Peak Oil Curve

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, Seeing how geoligists really understand very little about wear oil comes from, how it is created and by what means it is replenished I do not put much stock in "Peak Oil"! Sure they have all kinds of widely accepted ideas but no one can definatively say that what oil was created from?

We could seriously cut our oil needs through recycleing oil products if money is spent to deveolp recyleing more! Switching from gasoline infastructe to diesel would help some as more diesel can be produced for the same raw materials and energy then gasoline. Pushing for newer more fuel effiecent designs on engines across the board no excemptions would also help. Off shore drilling and open up protected area are still an option.

SOme geoligists are finding that decades after a well has been assumed to have been pumped dry that the oil reserve isnow replenished! I am not talking about steam extraction or any other alternative to standard extraction.

This same thing has happened to underground aquapheres once thought to have been depleted. Twenty or thirty or 100 years latter after lying unused they have been suddenly found to have replenshished.

Do not get me wrong I am not saying that we should not better manage our resources!! I just do not think we have enough solid evidence to make rash statements. We really have not gone that deep into our crust! We truely do not even know what our core is made out off!!!

Hydrogen production from neclear powered water electrolasys would solve a lot of problems. We have plenty of water 70% of earth and many seem to think that the water level is riseing due to warming any ways. The oxygen given off would help counter the loss of rain forests in third worlds and it would help counter green house efect! We could easily use these same nuclear plant to do water desalination for areas like California. This way they could have clean fuel, clean fresh air and plenty of water without needing to pipe it in from other states!! Let private citizens perment their own ethanol without punishing them with felony charges not just farmers! Make localy authoritys buy any extra production these people produce!

Their has been some promiseing work on crankcase oils made from natural oils. They still are not viable alternative but they are makeing progress. Find new uses for all the animal and plant fats wasted by the food industry at both ends of the consuption cycle. Seems like more could be done with natural esters for consumer use. The fat fryer fueled diesels not biodiesel mind you also show promise.
 
Heard of that before. But when throw in natural gas into the equation, we'll have plenty of oil. There is only so much oil that had been calculated by a geographer back in the 70's. He said that US oil production would peak and then plummet after 1973, guess what? He was right. He did the same for the whole earth, turns out to be about 2 trillion gallons out there. By the end of this decade, we will have consumed about 1 trillion gallons. That DOES not include natural gas, which he says is more abundant than oil. We'll be OK. We are teaching our kids about this kind of stuff and the way technology is going, we'll survive for many years to come. Nuclear power is still an unproven science, but it is a science none-the-less. Just look at the advancements in solar and wind power in our current life times. It'll be ALL-RIGHT!!!!
 
quote:

Nuclear power is still an unproven science,...

Respectfully disagree with ya here. About 15% of our power in the US is Nuclear, and at least 40% in France.

Breeder reactors and safe, 10 MW reactor facilities distributed around the country, would certainly reduce our vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

South Africa has done this over 10 years without any issues.

But we allow the enviromentalists to kill our nuclear projects and sabatoge our windmills.
 
In my opinion peak oil is real. We are most likely being mislead by the media and government as to the seriousness of this problem, or it is just another case of extreeme government neglect. The Bush administration's short term solution to the problem is the control of the middle east. But within ten years, IMO we have two choices: change our way of life, or learn to accept nuclear power and the hydrogen disribution system which is just now being promoted.

In my opinion the evils of nuclear fission are much less than those of squandering fossil fuels and gambling with how much CO2 our atmosphere can take until it goes off the other end of a stable equilibrium. If this power had been promoted throughout the last half century like in France, it could also probably have spared this country of needless military conflict.
 
Since it is not a problem not, the general public, media, and goverment will ignore it. When did the goverment ever do anything in a timely manner.
 
Here's a abc story on David Goodstein and his new book: Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil :

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/SciTech/DyeHard/oil_energy_dyehard_040211.html

I'll cut and the beginning of the story linked above. For the full story click above:
quote:

Feb. 11— "Civilization as we know it will come to an end sometime in this century unless we can find a way to live without fossil fuels."
That's the way David Goodstein begins his book. And that's the way he ends it.

Goodstein is not an environmental extremist, or a doomsayer, or a political hack trying to make points with his constituency. He is a professor of physics and vice provost of the California Institute of Technology, one of the nation's headiest institutions.

In his just-released book, Out of Gas: The End of the Age of Oil, published by W. W. Norton & Company, Goodstein argues forcefully that the worldwide production of oil will peak soon, possibly within this decade. That will be followed by declining availability of fossil fuels that could plunge the world into global conflicts as nations struggle to capture their piece of a shrinking pie.

We've all heard that before, only to be told by organizations like the U.S. Department of Energy that there's plenty of oil around, much of it still undiscovered, and there's no cause for panic. Some economists argue that as the supply declines, the price will rise, making it possible to develop energy sources that are not now available, such as the mineral rich oil sands of Canada, or the shale formations in the western United States.

Clues From a Historical Rebel

Some time soon we'll find out who's right, but Goodstein argues that we don't have any time to spare. It takes decades to develop new energy sources, as the prestigious National Academy of Sciences warned last week in a report on the dream of using hydrogen to fuel our cars. So are we poised to meet this challenge head on?

Not likely, Goodstein says.

"Nothing is going to happen until we have a crisis," he said in an interview. "When we have a crisis, I think attitudes will change."

