# Peak Oil



## Djayness

We have all heard the doom and gloom of the peak oil reports, or have we?

I'm quite interested in the whole idea, not only because its relevant now, but the alarms about it signalled 2-4-6 years ago by many experts is now coming to light in very real terms. If you have filled up your car recently you will know what i mean. 

News.com.au believes that the oil bubble will burst and go as low as 80/90 dollars a barrel, of course news.com doesnt give any proof for their claims and the general lack of journalism seen on the site is nothing short of criminal. 

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23754398-462,00.html


On the other side, http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ gives an overview of what to expect backed up by real world figures and proper sourcing which is, a little scary. The point driven home is that we are producing oil at a declining rate and that world demand is becoming alot higher than supply. 

Crude Impact is a good flim on the subject most of it is on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqdw7yhEpIk

Its an interesting topic to discuss, many believe its not going to affect us that much, they say it just means a heavier price at the fuel pumps. Unfortunately its not that simple...


----------



## vishalt

Djayness said:


> We have all heard the doom and gloom of the peak oil reports, or have we?
> 
> I'm quite interested in the whole idea, not only because its relevant now, but the alarms about it signalled 2-4-6 years ago by many experts is now coming to light in very real terms. If you have filled up your car recently you will know what i mean.
> 
> News.com.au believes that the oil bubble will burst and go as low as 80/90 dollars a barrel, of course news.com doesnt give any proof for their claims and the general lack of journalism seen on the site is nothing short of criminal.
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23754398-462,00.html
> 
> 
> On the other side, http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ gives an overview of what to expect backed up by real world figures and proper sourcing which is, a little scary. The point driven home is that we are producing oil at a declining rate and that world demand is becoming alot higher than supply.
> 
> Crude Impact is a good flim on the subject most of it is on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqdw7yhEpIk
> 
> Its an interesting topic to discuss, many believe its not going to affect us that much, they say it just means a heavier price at the fuel pumps. Unfortunately its not that simple...



news.com.au doesn't believe oil will burst, the economists and companies quoted believes it will. I'd hardly call that bursting anyway.. considering oil was once upon a time $US10, and now $US130, a correction to $US80 or $US90 would be nothing unusual for an oil correction. 

I think oil is mainly being driven up by Wall St because they lost so much money on sub-prime bets they just had to inflate a rapid bubble into commodities like oil. 

I don't understand why we didn't have this oil issue in 2006 or 2007? I mean back then, Europe and the US (heavily populated continents) were still growing at a reasonable rate and consuming lots of energy but no-one really pointed out "whoops we have 600 million emerging markets people rising up into the middle-class, gee thats going to create a huge demand for petrol!"

But now the US (please don't kid yourself and wait for them to officially announce or lie about it) is in recession and Europe will likely follow, thats 2 big sources of demand that are poised to dip but Wall St will just inflate a bubble and ride it on the attention the media has given to it.

I think oil's price rise is a great thing, now we are forced to find alternative ways and invest in bio-fuels and alternative energy companies so there's that. 

Also I'm amazed at how mankind has used oil - which took millions of years to form - in just 2 centuries!

I've invested in Beach Petroleum which has some long-life oil and gas reserves so I'm happy with my energy investment, however I would like to find a green company to invest in, i just wish Barclays would hurry up with making an alternatives technology ETF!


----------



## Smurf1976

Today we each ate roughly 10MJ of food.

It took 8MJ to run the oven to cook one of the meals I ate today.

The fridge eats roughly as much energy each day as I do. Fridges are a very minor share of household energy use.

I just watched the Eurovision final. That TV watching for 3 hours used the same amount of energy that I ate today. And that's without mentioning that I had the lights on too.

I had the heater running too. In 3 hours that used as much energy as I will eat in the next 10 days.

I drive a 4 cylinder car that's fairly economical. Driven average km (say, 15,000 km each year) it eats as much as 10 people each year.

And my household energy consumption is, of course, only about a quarter of the energy I'm really using - the rest being through business supplying goods and services.

Bottom line? No way are we going to grow ourselves out of this one via biofuels. We'd need to completely starve all of NSW and Victoria just to replace oil in Tasmania. And of course Tassie doesn't exactly use that much oil anyway with its short travelling distances and predominantly hydro power supply.

We're either heading into permanent economic contraction, coal liquefaction or an all-electric economy whether we like it or not. Odds are we'll do a bit of all 3.


----------



## Smurf1976

vishalt said:


> Also I'm amazed at how mankind has used oil - which took millions of years to form - in just 2 centuries!



Don't worry about two centuries. The one I usually mention is that half the oil ever used (worldwide) has been used since Kylie Minogue launched her singing career.

And we've used about half of that since the dot.com bubble burst.


----------



## Tysonboss1

Smurf1976 said:


> Bottom line? No way are we going to grow ourselves out of this one via biofuels. We'd need to completely starve all of NSW and Victoria just to replace oil in Tasmania. And of course Tassie doesn't exactly use that much oil anyway with its short travelling distances and predominantly hydro power supply.
> 
> .




There is absouloutly no "silver bullet" to get us out of this energy situation in the long term,... however biofuels will play a part in the future energy mix, especially biofuels from waste from flour mills, sugar mills and saw mills.

They are even large scale garbage bioreacters than break down garbage and sewage digesters that capture biogas,...


----------



## Djayness

I guess the point was even if we found a limitless supply of energy besides oil, we'd end up running out of something else we need etc etc. Humanity and its economies cannot keep growing exponentially (although current world population graphs disagree).


----------



## Smurf1976

Tysonboss1 said:


> however biofuels will play a part in the future energy mix, especially biofuels from waste from flour mills, sugar mills and saw mills.



Agreed there. Just as long as nobody's expecting biofuels to become the dominant part of that mix. 

Worth noting that even nuclear and hydro are small compared to any of the individual fossil fuels.


----------



## numbercruncher

The Oil age allowed a population spike, I suspect 100s Millions will die as Peak Oil runs it course.

Will future Generations shake their heads when they think we burned most the Oil through Cars/Lorrys/Planes/trains/Powerstations, when Tech and even policy to preserve dwindling Oil supplys existed ?


We live in Interesting Times !


----------



## Wysiwyg

There surely is more oil except it is in deeper waters and pristine wilderness. The Russians are probably sitting on a massive supply too.


----------



## numbercruncher

Wysiwyg said:


> There surely is more oil except it is in deeper waters and pristine wilderness. The Russians are probably sitting on a massive supply too.
> 
> 
> .




Trick is can they extract it at a fast enough rate to keep the bubble going ? Demand is increasing daily, Price is dampening that demand I assume, its still growing though !

Modern farming techniques are absolutely oil dependant. We already have a food crisis apparently!

They need to work fast before disaster arrives ....


----------



## gfresh

To play the devil's advocate here - what do we actually need oil for? It's mostly cars and transport. Do we have the means to halve fuel economy in most vehicles, in effect halving our oil requirements? I'd argue yes. 

Yes, you can already buy a small car that uses 6L/100km, yet people still continue to buy, or use vehicles that use 10L/100km or more. Simply due to ego in many cases "small cars are unsafe", "I need something big to carry 2 children", "I need a big 4WD as it's all we can fit in", "I need to be able to travel 200km/hr", "I like a v8". Many of these things are both illogical, and probably not needed if people really sat down and changed their habits and mindset. 

I can already see in 10 years time rows and rows of large 4WD, v8's and the like ready to be crushed, as simply nobody can afford to drive them. I wouldn't like to be selling many of the larger cars sold today even in 5 years time if petrol was say $3-5/L. Purchased $50k off a showroom floor today, worth how much in 5 years time? $5000? 

I am sure for food, etc transport with trucks there are some new models with quite efficient engines as well, even though most of the trucks on our roads are probably based on quite old technology. It's simply a matter of the transport companies demanding more fuel efficient models. 

The biggest challenge here is changing people's mindsets, and the high upfront cost of change. This will happen I think, but it will take time. In some ways the high cost of fuel presently is a good push in that direction. 

Oil is less required for energy generation - there is enough coal in Australia for apparently hundreds of years supply. And CSG is quite feasible. Or nuclear energy is another option. 

We are lucky we have so many options here in Australia if we so put on the front to go with them. It's only humanity itself that gets in the way.


----------



## Djayness

gfresh said:


> To play the devil's advocate here - what do we actually need oil for? It's mostly cars and transport. Do we have the means to halve fuel economy in most vehicles, in effect halving our oil requirements? I'd argue yes.
> 
> Yes, you can already buy a small car that uses 6L/100km, yet people still continue to buy, or use vehicles that use 10L/100km or more. Simply due to ego in many cases "small cars are unsafe", "I need something big to carry 2 children", "I need a big 4WD as it's all we can fit in", "I need to be able to travel 200km/hr", "I like a v8". Many of these things are both illogical, and probably not needed if people really sat down and changed their habits and mindset.
> 
> I can already see in 10 years time rows and rows of large 4WD, v8's and the like ready to be crushed, as simply nobody can afford to drive them. I wouldn't like to be selling many of the larger cars sold today even in 5 years time if petrol was say $3-5/L. Purchased $50k off a showroom floor today, worth how much in 5 years time? $5000?
> 
> I am sure for food, etc transport with trucks there are some new models with quite efficient engines as well, even though most of the trucks on our roads are probably based on quite old technology. It's simply a matter of the transport companies demanding more fuel efficient models.
> 
> The biggest challenge here is changing people's mindsets, and the high upfront cost of change. This will happen I think, but it will take time. In some ways the high cost of fuel presently is a good push in that direction.
> 
> Oil is less required for energy generation - there is enough coal in Australia for apparently hundreds of years supply. And CSG is quite feasible. Or nuclear energy is another option.
> 
> We are lucky we have so many options here in Australia if we so put on the front to go with them. It's only humanity itself that gets in the way.





