Peak Oil:It comes down to unproven claims of Saudi oil prod
Scape @ Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:23 pm
$1:
Essentially, Simmons' argument boils down to four major points:
# Most of Saudi Arabia's oil output is generated by a few giant fields, of which Ghawar - the world's largest - is the most prolific.
# These giant fields were first developed 40 to 50 years ago, and have since given up much of their easily extracted petroleum.
# To maintain high levels of production in these fields, the Saudis have come to rely increasingly on the use of water injection and other secondary recovery methods to compensate for the drop in natural field pressure.
# As time goes on, the ratio of water to oil in these underground fields rises to the point where further oil extraction becomes difficult, if not impossible. To top it all off, there is very little reason to assume that future Saudi exploration will result in the discovery of new fields to replace those now in decline.
# Most of Saudi Arabia's oil output is generated by a few giant fields, of which Ghawar - the world's largest - is the most prolific.
# These giant fields were first developed 40 to 50 years ago, and have since given up much of their easily extracted petroleum.
# To maintain high levels of production in these fields, the Saudis have come to rely increasingly on the use of water injection and other secondary recovery methods to compensate for the drop in natural field pressure.
# As time goes on, the ratio of water to oil in these underground fields rises to the point where further oil extraction becomes difficult, if not impossible. To top it all off, there is very little reason to assume that future Saudi exploration will result in the discovery of new fields to replace those now in decline.
GunPlumber @ Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:32 am
Peak Oil and declining Saudi production are so "yesterday's crisis".
Saudi Arabia could soon be passed for proven reserves.
And no-one has even made a comprehensive study of how much bitumen can be extracted from the oil sands (which stretch from north-eastern B.C. to northern Saskatchewan), though some estimates place it as high as ONE TRILLION (i.e., 1 000 000 000 000) barrels.
Could we move on to the conspiracy du jour? Like, did Karl Rove really out Valerie Plame and if so did his boss know or direct it? And if so, will the same Repuglicans who impeached Slick Willie for getting a hummer at work attack their booy with the same zeal? And if not, does that mean it's now o.k. to do the tube snake boogie with fat white chicks in blue dresses,... during working hours.
... because Enquiring minds want to know.
polemarch1 @ Sun Jul 03, 2005 6:30 pm
Shouldn't be so quick to dismiss this. We've known for a long time that oil is a finite resource. Canada and the rest of the world need to look for other energy sources, ie. Nuclear Power. before we pass the point of no return. Well the oil sands may allievate an energy crisis they too are finite. The US and Canada should invest in A) Nuclear power for the short term and B) Reasearch into a more renewable source of energy for the long term.
bootlegga @ Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:51 pm
GunPlumber GunPlumber:
Peak Oil and declining Saudi production are so "yesterday's crisis".
Saudi Arabia could soon be passed for proven reserves.
And no-one has even made a comprehensive study of how much bitumen can be extracted from the oil sands (which stretch from north-eastern B.C. to northern Saskatchewan), though some estimates place it as high as ONE TRILLION (i.e., 1 000 000 000 000) barrels.
Saudi Arabia could soon be passed for proven reserves.
And no-one has even made a comprehensive study of how much bitumen can be extracted from the oil sands (which stretch from north-eastern B.C. to northern Saskatchewan), though some estimates place it as high as ONE TRILLION (i.e., 1 000 000 000 000) barrels.
The figures I've seen on the oil sands are 175 billion barrels.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... MUPL60.DTL
If the price rises above $60/barrel, then it is estimated that there are 314 billion barrels, because a large portion of the oil sands are very deep and hard to recover with conventional means.
Unfortunately, the oil sands will never be able to supply North America's needs. Today, the US alone uses almost 20 million barrels of oil a day and the oil sands as it stands produces 700,000 a day. They are hoping to increase it to a million a day by 2008 and 2 million by 2015 and maybe 3 million by 2020. And this is with almost $5 billion in annual investment. To get to 20 million a day would take unbelievable sums of money and a lot of time.
themasta @ Sun Jul 03, 2005 7:56 pm
Large consumers like the U.S. and China should stop sucking energy like Monica Lewinsky and learn to be more efficient with their energy usage. Hell, they should learn to be more careful with the way they use water, swimming pools and farms do not belong in a freaking desert! While we are at it, everyone should seek to be more efficient. If you do not like hippies fine, but think of the money you would save. That is the bottom line, nobody cares about the environment, but say it will save a few bucks and everybody jumps on the bandwagon.
Scape @ Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:16 pm
Still, we are looking at production falling off a steep cliff here. There is already a production shortfall of 2-4 millions barrels for the fall so 70$ a barrel all but certain at this point. That is with everything at peak output. Running everything at max output is leading with the chin. Think 7$ a Gallon for gas when this hits.
American @ Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:57 am
polemarch1 polemarch1:
Shouldn't be so quick to dismiss this. We've known for a long time that oil is a finite resource. Canada and the rest of the world need to look for other energy sources, ie. Nuclear Power. before we pass the point of no return. Well the oil sands may allievate an energy crisis they too are finite. The US and Canada should invest in A) Nuclear power for the short term and B) Reasearch into a more renewable source of energy for the long term.
Not so fast Kemo Sabe! There are still plenty of available oil resources.
The Myth of "Peak Oil"
Zipperfish @ Thu Oct 06, 2005 10:15 am
GunPlumber GunPlumber:
And no-one has even made a comprehensive study of how much bitumen can be extracted from the oil sands (which stretch from north-eastern B.C. to northern Saskatchewan), though some estimates place it as high as ONE TRILLION (i.e., 1 000 000 000 000) barrels.
The amount of bitumen in the oil sands is only half the story. It takes a lot more energy to get a barrel of crude out of the tar sands than it does to get a barrel of crude of mid-East oil. There's a thermodynamic limit. What happenes when it takes more than a barrel of oil's worth of energy to get a barrel of oil out of the ground.
I assume that this is why theya re talking about nuclear power plants in Alberta now.
I think with gasoline and energy prices the way they are, concerns with supply are quite topical. Who knows -- we may even get the economists to admit that oil is a finite resource this time around.
The time to move away from oil is now.
American @ Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:32 am
Yes the time to start moving away from oil is now. Things will happen at their own pace. It cannot be decreed and willed into existence overnight, as the liberal types would like.