Really?  I think we're in for a really bumpy road ahead, but nothing?  That sounds pretty definitive.  I wouldn't expect companies to just give up when there are massive $$$ to be made in the oil patch.

 

No one says the oil companies are just giving up.  All I said was once a country has reached it's peak and gone into decline, the production decline can't be reversed.  It's just reality.

 

So, really?  Yes.  It's the way oil fields behave.  Example:  Once the US entered it's production decline in 1970-71, nothing has ever been able to reverse it.  We had several years of decline before the North Slope went into production, then had a one year bump-up when it came online in the late 70's and that was it.  Except for that one year, it has been downhill for us ever since 1970-71.  The finds in the Gulf didn't reverse our decline either.  It's no different anywhere else.  It's just the way things play out.  The biggest, easiest fields get exploited first but once the biggies peak, all the other fields, which are smaller and more expensive to exploit, can't make up the difference. 

 

I'm looking at the overall global picture here.  Keep in mind that before we can see overall production increases from new discoveries, the new discoveries first have to offset declines in existing fields.  With so many countries in decline, that's difficult to overcome in a significant way, hence my comment that the overall increases we are seeing thus far are negligible.  Total global output isn't gaining much ground, and it's certainly not keeping up with demand.  A lot of poor countries have reduced oil purchases because they cannot afford it, yet the price is still going up. 

 

Add in that discoveries peaked in the late 1960's and the picture becomes quite a bit more clear (at least to me). 

 

Also add in that in order to keep up, we need to find a Saudi Arabia about every 8 years (translate:  about 220-260 billion barrels), and the picture becomes even more clear (at least to me).  There are no more Saudi Arabia's out there.  If there were, then discoveries wouldn't have peaked 40 years ago. 

 

The Saudi's may be able to get to 12 mbd, but you still have over 50 other countries in permanent decline to offset before overall global production can go up.   

 

Of course, part of the equation here is Iraq.  If we hadn't screwed things up so badly over there, they would be producing more oil-- at least a million-and-a-half barrels/day more.  With so much Iraqi production suppressed, I think what the result is going to be is an extended plateau, but for how long, I don't pretend to know. 

 

We can agree to disagree about CERA/Yergin.  That's fine with me.  They've been batting zero with their predictions about oil prices for at least the past few years now.  In my view, they aren't convincing. 

 

 

True. I wouldn't look to CERA/Yergin for guidance. With their zero percent accuracy record, I'm amazed these guys still have jobs. But I guess people still feel a need to support them out of distaste for sand from having their heads buried in it, or an apparent love of eating crow.

The Record Falls - January 2008 is the New World Record for Crude Oil (plus Condensate) Production

 

Posted by Nate Hagens on April 11, 2008 - 9:44am

 

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3835#more

 

The EIA’s newest International Petroleum Monthly shows World C+C production for January was 74,466,000 barrels per day, eclipsing the heretofore peak of May 2005 by 168,000 barrels per day. (thanks to Ron Patterson for the heads up and to Khebab for the quick graphics).

 

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/PU200804_Fig1c_0.pngFig 1.- World production (EIA data). Blue lines and pentagrams are indicating monthly maximum. Monthly data for CO from the EIA. Annual data for NGPL and Other Liquids from 1980 to 2001 have been upsampled to get monthly estimates.

 

[update by Khebab]: Despite the good news above, Russia's production plateau is looking more and more like a peak now:

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Russia1.png

 

The year-on-year monthly production growth is near zero and reached its lowest point since 1998:

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Russia2.png

Really?  I think we're in for a really bumpy road ahead, but nothing?  That sounds pretty definitive.  I wouldn't expect companies to just give up when there are massive $$$ to be made in the oil patch.

 

No one says the oil companies are just giving up.  All I said was once a country has reached it's peak and gone into decline, the production decline can't be reversed.  It's just reality.

 

Does it alter "reality" if new discoveries are made, or new production is brought online?

 

Your basic assumption is that the fields currently in production today are the only fields that will ever be in production, and that we're essentially done discovering new fields.  I don't think that is a good prediction of the future because of how capitalism works.

 

While I agree that oil will eventually peak and decline, I don't think we're at THE peak now, just a plateau.  I think there are quite a few peak oilers who are getting overzealous with their predictions and ignoring things like 4 mbpd of new production from SA in the next 3-4 years, new production from major offshore discoveries in Brazil, the seemingly infinite capital being put to work by China and Russia, and Canadian oil sands (water shmater...if oil is expensive enough, they'll build pipelines). 

