

http://www-static.shell.com/static/aboutshell/downloads/aboutshell/signals_signposts.pdf

Shell says we need to be worried as we are about to enter the zone of extraordinary misery/opportunity.

Shell does not dwell on the reasons why the oil won't be there, but focuses on the geopolitical stress to be expected from developing nations expecting their fair share of the global economic cake.

Underlying global demand for energy by 2050 could triple from its 2000 level if
emerging economies follow historical patterns of development.
In broad-brush terms, natural innovation and competition could spur improvements
in energy efficiency to moderate underlying demand by about 20% over this
time. Ordinary rates of supply growth -- taking into account technological,
geological, competitive, financial and political realities -- could naturally boost
energy production by about 50%. But this still leaves a gap between businessas-
usual supply and business-as-usual demand of around 400 EJ/a – the size of
the whole industry in 2000.
This gap – this Zone of Uncertainty – will have to be bridged by some combination of
extraordinary demand moderation and extraordinary production acceleration.

So even with optimistic efficiency measures and optimistic supply growth, there is still a huge gap to be filled (or expect a very unhappy world with a demographics that pits the young, angry and populous against the old, weary and nervous).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #352
How very enlightened of them...
 
  • #354
Greg Bernhardt said:
"The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson"

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html

Stanford.edu said:
But converting will be a massive undertaking on the scale of the moon landings. What is needed most is the societal and political will to make it happen.

There is no political will, no corporate motivation as a stake in anyone nation is no longer necessary in the long-run. As a society, I can't even imagine it until it's far too late... can you?

I think that's why we need a bridge: Nuclear, and even then I have my doubts.
 
  • #355
Greg Bernhardt said:
"The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson"

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2011/january/jacobson-world-energy-012611.html
I don't see a cost total this time. When Jacobson came out with this proposal in 2009, his cost was $100 trillion worldwide over twenty years. For even just the US portion of such a plan, the cost is far more than the Apollo program with which he wants to compare.
2009 Version:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030&print=true
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/october19/jacobson-energy-study-102009.html
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2543785&postcount=84

I believe Jacobson's view is coming inevitably, but in a different timescale than he imagines, say 2070, not his 2030, and for a lot less money (constant dollars).
 
Last edited:
  • #356
apeiron said:
Regardless of which politicians say what, the economic logic of oil pricing (and so subsidies among other market manipulations like ME airbases and support for despotic rulers) is clear enough.

Richard Heinberg is writing a book with a nice explanation.
http://postcarbon.us1.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=311db31977054c5ef58219392&id=4e04de2333&e=00411b992d
Here's another Heinberg appearance: a 911 Truther petition
We Want Real Answers About 9/11
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
See #45.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #358
apeiron said:
Attacking the man rather than the argument again, hey?

When there's nothing left... ad hominem. Another variation would be, "those who can't, ad hominem."
 
  • #359
mheslep said:
I don't see a cost total this time. When Jacobson came out with this proposal in 2009, his cost was $100 trillion worldwide over twenty years. For even just the US portion of such a plan, the cost is far more than the Apollo program with which he wants to compare.
2009 Version:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030&print=true
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/october19/jacobson-energy-study-102009.html
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2543785&postcount=84

I believe Jacobson's view is coming inevitably, but in a different timescale than he imagines, say 2070, not his 2030, and for a lot less money (constant dollars).

Basically, you believe anything that doesn't have this crisis occurring during your lifetime. That is indeed one very profound way to resolve cognitive dissonance. On the other hand, this strikes me as a fairly radical bet for conservatives, don't you?

True, Jacobson is dreaming, but if you added nuclear to the mix and spread out the impact and transiition... oh right, you still haven't adressed that idea. I'd add, if everyone judged the content of one anohter's writing by the views we held, how many people here would listen to you at all? I don't see the point of inserting a standard you wouldn't normally apply, which is obvious given a detailed perusal of your posting history.