Transport and cars are only a small part of the equation.

"Because petrochemicals are key components to much more than just the gas in your car. As of the year 2002, approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US. Source The size of this ratio stems from the fact that every step of modern food production is fossil fuel and petrochemical powered:

Pesticides and agro-chemicals are made from oil;

Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is made from natural gas, which is also peaking in the near future.  Source

Most farming implements such as tractors and trailers are constructed and powered using oil-derived fuels.

Food storage systems such as refrigerators are manufactured in oil-powered plants, distributed using oil-powered transportation networks and usually run on electricity, which most often comes from natural gas or coal. Like oil and natural gas, coal too is peaking in the near future. Source

In the US, the average piece of food is transported almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. Source In Canada, the average piece of food is transported 5,000 miles from where it is produced to where it is consumed. Source "


----------



## Tysonboss1

Djayness said:


> Transport and cars are only a small part of the equation.
> 
> "Because petrochemicals are key components to much more than just the gas in your car. As of the year 2002, approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US.  "




Your not really correct here,...

Transport is the cause of over 50% of oil use,...

And transport of the food is the main cause behind that example you gave of there being 10calories of oil used for every 1 calorie eaten.

There will be oil production for over 100years it just won't be enough,... so all we have to do is start introducing alternatives to offset the shortfall in production caused by economic growth and decline in production.

Alternatives in transport will probally be the easy way to start offseting oil use.


----------



## numbercruncher

Tysonboss1 said:


> And transport of the food is the main cause behind that example you gave of there being 10calories of oil used for every 1 calorie eaten.




Not quite ....




> In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994).7 Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:
> 
> ·        31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer
> 
> ·        19% for the operation of field machinery
> 
> ·        16% for transportation
> 
> ·        13% for irrigation
> 
> ·        08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)
> 
> ·        05% for crop drying
> 
> ·        05% for pesticide production
> 
> ·        08% miscellaneous8
> 
> 
> Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets, and household cooking are not considered in these figures.






> To give the reader an idea of the energy intensiveness of modern agriculture, production of one kilogram of nitrogen for fertilizer requires the energy equivalent of from 1.4 to 1.8 liters of diesel fuel. This is not considering the natural gas feedstock.9 According to The Fertilizer Institute (http://www.tfi.org), in the year from June 30 2001 until June 30 2002 the United States used 12,009,300 short tons of nitrogen fertilizer.10 Using the low figure of 1.4 liters diesel equivalent per kilogram of nitrogen, this equates to the energy content of 15.3 billion liters of diesel fuel, or 96.2 million barrels.




http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/100303_eating_oil.html

Its oldish data but In the ballpark ...


----------



## Spineli

How many banks got caught on the good side of sub prime? Not too many!

Which bank performed outstandingly? Goldman Sachs

Which bank is predicting an oil spike to $200+ per barrel? Goldman Sachs


----------



## lusk

Spineli said:


> How many banks got caught on the good side of sub prime? Not too many!
> 
> Which bank performed outstandingly? Goldman Sachs
> 
> Which bank is predicting an oil spike to $200+ per barrel? Goldman Sachs




They must be selling if they are putting out statements like that.


----------



## gfresh

djayness said:
			
		

> Transport and cars are only a small part of the equation.
> 
> "Because petrochemicals are key components to much more than just the gas in your car. As of the year 2002, approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US. Source The size of this ratio stems from the fact that every step of modern food production is fossil fuel and petrochemical powered:




Hmmm, yes, exactly - oil is used for transport of the goods from the grainery to the grocer, and at all steps along the way. By making more efficient vehicles (a large part is trucks, diesel trains, or the like that play a major part in that equation), in effect the savings are reflected right across the chain. 

The technology is there, or available at higher cost, and in the past there hasn't been much need for it. Look back to the 70's, a lot of really innovative technology was devised at a time when there was the last oil crisis. By the mid 80's oil was readily available again, so a lot of that passed by the wayside.  

Making some 30-40% ? savings in vehicle fuel across the nation, frees up the use of oil where there are possibly less alternatives -  such as plastics, fertilisers, etc.  

Everybody runs around with their head chopped off when they think the oil will run out, but I don't think it's so bleak. As the price of oil goes up and up, the alternatives will become cheaper and cheaper, and the incentives to find alternatives will become stronger and stronger.


----------



## Tysonboss1

numbercruncher said:


> Not quite ....
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> does those figures calculate the transport of the whole supply chain or just the fininshed product,.... Because you would have to transport more than you would think,


----------



## Djayness

I was just quoting the source http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ ill check the validity when I have the time. 

Im interested to see what happens to the growth of the worlds economies when fuel becomes too expensive or can no longer meet demand.


----------



## vishalt

What fascinates me is how America and Australia are hardcore crybabies when it comes to energy prices going up. 

In Australia petrol is still one of the cheapest things you can but per liter. Milk costs like $2.50 and fresh juice costs $5/L.

I'm amazed to see that when I was in Europe, fuel is like $4-$13 depending in which country you go to (UK/Switzerland/Norway/Amsterdam/Spain) etc but they're used to it. 

Over here we are just a bunch of oil addicts and would rather complain about petrol prices going up because its easier than having a European attitude where they realise that "oil is limited, we all need to share it so use it in moderation".

Many Euros happily get on their bike or skate to work and back each morning if they live within sustainable distances, but if they don't, they are smart enough to use more care pooling/hydro buses and trams!

The fact is petrol is in Australia/US hurting people who generally chose to live beyond their means, as unfair as that sounds if they are good people (but loaded with debt, mortgages, loans, buy this, buy that).

The fact is we could have had substantially less fuel usage if the US and Australia weren't purposely "built on wheels" and people who could have used public transport or had a healthy walk to work chose to instead be lazy and drive.

I've made my cuts by only limiting myself to having a 5 min drive each day to the station and a 15 min drive to a nearby suburb on the weekends, my energy use is only 1 - 25 liter tank a month. 

I don't drive to the city ever anymore and I don't drive to the beach either, I use public transport and/or the ferry or go on a holiday if I really need a getaway.


----------



## Trembling Hand

vishalt said:


> In Australia petrol is still one of the cheapest things you can but per liter. Milk costs like $2.50 and fresh juice costs $5/L.




Its not the unit price that matters but the unit price AND how many units are needed. Most only need 1 or 2 litres of milk and OJ per week but 20 liters of petrol or more. Milk vs Petrol doesn't seem much of a comparison.


----------



## greenaus

vishalt said:


> limiting myself to having a 5 min drive each day to the station




The service station I fill up at is only five minutes away, too, but I don't go there every day.


----------



## Tysonboss1

vishalt said:


> What fascinates me is how America and Australia are hardcore crybabies when it comes to energy prices going up.
> 
> In Australia petrol is still one of the cheapest things you can but per liter. Milk costs like $2.50 and fresh juice costs $5/L.
> 
> I'm amazed to see that when I was in Europe, fuel is like $4-$13 depending in which country you go to (UK/Switzerland/Norway/Amsterdam/Spain) etc but they're used to it.
> 
> Over here we are just a bunch of oil addicts and would rather complain about petrol prices going up because its easier than having a European attitude where they realise that "oil is limited, we all need to share it so use it in moderation".
> 
> Many Euros happily get on their bike or skate to work and back each morning if they live within sustainable distances, but if they don't, they are smart enough to use more care pooling/hydro buses and trams!
> 
> The fact is petrol is in Australia/US hurting people who generally chose to live beyond their means, as unfair as that sounds if they are good people (but loaded with debt, mortgages, loans, buy this, buy that).
> 
> The fact is we could have had substantially less fuel usage if the US and Australia weren't purposely "built on wheels" and people who could have used public transport or had a healthy walk to work chose to instead be lazy and drive.
> 
> I've made my cuts by only limiting myself to having a 5 min drive each day to the station and a 15 min drive to a nearby suburb on the weekends, my energy use is only 1 - 25 liter tank a month.
> 
> I don't drive to the city ever anymore and I don't drive to the beach either, I use public transport and/or the ferry or go on a holiday if I really need a getaway.




I agree with alot of your points, how ever remember beening such a sparse country our reliance on transport fuel hits u in every thing we do.

and yes petrol is cheaper / litre than alot of other liquids however we use i more ofit per week than any other liquid (except water). and the price of energy will no doubt increase the cost of all the other liquids you mentioned in time, even water.


----------



## xyzedarteerf

Djayness said:


> We have all heard the doom and gloom of the peak oil reports, or have we?
> 
> I'm quite interested in the whole idea, not only because its relevant now, but the alarms about it signalled 2-4-6 years ago by many experts is now coming to light in very real terms. If you have filled up your car recently you will know what i mean.
> 
> Crude Impact is a good flim on the subject most of it is on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqdw7yhEpIk




for those interested in this subject _smurf_ had some great comments in 
this thread i started last year about another oil movie called Crude Awakening.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9011


----------



## 2020hindsight

*Re: Peak Oil.*

Brilliant article imo -
Brendan Nelson (and any short-sighted politician that follows him) is completely missing the point. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/28/2257626.htm



> Waking from the dream
> By Brendan Gleeson
> Posted Wed May 28, 2008 8:21am AEST
> 
> Australians are in two minds today.
> 
> Many of us celebrate the economic boom that has generated new levels of prosperity, ...  And yet growing numbers of Australians are increasingly disturbed by two comets that seem to be streaking across and spoiling the bright skies of prosperity - *climate change and oil scarcity*.
> 
> *One fiery trail reports a climate cooked and despoiled by human greed*. The other marks the *disappearing trail of a vital resource, the energy that propelled us to greatness, and yet ultimately became our downfall. *Both entwine menacingly above us: one glowering with rising strength, the other fading and failing away.
> 
> The heavens aroused and inflamed are an awful force.
> ....
> Terra Australis is becoming Terror Australis, a blast furnace of drought, heat and capricious tempests.
> 
> The nation is gripped by concern about scarcity. ..water, the fundamental means of existence, that we are running out of.
> 
> In April 2007, then prime minister John Howard intoned gravely that the nation's food bowl, the Murray-Darling Basin, might soon fail. There was talk of the need to import food. Even in cities, traditionally immune to drought, years of prolonged water shortage showed in the greying, lifeless gardens of suburbia, where there lurked a quiet, deepening gloom about the deaths of things once cherished and nurtured.