 

We can agree to disagree about CERA/Yergin.  That's fine with me.  They've been batting zero with their predictions about oil prices for at least the past few years now.  In my view, they aren't convincing.

 

I don't know that I'll ever agree with CERA's price forecasts (nor did I say that I did), but I think CERA is right about the undulating plateaus.  The next few times oil production tries to peak (as it sortof is now), oil producers will be both flooded with new capital and have a reason to reinvest a big portion of it (see the Saudi Arabia article above...$90 billion effin' dollars!).  That will lead to large amounts of new capacity being brought online in the next 5 years and a steady ramp up of production...perhaps even new discoveries, and even an opening up of ANWR and the GOM.  I think CERA integrates the underlying theory of capitalism in their projections and tekkies skewer them for it.

 

I think this current plateau is due to the world oil supply not being prepared for the explosion in Asian demand pared with a 15 year period of extremely low prices, and no reason to invest capital.  Oil production is capital intensive and takes years of planning, but the oil producers weren't prepared for Asian demand for oil to jump 8-10% YOY for 5 years.

 

 

another blow to peak oil?

 

Billions of gallons of oil in North Dakota, Montana

Geological Survey calls find largest reserves outside Alaska

Posted: April 13, 2008

10:31 pm Eastern

 

By Jerome R. Corsi

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

 

A shale formation stretching North Dakota and Montana may have an estimated 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, according to a U.S. Geological Survey assessment.

 

Known as the Bakken Formation, this find would make the recoverable oil in North Dakota and Montana the largest United States oil reserves outside Alaska.

 

 

Map of Bakken Formation in northern United States, courtesy Grand Forks Herald

 

 

The recently released assessment shows a 2,800 percent, or 28-times increase in the amount of oil recoverable from the Bakken Formation, compared to the agency's 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil.

 

According to the USGS, the dramatically increased estimate of recoverable oil in the Bakken Formation results from new geological models, advances in drilling and production technologies, and recent oil discoveries.

 

By the end of 2007, approximately 105 million barrels of oil have been produced from the Bakken Foundation.

 

"The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest 'continuous' oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS," said a news release making the announcement.

 

The Bakken Formation lies in "Williston Basin," a geological formation in the north central United States, underlying much of  North Dakota, eastern Montana, northwestern South Dakota, and southern Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Canada, according to the Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy.

 

The EIA attributes the success of horizontal drilling and fracturing efforts in Montana as the reason a decision was made to re-evaluate the 1995 USGS Assessment of Resources that had estimated only 151 million barrels were technically recoverable from the Bakken Formation.

 

Lynn Helms, the director of the oil and gas division of North Dakota's Industrial Commission told the Grand Forks Herald the USGS announcement had prompted new interest from investment bankers and the oil industry.

 

(Story continues below)

 

 

 

"We have had contacts from Scotland and Australia today," Helms told the newspaper.  "And of course, lots of Canadian interest, and contacts from across the United States, both from the media and the oil industry. And banks. I think they are looking for a place to invest venture capital."

 

The USGS announcement should give "a significant boost to North Dakota's already-booming oil industry," according to a news release from the office of North Dakota's Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan.

 

"The oil industry in North Dakota has already seen substantial growth," Dorgan said, "but this report is important because it gives oil companies another set of eyes."

 

"The Bakken Shale should attract significant new investment to this region," he continued.  "This is an exciting time for North Dakota's oil industry. We're going to see new growth that will boost our economy and help our country shed its dependence on foreign oil."

 

The USGS report increasing the estimate of oil recoverable from the Bakken Formation supports the arguments of Shell Oil's president of U.S. operations, John Hofmeister, who has recently questioned the validity of the assumptions behind "peak oil."

 

As WND reported last month, Hofmeister told CNBC's national Squawk Box morning show audience that peak oil theorists, such as Matt Simmons, have dramatically underestimated the amount of non-conventional oil economically recoverable with oil prices hovering at $100 a barrel.

 

WND also reported that Simmons, a Houston-based oil industry investment banker, also appeared on CNBC's Squawk Box show to defend his peak oil position, arguing that diminishing oil flow is an irreversible worldwide "grim reality," regardless what new oil resources are discovered.