So... nuclear taking over for Coal, while we focus on portable fuel sources... how much would that cut the 100 trillion USD estimate? Oh, and what would be a reasonable price for the entire world to make that transition in 20 years?
 
  • #360
nismaratwork said:
So... nuclear taking over for Coal, while we focus on portable fuel sources... how much would that cut the 100 trillion USD estimate? Oh, and what would be a reasonable price for the entire world to make that transition in 20 years?

On the subject of peak coal, a reminder that that wacky conspiracy theorist Heinberg has been writing articles for that notorious crank rag Nature :redface:. His rantings would never pass peer review in any serious journal, etc, etc.

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-18/fridley-heinberg-discuss-peak-coal-nature-journal
 
  • #361
nismaratwork said:
Heh... probably a very long time, but then it might be a poor idea to breach a magma chamber by accident, and WOW that equipment would need to be tough. Still, I get your point, and there are other ways to exploit the geomagnetic field... just not cost effective.

If you added storage to wind, solar, and even more exotic means... efficient and reusable capacitor, then suddenly it's not insane to do this. I don't mean one house with a battery, I mean long term serious storage, and a new infrastructure to transmit it.

hey, guess what...

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-magma-power-geothermal-energy.html
 
  • #363
How bad is it going to get with Middle East oil suppliers like Libya and Iran? First the risk of destruction and disruption of supply. Then later nationalisation and rationing if there is more democratic self-control.

Egypt, Bahrain are important too for their pipelines and shipping lanes. Moving oil is a strategic good just about as much as producing it.
 
  • #364
apeiron said:
How bad is it going to get with Middle East oil suppliers like Libya and Iran? First the risk of destruction and disruption of supply. Then later nationalisation and rationing if there is more democratic self-control.

Egypt, Bahrain are important too for their pipelines and shipping lanes. Moving oil is a strategic good just about as much as producing it.

We have Israel... a base in Crete, the fifth fleet... if we have to have WWIII, this might be a good time to have it.
 
  • #365
nismaratwork said:
We have Israel... a base in Crete, the fifth fleet... if we have to have WWIII, this might be a good time to have it.

How is that going to work? Wars create disruption of oil production, and disruption is precisely what the economy cannot afford. Especially if Saudi cannot crank up production to make up shortfalls, as seems to be the case.

Consider the history of these kinds of events.

Crises in Iran and Iraq

In 1979 and 1980, events in Iran and Iraq led to another round of crude oil price increases. The Iranian revolution resulted in the loss of 2 to 2.5 million barrels per day of oil production between November 1978 and June 1979. At one point production almost halted.

The Iranian revolution was the proximate cause of what would become the highest price in post-WWII history. However, its impact on prices would have been limited and of relatively short duration had it not been for subsequent events. Shortly after the revolution, production was up to 4 million barrels per day.

In September 1980, Iran already weakened by the revolution was invaded by Iraq. By November, the combined production of both countries was only a million barrels per day and 6.5 million barrels per day less than a year before. Consequently worldwide crude oil production was 10 percent lower than in 1979.

The combination of the Iranian revolution and the Iraq-Iran War cause crude oil prices to more than double increasing from $14 in 1978 to $35 per barrel in 1981.

Three decades later Iran's production is only two-thirds of the level reached under the government of Reza Pahlavi, the former Shah of Iran.

Iraq's production remains a million barrels below its peak before the Iraq-Iran War.

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm
 
  • #366
apeiron said:
How is that going to work? Wars create disruption of oil production, and disruption is precisely what the economy cannot afford. Especially if Saudi cannot crank up production to make up shortfalls, as seems to be the case.

Consider the history of these kinds of events.

Key point, "If we have to have...", and the justification being that as chaos and disruption is already spreading...

I admit, there was also an element of death's head humor. With Libya becoming a slaughterhouse and the rest joining in... let's face it, it's raining **** and is unlikely to stop.