> *Pain at the pump*
> Meanwhile oil, the lifeblood of our economy and everyday lives, seems to be slipping away.
> 
> It's harder, more expensive, to keep a grip on lifestyles based on cheap petrol and unrestrained mobility. *'Pain at the pump' is another little unfolding agony in everyday life. *
> 
> Daily we hear more about 'peak oil': a looming moment when the world's oil reserves will start to decline. *The idea has been about for a while, but has been dismissed by governments and industry as the baseless rantings of survivalists, doomsayers and eccentric dons. Not so anymore.*
> 
> Both the Australian Senate and the United States auditor-general have recently warned that the peak is real and imminent. No matter when it occurs, explosive global demand and geopolitical instability mean that the golden age of oil abundance is behind us.
> 
> .....
> Aspiration is turning to desperation. In early 2007, a survey of more than five thousand Australian families identified rising petrol prices as the main source of financial concern.
> 
> 
> Global 'filthy man'
> 
> Sometimes passing through and surviving one (modest) crisis engenders not a sharpened wariness but its opposite, a heightened sense of invulnerability. So it seems with the 1970s oil shocks, which by the 1990s had passed comfortably into memories, adding evidence to the theory that market societies were indeed the 'end of history', our highest and most invulnerable social form.
> 
> This explains why the unexpected return of oil scarcity seems so deeply unsettling, cracking open a cemented faith in our invincibility. All the more unnerving is the mounting evidence that coal, our other great - if these days unseen - energy source, is fuelling climate change.
> 
> *Most of us are guiltily aware that Australia is a global 'filthy man', stoking the global carbon economy with cheap, dirty coal. Dashed inconvenient that exporting it doesn't distance us from the problem, or ultimately from blame*.
> 
> ....
> 
> *The consequences of the environmental and resource crises are manifesting in our daily lives: rocketing petrol bills, dead lawns, tedious water restrictions*, and heat - damned unseasonable, wearing heat.
> 
> But the same sense of autonomy and power that many of us feel at work isn't available in these increasingly pressing circumstances. The feeling of frustrated disconnection, of impotency in the face of threat, seems to well and grow.






> Brendan Gleeson is a professor at Griffith University and is currently director of the urban research program at the University's School for Environmental Planning. He is on the board of Queensland's Urban Land Development Authority. This is an edited extract from Griffith REVIEW 20: Cities on the Edge (ABC Books).


----------



## watchingall

*Re: Peak Oil.*

Here is an interesting editorial from Matt Simmons on the topic.

http://www.worldenergysource.com/articles/pdf/simmons_we_v10n2.pdf

And another as it relates to US energy policy
http://www.worldenergysource.com/articles/text/simmons_WE_v8n4.cfm


----------



## jonojpsg

*Re: Peak Oil.*

*The consequences of the environmental and resource crises are manifesting in our daily lives: rocketing petrol bills, dead lawns, tedious water restrictions, and heat - damned unseasonable, wearing heat. *

Hate to gloat and seem uncaring or irresponsible, but down here in beautiful little Hobart we have pretty much unlimited water supply, not far to drive/ride to work, lush green lawns and gorgeous mild weather 

If you can relocate anywhere, make Hobart top of the list - you won't regret it.


----------



## 2020hindsight

*Re: Peak Oil.*



jonojpsg said:


> *The consequences of the environmental and resource crises are manifesting in our daily lives: rocketing petrol bills, dead lawns, tedious water restrictions, and heat - damned unseasonable, wearing heat. *
> 
> Hate to gloat and seem uncaring or irresponsible, but down here in beautiful little Hobart we have pretty much unlimited water supply, not far to drive/ride to work, lush green lawns and gorgeous mild weather
> 
> If you can relocate anywhere, make Hobart top of the list - you won't regret it.



careful jono - things ain't all peaches and apples in paradise  

this photo of Lake Gordon posted by Smurf early April (14% full I believe)  : 2twocents

Full is 40m above that. !  (according to smurf - mind you that's equivalent to a 13 storey building - mmm must be close to those green trees there  )

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=281842


----------



## nioka

*Re: Peak Oil.*



jonojpsg said:


> *The consequences of the environmental and resource crises are manifesting in our daily lives: rocketing petrol bills, dead lawns, tedious water restrictions, and heat - damned unseasonable, wearing heat. *
> 
> Hate to gloat and seem uncaring or irresponsible, but down here in beautiful little Hobart we have pretty much unlimited water supply, not far to drive/ride to work, lush green lawns and gorgeous mild weather
> 
> If you can relocate anywhere, make Hobart top of the list - you won't regret it.




What is mild weather to a Taswedgian is sort of cold for someone from this "gods only country" where we can claim all you have and then some.


----------



## Smurf1976

*Re: Peak Oil.*



2020hindsight said:


> careful jono - things ain't all peaches and apples in paradise
> 
> this photo of Lake Gordon posted by Smurf early April (14% full I believe)  : 2twocents
> 
> Full is 40m above that. !  (according to smurf - mind you that's equivalent to a 13 storey building - mmm must be close to those green trees there  )
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=281842



Water in Tas is primarily a question of energy. That is, apart from the Hydro, about 98% of the state's fresh water isn't used for anything at all. So plenty of water, but that's close to sea level after the Hydro has finished with it. The Hydro itself hasn't been in a 100% full situation at any time since the 1970's and total storage is presently 17.9% and falling, a consequence of the reality that for the past decade there has either been system overload or drought at any given time - that's guaranteed to deplete the storages eventually.

Lake Gordon is indeed 40m below full in that photo. Yes, it is a 40m drop drom the trees to the water level. Lake Gordon is Australia's largest freshwater storage whilst Gordon Dam (140m high) also happens to be the world's highest commercial abseil. 

As for Hobart, yep there's plenty of water. Whilst the Derwent headwater storages are only at 21%, it's a reality that even at the present rate of discharge (which is only 40% of average) we're letting out more than the combined consumption of Sydney and Melbourne, virtually all of which flows straight past the intake for Hobart and thus into the sea. That rate of water release is, of course, driven by the need to keep the turbines spinning - drinking the stuff or watering the lawn is simply a by-product.

The attached photo is of Lake Echo. The level now is within 2cm of when that photo was taken (27 April 2008) since outflow and inflow are both about zero. I don't think it requires any further explanation other than to say that the intake tower does go down quite some way - it's still possible to draw water from the lake.


----------



## 2020hindsight

*Re: Peak Oil.*

smurf fair enough
thanks for the corrections
and jono is correct then as well.

Must admit the main colour I recall from my trips to Tas is green - being held up behind tractors mowing the 3 foot high verges of the road - and meanwhile listening to the news about the current drought Tas was experiencing 

- Maybe it gets a bit browner up on the (NW and central) plateau (?). 

But roses in Glenorchy are the size of flaming pancakes - you're right.    Plenty of water at sea level as you say. 

but ( as you infer) Not that any of that excess water (once it's down at sea level) is gonna help the oil crisis .


----------



## Smurf1976

If you want to understand the importance of energy then look no further than WA. 

An explosion has cut domestic gas supplies by 30%. And so now we've got brick works closed, hotels about to almost completely shut down (virtually ALL major hotels in Perth!) because they can't get linen washed, the building industry set to run out of materials and even some talk of the lights going out.

EVERYTHING depends on energy. Turn off the gas in WA, drain the lakes in Tas or shut the brown coal mines in Vic and life as we know it comes to a shattering end. 

And all that with only a 30% cut, partially offset by diesel and coal. Just imagine if we'd been stupid enough to rely as heavily on gas as many say Australia ought to...

As it stands today, Qld and NT are the only parts of the country that _haven't_ had a gas crisis in the past decade (Tas didn't but that's because it didn't use gas in the first place when the upstream crisis occurred).

I've got nothing against the gas industry, but the fundamental nature of the stuff precludes reliability ever reaching that of coal, oil, nuclear or large scale hydro. Take note.

Meanwhile, the WA situation is just a bit more diesel demand. Along with all those other places using diesel because it's the only thing they can get their hands on that works.


----------



## gfresh

smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Just imagine if we'd been stupid enough to rely as heavily on gas as many say Australia ought to...




I would have thought if Australia was *more* reliant on gas, we would have a lot more backup systems and supplies in place to ensure this wasn't so much of a problem. From what I can see, one operator (Apache) failed, and seeing they supply so much to industry that's the problem.. nothing to do with gas itself, but the over reliance on only one operator at the root of the supply chain


----------



## Smurf1976

gfresh said:


> I would have thought if Australia was *more* reliant on gas, we would have a lot more backup systems and supplies in place to ensure this wasn't so much of a problem. From what I can see, one operator (Apache) failed, and seeing they supply so much to industry that's the problem.. nothing to do with gas itself, but the over reliance on only one operator at the root of the supply chain



The inherent problem with gas is that it's hard to store and in most cases within Australia there's not much (if any) useful stored gas available when things go wrong.