 

Peak oil theorists maintain that oil is a finite resource and analysis of depleting oil fields demonstrates the world has either already reached or is nearing maximum oil flow.

 

Non-conventional oil reserves include a variety of oil reserves, including the oil tars in Alberta, Canada, which present technology allows to be converted economically into oil through well understood synthetic chemical processes.

 

 

 

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61488

Did you read the particulars of the Bakken Formation? It's not oil. It's shale, which takes mucho energy and money to convert to oil. If you find 4 billion barrels of oil but it takes 4.5 billion barrels to harvest and process it (worse, at these energy costs), then what good is that formation? How does this increase oil supplies and reduce costs for consumers? Unless there's a dramatic improvement in oilfield technology to convert shale or other low-density oil formations to usable oil, then such discoveries only tease us. More troubling is that it obfuscates the pressing need for improving our energy efficiency and for developing sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels.

rumor has it that the reserve was found by one Jed JD Clampett who was:

 

A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed,

Then one day he was shootin at some food,

And up through the ground came a bubblin' crude.

Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea

 

  Just for fun....

 

    Assume the high number of 4.3 billion barrels. Ignore the fact that it comes from shale, and pretend that it's conventional oil.

 

    The United States consumes 20 million barrels per day.

 

    4.3 billion / 20 million = 215 days, or about 7 months: A drop in the bucket.

Thanks for the reality check, Eigth and State. Good stuff. The same math applies to the much-hyped offshore oil, too. But at least that's real oil and can actually be pumped rather mined.

So now we're gonna dig up all of Montana and North Dakota to recover 7 months' worth of oil at what price for extraction?  :wtf:

From the earliest days of drilling for crude, oil production has been inseparable from narratives of flim-flam! :roll:

Thanks to our efforts through global warming the arctic ocean polar ice caps are melting away revealing the potential for 800 billion barrels of oil.  This, by your math, would allow for 110 years of American consumption.  THAT, is not a drop in the bucket by any means.

 

Source: http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=7534c4de-0c21-4653-a06b-112bc96b2708&k=6345

 

 

 

As long as were talking factoids, here's one I heard on NPR's "Marketplace" show:

 

What is a barrell of oil?

 

42-gallons

 

If it was refined into gasoline, it would fill the tanks of two small cars.

 

 

So, about 30 gallons from 42 gallons of oil?  Is that about the ratio?

That also depends on the type of oil -- there's myriads of oil types. Sweet. Sour. Toxic. Sand. And different types require different types of refineries and processes which result in different ratios of oil to gas.

 

As far the arctic, there is lots of speculation as to what types of reserves are under there, but those have been taken into account in global estimates. Keep reading more material out there. You'll catch on.

It depends more on the refinery that you put the barrel of crude oil in to.  They can be modified to produce more butane, kerosene (jet fuel), naptha, deisel, gasoline, tar, asphalt, etc...

Here's another good read

 

 

Market Scan

There's Still Oil In Them Hills

Lionel Laurent, 04.15.08, 8:25 AM ET

LONDON -

 

Oil is trading once again at record levels, but the doomsday scenario of peak oil does not yet seem to be upon us.

 

Crude oil prices hit a record high of over $112 a barrel during early trading on Tuesday, but supply concerns again seemed to take a back seat to wider macroeconomic issues. The greenback is currently trading at $1.58 to the euro, only slightly below the record $1.59 level reached at the end of March, and safer commodities like oil are attracting dollar investments.

 

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/04/15/oil-dollar-brazil-markets-commodities-cx_ll_0415markets07.html

 

 

 

   Just for fun....

 

    Assume the high number of 4.3 billion barrels. Ignore the fact that it comes from shale, and pretend that it's conventional oil.

 

    The United States consumes 20 million barrels per day.

 

    4.3 billion / 20 million = 215 days, or about 7 months: A drop in the bucket.

 

This was exactly the point I was trying to make earlier...you can't have it both ways.

 

Every time a new discovery is announced, peak oilers break it down to daily production rates and then poo poo it as being insignificant.  On the flipside, a 500kbpd slip in production, temporary or permanent, is greeted with doomsday scenarios about the fall of the Saudi Oil Kingdom.

 

You have to stay balanced to remain credible.

