When will the world reach peak fossil fuel production?

[CaptFirePanda]

Careful, you've flipped from imports (where the 25% decrease occurs) to consumption (~17%) for comparisons.

I would be, if I had the time or inkling, interested to see what sort of effect this had on the family vacations, and other similar "luxury" things. But this is a little too much "trees" and not enough "forest".

The interesting part is that reduction in consumption is not directly correlatable to use of gasoline or other crude derivatives. In a debt driven economy, when a recession hits keeping pace with debt leads to less and less money for other spending. I'm no economist and I won't pretend to be, but the relationships are far from directly proportional.

You can get bogged down in the minutia, but the simple fact remains is that when a recession hits, oil imports and consumption drop. This isn't something that the general public does in response. This is something that occurs as a result of many other factors.

 

[apeiron]

IMF researchers have put out a study on peak oil that takes into account the geological contraints on production, plus the technological advances in extraction that can be expected, and are still warning of "a near doubling, permanently, of real oil prices over the coming decade."

See http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12109.pdf

Or that conclusion in a little more detail...

While our model is not as pessimistic as the pure geological view, which typically holds that binding resource constraints will lead world oil production onto an inexorable downward trend in the very near future, our prediction of small further increases in world oil production comes at the expense of a near doubling, permanently, of real oil prices over the coming decade. This is uncharted territory for the world economy, which has never experienced such prices for more than a few months.

Our current model of the effect of such prices on GDP is based on historical data, and indicates perceptible but small and transitory output effects. But we suspect that there must be a pain barrier, a level of oil prices above which the effects on GDP becomes nonlinear, convex.

We also suspect that the assumption that technology is independent of the availability of fossil fuels may be inappropriate, so that a lack of availability of oil may have aspects of a negative technology shock. In that case the macroeconomic effects of binding resource constraints could be much larger, more persistent, and they would extend well beyond the oil sector.

Studying these issues further will be a priority of our future research.

 

[russ_watters]

So how, in your opinion, does that fit with or contradict the idea of Peak Oil?

 

[mheslep]

The references cited in this IMF paper make me immediately skeptical, especially Deffeyes and Matt Simmons, as these are not only peak oilers but peak oilers that also feel the need to forecast catastrophe and the collapse of civilization. The paper does not mention any the flaws associated with these authors.

Dr Deffeyes has been called production oil peaks in 2000, 2003, 2004, 2005 at least. http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/current-events-06-02.html:

By 2025, we're going to be back in the Stone Age.

 

[russ_watters]

Noted, but there are two interesting statements in there that seem to contradict the alarmist view:

1. A "permanent doubling of oil prices" does not fit my understanding of Peak Oil, which afaik predicts a continuous (accelerating?) increase.
2. Small continued supply increases is radically different from an accelerating drop.

These two statement to me paint a picture of no near-term peak oil risk.

What I've been seeing lately appears to be pretty strong contradictions of peak oil. The gist of a recent Time article for example is that there are vast untapped reserves out there that require twice the cost to extract as current reserves. Thus a doubling of the price could cause a decades-long stabilization of oil economics.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

By 2025, we're going to be back in the Stone Age.

Assuming they were burning coal in the Stone Age.

 

[mheslep]

... The gist of a recent Time article for example is that there are vast untapped reserves out there that require twice the cost to extract as current reserves. Thus a doubling of the price could cause a decades-long stabilization of oil economics.

Yes but twice what cost basis? At one point the Saudi's could pull oil for $10/bbl.

It seems to me there are several replacements, using existing technology, that would prevent a price doubling. The first that comes to mind is gas to liquids. The largest plant in the world is Pearl, in Qatar, which cost $24 billion, and produces 192 thousand bbl oil/day from 1.6 billion cf/day of gas. If the twenty year cost of the plant is $30 billion, then the bbl price amortized over the plant life is $30/bbl, plus the cost of the gas to make a GTL bbl of oil is ~$45/bbl @ $4/1000 cf, so ~$75/bbl is the top price from GTL. Apparently a GTL plant is about to break ground in the US, brought on by the spread between natural gas and oil prices.

*The IMF authors mention this, but discount them due to 'problems' with the 'elasticity' of 'replacements'.

 

[mheslep]

Here's another another low cost 'replacement' that negates the price doubling thesis:

RAND predicts the costs [of oil shale production] would decline to $35–48 per barrel ($220–300/m3) within 12 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale#Economics

 

[mheslep]

Did you actually compare the Kuwaiti estimates against any of the others?

I looked at one, Brazil, and the Kuwaitis are already falling substantially short of actual production figures. Here's the Kuwaiti estimate for Brazil, in which their model produces a peak production estimate of 2.0 mbbl/d this year, 2010.

Figure 17. Brazil crude oil production model:

Here's EIA, showing actual production in 2008 was 2.4 mbbl/d, already exceeding the Kuwaiti prediction, and by this year will likely be ~2.8 mbbl/d.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Brazil/images/br_production.gif
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/Brazil/Oil.html


Given the well known rapid development of Brazil's offshore oil, seem's like they should have tossed this model away and started over when it produced a 2010 peak. ...