Then... Iran... do you believe that they'll be allowed to build a nuclear weapon? The latest worm did some damage, but the best I've heard is a year. Maybe this is the kind of change we need, which may not be the change we want.

My point: If the region has to explode, better conventional than nuclear, and better now than in 15 years when China is feeling more adventurous.
 
  • #367
nismaratwork said:
My point: If the region has to explode, better conventional than nuclear, and better now than in 15 years when China is feeling more adventurous.

I was thinking that the clever approach from the US POV was to stage these things. If it takes about a decade to invade, regime change, get the oil pumping at maximum rate, then you want to take an Iran or Iraq off-line in a managed fashion. In timely fashion so it keeps the production curves smooth as far into the future as possible.

And you don't really care who runs these countries - hard men or democracies - so long as those in charge are incentivised to stay focused on maximum oil production.

Worrying about a nuclear Iran seems a bogeyman issue. What kind of arsenal could they end up with - compared to a thermonuclear Israel with multiple delivery platforms for instance?

But an Iran without the infrastructure to efficiently export all its oil in the not too distant future? That really does not bear thinking about in geopolitical circles. Whether you are US, China, or whoever is in charge by 2020.
 
  • #368
apeiron said:
I was thinking that the clever approach from the US POV was to stage these things. If it takes about a decade to invade, regime change, get the oil pumping at maximum rate, then you want to take an Iran or Iraq off-line in a managed fashion. In timely fashion so it keeps the production curves smooth as far into the future as possible.

And you don't really care who runs these countries - hard men or democracies - so long as those in charge are incentivised to stay focused on maximum oil production.

Worrying about a nuclear Iran seems a bogeyman issue. What kind of arsenal could they end up with - compared to a thermonuclear Israel with multiple delivery platforms for instance?

But an Iran without the infrastructure to efficiently export all its oil in the not too distant future? That really does not bear thinking about in geopolitical circles. Whether you are US, China, or whoever is in charge by 2020.

True, but here a disaster is, and we have to consider how best to capitalize on the situation. I would say that the major issue of a nuclear Iran is two-fold:
1.) Israel is unlikely to allow that, and Iran is too unstable historically.
2.) A nuclear Iran, like NK, suddenly can turn to shoring up its power, free in the knowledge that nobody wants to start a war with a nuclear power.

To be blunt, what's coming, is coming, and we can't stop it. We can however, try to sieze key assets and hope for a cold-war a la a divided Germany.

edit: Besides, you want impetus to develop other fuels and technologies? Widespread poverty, chaos and death should be a strong impetus. Personally, I think we're getting a preview of things to come, something Kissinger knew could only be delayed.
 
  • #369
Something new to worry about :smile: - thermodynamic limits to the wind that can be sucked out of the atmosphere.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...th's-energy-balance.html?full=true&print=true

The numbers still sound dubious and better modelling will follow. But it is interesting to think of the feedback effects that could result from draining energy from normal air or tidal flows. Every action has its consequences.
 
  • #370
apeiron said:
Something new to worry about :smile: - thermodynamic limits to the wind that can be sucked out of the atmosphere.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...th's-energy-balance.html?full=true&print=true

The numbers still sound dubious and better modelling will follow. But it is interesting to think of the feedback effects that could result from draining energy from normal air or tidal flows. Every action has its consequences.

New Scientist has always been horrible. sure, removing energy from the wind and moving it somewhere else will change the ecosystem. so does removing energy from rivers. then they want to make the point that the sun is the ideal source (in the linked article from that page). but the variation in solar energy creates wind, too.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-our-only-truly-renewable-energy-source.html"

oh noes! moving solar energy to a different location will change weather patterns, too!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #371
Proton Soup said:
New Scientist has always been horrible.

Hey, I used to write for them! (But I did stop largely because they really did become tabloid sensationalist.)

sure, removing energy from the wind and moving it somewhere else will change the ecosystem. so does removing energy from rivers.

Yes, too true. The hydro dam revolution is now running into problems 30 or 40 years down the road because dams silt up and become unusable. They also do so much damage to ecology of river mouths that there are big costs to fisheries and biodiversity that have to be factored into the financial equation.

Again, every action has consequences and we haven't been putting enough effort into the science of modelling that.

We can make the machines, but are less good at modelling the world in which they then exist.
 
  • #372
Anyone see the fine 2007 Daniel Day-Lewis film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469494/" , comes an essay:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572552998674340.html"

Yergin said:
...This is actually the fifth time in modern history that we've seen widespread fear that the world was running out of oil. The first was in the 1880s, when production was concentrated in Pennsylvania and it was said that no oil would be found west of the Mississippi. Then oil was found in Texas and Oklahoma. Similar fears emerged after the two world wars. And in the 1970s, it was said that the world was going to fall off the "oil mountain." But since 1978, world oil output has increased by 30%...

Yergin has a sequel out on energy titled http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6569020549199248.html?KEYWORDS=DANIEL+YERGIN", so expect more public visibility soon from him such as this essay.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #373
I would disagree with him in his claim about technologies like wind power broadening our energy base. Otherwise, I hope he is correct. In the comments section, there are some people really tearing him up though.
 
  • #374
CAC1001 said:
I would disagree with him in his claim about technologies like wind power broadening our energy base. Otherwise, I hope he is correct. In the comments section, there are some people really tearing him up though.
Which comments? Hayward's review of Quest, or Yergin's There Will Be Oil?
 
  • #375
mheslep said:
Which comments? Hayward's review of Quest, or Yergin's There Will Be Oil?

Yergin's There Will Be Oil.
 
  • #376
mheslep said:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904060604576572552998674340.html"

The definitive difference, of course, is that the previous scares were based on not knowing the other reserves existed (a thing of the 1880s past) or not having the technology to get to it. Modern technology can get to only so much, and that's really not much at all. The rest is just way out of reach.

Unless we invent transporter technology, but by then our need of oil will also be a thing of the past.

No. There will not "always be oil."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #377
DoggerDan said:
The definitive difference, of course, is that the previous scares were based on not knowing the other reserves existed (a thing of the 1880s past) or not having the technology to get to it. Modern technology can get to only so much, and that's really not much at all. The rest is just way out of reach.

Unless we invent transporter technology, but by then our need of oil will also be a thing of the past.

No. There will not "always be oil."

Well it depends on economics and technological innovation. Everyone knows that oil is in a finite supply, but if technological advancements occur that reduce the amount of oil required, then that can lengthen out the existing supply.
 
  • #378
DoggerDan said:
The definitive difference, of course, is that the previous scares were based on not knowing the other reserves existed (a thing of the 1880s past) or not having the technology to get to it.
That is the similarity, not the difference. There always have been reserves, somewhere, that are unknown; this is also the case now.
No. There will not "always be oil."
Of course there will be oil in the ground, for millennia, somewhere. It is likely that oil won't always be useful compared to other sources of energy, or the price of obtaining oil will be to high, or the cost to the environment of obtaining oil and using it will be to high, etc.
 
  • #379
mheslep said:
That is the similarity, not the difference. There always have been reserves, somewhere, that are unknown; this is also the case now.

No, that's the difference. In 1880, Pennsylvanians thought they'd hit a localized gold mine of oil, but were largely unaware of reserves elsewhere. The difference is that today, we know where the reserves are located.

I don't think you're using the term "reserves" correctly: "The total estimated amount of oil in an oil reservoir, including both producible and non-producible oil, is called oil in place. However, because of reservoir characteristics and limitations in petroleum extraction technologies, only a fraction of this oil can be brought to the surface, and it is only this producible fraction that is considered to be reserves." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

As technology improves, we will have greater access to what's currently in the "oil in place" folder. When that happens, that oil will be moved from that folder to the "oil reserves" folder.

The problem remains that we know about far more oil than we're able to tap given both current and foreseen technology. Hence my comment about developing a Star Trek like transporter to get it from there to here.