 

The 35,000 foot view is...oil production took a huge jump in the first part of this century to keep up with rapidly growing Asian demand.  This was immediately following a long period of very low prices, which gave oil producers little incentive to reinvest, as well as, little capital to spend.  As a result, spare capacity was chewed up in a very short period of time, and the price shot up.  $110/bbl oil has now provided oil producers with a renewed incentive to develop dormant fields and search for new ones.  It has also provided these producers with unbelievable amounts of capital. 

 

The other side of the coin is production declines.  There have definitely been some, as there have been for 30 years.  The declines we're seeing now are also showing the effects of a long period of very low oil prices.  Countries like Mexico and the US have barely put a dime back into their production in the last 20 years, and why should they have?  The returns were low with $10/bbl oil.  Now with oil above $110/bbl, fields that were left for dead are now attractive investment opportunities.  It's now economical and technically feasible to recover things like oil from shale, sands, deep water, and previously uneconomical fields using enhanced oil recovery (CO2 and nitrogen injection).

 

I think temporary supply cielings will be hit (as is presently happening), prices will shoot up and reinvestment will drive supply back up.  This will also create "price floors" due to the more expensive technology that will need to be employed to sustain production rates.  If the price were to drop to one of these floors, it would knock the uneconomical production sources offline, cause a decrease in supply, and the price would turn back around.  I think this is the "undulating plateaus" theory.

 

Of course, this also assumes people are willing to keep shelling out high prices for oil.  Right now, demand destruction is being felt by poor countries, and developed parts of the world like the US are only cutting demand by 1% or so.  When price gets unbearable for the big customers, the real demand destruction will happen. 

 

There are just so many factors at play here.  It's more that just looking at the existing oil fields that are currently in production.

^Very nicely put.^

 

The idea of Peak Oil is helpful in that the notion could move us off of our fossil fuel dependency much more quickly, something that is obviously very beneficial to society on a whole, but the reality is that we need to temper our expectations of this happening anytime soon.

http://www.dailyreckoning.co.uk/commodities-trading/russia-hits-peak-oil-00087.html

 

Russia Hits Peak Oil

Rob Mackrill - Tue 15 Apr, 2008

 

A Russian oil executive has admitted Russian oil production has hit a peak

 

Peak Oil theory gets a shot in the arm...

 

Russia was the new frontier for oil production a few short years ago. Not any more it seems, according to an FT report today...

That blog editorial is pretty impressive.  They took this quote...

 

“The period of intense oil production growth is over”

 

...and turned it into an admission of Russian oil peaking.  Could be true, but that's an awfully large jump to make based on that sentence.

Does it alter "reality" if new discoveries are made, or new production is brought online?

 

Your basic assumption is that the fields currently in production today are the only fields that will ever be in production, and that we're essentially done discovering new fields.  I don't think that is a good prediction of the future because of how capitalism works.

 

No, that's not my basic assumption.   What I am saying is that once a country's biggest fields have peaked, then the decline that follows cannot be reversed in that country.  This is because the biggest fields are the easiest to find and easiest to exploit.  Once they peak, the best you can do by discovering new fields is slow the decline because the remaining fields are smaller and more expensive to exploit. 

 

This has happened to more than 50 countries, and no amount of rationalizing changes that. 

 

Remember, Peak Oil is about the peak in production of light, sweet, easy to extract and refine crude.  This is the vast majority of what we've been pumping out of the ground for 150 years. 

 

The Saudi's, for example, are keeping their production up by pumping more of their heavy oil.  This stuff is more expensive to refine and doesn't come out of the ground as easily or as quickly. 

 

Don't forget also to look at the oilfield discovery curve.  Oil field discoveries peaked in the mid-1960's.  This is a significant part of the "35,000 foot view".  No one has stopped looking for oil since then, but what has been found is smaller and smaller and more expensive to exploit fields.  We've had 40 years of declining discoveries despit the fact that the world is very good at finding oil. 

 

And, what we've been mostly finding lately is deepwater oil, which is expensive to get at and the size of the fields don't measure up to the Ghawars, Burgans, Daqings, Cantarells, Texas's, etc. 

 

Regarding the viability of oil shales and the like...  It may technically be "economically feasible" but it takes a lot of energy to get oil out of shales and tar sands.  Energy returned on energy invested is a significant part of the "35,000 foot view".  and the EROI is low for oil shales and tar sands and that's the part of the "feasibility" that gets frequently overlooked. 