Coal, oil and hydro can all be stored. You have a stockpile of coal, oil in a tank or water in a dam. And, here's the crucial bit, you normally see panic whenever those stockpiles get low. But with gas they're not only low, they're usually completely empty. It's a real hand to mouth operation therefore no buffer when something goes wrong.

It's like living with not a cent in the bank and no access to credit. Fine as long as you have no unexpected expenses and no drop in income. Then all of a sudden the car breaks down, the overtime is cancelled and you're in strife. That's the inherent risk of running on zero reserves and it's one that's difficult to overcome with gas.

Look what's happened with some of the recent gas disruptions. WA has one right now - they're relying on coal and diesel to help the situation. Not producing more of them as such, but simply drawing from inventory.

Tasmania has had modest disruptions to gas for power generation two years running. And in both cases the response is the same - crank up a few more hydro turbines and joe public doesn't need to know anything happened. The Hydro didn't make it rain more, they just took from storage.

And the Victorian disaster in 1998 was much the same. Ramp up coal and use all manner of petroleum products, largely taken from storage.

So to make gas more reliable in, say, WA what needs to happen is a major gas storage is built near perth. Building it 2000km or however far the NW shelf is from Perth doesn't help when the pipe goes down - and that's been a problem more times than even most in WA realise (they get around it by switching power generation to diesel and coal, possible because they can be stockpiled). You just can't guarantee that such a long pipe run won't be cut at some point.

Same in Tas. No guarantee the Vic - Tas pipeline won't suffer damage at some point. So any storage needs to be in Tas, not Vic, if it's to be useful. And it needs to last long enough to fix the pipe - potentially months in a worst case scenario.

Same basically everywhere unless you're relying on lots of small fields rather than a few big ones. But then relying on lots of small fields is the classic sign of resource depletion so it's not something we ought to be aiming for in itself.

As for how much energy matters, just look at what's happening in WA. A 30% cut to ONE fuel, itself largely offset by diesel and coal, and the result is anything but good economically. No power = stuff all left of the economy in 2008.

I'm not against using gas, it's a sensible fuel for a lot of applications. But I'm not keen on putting all our eggs in one rather volatile basket that holds very little. Brown coal has similar problems with lack of stored coal and over the years that too has had it's fair share of problems. They're usually bailed out by relying more on other fuels, including gas (and black coal and hydro). Diversity...


----------



## Aussiejeff

Smurf1976 said:


> The inherent problem with gas is that it's hard to store and in most cases within Australia there's not much (if any) useful stored gas available when things go wrong....
> 
> I'm not against using gas, it's a sensible fuel for a lot of applications. But I'm not keen on putting all our eggs in one rather volatile basket that holds very little...




Agree totally with this view Smurf. I hope NSW doesn't go down the same route as WA and try to source most of its gas from SE QLD (as some pundits seem keen on pushing) via a single major pipe feed. Ergo the same problem could arise.


AJ


----------



## Smurf1976

WA would be in real strife right now without power from coal and oil...


----------



## disarray

good posts smurf. what do you think is the best way to secure basic electricity needs? obviously transport is whole other debate. 

is it possible to export electricity overseas? i like the idea of a nuclear australia exporting energy.


----------



## Aussiejeff

LOL. Just have to laugh at GWB's latest panic reaction with oil - now he wants to overturn the covenants against oil drilling along the US coastline in the *hope* that they will strike big oil and meet the US's forecast addiction to the stuff....

There is an obvious "catch 22" to the argument that "the current price of oil now makes non-economically viable reserves a viable proposition". That is, IF $Billions of dollars are commited into drilling these reserves during a time of record prices, what happens if they DO discover a *big* reserve and the oil price plummets in response? Would that mean the ongoing viability of many drilling and delivery programs for such "marginal" reserves suddenly collapses and a lot of those marginal drilling companies find themselves suddenly deep in the red "holding the baby" as it were?

*sigh*

It is a bit sad to see how human-kind is reacting to this total addiction and the consequent behaviour to try and keep feeding it at all costs..... 


AJ


----------



## Aussiejeff

The debate on whether the Guvment should cut the fuel excise for motorsist by 5c litre is being significantly paled by the current price of diesel (now hovering around AU$1.85 - 2.07 in rural Oz!)

We are currently in a ludicrous situation where supplies of diesel meant for Brisbane delivery yesterday have been diverted to the Kimberly area & Fremantle since they are running out of the stuff which is pushing the West's diesel prices through the roof. I would expect that QLD diesel prices will now jump in response. 

Diesel in Oz last year was around AU$1.14 litre on average. This has GOT to hurt the inflationary outlook over the coming months.... I wonder how many heavy transport trucks in Oz run on gas or LPG?

PS: Just checked Fuelwatch WA for LPG price in Kimberley. Now 99c to $1.20!!!!! (66c in Perth) 



AJ


----------



## gfresh

aussiejeff said:
			
		

> It is a bit sad to see how human-kind is reacting to this total addiction and the consequent behaviour to try and keep feeding it at all costs.....




Indeed, every time I hear the latest in this "crisis" I keep thinking there are alternatives, but none of our leaders are making any significant steps into making sure alternatives are found. If further supplies are found, it's only delaying the inevitable, as China and India demand more and more of the world's share. 

If GWB had come out and said "this is the biggest problem facing our country, we are going to spend $xxx billion on alternative energy sources" (less than spent on the Iraq war), I would say within 5 years we could be nearly free of oil together. Throw enough billions, it's amazing what the power of human determination can achieve. 

No chance in him ever doing this however. The Bush family, and most of the congress is in with the oil industry, and have massive investments in this area. The world's largest companies are the likes of Exxon, which run out of the United States, and could buy off whoever they liked. Government collects billions of dollars in excises, and other taxes. Where is the real incentive to the powers that be, to encourage real investment in alternatives? When they can get richer and richer, while the poor cats beneath them run themselves to the bone  

Well LPG may be running at $1.08 in the Kimberley, but ULP is running at $1.85, so it's all relative. LPG is running at 71c here, while ULP is running at $1.58.. 44% of the cost!


----------



## Naked shorts

Djayness said:


> News.com.au believes that the oil bubble will burst and go as low as 80/90 dollars a barrel, of course news.com doesnt give any proof for their claims and the general lack of journalism seen on the site is nothing short of criminal.




News.com has got to be the worst possible news source, they are extreamly bias, commercial, highly opinionated and focus on riduculous things. Perfect example of their "Breaking news!"
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23888302-1702,00.html

Goldman sachs (they predicted the recent crash, and basically every other recent occurance) beleives oil prices will hit $150 - $200
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ayxRKcAZi630&refer=home

Citibank was estimating that oil would goto $75 until just recently when they suddenly changed their mind to $117.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080610/bp_analyst_note.html?.v=1

Citibank doesnt know whats is doing. In the recent crisis they have lost billions while Goldman has made billions. I would take the advice from Goldman

@vishalt
"they are smart enough to use more care pooling/hydro buses and trams!"

Euros arent smart for doing that, they just dont have enough money to pay for the petrol.


----------



## lusk

Naked shorts said:


> Goldman sachs (they predicted the recent crash, and basically every other recent occurance) beleives oil prices will hit $150 - $200
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ayxRKcAZi630&refer=home
> 
> Citibank was estimating that oil would goto $75 until just recently when they suddenly changed their mind to $117.
> http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080610/bp_analyst_note.html?.v=1
> 
> Citibank doesnt know whats is doing. In the recent crisis they have lost billions while Goldman has made billions. I would take the advice from Goldman




I wouldn't take any advice from the news. Goldman sachs and Citibank know exactly what they are doing, any news that is issued will always be to their benefit. Goldman sachs is probably only talking oil up so it has demand to unload into, Citibank talking down oil because it wanted to buy.


----------



## Smurf1976

disarray said:


> good posts smurf. what do you think is the best way to secure basic electricity needs? obviously transport is whole other debate.
> 
> is it possible to export electricity overseas? i like the idea of a nuclear australia exporting energy.



A few points..

1. I think we'll need to use electricity wherever possible in preference to oil etc. Nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal etc all produce electricity, not liquid fuels, so that makes electricity the only real long term option for consuming devices.

2. How to generate it depends on the timeframe. Oil's gone now in terms of economic viability. Gas will probably be next. Coal depends on what happens about climate change - my guess being not much once peak oil seriously hits.

The timing for gas to get expensive varies depending on who you listen to and what assumptions you make. The general notion though is that gas in 2030 will be roughly where oil is now in terms of its depletion and production profile - at or very near the peak. However, with higher demand (vehicles etc converted to use it) the point where demand exceeds supply ought to come sooner than that. Either way it's well within the 30+ year lifespan of a new power station so it's now as far as proper planning is concerned.

So I'd say in the short term use anything other than oil. As for the long term, don't build any more gas-fired plants for baseload unless it's for a temporary use (eg a mine with a limited life and no real power alternative). To keep building them commits us to a rather large problem whenever gas does peak - these plants are virtually impossible to convert to any other fuel, much harder than the oil-fired plants of the 70's were (and they still did more than enough economic damage).

So, in short, it's nuclear, coal and renewables. The most attractive renewables being geothermal, solar thermal and large scale hydro (critical due to storage and the ability to precisely control output). Any other renewable is limited to a moderate contribution for technical and/or economic reasons although wind is nonetheless attractive since it's cheap.

