This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Guest Post: Peak Oil - The Long & The Short
Submitted by Jim Quinn of The Burning Platform
Peak Oil - The Long & The Short
Does it seem like we’ve been here before?
A barrel of Brent Crude (the truest indicator of worldwide oil
scarcity) sits at $118, up from $75 per barrel in July 2010 – a 57%
increase in eleven months. In the U.S., the average price of gasoline is
$3.69 per gallon this week, up 37% in the last year and up 100% in the
last 30 months.
The pundits and politicians are responding predictably. They blame
the Libyan revolution, the dreaded speculators and that old fallback –
Big Oil. When the Middle East turmoil began in earnest in January, gas
prices had already risen 15% in three months, spurred by increased
worldwide demand and by Ben Bernanke’s printing press. Congressmen have
reacted in their usual kneejerk politically motivated fashion by
demanding that supplies be released from the Strategic Oil Reserve.
Congress has a little trouble with the concept of “strategic.” They
also have difficulty dealing with a reality that has been staring them
in the face for decades. Politicians will always disregard prudent,
long-term planning for vote-generating talk and gestures.
The Long Term
Peak oil has been a mathematically predictable occurrence since
American geophysicist M. King Hubbert figured out the process in 1956.
His model predicted that oil production in the United States would peak
in 1970. He wasn’t far off. In 1971, when the U.S. was producing 88% of
its oil needs, domestic production approached 10 million barrels per day
and has been in decline ever since.
(Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/images/charts/
Consumption_production_import_trends-large.gif)
The Department of Energy was established in 1977 with a mandate to
lessen our dependence on foreign oil. At the time, the U.S. was
importing 6.5 million barrels per day. In 1985 the country was still
able to produce enough to cover 75% of its needs. Today, 34 years later,
the U.S. imports 10 million barrels per day, almost half of what it
uses.
President Obama’s 2011 Budget proposal included priorities for the DOE:
- Positions the United States to be the global leader in the new
energy economy by developing new ways to produce and use clean and
renewable energy. - Expands the use of clean, renewable energy sources such as solar,
wind and geothermal while supporting the Administration’s goal to
develop a smart, strong and secure electricity grid. - Promotes innovation in the renewable energy sectors through the use of expanded loan guarantee authority.
That’s what goes on in talk space.
Back on planet Earth, not a single U.S. oil refinery or nuclear power
plant has been built since 1977. Decades of inaction and denial have
left our energy infrastructure obsolescent and decaying. Pipelines,
tanks, drilling rigs, refineries and tankers have passed their original
design lives. The oil industry is manned by an aging workforce of
geologists, engineers and refinery hands. Many are nearing retirement,
and there are few skilled personnel to replace them.
Denial of peak oil becomes more dangerous by the day. The Obama
administration prattles about clean energy, solar, wind and ethanol,
when petroleum powers 96% of the transportation sector and 44% of the
industrial sector. Coal provides 51% of the country’s electricity, and
nuclear accounts for another 21%. Renewable energy contributes only 6.7%
of the country’s energy needs, mostly from hydroelectric facilities.
Ethanol works nicely as a slogan but poorly as a solution. The
ethanol boondoggle diverts 40% of the U.S. corn crop to fuel production.
The real cost to produce a gallon of ethanol (tariffs, lost energy,
higher food costs) exceeds $7 and has contributed to the price of corn
rising 112% in the last year. The 107 million tons of grain that went to
U.S. ethanol distilleries in 2009 would have been enough to feed 330
million people for one year.
(Source: http://perotcharts.com/category/challenges/energy/)
The most worrisome aspect of peak oil is that our government leaders
have known of it and have chosen to do nothing. The Department of
Energy requested a report from widely respected energy expert Robert
Hirsch in 2005. The report clearly laid out the dire situation:
- The peaking of world oil production presents the U.S. and the
world with an unprecedented risk management problem. As peaking is
approached, liquid fuel prices and price volatility will increase
dramatically, and, without timely mitigation, the economic, social, and
political costs will be unprecedented. Viable mitigation options exist
on both the supply and demand sides, but to have substantial impact,
they must be initiated more than a decade in advance of peaking.
Some of his conclusions:
- World oil peaking is going to happen, and will likely be abrupt.