 

For example, it takes a lot of electricity and anywhere from several months to a few years to heat up the oil shales to get the crude to flow, plus you have to put a "freeze" (literally-- freeze) zone around the area you want to extract from to prevent contamination of groundwater.  This takes lots of energy. 

 

It's either that or you turn significant parts of Colorado and Utah into rubble, damaging watersheds (in an increasingly populated and arid west) which also takes a lot of energy to do.  It's a slow process.  The energy needed to do that has to come from somewhere-- something like 9 nuclear plants would be needed to provide the electricity to get a halfway decent amount of production out of the shales (I wish I could recall the exact figure...)

 

So, the rate at which you can get it out of the ground is also an important part of the "35,000 foot view".  It's not nearly like getting oil out of Ghawar or Texas.  The rate at which you can get the stuff out matters a lot. 

Here's some graphics from my collection that that I find very interesting....

 

Consider that the Saudis are poking more straws in the ground just to maintain current production:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/energygraphics/saudi_arabia_prod_rigs_april_2s.gif

 

Note that the bottom 14 oil fields produce 20 percent of the world's oil. Four of those fields (see next graphic) produce 10 percent of the world's oil and are in irreversable decline:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/energygraphics/simmonsoilfieldpyramid.jpg

 

Since this graphic was produced, all four of these world's largest oil fields continue to decline:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/energygraphics/OilFieldsInDecline.gif

 

How much oil do these OPEC nations have? Probably half of what they actually claim, but the truth is a state secret:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/energygraphics/OPEC_UppedReserves.gif

 

This big increase in production has been the average since the 1950s when the U.S. began its highway and suburban-building fantasy:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/energygraphics/OilProdEIA2002-06.jpg

 

This is to counter the belief by some that China and India are the problem. If they're trying to be as gluttonous as the U.S., then aren't we really the problem?

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/energygraphics/Oil_Usebynationpiechart.jpg

 

For those who prefer bar charts:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/energygraphics/Oil_Usebynationbarchart.jpg

 

Exxon executives believe that new production will come from somewhere:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/energygraphics/ExxonMobil_prod_decline.jpg

 

But you can't produce more than you've discovered:

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/energygraphics/Discovery-ProductionGap.jpg

 

http://i208.photobucket.com/albums/bb90/Peepersk/energygraphics/DiscoveriesvProductionchart.gif

 

The boil-it-down statistic: We're using four or five barrels of oil for every new barrel we discover. Either we reduce our consumption of oil or we discover more oil. This planet, which is all that we have, has been scoured extensively. There may be a few discoveries that have been overlooked, but until that unknown has been answered, the smart and disciplined person tackles the question which they can answer -- how to reduce consumption.

 

Only our greed and selfishness keeps us from addressing the answerable question.

 

    ^---- I was with you until you got to the part about greed and selfishness.

 

  "The smart and disciplined person tackles the question which they can answer -- how to reduce consumption."

 

  Umm, reduce production?

 

  We are literally consuming oil as fast as we can get it out of the ground and transport it to market. I expect this to continue until, well, the oil stops coming out of the ground.

 

   

 

 

Nope. Because reducing consumption reduces production.

 

We can reduce consumption by increasing the cost of driving, such as through windfall profits taxes, indexing the gas tax to inflation, putting tolls on all Interstate highways, eliminating "free" parking and other options.

 

Of course, if we converted many of the costs of driving from fixed costs on all taxpayers to variable yet direct costs on motorists, that would cause reduced demand (and potentially significantly -- there's some excellent real-world case examples of this, especially as it relates to paid parking).

^---- "We can reduce consumption by increasing the cost of driving,..."

 

    I will have to respectfully disagree with you.

 

    First of all, increasing the cost of driving will be extremely difficult politically. However, if in fact you could pull it off, it will simply shift consumption to an area where the cost of driving has not been increased, whether that be another state or another country.

That's why it has to be the federal government that does it. I do agree that it's a lift that few politicians are willing or able to do (see John McCain and his brain-dead gas tax holiday-for-the-summer idea for counter-intuitive pandering at its worst). And that's why I think this country is in serious trouble.

 

I'm posing what the solutions are. Not what the politicians will do.

 

    Like it or not, we have politicians. A solution that does not work politically is not a solution.

 

 

Here's some graphics from my collection that that I find very interesting....