As for exporting it, no but yes. Exporting actual electricity is problematic due to transmission losses. We don't link, say, Perth and Adelaide for that reason alone. So running cables under the ocean doesn't really work in terms of the distances that would be required.

But there's another way and we're already doing it to some extent.

Tasmania took it further than just about anywhere (a consequence of the state's relative lack of other resources and geographic isolation), to the point that 20th Century Tasmanian economics, state development and politics can be largely condensed to two words - "hydro-industrialisation".

It was a pretty simple strategy. Develop power, power and more power. Bring in raw materials from wherever, apply that power to energy-intensive processing, then export whatever product was produced. To this day, the resultant activity still accounts for about two thirds of the state's exports.

New Zealand, South America, Canada all have done much the same (also with hydro power). To a lesser extent Victoria and NSW have done it with coal-fired power although never to the extent of becoming the state's major means of economic development (though Victoria sure did try pretty hard to make it that way for a while).

So yes, you can export electricity but not directly. Regardless of the source of generation, if you wanted to export electricity from Australia then simply building a few big smelters and ending the eport of unprocessed ores would be the easy way. Be warned that it's a political minefield though...


----------



## nioka

I've done sums on trading my 6cyl Toyota in on a prius. (my sister was driving a new one last week)Even if fuel was priced at $2.50 per litre it would take me 10 years doing 30,000 per year to recover the outlay now. Not good economics. Apart from the fact that I would have a smaller, less comfortable car. My current car has only done 34,000 km so I don't need a new one anyway.There will be many in the same situation.
Our other vehicle, a 4wd holden Rodeo will last another 10 years yet. I am considering home made biodiesel for it. That will have to be my contribution to the peak oil problem.

As far as alternative power sources go I doubt if wave and tidal power has been given enough thought. There is a much more consistant power there to be harnessed than with wind. There was a proposal to construct a tidal power plant in the Clarence River. I believe it has been scuttled by the greens, the nimbys and the professional fishermen.


----------



## 2020hindsight

1. I notice Graeme Samuel going into bat for Fuelwatch.   Certainly it appears to be the only thing that gives John Citizen a fighting chance here - knowledge can only be strength surely. 

2. The way the opposition talk, Rudd promised to keep fuel prices down, - I would have said Fuel watch will try to minimise it, and that goes for whether or not market prices are heading up down or sideways. 

3. As Rudd says, there are 3 opinions now in the coalition - a) 5c discount,  b) which incidentally Turnbull says he wouldn't guarantee to bring in if he came to power c) now 10c discount .  

4. The use of petrol is reducing as the price goes up - people are turning to public transport and/or less use of their SUV's whatever - it is not , as the coaltion claim, a fixed market usage - it will react to price. 

5. I think Malcolm Turnbull had it right when he sent the first email to Brendan Nelson that it would be a mistake to reduce the excise - and in being forced to follow the wimpish populist message of Nelson, he has been seriously discounted as a credible voice.   He admitted it was "a good political decision" , but refused to answer that it would be "a good economic decision" -   sadly he suffers because of Nelson's foolishness on the fuel situation. 
- imo 


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/19/2279902.htm



> Motorists 'playing poker' with petrol prices
> Posted 7 hours 52 minutes ago
> Updated 2 hours 55 minutes ago
> 
> The competition watchdog says motorists are playing poker with oil companies until FuelWatch is introduced.
> 
> Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) chairman Graeme Samuel says oil companies use a price monitoring service called Informed Sources to make sure they do not over-discount.
> 
> Mr Samuel says the difference between the lowest and highest fuel price in Sydney today is 20 cents.
> 
> But he says without FuelWatch, motorists will not know where the cheapest prices are.
> 
> Mr Samuel says the *price monitoring carried out by oil companies and retailers borders on being illegal.*
> 
> He says the major petrol retailers, Coles and Woolworths have up to the minute information on each other's prices, which they use to avoid discounting their prices.
> 
> *Mr Samuel told a business gathering FuelWatch will transfer this power of knowledge to motorists*.  etc






> He says FuelWatch could save motorists more than 20 cents a litre by ending retailer collaboration


----------



## roland

Invest in wind power - BBW specifically so I can get more dividends


----------



## CAB SAV

The Pollies are wrapped. They have us working/debating with them on how to save 5 or 10c a litre on fuel, hybrids, improved public transport etc.
Google electric cars and get one from overseas from $3,000aus. You certainly could do it, but guess what, Feds told me it would not pass Aussie safety test & would not be able to be registered. Worried about my safety, Sure, I'll just go and get a 1000cc motor bike.
End of the day it's all about money. Not much tax off a small electric car that costs 80c a week to charge.
The pressure is off them whilst we still persist in debating minor changes to cost of fuel rather than total change from 19th century combustion engine technology.
Again, It's all about money.


----------



## GREENS

I watched this interview with Richard Heinberg on the 7:30 Report tonight and I must say it was quite a good interview. Straight to the point and no hiding from the big questions. Definitely worth a watch if you didn’t see it. 

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2280200.htm


----------



## gfresh

I also would recommend the above interview, although for most that are following oil - maybe these things are already familiar. 

China has just lopped off it's discount, in effect raising their fuel prices by 8%. This has just bought the price of oil down over night by a few percent, but whether it will continue to exert downward pressure on oil, time will tell.  

I think any cut in excise would be pointless (especially a nominal 5c), it would very soon be lost "in the wash", and then the public would be crying for further cuts. Here in QLD we have an 8c/L discount over the other states, and I can't say we're all running skipping around guzzling petrol  because we are saving that amount right now. I do a reasonable amount of  km (20k a year), and I know 5c/L would save me a whole $3 a week  That's not even a can of coke these days.  The Libs doing a song and dance about how they're going to save "hard working families" with this scheme really doesn't impress me too much. 

While fuel watch gets bashed by the media, and the public it seems - it never seemed like a terrible idea to me by having a lot more transparency. Even if did remove this "discounting" - it would probably also get rid of this ridiculous price cycle, and going towards a flatter price would no doubt even out to a price somewhere between the lowest and highest prices we currently experience each week. Fine by me. 

Apparently, friends tell me, Australia is the only country with this massive cycle - is this true?

I am sick of "accidentally" running out of fuel on tuesday night, or wednesday morning, and having to que for petrol! I feel like I am in the third world.


----------



## Timmy

CAB SAV said:


> Google electric cars and get one from overseas from $3,000aus. You certainly could do it, but guess what, Feds told me it would not pass Aussie safety test & would not be able to be registered. Worried about my safety, Sure, I'll just go and get a 1000cc motor bike.





That is so funny!


----------



## Aussiejeff

The much vaunted "FuelWatch" scheme might be ok for city dwellers who perhaps have a choice of maybe 50 service stations within a 5km radius of their home.

However, the scheme is a total joke when applied to rural situations. Just how many servos do cityfolk and pollies think are scattered around within easy driving distance in rural regions? Even major centres like Wodonga and Albury only have a smattering of servos that you have to drive km's to get to, let alone smaller rural towns and villages.

To anyone living in rural (or some might say REAL) Australia, the notion of FuelWatch being a huge boon to us is a mere fantasy....

In fact, look at the Kimberley in WA - home of the Great FuelWatch Scheme. There are only 18 servos in the WHOLE Kimberley region listed for diesel (Price range $1.97c - $2.07). Would YOU drive 1,000km to save 10c litre??????  



AJ


----------



## 2020hindsight

Aussiejeff said:


> 1. The much vaunted "FuelWatch" scheme might be ok for city dwellers who perhaps have a choice of maybe 50 service stations within a 5km radius of their home.
> 
> 2. However, the scheme is a total joke when applied to rural situations. Just how many servos do cityfolk and pollies think are scattered around within easy driving distance in rural regions?
> 
> 3. Would YOU drive 1,000km to save 10c litre??????




1. 50 stations within 5km ? - I reckon you'd be pretty close with that guess.

2. agree - probably shouldn't apply in the bush.  Then again, would it do any harm to force them to publish prices in advance?   

3. mate! - 10cents is 10cents!!  - you watch the cents and the dollars look after themselves as my Irish Grandmother used to say 

(PS you'll have to get a small tanker-trailer to drag behind your pushbike, and go fetch the petrol with that)


----------



## Smurf1976

nioka said:


> There was a proposal to construct a tidal power plant in the Clarence River. I believe it has been scuttled by the greens, the nimbys and the professional fishermen.



A point I've made many times here and elsewhere. Try and develop ANY power source that (1) actually provides a real alternative rather than a small supplement and (2) isn't oil or gas and the greens etc will do everything possible to stop you. 

Hence my point that society doesn't want to do anything hard in terms of energy - and the only "easy" options are burning oil and gas, something that's totally unsustainable.


----------



## jonojpsg

Having just watched The Crash Course recommended elsewhere on ASF, I have to get some more discussion going on this topic.

Surely if we have reached peak oil which according to the graph shown 

http://www.chrismartenson.com/peak_oil

we have been at for the last four years or so, then POO is going to simply continue its march upwards is it not?  There is no way that anything else can be introduced quickly to replace it, apart from gas which will have to have a peak as well.  As demand starts to exceed supply, price will increase.

Where does that leave us?  I can't see our government doing ANYTHING about peak oil.

Is anybody out there thinking about what they will do in the case of a severe crisis?  

A critical point Chris Martenson makes too is that once demand exceeds supply, exporting countries will start to rein in their willingness to export, especially those whose own domestic demand is growing.  He gives the example of Mexico, who will run out of export capacity by 2011-12 which will take out the 3rd ranked US supplier!!!!!  Where are they going to get another Mexico from?

As Australia uses much more than we produce, I think we may be in for some serious issues.  Our major suppliers are UAE, Malaysia, Vietnam and PNG, and having just looked at their situations, the middle two are unlikely to have any oil to give us by 2011-12 either.  Obviously UAE may well be able to cover these but given that many other countries closer to UAE will be in similar situations to us, I think we may be low down on the list of priorities.

So what are we going to do?  I think the Federal government need to look very carefully at this - I will be interested to see what comes of their energy security analysis that is currently underway but I fear it may be too little too late.  I for one am going to look at the possibility of changing my car over to natural gas shortly as we have plenty of that.

Anyway, looking forward to some feedback, comment, discussion, etc.


----------



## J.B.Nimble

jonojpsg said:


> I for one am going to look at the possibility of changing my car over to natural gas shortly as we have plenty of that.




Yes - might make sense in Australia but there are plenty of parts of the world in trouble for gas already - check the US for instance - already appears to have peaked. With Canada just going over the brink and Mexico maybe not far behind there is some real pain ahead stateside... No prospect of LNG infrastructure being developed quick enough to rescue them. The crisis is now - pity POO of has eased becasue it lulls too many in to false sense of security. When will people understand the meaning of finite...


----------



## Smurf1976

jonojpsg said:


> Where does that leave us?  I can't see our government doing ANYTHING about peak oil.
> 
> Is anybody out there thinking about what they will do in the case of a severe crisis?



The great tragedy is that government WAS doing something 25 - 30 years ago. Then we stopped...

The old state energy authorities, particularly the HEC (Tas) and SECWA (WA) were very well aware of the situation 30 years ago and were taking action. 

The HEC always had as its underlying basis for existence an understanding that oil wouldn't be around forever. Meanwhile the SECWA was noted internationally at the time for it's exceptionally speedy response to the situation. 

The ETSA (SA) knew all about gas depletion 25 years ago too. And they took action.

The trouble since then is twofold. Firstly we stopped taking action as public concern about the alternatives (hydro, coal) trumped the little understood reasons for building them in the first place. The biggest environmental battle in Australian history was ultimately sparked by Tasmania's plan to shift away from oil by building more hydro dams.

Then we got rid of the entire notion of energy planning in favour of whatever was cheapest at the time. With the exception of Tasmania and the NT, the old energy authorities don't even exist today, having been replaced by state or privately owned companies "competing" amongst themselves for business by the cheapest means available _today_.

The Australian Government understood it pretty well in the late 1970's too. We did actually have a national plan to transition away from oil at that point. That too was lost in the political process, partly due to the environmental debate in Tasmania and then due to the temporary loss of OPEC's pricing power in the mid-1980's. By the 1990's it had totally gone and "deregulation" and "competition" were the mantras of the day.

So that brings us to 2008 less prepared than we were 30 years earlier. 

As for the overall situation, oil and gas are limited resources relative to present consumption. Oil is the worst, but gas is also pretty limited - it's a short term solution at best, and one that seems likely to be largely squandered in the form of baseload electricity with most of the rest being exported. 

In my opinion we'll wake up only when faced with outright crisis just as we did with water. Then we'll endure years of fuel and power restrictions, again as with water. The difference this time is that fuel and power restrictions will outright kill the economy, thus killing our ability to invest in solutions. 

If I had to guess now then I'd say that whatever we do in terms of big infrastructure it will come about as an economic and security strategy just as Tasmania's dams and Victoria's brown coal came out of World War 1 and the  Great Depression. I hope not, but I fear that we'll again be taking action only after a comparable crisis.


----------



## CAB SAV

When oil gets under $100 barrel, like to see our govt. buy 500 mill barrels for storage/resale. Better return than investing in future fund.


----------



## rederob

CAB SAV said:


> When oil gets under $100 barrel, like to see our govt. buy 500 mill barrels for storage/resale. Better return than investing in future fund.



That's twice the size of the US SPR, so it will never happen.
In fact, the dilemma faced by all importing nations is that each time they try to replenish their reserves, they force up the price of oil; because there is no spare oil sloshing around for sale.
Fortunately the global recession that is poking around for now will keep the lid on demand, and allow a semblance of "oil balance" for the time being.
If there are any peak oil disbelievers out there they will have to be wondering why oil has not crashed back to sub$80 levels by now.


----------



## CanOz

I think some governments know too well what is going on with oil and they are planning more aggressive ways to take oil resources. 

I've been thinking allot about this since doing the Crash Course, and i can't think of anything other than when we move back to Western society we will need to become as self sufficient as possible. 

Find a rock...its not going to be pretty.

Marc Faber had a very good summary in his Boom, Doom and Gloom Report of how commodity price rises always end in tears....i think he we seeing something much more forward than most of our governments.

Cheers,


CanOz


----------



## IFocus

Smurf1976 said:


> The great tragedy is that government WAS doing something 25 - 30 years ago. Then we stopped...
> 
> The old state energy authorities, particularly the HEC (Tas) and *SECWA (WA)* were very well aware of the situation 30 years ago and were taking action.
> 
> The HEC always had as its underlying basis for existence an understanding that oil wouldn't be around forever. Meanwhile the SECWA was noted internationally at the time for it's exceptionally speedy response to the situation.




Yes I worked for SECWA in the early 80's in remote power stations, remember I dropped into Meekathara on my way through to Wiluna to checkout the German designed solar power station at the time, a nice bit of engineering.

Pity they never progressed


----------



## jonojpsg

I think we just have to go all out for major solar arrays linked to H2 production.  The Crash Course points out that H2 is basically a storage option and not a viable energy source as such but he also points out that solar gives quite a good surplus energy return, and that in tandem with H2 production would put us in a good position.

Tas Uni has a dedicated section of the engineering school committed to H2 vehicle research which have made good progress with limited resources in only a few years.  If we get stuck into it, we could change over reasonably quickly.

Maybe I'll email a minister and see what they say


----------



## Smurf1976

jonojpsg said:


> Tas Uni has a dedicated section of the engineering school committed to H2 vehicle research which have made good progress with limited resources in only a few years.  If we get stuck into it, we could change over reasonably quickly.



The University of Tasmania (UTas) / Hydro-Electric Corporation (Hydro Tasmania) research effort has achieved quite a lot with very limited funding.

It was established 4 years ago, achievements to date include:

World first hydrogen diesel engine

World first intelligent vehicle stability control system (not specifically hydrogen related) 

Smart engine management system for hydrogen and petrol dual-fuel injection vehicles.

Now, if a small team in Tassie with very limited funds can actually get things like this up and running (they've already put a hydrogen car in a 2000km rally) then imagine what could be achieved with the far greater financial resources available in the other states, nationally or internationally. More here  http://www.hydro.com.au/handson/students/hydrogen/unih2car.htm

Another Tassie one is the King Island wind / battery system which takes the level of wind power far above what can normally be achieved in percentage terms. That's a separate Hydro project and not part of the Utas research effort.

So a lot of technology has been demonstrated and it works. The challenge now is to do something with it on a larger scale.


----------



## Happy

jonojpsg said:


> I think we just have to go all out for major solar arrays linked to H2 production.  The Crash Course points out that H2 is basically a storage option and not a viable energy source as such but he also points out that solar gives quite a good surplus energy return, and that in tandem with H2 production would put us in a good position.




Scale at which this system would have to be developed just makes me little bit pessimistic if it can be done in time.

In a meantime we burn so much fuel on: Daytona, Nascar, Grand prix, Bathurst and on and on, what a waist.


----------



## jonojpsg

Just emailed Martin Ferguson and David Johnstone - will let you know what response I get.


----------



## CanOz

Happy said:


> Scale at which this system would have to be developed just makes me little bit pessimistic if it can be done in time.
> 
> In a meantime we burn so much fuel on: Daytona, Nascar, Grand prix, Bathurst and on and on, what a waist.




I reckon one 777 taking off would pretty much take care of the fuel burned at the Clipsal 500...but yes its a waste.

Cheers,


CanOz


----------



## nioka

Where is the Peak Oil debate today. Has the crisis in the world economy changed the attitude to peak oil. The oil price drop will keep the thoughts off oil production unless the production is reduced to keep the price high.
 There was a lot of concern weeks ago and there has probably been a fall in the known world oil supply since then. Can we go back to the V8?, can we stop thinking alternative fuels?. Maybe the price has dropped because we are moving away from the use of oil ?.


----------



## CapnBirdseye

I think it's more of a matter of when, instead of if, oil production will be reduced to restore oil to the $100 mark.

When we reach some level or stability, wherever and whatever that is.


----------



## derty

Calculation of the Peak is based on consumption vs supply, naturally if you reduce consumption you will push the peak further into the future. Though as oil is a finite resource we will encounter peak oil one day. 

With the reduction of the price of oil and the resultant reduction in the fear of oil dependence it will be interesting to see if the push for alternate energy sources continues. Or will we just be back in the same place whenever we come close to the peak again?


----------



## xyzedarteerf

after watching the sort of projects that keep popping out of this place, makes it pretty clear that there NO such thing as oil running out. 



under construction in Dubai, Hydropolis will be the world's first luxury underwater hotel.






It's the latest word in Gulf excess - a sprawling £800million resort boasting a £13,000-a-night suite and dolphins flown in from the South Pacific, all atop a palm tree-shaped island.





and oh yeah there seems to be no such problems here that exist in some parts in this side of the world. must be an understanding   RIGHT.


----------



## mayk

I guess Dubai knows the importance of oil, the construction cost will go through the roof without oil, and any country with significant developed infrastructure will be able to sustain well in 30-40 years time?