World production of conventional oil will reach a maximum and decline
thereafter. - Oil peaking will adversely affect global economies, particularly
the U.S. Over the past century, the U.S. economy has been shaped by the
availability of low-cost oil. The economic loss to the United States
could be measured on a trillion-dollar scale. - The problem is liquid fuels for transportation. The lifetimes of
transportation equipment are measured in decades. Rapid changeover in
transportation equipment is inherently impossible. Motor vehicles,
aircraft, trains and ships have no ready alternative to liquid fuels. - Mitigation efforts will require substantial time. Waiting until
production peaks would leave the world with a liquid fuel deficit for 20
years. Initiating a crash program 10 years before peaking leaves a
liquid fuels shortfall of a decade. Initiating a crash program 20 years
before peaking could avoid a world liquid fuels shortfall.
World liquid oil production has never exceeded the level reached in
2005. It becomes more evident by the day that worldwide production has
peaked. Robert Hirsch was correct. The world will have a liquid fuel
deficit for decades.
The Short Term
The International Energy Agency has been increasing its estimates for
world oil consumption to over 90 million barrels per day by the 4th
quarter of 2011, led by strong demand from China, India and the rest of
the emerging world. World supply was already straining to keep up with
this demand before the recent tumult in the Middle East. The mayhem in
Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Yemen and Iran has already taken 1.5
million barrels per day off the market, according to the IEA.
(Source: http://omrpublic.iea.org/)
The Obama administration and mainstream media continue to downplay
the economic impact of the conflagration spreading around the world. The
risk that oil prices gush toward the 2008 highs is much greater than
the likelihood that this turmoil will subside and oil prices fall back
to $80 per barrel. As the following chart shows, the daily oil supply
coming from countries already experiencing revolution or in danger of
uprisings is nearly 8 million barrels per day, or 9% of world supply. No
country can ramp up production to make up for that shortfall.
| Proven Oil | Oil | |
|
Country
|
Reserves (billion barrels) | Production Per Day |
| Saudi Arabia |
265
|
9,000,000
|
| Iran |
137
|
3,700,000
|
| Iraq |
115
|
2,700,000
|
| UAE |
98
|
2,300,000
|
| Kuwait |
102
|
2,300,000
|
| Libya |
46
|
1,600,000
|
| Algeria |
12
|
1,300,000
|
| Qatar |
25
|
820,000
|
| Oman |
6
|
810,000
|
| Egypt |
4
|
742,000
|
| Syria |
3
|
376,000
|
| Yemen |
3
|
298,000
|
The Washington DC spin doctors are now assuring the American people
that Saudi Arabia can make up for any oil shortfall. Saudi Arabia has
declared it has already turned the spigot on and will produce 10.0
million bpd, up from 8.5 million bpd.
Is this replacement production real? A leading industry expert
revealed that the Saudis were already producing 8.9 million bpd in
January. Hype and misinformation won’t fill your SUV with cheap gas.
Saudi production peaked at 9.8 million bpd in 2005. When prices spiked
to $147 per barrel in early 2008, their production grew only to 9.5
million bpd. Saudi oil fields are 40 years old and are in terminal
decline. Their “spare capacity” doesn’t exist.
And the media ignore the quality difference between Libyan crude and
Saudi crude. Libya’s oil is a perfect feedstock for ultra-low-sulfur
diesel. The oil Saudi Arabia will supply to replace it is not. It takes
three barrels of Saudi crude to yield the same quantity of diesel fuel
as one Libyan barrel of crude, and only specially designed refineries
can process high-sulfur Saudi oil.
The problem isn’t just turmoil in the Middle East. The Persian Gulf
provides 17% of U.S. imports; 22% comes from Africa, 10% from Venezuela
and 15% from Mexico. Many of these countries hate us. Mexico, although a
relatively friendly country, will become a net importer of oil in the
next five years, as its Cantarell oil field is in rapid decline. They’ll
have nothing to sell to us.
The long and the short of it is that sunshine, corn and wind will not
keep Americans from paying $5 per gallon or more for gas in the near
future. The financial implications are that oil and energy investments
will produce solid returns over the coming years.
»
- 13156 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
brazil is a net exporter since 2011.
Their posture as an importer was due to refinery capacity and the nature of their own heavy reserves.
Sugarcane ethanol is an unqualified success, but has anyone seen that translate into a DECREASE in consumption? Nope. It's just fueled more rapid growth.
We are like yeast with sugar.
"Sugarcane ethanol is an unqualified success"
Eh er, yes after being heavily subsidized by the brazilian government. So sure, sugarcane ethanol is the best of the worst. If looking for the prettiest loser is your investment plan (and it just may be a successful one in the "mark to unicorn" world we have now) then by all means your statement holds.
oh but fuckin OIL is not subsidized, eh? Not by a fuckin trillion dollar "defense" budget, huh? Not by zillions in tax breaks and direct payments?
WTF do you think the real cost is, dude?
sugarcane ethanol is an unqualified success and it COMPETES with heavily subsidized oil.
Yeah... just add up all the militairy costs and death tolls for the oil and tell me again why sugar is more costly than oil.
All the cost combined would put oil at around 600$ a barrel.
I'll recheck my numbers on that. There was rather a lot of analysis of their big consumption ramp and how it might outrun the pre salt flow they are banking on deep offshore -- suggesting that even with that output coming, they might remain an importer. Shrug.
was a minor quibble...Brazil is a great country, love it to death, but it's a case study in Jevon's paradox.
and YES they have dams and nuke plants even. Their cars don't run on that shit
Literal death, because he wants to sterilize most of their population. Along with most other people.
brazil uses sugarcane as feed stock, not corn. Brazil is also closer to the equator and hence has a longer growing season, meaning it can produce more sugar cane in a year than Iowa can grow corn.
It ain't rocket science, its chemistry so simple a couple of mountain boys can make a fine jug of white lightning with less than 6th grade education.
Resources do not matter. Hard work and stuff...
"Politicians will always disregard prudent, long-term planning for vote-generating talk and gestures."
This is a great quote because it can help you see into the future....
i.e. no austerity, more $ printing
Mr Market will take care of it! :-)
WHERE are the FREE ENERGY inventions that were classified as "national security" items by the US Administration?
Looks like it is about time to get the fuck over oil already. The real question is will the people and political system support such a move to using the resources that America has. Moreover, remember sheeple, the international corporations will profit in any case, not you.
hedge accordingly.
Dollar just raging here. We are going to have a great entry on miners later this summer.
We really have to get serious about developing fusion power. It is the only technology that is reasonably safe and which could possibly provide our enormous energy needs.
150 years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bF4i7JEOzzM
Thorium is being pursued by China and India as a possible energy source.
http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/839398...
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-...
The U.S. has several hundred years of already refined Thorium fuel sitting in the Nevada Desert as a byproduct of nuclear weapon production. There is no political will to develop further the high temperature chemistry necessary to commercialize this process.
The Dept. of Energy seems bent on spending its billions on very high temperature thermonuclear fusion, rather than an array of less expensive and easier power generating schemes. The incompetency is not just in the banking sector, all arms of government seem to be imbued with a peculiar level of stupidity at this moment in our history.
A week ago, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard of the UK newspaper the Telegraph demonstrated that he is a staunch advocate of Free Lunches in his Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium—
Human beings love the Free Lunch, so there were comments & chatter galore on the internets about Evan-Pritchard's article. He quoted nuclear physicist Carlo Rubbia to make his point, with one easily forgettable caveat—
Not only does small amounts of thorium produce prodigious amounts of energy, but it seems you can't leave your house in the morning without tripping over it—this would be the only sense in which it is hazardous, apparently.
If something sounds too good to be true, it's a good bet it is. There is a joke among economists pertaining to the Efficient Market Hypothesis that goes like this—
If thorium reactors are that $10 bill, it would be fair to say that no, they're not just lying on the ground waiting for somebody to pick them up. However, there really is an opportunity in these reactors which various groups are pursuing. Carlo Rubbio, being a nuclear scientist, no doubt just waves his hands in the air when confronted with the engineering problems of creating a commercial thorium reactor.
Needless to say, no such reactor exists, and that's not entirely due to the fact that uranium was chosen over thorium decades ago because you can make atomic bombs with it—this story is popular among the usual conspiracy theorists, who probably also believe that the political power of the oil & coal companies is the sole reason we don't the run the whole economy on renewable energy today. Nevertheless, a promising path for nuclear energy was largely abandoned in the past, and is now being picked up again.
Without much effort, I found several credible sources of information about the state of thorium reactor development. I will quote from IEEE Spectrum's Is Thorium the Nuclear Fuel of the Future?
India has been very aggressive about meeting its energy needs with thorium. They are embarked on a multi-stage development which may pay off a few decades from now—
The IEEE Spectrum article talks about other designs (e.g. LFTR, liquid fluoride) and provides links to additional information. Here's the bottom line—
As the old saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. Religious disputes about energy from thorium go on and on, just as they always do when one is arguing about something—a commercial thorium reactor providing real power to real people—that does not exist.
The Free Lunch is not free, and is dangerous besides, because of the cost of opportunities foregone as we engage in single-minded pursuit of it—
If we did as Evans-Pritchard suggests—marshal America’s vast scientific and strategic resources behind a new Manhattan Project to develop thorium reactors—we would forego the opportunity to develop other sources of energy, to learn how to live with less energy, etc. Since he writes about economic issues for the Telegraph, one would think he knows this already. And if he knows about Free Lunches & opportunity costs, then only shamelessness, combined with willful ignorance, can explain why he wrote such a misleading sales pitch for thorium reactors.
Wake me up when there's a commercial thorium reactor up & running somewhere on Earth. Then, and only then, will we know the true costs & benefits of energy from thorium.
well there is some truth to that nuclear weapons drove reactor technology initially. And that created the product pipeline for fissionable materials.
It's also true that the navy drove the entire industry toward lightwater reactors.
I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to spend one MONTH'S worth of this gargantuan war budget on R&D, eh?
but no, let's cancel the space program to support set-aside contracts and welfare bennies (including stupid wars in oil-rich nations)
Were you awake decades ago? This is ready to go technology, without help from the administration, shelved for the good of the big corporations already built around a LWR infrastructure. Disproven:
That was a long drive around the block just to say, I'll beleive it when I see it.
The U.S. had a functioning small scale LFTR in the 1960's, which was shutdown not because of technical or safety considerations, but because of funding, which was shifted towards more nuclear weapons friendly types of reactors.
It has been done at a research level using 50 year old technology. It would seem that a commercial design would be feasible and cost effective. One must remember superior technology does not always win out in the marketplace, mainly due to corporate/regulatory monopolies and duopolies. GE sells fuel for uranium/MOX reactors, Thorium would destroy demand for such fuel. GE is one of the largest corporations on earth and owns a substantial chunk of the U.S. media and the U.S. congress.
Edison nearly made direct current the default standard electrical system in the U.S., only Tesla and Westinghouse stopped him. It would truly have been tragic if we would have adopted D.C. with a coal power plant on every block due to voltage drop limiting transmission distances.
The tyranny of embedded costs and corporate profits has frozen innovation in this nation. We all lose when corporate power controls power generation. This alone guarantees the reality of peak oil, until every cent is extracted from petroleum, there will be no "will" to move towards other means, superior or inferior.
Oil is very energy dense, and difficult to replace, but that difficulty is amplified by the vested interests and their need to stifle innovation to preserve return on embedded costs.
Thorium may or not be the answer, but it would be cheaper to find out then to bail out just one "too big to fail" bank. Literally a few hundred million to a billion dollars should be enough to work out the chemistry and engineering needed to scale this process for commercial energy production.
E-Cat is the word. Andreas Rossi looks like an evil comic character, but his invention will change the world (at least with a nomination for biggest energy scam).
"Peak Oil" is no more about the price of gasoline, diesel and Jet-A than "Global Warming" is about temperature change.
Both issues are used by those with agendas of worry and change, primarily to destroy our prosperity and our liberty.
Our great-great-grandparents didn't worry about "peak whale", because the higher price that was caused by dwindling supply
was mitigated by adaption, innovation and changes in behavior. Whale oil for illuminating homes gave way to the use of oil
made from coal and later from crude oil.
With respect to "peak oil", nobody buys oil to burn in their car or airplane, they buy a technical product that is made by
breaking down and reassembling a feedstock of hydrocarbons that presently is in the form of crude oil. However, should
the price of crude climb higher than the hydrocarbons found in other sources such as coal or agricultural wastes, then
those sources will be used. The only issue is cost. This does not mean that there cannot be supply disruptions when oil
suddenly jumps in cost, as it has recently. However, there is abundant documentation, such as the Barna report (Office of
the Secretary of Defense, Clean Fuel Initiative [1]), that show we are awash in convertible hydrocarbons. The only thing
stopping their use is cost and government.
[1] Dr. Theodore K. Barna., OSD Clean Fuel Initiative
http://www.westgov.org/wieb/meetings/boardsprg2005/briefing/ppt/congress...
Do you actually read what you wrote.
"When the price of crude climbs higher than the hydrocarbons found in other sources such as coal and wastes, then those sources will be used."
Have you researched those processes? Do you understand that they cannot scale? Sasoil in South Africa has been doing coal to liquid for 50 years and they haven't gotten production above 250K barrels/day. In 50 years. It took them 50 years to get to 250K (if that). It Doesn't Scale. It Can't Scale.
Why don't you talk about the real mother lode of hydrocarbons to acquire, since cost is no object. Titan. There are zillions of tons of methane on Titan. Fund the spaceships and start hauling it to Earth. Think the energy invested vs energy returned is positive for that venture?
Or any of these other ideas of yours?
You're a liberal. You want government to change its nature and create a solution. A conservative wants America to be victorious. The only real "solution" for the situation is to eliminate competing demand, militarily.
Now take your left wing tripe elsewhere. Whenever someone says government is in the way, they are advocating government change, which is left wing tripe.
Stupidity is neither an attribute of the left or the right as your muddled thinking and the poster above you both prove.
Step out of the artificial left/right paradigm it is constraining your ability to think straight.
P.S. I am not defending the post to which you are responding either.
Alas, in any good expansionist plan, a time happens when you grow your first and only rival demand.
The world is organized in the US world order, an order that is set to propel the US consumption first.
It is like a guy who lives in its mansion, the serfs around work to allow him into a consumption feast. The guy looks at the number and see that his serfs in their production consume. Why not eliminate the serfs? Yep, why not?
US world order.
So, if we "eliminate" China, then...
What is the downside, again?
A crater where DC used to be? Oh wait you said "downside."
Technology saves the day. . . until it doesn't, or can't.
Applied technology will eventually hit limits when confronted with increasing population on a finite planet.
"It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing high intelligence this is not correct. We have, or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only. (Sir Fred Hoyle, 1964)"
Revisit Jevon's Paradox per Trav above. You can also try Limits to Growth or The Collapse of Complex Societies for some other enlightening reads.
If anyone still wonders why we are in Libya:
"It takes three barrels of Saudi crude to yield the same quantity of diesel fuel as one Libyan barrel of crude, and only specially designed refineries can process high-sulfur Saudi oil."
There is no peak oil. Deep oil is so plentiful we will gas ourselves off the planet before it is exhausted. There is no energy crisis. How many people do you know who are developing energy sources? We lack investment. The bankers have taken over the world and they do not want to waste money on infrastructure when they could gobble it up for themselves. Do you think there would be an issue in energy if we invested the $10 trillion we spent on wars and war amachinery in the last decade on geothermal, solar, thorium, clathrates, deep petroleum extraction, and energy efficiency?
It would not matter a whit.
Empty is empty.
The Department of Energy was established in 1977 with a mandate to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
EPIC FAIL doesn't come close.
Only a nigger could be dumb enough to think throwing more money at this government agency is going to helpwith the problem of US dependence on foreign oil. Since Barry demonstrates at least the intellectual capacity of a hominid- then what is real reason for the continued existence of the Department of Energy? What does the government think of the average American's gullibility that they would buy the BS they are peddling?
Wow! Never expected that sort of mentality from you.
Let me guess?..... libertarian?
Do you know any non-niggers that helped fund and manage the Department of Energy, or was this department entirely the work of niggers?
Additionally, do you know of any libertarians that aren't either a racist, redneck pig or a paranoid, doomer conspiracy goon? I've being doing research for about a year, and have never found one. Even the intelligent libertarians seem to eventually reveal themselves as pigs or goons. Weird.
Re-read what I wrote, it wasn't racist, but calling all libertarians (who I think are often ignorant of the way the big bad world actually works) does seem rather bigoted to me.
Thank you for stepping on the flaming brown bag I left...
Only a nigger could be dumb enough to think throwing more money at this government agency is going to helpwith the problem of US dependence on foreign oil.
I grew up in East Texas, and there are just as many stupid, ignorant, cracker-ass rednecks, as there are niggers. Color doesn't matter - it's all about culture.
It never ceases to amaze me how we can make something so simple so hard.
1. There is peak oil it has been proven again, again and again. Yes, there is plenty of oil but it takes more energy to pull it out of the ground than you get out of it. For instance, you can take an square yard of ground anywhere in the world and find an infintesimal amount of gold in it; however the key word is infintesimal - that can be anything from an atom to speck. Would it be worth your energy to find that atom?
2. Any carbon fossil fuel is the result of millions of years of photosynthesis and millions of calories of geothermal heat and pressure. Algae, biofuels, etc is complete bullshit because you can not reproduce those millions of years worth of sun energy on earth! You cant reproduce those millions of years worth of geothermal energy on this earth.
3. Our only "hope" is to use the fossil fuels we still have in the ground to, first, implement DRASTIC energy conservation measures, develop widespread DE-centralized renewable energy sources, localize our food systems, develop mass public transportation and quit fucking around with foreign wars.
It is all about photosynthesis, bitchez!
I just wanted to write "bitchez" once on ZH...
I hate to burst your oil bubble, but maybe you are wrong!? Maybe oil is not a "fossil fuel". After you investigate this concept please try in increase you vocabulary. It really is tiring.
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez
Considering oil as a problem of simple quantities isn't a very effective way to understand the crisis we're facing.
The two things you need to understand peak oil are energy return (often referred to as EREOI) and price.
What's been happening since the 60s is declining energy return. When Texas was first drilled, the energy in a barrel of oil could get you 100 barrels more. Today, you might get 12 barrels. Still good, but that's a fairly serious decline in just 50 years. Extrapolate to the future and you can see where this is headed. There may be a long tail of minimal production, but it's not going to save us. Here's how the chart looks: http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/152129-bruce-pile/7480-the-alternative...
The second issue is price. The harder the oil is to extract, the higher the price. Deep water, arctic oil, oil that requires steam or excessive frakking, takes more time, people, expertise and equipment. It may still be profitable to extract oil from these places, but it won't be forever. At some point in the next 50 years, the oil will cost too much, and yield too little for it to be worth the trouble.
For what it's worth, I expect that many nations will hoard their remaining oil for a long time. Although this will rather suddenly end oil's use a major worldwide power source as country after country ceases to sell it, oil may be a minor player in the energy picture around the globe for centuries.
"Every junkie's like a settin' sun."
Neil Young from The Needle and the Damage Done
"The long and the short of it is that sunshine, corn and wind will not keep Americans from paying $5 per gallon or more for gas in the near future. The financial implications are that oil and energy investments will produce solid returns over the coming years"
So what is the best energy play for peak oil?
Most products we make out of oil can be made out of industrial hemp. This includes all the single use plastics we throw away each day. We need ALL the alternatives to come on line. Hemp is the best source for ethanol. We should be growing it on every highway median strip and harvesting fuel instead of wasting fuel to mow every year.
Hemp actually has a pretty poor energy return. Palm oil has the best. The advantage of hemp is it's ability to be grown in poor soil and in quantity, however many other plants do better. And it doesn't matter much. No biofuel even comes within the ballpark of replacing the amount of oil/energy needed to run an industrial civilization like ours.
Peak coal.
Peak whale oil.
Peak food.
Peak oil.
Peak stupidity (still way ahead).
Oil is going skyhigh b/c:
1. it is THE lifeblood of the military;
2. China is sucking it up like crazy;
3. weaker dollar a sure thing;
4. we are running out of the stuff.
http://www.businessinsider.com/aleklett-peak-oil-drawn-2011-5#we-arent-f...
actually, a human would not want to consume that corn produced for EtOH grade production sugars. These corn strains have been engineered for high starch content, thus more fermentable sugars, rendering the kernel virtually inedible, with little to no nutritional value...
The trouble is that there are many very influential voices that keep repeating the mantra "there is plenty of oil". This is enough to keep our government and various other organizations in the energy producing industry in total deadlock. With deep-sea drilling cut back, and nuclear plans on hold due to the Japanese meltdowns, it seems to be a 100% certainty that we will suffer a serious energy crisis. China is already having rolling brown-outs and black-outs. In modern countries, unreliable electricity kills the economy and brings the internet society to a screeching halt. But history has shown that human nature is to wait until there is a crisis, and then react. This time, reacting will be too little, too late, and billions of people will suffer and die.
Society comes unglued when people can no longer provide the basic necessities. I would go one step further, in America, society will spin out of control when the TVs flicker and go black, and the internet goes down.
As to why not a single refinery has been built
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/30449
One can only hope it will play out as it did in "A Few Good Men" [a play and movie. Please note that the following is satire. Rex Tillerson is chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil.]
We start with Lt. Kaffee interviewing Rex Tillerson on why he has not built new refineries.
Kaffee: Just one more question. If you plan to increase capacity to 5 million barrels per day and Exxon always executes on time then why aren't you building any new refineries? Mr. Tillerson? You stopped building refineries because you knew there is not going to be enough oil to run through them didn't you? You saw your own discoveries and that of other companies, you saw that accelerating treadmill you were climbing just to stay in place and you knew we were in deep trouble. Fearing windfall taxes from hell and nationalization everywhere you spun this yarn that peak oil will arrive after 100 years. Mr. Tillerson are we at Peak oil?
Mr. Tillerson: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I'm entitled to them.
Mr. Tillerson: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Mr. Tillerson: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world of petroleum products and those products have to be produced in increasing amounts to keep our economy alive. What are you gonna do it with? Corn ethanol? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom as the acknowledgement of peak oil will itself have grave consequences for the world economy. You weep at the gas prices and you curse the Oil Companies. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that gas prices though higher than before are still cheap. And Exxon's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, produces 4 million barrels of oil a day for you NASCAR morons. You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me producing all I can. You need me producing all I can so that your American Idol obsessed culture can be spared the truth for as long as possible.
We use words like oil, rigs, refinery...we use these words as the backbone to the American life you have got used to living. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who consumes petroleum products 24/7 and uses those very products to protest against oil companies! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a shovel, dig yourself an oil well and build a refinery in your bathtub. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!
Kaffee: Are we past peak oil?
Mr. Tillerson: I am doing the job you want me to!
Kaffee: Are we past peak oil?
Mr. Tillerson: You're goddamn right we are!
© 2007 Saif Lalani
While Americans complain about $4-$5 gas, most of the rest of the world has always paid far more per gallon. That's why they mostly drive smaller cars and have efficient public transporation. If Americans think they can continue business as usual they are delusional. The waste of energy in the US is ridiculous, look at how many single drivers take their giant SUVs to the mall everyday.
No mention of the US's largest supplier, Canada!?
Ok deniers, Here's the graphs of 42 countries.
What Peak Oil means (as each chart will illistrate) is that once you reach you maximum Per Day pumping rate, You will never hit it again.
http://dieoff.org/42Countries/42Countries.htm
Say, click on Oman. See the Bell curve....
SAMSARA-Right On. Evidently Peak Oil has become a similar demon along with Global Warming. I work in Western N. Dakota. For any of the loons who think Peak Oil is fantasy, come up here for a bit! Oh yea, most of the loons think the Bakken field will make a serious dent in our oil problem. We will be very lucky to pump 1million bpd a few years down the road. The field will decay slowly as it nears death 20-25 years from now. Secondary and tertiary methods can keep oil moving but in much lower quantity and costs might be over $70 per barrel for recovery.
Some nut case was on here the other day blubbering about the 700million barrel deposit in the Gulf. GROW UP you clowns, 20 million barrels per day oil habit in the USA depletes a lot of reserves fast and peak oil means that you will pay higher and higher prices as the oil remaining gets harder to recover. My little cowgirl is only 8, and she understands the arithmetic. We still raise cattle and wil continue. I am glad too, the ND is far above sea level and in Northern lats-we will ride out the peak oil (unearned good fortune) and then get thru the calamities of Global Warming-I hope.
God have mercy on us all, even you loonies.
Oil will begin to run out between now and 2015 (we are currently on the plateau) and
natural gas in North America (more regional commodity) can begin to run out at any time,
actually. For those who think they are drowning in gas, check this presentation from geologist David Hughes of the Geological Survey of Canada:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PJFdYrmwyQ