 

Consider that the Saudis are poking more straws in the ground just to maintain current production:

 

This big increase in production has been the average since the 1950s when the U.S. began its highway and suburban-building fantasy:

 

See...I think these two fit perfectly into my theory.  Nobody was ready for asian demand to take off.  The Saudi's massively increased production in 2003-2004 when it did, which basically amounted to opening up the valves at existing fields and blowing their planned spare capacity.  The rig counts match up perfectly with them developing new fields in the 2008-2012 time frame.  They were caught with their pants down.

 

    Like it or not, we have politicians. A solution that does not work politically is not a solution.

 

And a solution that does not work yet is favored by skittish politicians is still an unworkable solution and therefore worthless.

 

We can do this dance until we're bone tired, but the fact is there is a solution that will solve our problems and there are options that won't. We're trying the options that aren't working or are even making things worse.

 

We ARE going to experience the only workable solution -- reduce consumption. The only question is who implements it: humans by choice or Mother Nature by force.

Unfortunately, I am a pessimist on this front.  This country at least doesn't address problems until they hit us in the head.  Choosing to take creative solutions (probably the BEST of them is raising the federal gas tax SUBSTANTIALLY, say to a few dollars a gallon, and then using that money to address the development of sustainable means of transportation) will better position us for the future (strategically). 

 

That said, I was just talking with a friend about this the other day, I think that if there is one thing this country can and does do pretty well is rallying to overcome a crisis.  History seems to teach that we will continue to be firefighters -- putting out fires, and rebuilding as necessary.

Another perspective of Bakken:

 

An Unconventional Play in the Bakken

Written by Dave Cohen 

Wednesday, 16 April 2008

 

The devil is in the details

      —German Proverb

 

Last week the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released its long-awaited reassessment of the undiscovered recoverable oil potential in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana. The USGS estimated "mean undiscovered volumes of 3.65 billion barrels of oil," which sounds like a lot. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), who commissioned the study, was delighted with the result, saying "this is great news, this is 25 times the amount of the previous assessment."

 

Bakken_and_elm_coulee Oil is now being produced in the Elm Coulee section (graph left) of the Bakken and more oil will be produced there and elsewhere as the years go by. Although one can quibble about the USGS numbers—and we will—the more important question is what will the oil flows be from the Bakken?

 

A proper understanding of the likely conversion rate of Bakken recoverable oil to flows (measured in barrels per day) reveals that this unconventional play will have little effect on peak oil concerns or America's perilous oil dependency. This understanding comes from an examination of the geology and production practices in the Bakken.

 

More at the link

 

http://www.aspo-usa.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=355&Itemid=91

Another view:

_____________________

 

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3833

 

Can We Stay in the Suburbs?

 

Posted by Prof. Goose on April 17, 2008 - 10:00am

Topic: Alternative energy

Tags: climate change, food, peak oil, self sufficiency, suburbs, united states (list all tags)

 

This is a guest post by Aaron Newton, who is working with coauthor Sharon Astyk on the forthcoming book, A Nation of Farmers. Aaron contributes at Groovy Green; he also blogs at Powering Down. Aaron is a land planner and garden farmer in suburban North Carolina, seeking ways to transform the current course of human land use development in an effort to prepare for the effects of global oil production peak and its outcome on automotive suburban America.

 

There is little doubt that during that last 60 years we here in America have transformed our manmade landscape in a way that is fundamentally different from any form of human habitation ever known. While many have flocked to this new way of organizing the spaces in which we live, critics have noticed the shortcomings and have loudly pointed them out. It’s been suggested that the development of the suburbs here in the U.S. was a really bad idea. Author James Kunstler describes suburbia as, ‘the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world.’ The ability of most citizens to own and cheaply operate an automobile means we’ve had access to a level of mobility never before experienced. The outgrowth of which has been a sprawling pattern of living that changed the rules about how and where we live, work, and play and how we get there and back. We are now more spread out than ever before, mostly getting back and forth from one place to another by driving alone in our cars. This could turn out to be a really bad thing.

Wow, someone actually agrees with me!

_____________________

 

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/04/17/how_not_to_prepare_for_peak_oil/

 

How the World Works

By Andrew Leonard

 

How not to prepare for peak oil

 

Now that the price of a barrel of oil has topped $115, the words "peak oil" can be found just about anywhere -- including in the headline of an April 16 Financial Times editorial.

