The 'Peak Oil' Myth: New Oil Is Plentiful

[mikenelson]

Once again the peak oil theory is misrepresented again... and misunderstood... Peak oil is not about running out of oil... it is about FLOW RATES!!! This is very simple... Even if you drilled all of that today and got it up in 5-10 years would your new flow rate be higher than todays flow rate minus the declines in the world's mature fields??? That is the question.... What is the ultimate peak flow rate.... ? Right now we sit around 85 Million Barrels a Day... With declines out of the biggest fields reaching 14% in some cases.... can we get past this number... and by how much? Maybe 90 mbpd ..... 100 TOPS! It is estimated by 2020 we will need something like 120.... We are falling behind and while there is more oil out there I seriously doubt we will be able to get enough flow to meet the world's thirst..... Yea and by the way.... oil shale and sands is extremely low flow.


Great post. More drilling definitely isn't the answer, hopefully there will be an affordable alternative in the near-future.

[m2pinggggggg]

Once again the peak oil theory is misrepresented again... and misunderstood... Peak oil is not about running out of oil... it is about FLOW RATES!!! This is very simple... Even if you drilled all of that today and got it up in 5-10 years would your new flow rate be higher than todays flow rate minus the declines in the world's mature fields??? That is the question.... What is the ultimate peak flow rate.... ? Right now we sit around 85 Million Barrels a Day... With declines out of the biggest fields reaching 14% in some cases.... can we get past this number... and by how much? Maybe 90 mbpd ..... 100 TOPS! It is estimated by 2020 we will need something like 120.... We are falling behind and while there is more oil out there I seriously doubt we will be able to get enough flow to meet the world's thirst..... Yea and by the way.... oil shale and sands is extremely low flow.

I know, why don't we take China, India, and Paskistan's extra people ( 2 Billion plus?) and pay them to help out in the oil fields. We can get to Mars, but " we have no easy oil"? Markets are created to keep the cattle from moooooo-ving to much. It's easier to be sheep.... baaaaaa-d analogy? We just have to lie down and don't give a hoot. :idunno:pound

[robinhoooood]

I know, why don't we take China, India, and Paskistan's extra people ( 2 Billion plus?) and pay them to help out in the oil fields. We can get to Mars, but " we have no easy oil"? Markets are created to keep the cattle from moooooo-ving to much. It's easier to be sheep.... baaaaaa-d analogy? We just have to lie down and don't give a hoot. :idunno:pound

We need more than people.... we are at the beginning of a new energy and economic paradigm.... Things are going to change drastically... If you wish to keep the same game going you will need to figure out a way to stop aging oil fields from declining in production due to lost pressure.... Good luck!

[HisAlways]

Great post. More drilling definitely isn't the answer, hopefully there will be an affordable alternative in the near-future.

It's a start. Until we find alternatives, it's doing something, instead of sitting back, helpless, watching prices spiral out of control. Had we started back in the 80's and 90's when we were saying "it will take 10 years to get on line", imagine how things may be different today. So, sitting back for another 10 years, griping and doing nothing is not an option. Been there...done that.

BTW......when the price of converting a house to solar heat costs almost as much as the house, itself, I hardly think that is an "affordable" alternative for power.

When FL complains about their tourist industry being in jeopardy, because of drilling 125 miles offshore, they might want to think about not having many tourists, due to the high cost of driving or flying to get there in the first place.:scratch

[jds6958]

When FL complains about their tourist industry being in jeopardy, because of drilling 125 miles offshore, they might want to think about not having many tourists, due to the high cost of driving or flying to get there in the first place.:scratch

LOL, that is a rather good point...

[robinhoooood]

It's a start. Until we find alternatives, it's doing something, instead of sitting back, helpless, watching prices spiral out of control. Had we started back in the 80's and 90's when we were saying "it will take 10 years to get on line", imagine how things may be different today. So, sitting back for another 10 years, griping and doing nothing is not an option. Been there...done that.:scratch

Yes that is correct but here is something else to consider... The faster you pump that oil the faster you reach your limits... Sure we would have cheap prices now, but what about 10-15 years from now.. when nothing was done in the time of cheap energy to promote alternative energies and then we end up in the sam boat... only the difference is.. now we have nothing to drill...

The ultimate solution is to try and limit consumption... and get oil production into a long plateau .... and steadily increase the price of energy so that we can maintain stability and also invest in new technologies more heavily...

We may still be able to pull this off..... though I doubt it.

[Rinji]

Another problem is with current alternative fuels, it usually takes electricity (or fossil fuels to make the electricity) to create them. It drives me crazy when people say hydrogen or electric is the way to go. I try to explain to them what goes into making those sources, and it just doesn't click. They say something such as the engines are more efficient, unlike the combustion engine, but on the other end, when they produce the electricity in the first place, guess where a lot of that energy goes? In the air as heat! It's not much different than running a car. You just loose excess energy at a different stage in the operation to convert fossil fuels into the final product.
The only thing I'm aware of that could possibly work is the algae-oil.