----------



## Tysonboss1

xyzedarteerf said:


> after watching the sort of projects that keep popping out of this place, makes it pretty clear that there NO such thing as oil running out.
> 
> 
> 
> under construction in Dubai, Hydropolis will be the world's first luxury underwater hotel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the latest word in Gulf excess - a sprawling £800million resort boasting a £13,000-a-night suite and dolphins flown in from the South Pacific, all atop a palm tree-shaped island.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and oh yeah there seems to be no such problems here that exist in some parts in this side of the world. must be an understanding   RIGHT.




I don't think dubai is an oil producer,.... not much oil any way.


----------



## derty

I think Dubai knows the oil won't last forever and is setting itself up as a business and banking services centre. A bit like a middle eastern Singapore.


----------



## kitehigh

The Dubai ruling family have been forward thinkers for awhile now, they realized long ago that once their oil drys up they will have to have an alternative.  I think from memory they have about 15 years worth of oil supply at current production rates. 
Oil revenue now makes up less than 10% of their GDP.  So they have managed to diversify away from oil to a large extent.  Abu Dhabi has also decided to embark on massive infrastructure building spree although they have decades worth of oil supply


----------



## Smurf1976

nioka said:


> Maybe the price has dropped because we are moving away from the use of oil ?.



Current thinking is that we're moving away from economy. That is, we'll have less economy in the near future than we have now (commonly known as recession). And since virtually all economic activity involves oil in some way, that means we'll need less oil.

As long as we can keep any growth in the economy below the rate of growth in the oil supply then that should keep the price down. That does, however, mean that we need to sustain negative economic growth on an ongoing basis once oil production peaks unless / until we actually put altertnatives into mainstream use.


----------



## kgee

My guess is there's a lot more out there....it's so difficult to decipher between fact fiction and fantasy when it comes to energy supply
bottom line oil/gas is still cheap
and there is still lots of room for exploration...I went to a halliburton conference last year and they stated in the US. they still drill nearly 500 exploration holes to 1 Australian
I might still be very old school but I still believe oil/gas , emphasis on gas (because no one has wanted it in the past) and uranium are still the safe bets till a better alterntive can be found


----------



## chops_a_must

kgee said:


> bottom line oil/gas is still cheap



No it's certainly not!

It's historically at incredibly high levels.

The fact we are heading towards the biggest slow down since the depression, and oil isn't heading towards 20 bucks, ought to tell you something...


----------



## Knobby22

The other point is that the explorers will have little money to look, further increasing the shortage of oil.


----------



## jonojpsg

Let's clear up some misunderstandings here.

1.  Peak oil has nothing to do with supply/demand.  Peak oil is basically when the ability of the world's producers to produce oil hits its peak.  This is largely a function of oil discoveries and development and has been shown to closely mirror the discovery vs production curves for individual countries and fields.

Almost every country that has reached its peak production rate was approximately 40 years after the peak discovery rate - the worlds peak discovery was around 1965 and data shows that peak crude oil production was 2005.

2.  There is relatively little oil left to discover.  As pointed out above, peak world oil discoveries were in 1965 and there has been little joy since in finding any super fields (>20bn barrels).

Obviously demand will have an impact on how much oil needs to be produced and therefore the price, but not on how much can be produced or how much can be discovered.


----------



## basilio

*Peak Oil is now. What do  we do about it ..*

Some  forum members have discussed the implications of a permanent decline in oil supplies. In the wider picture  oil is the life blood of our current economy. In a nutshell - no blood no economy (and of course a bloody sick stock market.)

A number of oil experts  have  analyzed the depletion rate of the major  world oil fields. I have attached a news report which overviews their findings. 




> Nine percent
> by Richard Heinberg
> 
> The Financial Times has leaked the results of the International Energy Agency's long-awaited study of the *depletion profiles of the world's 400 largest oilfields, indicating that, "Without extra investment to raise production, the natural annual rate of output decline is 9.1 per cent*."
> 
> This is a stunning figure.
> 
> Considering regular crude oil only, t*his means that 6.825 million barrels a day of new production capacity must come on line each year just to keep up with the aggregate natural decline rate in existing oilfields. That's a new Saudi Arabia every 18 months.*
> 
> The Financial Times story goes on:
> 
> The findings suggest the world will struggle to produce enough oil to make up for steep declines in existing fields, such as those in the North Sea, Russia and Alaska, and meet long-term demand. The effort will become even more acute as [oil] prices fall and investment decisions are delayed.
> 
> This is putting it mildly. Investment capital is being vaporized almost daily in a global deflationary bonfire of unprecedented ferocity. Oil production projects are being mothballed left and right.
> 
> Inter alia, the IEA takes the requisite swat at "peak oil theorists," who, the agency somehow still believes, are saying that the world is "running out of oil." Of course that's NOT what peak oil theorists say, but a correct summation of their position would have to be followed with a statement to the effect that, "Our research supports their position," which would be just too embarrassing.
> 
> Sadly, the IEA feels it must pull its punch even further. With adequate investment in new small oilfields and unconventional sources like tarsands, it insists, the world can still achieve higher levels of production. In other words, if the $12 trillion that vanished from the world stock markets last week were invested in new tarsands projects, then theoretically a few more years of total oil production growth could be eked out (not growth in net energy production, mind you, but in the gross—and I do mean gross—production of exotic, very expensive stuff that it's physically possible to run your car on, assuming you could afford to do so).
> 
> Of course, any realistic assessment either of the likelihood of that level of investment appearing, or of the ability of new projects to really produce a sufficient rate of flow regardless of the size of the cash infusion, would end merely in a hearty belly-laugh.
> 
> Evidently peeved about being scooped on its planned November 12 press conference roll-out of the study, the IEA has disavowed the Financial Times story. But if nine percent is even close to being the final figure, then it's absolutely clear: July 2008 was the all-time peak in world oil production. Don't expect anyone at the IEA to officially admit that fact until 2025 or so. But among those who pay attention to the evidence and the terms of the debate, further ink need not be spilled in speculation.
> 
> Peak oil is history.



Source http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47041


*Where do we go from here?*


----------



## jonojpsg

*9%*

Where do we go from here indeed??  I hope this thread can pick up some comments from the more seasoned posters who have been around longer than me and might have an eye for prognosticating about these sorts of things.  I mean we have threads like imminent and severe market correction and house prices to keep falling for years, but it would be great to see a range of posters giving this one some serious thought, please??

FWIW I think any companies that do have oil reserves and potential to find more are obvious picks, eg OSH, BHP, WPL, and some of the smaller players that we love to post on too, CVN, NDO, AWE etc.

Also companies that are looking at alternative *liquid* fuels, eg ARW, liquid being the important thing here.  

I still reckon there's got to be potential in setting up a renewable energy station using say those wave turbines (can't think of the company) or solar arrays or wind linked to H2 production facility.

Anyway, looking forward to hearing more.


----------



## basilio

Thanks for the feedback jono. I was stunned at this report this morning. The Peak Oil commentators have been discussing models which suggest a plateauing of oil supplies or a gentler decline. Disastrous but perhaps salvageable.

A 9% decline in production if remotely true is ...... very, very hard to get ones head around. 

Possible solutions? Total international focus on conservation of current resources and urgent prioritization of development of renewable energy infrastructure. In the short term we can chase more coal and probably coal to oil projects but even these will fail in the foreseeable future. We simply have to restructure our society to live on the current energy sources rather than historic stocks.

Alternatively we just have a big party.

FYI I have attached a reference which sums up the issue excellently and directs the reader to some of the best material on the web.

http://www.energybulletin.net/primer


----------



## awg

viewed a very interesting doco on Peak Oil some time back. (ABC or SBS)

The most interesting point i took out of it was that oil is ONLY found in areas of very specific geological conditions.

cant remember exactly what they were, but there had to be ancient vegetation, then trapped within a basin of a certain geological type and certain depth.

basically without the prerequisite conditions, there is NO oil

which makes sense, because it is the same with any other mineral deposit, you dont find economic, mineable deposits of iron or uranium etc just anywhere.

Oil and Geology experts are well aware of this.

the various experts they trotted out said that it was highly unlikely that any further major oil discoveries will be made


----------



## rederob

basilio said:


> A 9% decline in production if remotely true is ...... very, very hard to get ones head around.



It's unlikely to be true.
Jeffrey Brown's Export Land Model uses an average annual decline rate of 5% - based on some actual (representative) data - however considerable variations exist field to field.
Cantrell, for example, is a supergiant and has declined about 35% year on year.
What is evident is that pressurised extraction accelerates rates of decline.
The Saudis are pumping in millions of barrels of seawater into their fields, so when Ghawar peaks, the world will go into meltdown again.
Matt Simmons has many recent powerpoint presentations that graph dozens of oil fields and their rates of output: You will see from them that even the Hubbert "bell" is a simplistic representation of realities.  Fields can have multiple peaks years apart.  This is probably the case with Ghawar now.  However, the charts suggest the multiple peaks are artificially induced, and rates of decline thereafter are likely to be quicker than average.

Changing tack a little, I was just reading a Saudi statement from 2005 suggesting they would be producing oil at 12.5 million barrels per day in 2009. Thus far the Saudis have not achieved 10mbpd, although they suggest excess capacity could give another 2mbpd.

Another recently opened thread stated that oil experts reckoned oil would not peak until 2030.  "Real" oil experts reckon oil will peak before 2015.  The IEA has had a 2030 target for at least 4 years that I can recall, and CERA once put 2035 into the picture.