Following up on another of the old peak oil forecasts:

Brazil's crude production still increasing. 2.1 mbpd now in 2011, leaving the peak production forecast further in the dust.
http://www.eia.gov/countries/img/charts_png/BR_petcop_img.png

All oil production for Brazil, including ethanol, is 2.68 mbpd

 

[russ_watters]

I've been meaning to update this thread or start a new one: looks like peak oil is over for a while. Fracking is causing an energy revolution in the US, with explosive growth in oil and gas production, which will probably make us energy inndependent in 15-20 yrs: http://mobile.businessweek.com/news...since-first-well-in-1859-signals-independence

 

[mheslep]

Some have predicted liquid fuel independence in North America, i.e. including oil production from Canada and Mexico, in eight years by 2020. I think they'll be proven right, given governments do not interfere. N. Dakota shale oil production is accelerating at 250K barrels per day, per year. Texas production is accelerating at 500K barrels per day, per year. Add that to Canadian tar sands oil, the liquid by-products coming from natural gas production, a little more offshore oil production, the replacement of oil with gas feed stocks in the chemical industry, the increasing efficiency of consumption, a little more biofuel, and the supply numbers roughly equal US demand of ~18 million barrels per day by 2020.

 

[russ_watters]

Some have predicted liquid fuel independence in North America, i.e. including oil production from Canada and Mexico, in eight years by 2020.

Yeah, I consider that close enough -- the main issue isn't independence per se, its not relying on the Middle East anymore.

Still, would be nice to have a few more north-south pipelines built to help make that happen...

 

[rootX]

Yeah, I consider that close enough -- the main issue isn't independence per se, its not relying on the Middle East anymore.

Still, would be nice to have a few more north-south pipelines built to help make that happen...

I wonder if the US need that pipeline:

The WEO finds that the extraordinary growth in oil and natural gas output in the United States will mean a sea-change in global energy flows. In the New Policies Scenario, the WEO’s central scenario, the United States becomes a net exporter of natural gas by 2020 and is almost self-sufficient in energy, in net terms, by 2035.

http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2012/november/name,33015,en.html

I think focus should be on energy efficiency in addition to production as pointed out in the article.

 

[Skrew]

The fact that gas is still less costly per gallon then milk amazes me considering one is a finite resource which is being consumed in vast quantites.

While peak oil may not happen yet, it will happen and happen long before the sun destroys the planet.

 

[mheslep]

I wonder if the US need that pipeline:

http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2012/november/name,33015,en.html

The proposed but blocked Keystone pipeline is for oil, not natural gas. The US is going to be importing oil from somewhere for years to come in spite of the increase in domestic production. I prefer the imports come via pipeline rather than tanker ship.

 

[AlephZero]

The fact that gas is still less costly per gallon then milk amazes me considering one is a finite resource which is being consumed in vast quantites.

That is partly political, if a government decides to subsidize growing crops to make biofuel, rather than using them to feedi cattle (or even to feedi humans).

AFAIK "high milk prices" are not an major election issue, but "high gas prices" certainly are.

 

[russ_watters]

AFAIK "high milk prices" are not an major election issue, but "high gas prices" certainly are.

I burn more than a gallon of gas a day driving to work. Plus what I use in heating my house. That's why its a bigger issue.

 

[rootX]

The proposed but blocked Keystone pipeline is for oil, not natural gas. The US is going to be importing oil from somewhere for years to come in spite of the increase in domestic production. I prefer the imports come via pipeline rather than tanker ship.

I burn more than a gallon of gas a day driving to work. Plus what I use in heating my house. That's why its a bigger issue.

Interesting question is how interchangeable can be natural gas and oil. For example, considering two things russ pointed out:

Heating:

Others have built fundamental models to relate the price of natural gas and the price of oil by analyzing the various end users that can switch relatively quickly between the two. A simple example of this is heating applications, since many residential, commercial, and industrial boilers can burn either natural gas or distillate fuel oil, which has historically been priced about 95 percent that of crude oil.

http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/...urious-oil-and-natural-gas-price-differential

Gas:

Energy Department Announces New ARPA-E Projects to Advance Innovative Natural Gas Vehicle Technologies

http://www.doe.gov/articles/energy-...ojects-advance-innovative-natural-gas-vehicle

 

[russ_watters]

Interesting question is how interchangeable can be natural gas and oil...

Heating:

My house is heated by propane, which is a derivative of oil. I would much prefer it if it were heated by natural gas, at half the price. I have vaguely investigated the possibility of connecting to a local gas main, but nothing has come of that yet. Due to the expanding of the disparity between oil and gas prices though (your link), I may need to look into that more...but since oil has dropped (just not as much as gas), I suspect interest for such a project will be slim in my homeowner's association. I suppose the main issue is whether to put up the capital to make the switch or just let the natural gas supply pull the demand and price for propane down, and ride that out. Win/win.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Viewing only the cost of the energy, not what utilities charge for transporation and distribution:

Current December price is $US 0.4415 per therm. - I'm at New Mexico Gas Company.
This is actually the wholesale price the company pays - we are mandated to charge customers what we pay per therm. Projected price for January is about $0.49.

Retail January projected price for propane here is $2.63/gal. A gallon of propane is close to a therm in energy content: .91994 therms.

So in NM, the projected net difference for a therm of energy is $2.85 for a therm of propane versus $0.49 a therm of natural gas is a factor of ~5.8. Russ, you should switch sooner rather than later.

Also as a side note: one of the liquid by products of raw natural gas is propane. As Russ alluded to earlier.

 

[russ_watters]

I made a spreadsheet a while back for comparing prices and updated it a few weeks ago. Propane was $2.24/gal delivered, so I think you are comparing the commodity/energy price of gas to the delivered price of propane. That said, I didn't get an exact cost from my dad, who is my source for natural gas prices: he thinks he's paying about a dollar.

That equates to a ratio of 2.5:1.

My problem isn't the ratio of the prices though, its the $ per therm difference. If both drop by the same $/therm (for example), the ratio widens but the economics of switching don't actually improve because the amount of heat we use stays the same.

And actually, I thought propane came from oil only, so I looked it up. Seems it comes from both:

Propane is produced as a by-product of two other processes, natural gas processing and petroleum refining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane#Sources