Another angle on the issue is how agriculture has become so large scale.
Most seeds are purchased from large corporations. There seeds are all mono-crops and require special fertilizers and poisons to maintain. Farmers are also not allowing the earth to rest to regain minerals like they used to. So without the fertilizers and poisons, the crops fail.
Nitrogen fertilizer requires a lot of fossil fuel to reach the heat required to make it. Even worst, approximately 1/2 of the fertilizer is wasted because it is in a form not soluble to plants. The process isn't as refined as we'd like to think it to be. That unused portion of the fertilizer is often found in run off and gets in our drinking water.

I'd imagine with all the failed crops this year will cause farmers who are able to, to replant, and use even more fertilizer. As far as I know, fertilizers and agriculture accounts for about 2/3's of our fossil fuel usage.

It's not only the oil companies, but also current farming pratices encouraged by the corpations that sell the seed.

Sadly I see no solution to the problem. We are living outside our means. We have too many hungry people in this world to go back to plucking weeds by hand.

[robinhoooood]

Another problem is with current alternative fuels, it usually takes electricity (or fossil fuels to make the electricity) to create them. It drives me crazy when people say hydrogen or electric is the way to go. I try to explain to them what goes into making those sources, and it just doesn't click. They say something such as the engines are more efficient, unlike the combustion engine, but on the other end, when they produce the electricity in the first place, guess where a lot of that energy goes? In the air as heat! It's not much different than running a car. You just loose excess energy at a different stage in the operation to convert fossil fuels into the final product.
The only thing I'm aware of that could possibly work is the algae-oil.

Another angle on the issue is how agriculture has become so large scale.
Most seeds are purchased from large corporations. There seeds are all mono-crops and require special fertilizers and poisons to maintain. Farmers are also not allowing the earth to rest to regain minerals like they used to. So without the fertilizers and poisons, the crops fail.
Nitrogen fertilizer requires a lot of fossil fuel to reach the heat required to make it. Even worst, approximately 1/2 of the fertilizer is wasted because it is in a form not soluble to plants. The process isn't as refined as we'd like to think it to be. That unused portion of the fertilizer is often found in run off and gets in our drinking water.

I'd imagine with all the failed crops this year will cause farmers who are able to, to replant, and use even more fertilizer. As far as I know, fertilizers and agriculture accounts for about 2/3's of our fossil fuel usage.

It's not only the oil companies, but also current farming pratices encouraged by the corpations that sell the seed.

Sadly I see no solution to the problem. We are living outside our means. We have too many hungry people in this world to go back to plucking weeds by hand.

Exactly right on the alternative energies...

As far as oil for fertilizer... and supporting our population.... one only needs to look at a population graph since the discovery of oil.... it is quite scary... and very unsustainable... even with growth of oil production... say nothing to declining oil production.

[ab28]

Another problem is with current alternative fuels, it usually takes electricity (or fossil fuels to make the electricity) to create them. It drives me crazy when people say hydrogen or electric is the way to go. I try to explain to them what goes into making those sources, and it just doesn't click. They say something such as the engines are more efficient, unlike the combustion engine, but on the other end, when they produce the electricity in the first place, guess where a lot of that energy goes? In the air as heat! It's not much different than running a car. You just loose excess energy at a different stage in the operation to convert fossil fuels into the final product.
The only thing I'm aware of that could possibly work is the algae-oil.

Another angle on the issue is how agriculture has become so large scale.
Most seeds are purchased from large corporations. There seeds are all mono-crops and require special fertilizers and poisons to maintain. Farmers are also not allowing the earth to rest to regain minerals like they used to. So without the fertilizers and poisons, the crops fail.
Nitrogen fertilizer requires a lot of fossil fuel to reach the heat required to make it. Even worst, approximately 1/2 of the fertilizer is wasted because it is in a form not soluble to plants. The process isn't as refined as we'd like to think it to be. That unused portion of the fertilizer is often found in run off and gets in our drinking water.

I'd imagine with all the failed crops this year will cause farmers who are able to, to replant, and use even more fertilizer. As far as I know, fertilizers and agriculture accounts for about 2/3's of our fossil fuel usage.

It's not only the oil companies, but also current farming pratices encouraged by the corpations that sell the seed.

Sadly I see no solution to the problem. We are living outside our means. We have too many hungry people in this world to go back to plucking weeds by hand.

Yes, it takes electricity. However, producing the energy at a centralized location is more efficient. Nuclear power plants also are much more efficient than a combustion engine. The heat is recycled for other uses, as well.

[Rinji]

Yes, it takes electricity. However, producing the energy at a centralized location is more efficient. Nuclear power plants also are much more efficient than a combustion engine. The heat is recycled for other uses, as well.

Yes, it's more efficient, but we are still stuck on fossil fuels :(

I almost forgot about nuclear. I do like the idea in concept, but as far as disposal of waste, not to mention they make good missle targets... I'm not so keen on.

Even if they weren't bombed, I can see them getting less funding in the future for upkeep and end up with problems anyway. That's what's happening to one reactors I know of in Illinois. They are either under funded or too lazy to fix the tritium water getting in the drinking water near by, so they pay off the towns folk near the reactor to stay quiet.

We'll end up with our children and great grand children dealing with the waste problem. And if they don't get bombed, they they will have to deal with crumbling reactors. It's already happening with our streets, sewers and bridges. I wouldn't doubt it could happen to the reactors too.

Seems good in theory, I'm just afraid of the long run consequences.