 

But "Preparing for the age of peak oil" offers little in the way of advice for how civilization might face up to a carbon-constrained future through such measures as conservation or energy efficiency or alternative energy technologies. Instead, the editorial recommends that Russia, which recently shocked the world by acknowledging that its domestic oil production appears to have peaked, should disavow its cold shoulder to foreign oil companies and cut domestic taxes holding back the oil industry:

Why did we take the train into London last month rather than drive? It wasn't the congestion pricing. It was the lack of places to park. GM, Shell and even the president of Studebaker Corp. knew this in the late 1930s when the Studebaker prez said "If people are going to have full use of their automobiles, then cities have to be remade." America's post-war urban forms are no accident, but are on a collision course with reality, nonetheless....

_________________

 

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/columnists/story.html?id=b41196e2-7e4a-4c29-abdf-6b5ba6deda3f

 

New Urbanism means making the automobile less necessary

Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver Sun

Published: Friday, April 18, 2008

 

The problem: People living in low-density areas far from a city centre rely more on their cars. The solution: The New Urbanism Movement.

 

New Urbanism is a fancy term describing a growing interest in urban landscapes designed to make car use less necessary.

 

The goal is to reconfigure North American cities to accommodate a more European lifestyle where everyone lives, shops and entertains themselves close to home.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1013369.shtml

 

News : International Last Updated: Apr 21, 2008 - 3:26: PM

 

International Energy Agency says world energy demand will more than double by 2030; Meeting IPCC emissions cut of 50% by 2050 would require huge amount of investment and unprecedented technological breakthroughs

By Finfacts Team

Apr 21, 2008 - 1:46: PM

 

The International Energy Agency (IEA), the Paris-based energy adviser to industrialised countries including Ireland, said today that during the past five years, spare oil producing capacity has fallen below the 3-4 mb/d (million barrels per day)typical of the past decade. The IEA also said that without policy change, world energy demand will more than double by 2030; Meeting IPCC emissions cut of 50% by 2050 would require huge amount of investment and unprecedented technological breakthroughs.

 

The Financial Times reports today that Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil producer, has put on hold any plans to further increase long-term production capacity from its vast oil fields, its most powerful policymakers have said.

Mexico is in some deep sh!t...

 

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080421/mexico_oil_production.html

 

AP

Mexican oil output falls 7.8 pct in first quarter

Monday April 21, 3:30 pm ET 

Mexican oil production falls 7.8 percent in first quarter

 

MEXICO CITY (AP) -- Mexico's state-run oil company said Monday that oil production fell 7.8 percent to 2.91 million barrels a day in the first quarter as current reserves dwindle.

Petroleos Mexicanos, or Pemex, has struggled with falling reserves, especially at its main Cantarell oil field, and lacks the money and expertise to launch new drilling projects. Pemex only has enough proven oil reserves to last nine years at current production rates.

 

President Felipe Calderon this month proposed an energy reform that would allow more private and foreign investment to jump-start new projects, but opponents argue the bill is a veiled attempt to privatize the industry, which they consider a symbol of national sovereignty.

 

We need to seal that border ASAP.  Between the rising prices of corn and fuel, and now the falling revenue from their government's huge funding source, things are about to get ugly south of the border.

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1436

 

Saudi King's Quiet Bombshell

By Steven Andrews & Randy Udall

 

Eight oil industry experts give their views on King Abdullah's 'keep 'em capped' announcement

 

 

Reprinted from the April 21, 2008 edition of Peak Oil Review, the weekly newsletter of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, USA. Given the historic record price of oil last week touching near $117 and the admission by Russia that its own oil fields have peaked, the decision by the Saudi's and other Middle East producers to essentially cap production at its current level for future generations should have been important news. As the authors point out, it went largely ignored by the media. Here is what a number of oil industry experts think.

Someone better start building some mass transit and soon. Hopefully the streetcar system will help start this effort in this region.

http://www.energybulletin.net/43137.html

 

Published on 22 Apr 2008 by DryDipstick.com. Archived on 23 Apr 2008.

 

After the Peak - movie review

by Mick Winter

 

 

After The Peak: the end of cheap oil

27 minute DVD

Filmmaker: Jim McQuaid

www.afterthepeak.com

Buy the DVD

 

After the Peak is a mock-TV news program. It's presented as if live from a local television station in North Carolina, with anchors in the studio reporting and talking to reporters in the field. And, yes, there's even the obligatory sports guy.