Of course there will be oil in the ground, for millennia, somewhere. It is likely that oil won't always be useful compared to other sources of energy, or the price of obtaining oil will be to high, or the cost to the environment of obtaining oil and using it will be to high, etc.

Right now it's both a cost and a technology problem. In the 1950s, we simply could NOT get to the Moon. That required technological refinements which cost buku bucks. Even today, however, cost remains a massive barrier, as it will with most of the oil in place.
 
  • #380
DoggerDan said:
No, that's the difference. In 1880, Pennsylvanians thought they'd hit a localized gold mine of oil, but were largely unaware of reserves elsewhere. The difference is that today, we know where the reserves are located.

...
:confused: Until 2007, nobody had any idea there might be 1.8B bbls off the coast of Guiana, as http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-09/tullow-oil-makes-oil-discovery-offshore-french-guiana.html"

Geologists believe that when the Atlantic Ocean started opening between South America and Africa, organic sediment resulted in hydrocarbon deposits known as the Late Cretaceous turbidite sands. They haven’t been drilled to date because they are less visible than other types of deposits and drilling at such depths has only recently become viable.


Until a couple years ago, nobody expected large amounts of oil off Brazil. Until last year, nobody thought there was any oil in Israeli med. waters. Until several years ago, nobody though natural gas locked in shale was economically retrievable. On and on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #381
The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 4 characters.

Really? Look below:

mheslep said:
:confused: Until 2007, nobody had any idea there might be 1.8B bbls off the coast of Guiana, as http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-09/tullow-oil-makes-oil-discovery-offshore-french-guiana.html"

Putting that into perspective, there are 1,324x10^9 bbl in all reserves. Compare that to the "find" of Guiana. Be careful to ensure you match the decimal places, and you'll find Guiana is but a drop in a billion-drop bucket.

Which brings back my point: Why is it the media is so easily duped when it comes to basic scientific concepts?

Despicable! And grossely wastefuly of US taxpayer resources.

...
...
omically retrievable. On and on.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #382
"1.8 billion" sounds like a lot until you realize that the US burns 20 million of them a day.

So Guyana gives our oil dependency another 3 months of life.
 
  • #384
The amount of oil that can be extracted depends on how much you are willing to pay for a barrel. At $20 per barrel the remaining amount is small. At $300 per barrel there is a lot of oil still remaining. How many buyer are there are $300 per barrel? ($10 per gallon for gas or home heating) The biggest know reserve is the Orrinoco tar sands in Venezuela at 600 billion barrels, 20 years world supply. Second Canadian tar sands at 300 billion barrels, 10 years world supply.
 
  • #385
mheslep said:
Another example showing knowledge of reserves then, knowledge of reserves now:
OPEC 1980 (410B bbls), OPEC 2009 (1137B bbls)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OPEC_declared_reserves_1980-now_BP.svg
Nobody today knows where the all the future oil is either, but the trend for the moment is up.

You are again confusing the difference between "reserves" and "oil in place." Reserves refers to only the portion of the oil in place which we have the current knowledge technology to extract. Thus, you could have 1T bbls of oil in place, half of which is recoverable i.e. reserves. If you invent a way to get out another 200B bbls, your reserves increase to 700B bbls, all without finding a single additional drop of oil.

"The total estimated amount of oil in an oil reservoir, including both producible and non-producible oil, is called oil in place. However, because of reservoir characteristics and limitations in petroleum extraction technologies, only a fraction of this oil can be brought to the surface, and it is only this producible fraction that is considered to be reserves." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
edpell said:
The amount of oil that can be extracted depends on how much you are willing to pay for a barrel.

It depends on two things, actually. The first is technology. If you don't have the technology to get to it, you can pay all the money in the world and you will still be unable to get to it.

If you can get to it, then recovery price comes into play.
 

Similar threads

Is the World Approaching the Inevitable Hubbert's Peak of Oil Production?
3
Replies
73
Views
11K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top