That crisis, he predicts, will probably come sooner rather than later.

But how can experts from economics and science and business differ so strongly on an issue that is this important? How can they look at the same data and come to such different conclusions?

Most predictions concerning the end of the age of oil are based on estimates of when the supply will run out and the last drop is pulled from the last well. But that's the wrong way to look at it, Goodstein argues.

Goodstein relies partly on the work of a historical rebel in the oil industry, M. King Hubbert. Back in the 1950s, when Hubbert was working as a geophysicist with Shell Oil Company, he predicted that oil production in the United States would peak by 1970.

He was almost laughed out of his profession, but guess what? He turned out to be right.

U.S. Oil production has been declining ever since, leading to an increased reliance on foreign oil, and we all know where that has led.

Hubbert's formula was really pretty simple. He looked at all the geological reports that were available at that time and determined how much oil nature had created for us beneath the United States. Then he determined how much had been extracted. He found that half of it would be gone by 1970, and U.S. production would decline forever thereafter.

I think burying your head in the sand, driving 15mpg cars, and fighting wars in the middle east isn't going to help all that much. Neither is opening the Alaska wilderness. These would be the actions of an oil addict (not this type of oil addicts found on this board
wink.gif
). I think Alaska should be used as a last resort, and definitely not before we get past the denial phase. Ideally the alaska reserves should really be saved for the future generations (esp since we are leaving them with a big bill).
 
quote:

Originally posted by giant_robo:
Goodstein relies partly on the work of a historical rebel in the oil industry, M. King Hubbert. Back in the 1950s, when Hubbert was working as a geophysicist with Shell Oil Company, he predicted that oil production in the United States would peak by 1970.

He was almost laughed out of his profession, but guess what? He turned out to be right.


But i thought the "data" posted on the original page showed an oil production peak in 2000 and that 'it has been decreasing every since'.

What i wish was a view towards the other side. The side that says crude oil is being replenished. The side that says, although more difficult to get, the advances in drilling technology will provide the crude cheaper.

yeah, we should cut back our reliance upon crude and foreign crude specifically. But it's not all dark days to me. OPEC wants artificially high prices to support their nations-- nothing 'wrong' with that. But we shouldn't be pandering to OPEC as our sole source of energy.

ferb!
 
ferb, domestic production of oil peaked in 1970 in the United States. International/worldwide production is peaking currently, plus or minus maybe five to ten years.

At the peak thing are relatively benign, and as John Browning said, conservation and recycling can go a long ways during this time. I think burning used motor oil out at sea or for heat has been done for a long time, but there are a few recent innovations such as biodiesel out of the mc donalds grease dumpsters, and renewable fuels (from plant sources).

However, as we get further from the peak, the rate at which available oil decreases steepens; then things may get really ugly.

As for:
quote:

SOme geoligists are finding that decades after a well has been assumed to have been pumped dry that the oil reserve isnow replenished! I am not talking about steam extraction or any other alternative to standard extraction.

This same thing has happened to underground aquapheres once thought to have been depleted. Twenty or thirty or 100 years latter after lying unused they have been suddenly found to have replenshished.

I don't think our appetite for oil has that sort of patience. Also, water and oil are quite different, and though it would make sense that you could extract more oil after waiting a long time (due to seepage) I have my doubts that it would be a very large amount. Consider it scraps for the future generations.
 
quote:

Originally posted by MolaKule:

quote:

Nuclear power is still an unproven science,...

Respectfully disagree with ya here. About 15% of our power in the US is Nuclear, and at least 40% in France.

Breeder reactors and safe, 10 MW reactor facilities distributed around the country, would certainly reduce our vulnerability to terrorist attacks.

South Africa has done this over 10 years without any issues.

But we allow the enviromentalists to kill our nuclear projects and sabatoge our windmills.


I also respectfully disagree with your disagreement
grin.gif
If nuclear science was more of an exact science and the world was comfortable with it, then it would be more wide spread and accepted not only by the zealots and tree huggers, but the population as a whole. A lot of countries are going to nuclear power because they are cheaper economically "down the road." The one problem is nuclear waste. If a country don't care about that, then they could use all they want.
I am one of those environmentalist that you lay reference to and, believe me, I CAN RELATE!!! I see overkill almost everyday and I manage air and water programs for a large military installation. Part of the problem is that a lot of these die hard environmental laws were passed in the 70's and 80's and Congress had to give time for industry to catch up. Now that time has come and these older generation folks are now suing the EPA because they claim that they have had enough time. Those laws were passed during the "hippie" generation, as I call it. It would be political suicide for any one in public office to even think about trying to revoke them. One BIG BIG problem and always will be is the oil conglomerate. You know that most highly elected officials have some hand in that big cookie jar and are not even going to suggest alternative energy. What it would take is a president with some BALLS to pretty much give nuclear science a Presidential Executive Order that nuclear research is exempt from EPA regulations. Let them test and build energy plants all over the country. Research ways we can get rid of nuclear waste and be done with it (I personally think sending it up in a space shuttle and then hurling it at the sun would work out great). You know the oil companies will have NONE of that!!!! Oklahoma had been hit really hard in the 70's when the oil bust hit. Now we are investing in wind energy and are starting to see results. It will still take a while. When we can change the power of preception, we can change the world.

[ February 16, 2004, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Schmoe ]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom