Oil and its future implications

[Pinkie Pie]

I've gotten significantly lower grades for the exact same thing. 'Course, my teachers were hard-asses, but I digress.

[Doom Shepherd]

I'm just going to leave this here. US predicted to become net EXPORTER of oil.

 

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&date=20121112&id=15782571

 

The United States will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia as the world's top oil producer by 2017, the West's energy agency said on Monday, predicting Washington will come very close to achieving a previously unthinkable energy self-sufficiency.

 

The International Energy Agency (IEA) said it saw a continued fall in U.S. oil imports with North America becoming a net oil exporter by around 2030 and the United States becoming almost self-sufficient in energy by 2035.

 

"The United States, which currently imports around 20 percent of its total energy needs, becomes all but self-sufficient in net terms - a dramatic reversal of the trend seen in most other energy importing countries," it said.

[ThePest179]

Ross Scot, while I respect your predictions of a Peak Oil crisis in 2015, you don't take into consideration the possibility of a nuclear war between Iran and Isreal in the near future, or any other war that may cause oil wells to be destroyed in the process.

[Ross Scott]

I'm just going to leave this here. US predicted to become net EXPORTER of oil.

That link doesn't work for me, but I can say this: With shale oil, that might extend our timetable some, but I think these predictions are bogus. Even if with have 1,000 years of oil under the USA, we're not EXTRACTING it fast enough to keep up with consumption. This won't prevent peak oil, it would just make the falling slope a little less drastic.

[Doom Shepherd]

Article is probably gone because it got too old. Here is more recent, though less detailed.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22524597

 

This might be more detailed:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-12/u-s-to-overtake-saudi-arabia-s-oil-production-by-2020-iea-says.html

 

The U.S. will pump 11.1 million barrels of oil a day in 2020 and 10.9 million in 2025, the IEA said. Those figures are 500,000 barrels a day and 100,000 barrels a day higher, respectively, than its forecasts for Saudi Arabia for those years. The desert kingdom is due to become the biggest producer again by 2030, pumping 11.4 million barrels a day versus 10.2 million in the U.S.

 

Of course, right now the US has a ban on exporting oil, enacted in the 70's, so if that isn't raised, it will be a lot more difficult to become an oil exporter. Maybe we shuld just keep it.

 

I found this bit most interesting - and obvious.

Efforts by global policy makers to promote energy efficiency have been an “epic failure” and fallen short of their economic potential, Birol said. Increased energy-saving measures could cut worldwide oil demand by almost 13 million barrels a day by 2035, or the current combined output of Russia and Norway. Put another way, were efficiency measures suggested by the IEA enacted in full, the increase in world energy demand over the period would be cut in half.

[Ross Scott]

I may have to research it more to see how it affects previous predictions I've read, but the article you link is predicting 11 million barrels production a day by 2020. The USA currently consumes about 19 million barrels a day right now. I find it kind of weird that we would export when we're still consuming more than we're producing, but it could lower foreign dependence. Based on our record so far, I really don't have much in substantial energy savings until we're past a tipping point, I see consumption globally just rising until then. Once it falls due to demand outstripping supply, and KEEPS falling (this happened once already , that's when I think you'll see global shockwaves.

 

The thing is for new discoveries like this in the USA, there are more old oil fields going dry and shutting down. Our rate of new oil discovery peaked back in the 60s. Shale oil will buy us time for sure, but I'm not sure how much it really affects the timeline for peak oil itself.

[BTGBullseye]

The dependance on oil for cars is manufactured though too... Natural gas can be run in any normal gasoline powered car with a conversion that costs ~$1000, and natural gas reserves are thoroughly being hidden by the companies that control it. (usually power companies) From the R&D information I have received from sources that put in some of their digital security, (I'll not mention names, or specifics since I don't want them sued for corporate espionage) the production rate of natural gas (which is a renewable resource, it'll never run out) is sufficient to run every power station in the country at maximum output while simultaneously running 3/4 of the cars in the country...

 

So, natural gas cars, not a complete fix, but if even 1/4 of them switch...

[Ross Scott]

You're absolutely right about natural gas, it's probably our only hope for some sort of transition fuel on the scale we need it. The problem is the massive costs associated with transitioning over to it. We probably won't be serious about it until after peak oil, in which case it's too late to prevent major economic shockwaves that will hit.

[Princess Luna]

Have you researched Thorium reactors at all Ross? It looks like the crisis "could" be averted if people would get off of their NIMBY view of nuclear energy...