 

The time is "one year from today". Worldwide oil production has peaked and is declining. It's still early in the Peak Oil saga with gasoline usually available, but prices are going up. Oil is now $195 a barrel and prices at the pump average $10.29 a gallon, seriously affecting people's lives, their businesses and their commutes.

^-----"Local government and school districts are struggling with increasing fuel costs..."

 

    Already happening. In fact, most of the effects of peak oil could be observed beginning around 1970, when the United States peaked.

 

    On a personal level, peak oil means practically nothing. Most people don't have the math background to understand it, anyway. If you want to get people's attention, talk about price. However, chances are that the conversation will drift toward our president, big oil, and conspiracies. It's futile to preach to people.

 

 

I dont know where this goes, but it's related to high prices.

 

 

Criminals target energy, financial markets, Mukasey says

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/23/organized.crime.threats/index.html

When I first heard about this, it sounded to me like the Bush Administration trying to use a little misdirection and add more confusion to those who pay little or no attention to the energy markets. After reading this, I'm convinced that was the purpose of this public statement.

 

After all, an uneducated consumer is their best customer.

Do they ever think that the Oil is help supporting the shelf? If you take the oil out it might collapse due to the weight of the ocean. I don't know maybe i think too far ahead..lol

Gasoline could hit $7 a gallon in four years: CIBC

Crude predicted to top $200 by 2012 on tight supplies, pushing gas higher

By Moming Zhou, MarketWatch

Last update: 3:59 p.m. EDT April 24, 2008

 

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Surging crude prices, which could surpass $200 a barrel in four years on tight supplies, could push gasoline prices to as high as $7 a gallon, CIBC World Markets analysts said Thursday.

Crude supplies are actually lower than some official estimates indicate, while demand is unlikely to fall anytime soon, according to a statement by analysts led by Jeff Rubin at CIBC, an investment bank. They forecast that

these tighter supplies and continued strong demand will drive oil and gasoline prices to roughly double their current levels by 2012.

 

"It is increasingly clear that the outlook for oil supply signals a period of unprecedented scarcity," said Rubin. "Despite the recent record jump in oil prices, oil prices will continue to rise steadily over the next five years."

CIBC says estimates by the International Energy Agency has overstated supplies because gains in production mostly come from natural-gas liquids.

 

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/gasoline-could-hit-7-oil/story.aspx?guid=%7B824E895C%2DF649%2D4526%2D89F1%2D50C198A8A0D5%7D

$7 within 5 years??????? I think all companies should worry. The great depression is nothing compared to what's coming.

"Some analysts, however, said crude prices could turn lower. Standard & Poor's predicted Thursday that crude prices could tumble to about $90 a barrel by the end of this year with the U.S. economy struggling in recession, though the range of that forecast is plus or minus $50."

 

They predict between $40-$140.  That is like a weatherman saying it will be between 0 degrees and 100 degrees

$7 within 5 years? I think all companies should worry. The great depression is nothing compared to what's coming.

 

$7 in FOUR years. Even so, I hate predictions like that. Trying to predict oil prices in four years is like trying to predict the weather next year. There's way too many variables that come into play with such a long-range forecast.

$7 within 5 years? I think all companies should worry. The great depression is nothing compared to what's coming.

 

$7 in FOUR years. Even so, I hate predictions like that. Trying to predict oil prices in four years is like trying to predict the weather next year. There's way too many variables that come into play with such a long-range forecast.

 

Agreed.  Who really knows how hight it could go - the price is so sensitive to reports on stockpiles, terrorist attacks, production, OPEC meetings, recessions, hurricanes, , etc. etc.  That being said, the price certainly seems to be trending upward.   

$7 within 5 years? I think all companies should worry. The great depression is nothing compared to what's coming.

 

$7 in FOUR years. Even so, I hate predictions like that. Trying to predict oil prices in four years is like trying to predict the weather next year. There's way too many variables that come into play with such a long-range forecast.

 

Agreed.  Who really knows how hight it could go - the price is so sensitive to reports on stockpiles, terrorist attacks, production, OPEC meetings, recessions, hurricanes, , etc. etc.  That being said, the price certainly seems to be trending upward.    

 

When i worked for SOHIO I would go to the trading floor and learned how they set the prices for oil.  It something that changes minute by minute.  Its quite amazing to see it all in action.

 

IIRC, please note, OPEC has nothing to do with the price of oil.  You have to look at the petroleum exchange.