 

Peak oil and its future crisis is somewhat of a fantasy of mine just to tell people I told you so. So I really don't mind it happening but at the same time I also don't want to lose my internet haha

 

But a lot has changed and a lot can still change in the coming years. Who knows... Only time can tell. And time is on our side

[BTGBullseye]

Thorium reactors... Incapable of ever going critical, (you don't use control rods at all, they aren't needed) low pressure containment, 11 year waste cycle, all waste can be recycled in the same reactor, Thorium is more common than lead and cheaper than any other radioactive material... When heated Thorium becomes a superconductor...

 

Best stationary power source the world has developed to date. (and nobody even has one built yet because it's a "nuclear reactor" and people think they all leak lethal radiation)

Edited September 25, 2013 by Guest (see edit history)

[Vapymid]

Few years ago I was skeptical about "peak oil" and I am even more skeptical now. Well, sure, one day the oil may run out as there is only so much of it which has cooked ready to date and it takes a while for new oil to be naturally synthesised.

 

But more likely it will never run out because we will stop using it - if commercially viable fusion power will finally be achieved it may well prove cheaper to make hydrocarbons artificially than to produce them from under the ground.

 

Economically, however, with the market prices rising, more and more oil becomes extractable - there are still huge discovered reserves of it left, including in all currently or previously producing oil fields, which are not used because of high extraction cost. The higher the market price, the more of such "difficult" and expensive oil can be extracted.

 

In addition, there are expected to be vast reserves of oil still undiscovered - for example, offshore drilling is now limited to depths of about 3km max because of technology and economics. If economics will become tempting, technology will follow. It will be possible to drill, say, in waters up to 5km deep. That will expand offshore exploration area exponentially.

 

And, last but not least - look at the oil prices. They have risen by 400% over the past 10 years, yet that was *not* the cause of the recent economic crises, in fact, it was mostly unnoticed by the final consumers. So what kind of supply shortage will be needed for the oil price alone to induce a catastrophic economic shock?

 

Nah, I think, as the prices will eventually rise further it will gradually make other forms of energy generation more competitive and that in turn will be limiting the growth of demand for oil.

 

Nuclear is the way to go, of course. Fission and, when available, fusion. And I'm sure it will happen.

 

Regards

[Doom Shepherd]

So has anybody heard about the Coober Pedy oil shale find?

 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/trillion-shale-oil-find-surrounding-coober-pedy-can-fuel-australia/story-fndo471r-1226560401043

 

Brisbane company Linc Energy yesterday released two reports, based on drilling and seismic exploration, estimating the amount of oil in the as yet untapped Arckaringa Basin surrounding Coober Pedy ranging from 3.5 billion to 233 billion barrels of oil.

 

Man, if they're even halfway between the ends of the estimates...

[BTGBullseye]

From what I've been hearing coming from some sources in a couple "oil companies", (can't tell you specifics, they requested complete anonymity for job security reasons) close to 60% of Earth's surface has oil at some depth. The additional benefit of it being self-renewing (a drained oil field of over 50 billion barrels will refill itself in less than 10 years if left at 10% when pumping stopped) really helps too.

[Riley Hawk]

Why not just switch to harvesting oil from hemp?

[Vapymid]

Because it's inefficient and it wastes agricultural land which should better be used for growing food, thereby increasing the food prices...

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

And because it's incredibly inefficient to extract plant oils on a scale large enough to fuel a large percentage of vehicles in the USA.

[rliant1864]

For the same amount of money and effort we'd get a much more efficient reward from alternative energy research.

 

I mean, we could technically take organic rubbish and crush it manually into hydrocarbons but that kind of money could put hydrogen infrastructure everywhere.

[BTGBullseye]

Also, much of current 'renewable energy' projects aren't really anything but money grabs... They don't try to improve anything, and they don't even consider looking into any of the more interesting technologies that could be used. (stuff like vacuum energy, bio-energy, or environmental thermal energy conversion tech)

[rliant1864]

I would say that few renewable projects are cash grabs. Most endeavors in that field make little money. I suppose it could be seen as a grant grab for research, but not much of a corporate grab.

 

I think hydrogen is most likely for vehicle fuel. It's a reversable equation and doesn't take terribly much energy to produce from water, and becomes water again upon combustion.

 

In turn that production will be fed power from equally renewable but far less portable sources such as nuclear fission, fusion, and geothermal.

[BTGBullseye]

Problem is, just about every one of the current 'environmentalist' crow is vehemently against any nuclear energy systems... This cripples our current energy generating capabilities.

 

Then there are scientists that are still so heavily against advanced technologies because they personally don't understand it. They label it as 'fringe science', similar to what happened concerning Nikola Tesla's wireless energy system. (they didn't understand it, and didn't want to, just like is happening concerning any form of 'fringe science' today)