Getting back to some basic facts: First, there is plenty of oil and it won't deplete for a long time to come.  Secondly, there is overwhelming evidence that demand will outstrip supply very quickly after the present global malaise has ended.  We experienced a brief bout of this shortfall in the months to July this year, and were ultimately saved by Wall Street's catastrophic spillover to global markets.  Thirdly, demand destruction is apparent with prices over $140, suggesting that oil's peak could drag out for several years.


----------



## ducati916

*rederob*



> Getting back to some basic facts: First, there is plenty of oil and it won't deplete for a long time to come. *Secondly, there is overwhelming evidence that demand will outstrip supply very quickly after the present global malaise has ended.* We experienced a brief bout of this shortfall in the months to July this year, and were ultimately saved by Wall Street's catastrophic spillover to global markets. Thirdly, demand destruction is apparent with prices over $140, suggesting that oil's peak could drag out for several years.





While I subscribe to "Peak Oil" and the evidence is strong that the process is already well underway. I do not necessarily agree with the highlighted statement.

Possibly, if "nothing" changed, which is certainly an option, as previous oil shocks certainly changed little. However, if DEMAND did in point of fact modify via;

*Increased [return] to nuclear fuels [French model]
*Electric cars become economically viable for the mass consumer
*Alternate energy becomes viable [solar, tidal, wind]
*Oil substitute [NZ has manufactured oil from sewage I believe]
*New technology as yet unidentified
*Other

Should demand thus fall away, then peak oil would become simply unimportant economically. 

jog on
duc


----------



## Aussiejeff

ducati916 said:


> *rederob*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I subscribe to "Peak Oil" and the evidence is strong that the process is already well underway. I do not necessarily agree with the highlighted statement.
> 
> Possibly, if "nothing" changed, which is certainly an option, as previous oil shocks certainly changed little. However, if DEMAND did in point of fact modify via;
> 
> *Increased [return] to nuclear fuels [French model]
> *Electric cars become economically viable for the mass consumer
> *Alternate energy becomes viable [solar, tidal, wind]
> *Oil substitute [NZ has manufactured oil from sewage I believe]
> *New technology as yet unidentified
> *Other
> 
> *Should demand thus fall away, then peak oil would become simply unimportant economically*.
> 
> jog on
> duc




Hmmm. I have a couple of questions that might impact that last statement of yours, duc.

(1) Don't the Filthy Rich Gulf States own half the planet through their cursed luck in squatting over the world's largest oil reserves?

(2) If demand for oil declines as you suggest, won't the Once Filthy Rich Gulf States effectively go broke?

(3) If the Once Filthy Rich Gulf States that saved our a$$e$ during this recent World Financial Crisis go broke, won't that affect the World Economy? Surely the planet owes the canny Sheiks a few $USTrillion if THEY in turn start to go down the gurgler, cap in hand?

(4) Given the possibility of the above 3 points, then, wouldn't that be an IMPORTANT global economic impact? 

Hmmmm.....



aj


----------



## rederob

ducati916 said:


> Should demand thus fall away, then peak oil would become simply unimportant economically.



ducati
I am close to agreeing, but for one likely issue.
The increase in demand combined with the decrease in oil output is unlikely to match the rate of substitution after oil has peaked.
I think that many years after peak oil the race to substitution will win over and then agree that peak oil will no longer pose a major economic problem.
In the meantime, don't forget that almost everywhere you look you are seeing something that requires oil to make it or move it - in whole or part.


----------



## ducati916

rederob said:


> ducati
> I am close to agreeing, but for one likely issue.
> The increase in demand combined with the decrease in oil output is unlikely to match the rate of substitution after oil has peaked.
> I think that many years after peak oil the race to substitution will win over and then agree that peak oil will no longer pose a major economic problem.
> In the meantime, don't forget that almost everywhere you look you are seeing something that requires oil to make it or move it - in whole or part.





The timefactor, I agree will be the critical variable in the substitution factor. This is where the "price" of oil should balance the transition.

Should "demand" growth outstrip the ability to produce without accelerating the declines, then price should rise, thus moderating demand. The data support that Saudi Arabia & Russia pretty much produced at peak levels, there is no more slack in the system.

This does rather pre-suppose that governments allow price elasticity without attempting gross manipulation. By this I mean the huge levels of subsidy that many countries paid to maintain 'demand."

As we have seen, at a certain price, consumer demand collapses, which should see us through to a period where substitution becomes viable.

jog on
duc


----------



## Aussiejeff

ducati916 said:


> The timefactor, I agree will be the critical variable in the substitution factor. This is where the "price" of oil should balance the transition.
> 
> Should "demand" growth outstrip the ability to produce without accelerating the declines, then price should rise, thus moderating demand. The data support that Saudi Arabia & Russia pretty much produced at peak levels, there is no more slack in the system.
> 
> *This does rather pre-suppose that governments allow price elasticity without attempting gross manipulation. By this I mean the huge levels of subsidy that many countries paid to maintain 'demand."*
> 
> As we have seen, at a certain price, consumer demand collapses, which should see us through to a period where substitution becomes viable.
> 
> jog on
> duc




..of course, Guv-Mint$ never grossly interfered or manipulated the world's "free markets" during the recent World Financial Crisis did they?

Unlike some uber-optimists (and having experienced the pathetic shenanigans of an endless stream of incompetent politicians from all sides of politics for the last 39 years of my voting life), I have ABSOLUTELY ZERO faith that so-called "free market economics" will EVER return to this planet. 

Now that Guv-Mint$ (some might even call the collective term "Big Brother") have been able to "flex their muscles" as it were and buy up huge chunks of the world's "free" markets (using hapless voter's debt), they will NEVER relinquish their new-found control. Of that, I AM certain.  



aj


----------



## ducati916

AJ,

It is precisely due to their interventions in the recent financial crisis that government may well be unwilling, or _unable_, to further "influence" price elasticity.

jog on
duc


----------



## rederob

ducati916 said:


> As we have seen, at a certain price, consumer demand collapses, which should see us through to a period where substitution becomes viable.



It's not just the matter of being "viable", it's important that it be time-credible.
For example, imagine the time, effort and resources involved in electrifying all forms of transportation.  Or if it's not electrification, what alternative fuel would otherwise drive the half billion (and more) vehicles on the road, let alone ships and planes!
I actually envisage the end of cheap oil as the greatest opportunity for global advancement this century.  It will mean wholesale changes to how we all go about our daily business, and I suspect will involve "renewables" to an extent that brings smiles to all greenies.
From an "industrial" perspective it might dawn a new age.


----------



## nick2fish

rederob said:


> From an "industrial" perspective it might dawn a new age.




Exactly...but its not going to happen with oil @$60 a barrel caused by a dysfunctional commodity trading market. Oil is a finite resource and with the average strike taking 2-3 years to come on line we are running up a very slippery slope


----------



## jonojpsg

ducati916 said:


> *rederob*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I subscribe to "Peak Oil" and the evidence is strong that the process is already well underway. I do not necessarily agree with the highlighted statement.
> 
> Possibly, if "nothing" changed, which is certainly an option, as previous oil shocks certainly changed little. However, if DEMAND did in point of fact modify via;
> 
> *Increased [return] to nuclear fuels [French model]
> *Electric cars become economically viable for the mass consumer
> *Alternate energy becomes viable [solar, tidal, wind]
> *Oil substitute [NZ has manufactured oil from sewage I believe]
> *New technology as yet unidentified
> *Other
> 
> Should demand thus fall away, then peak oil would become simply unimportant economically.
> 
> jog on
> duc




ALternate energy in the form solar, wind, nuclear, can't replace oil.  The incredible advantage of oil is it's liquid form, making it easily transportable from the oil rich nations to the oil poor nations.  

If you think that the hundreds of millions of cars on the road at the moment are suddenly going to be ditched because electric cars become economically viable for the mass consumer methinks you are kidding yourself.  The average consumer is going to pay a *lot* more for petrol before they pay $30k to replace their perfectly useable vehicle.  Look at the differences in how much people are willing to pay across the world at the moment - US $1 per litre, Oz $1.50 per litre, Europe $2-$3 per litre.

Let's say you use 2500l a week.  To make economic sense to replace a $10k vehicle with one that costs $30k, one would have to anticipate a savings of $20k over some reasonable time span, eg 5 years say.  Which is $4k per year.

Even if petrol doubled to $2 per litre in the US (biggest market) you would still only be saving $2500 per year, and that's assuming using your electric car cost nothing.

As far as peak production is concerned, which is the basic premise of this thread and the concept of peak oil, if you look at EIA data for world crude production, peak rates have already been reached early in 2007.  There may be some tinkering around the edges and sure the big oil organisations are going to make bold statements about 2035, but for mine, I think we're there and have to think seriously about what to do about it.


----------



## ducati916

*jono*



> ALternate energy in the form solar, wind, nuclear, can't replace oil. The incredible advantage of oil is it's liquid form, making it easily transportable from the oil rich nations to the oil poor nations.




Agreed if we include the function of oil in the manufacture of plastics and 101 other applications.

However, as far as energy generation goes, incorrect. France has already done precisely this.




> If you think that the hundreds of millions of cars on the road at the moment are suddenly going to be ditched because electric cars become *economically viable for the mass consumer *methinks you are kidding yourself. The average consumer is going to pay a lot more for petrol before they pay $30k to replace their perfectly useable vehicle. Look at the differences in how much people are willing to pay across the world at the moment - US $1 per litre, Oz $1.50 per litre, Europe $2-$3 per litre.




You seem to have totally ignored the highlighted concept. If electric cars become economically viable for the mass consumer, then of course they will replace combustion based vehicles.

The correct questions are rather;

*Can electric cars become economically viable?
*In what timeframe?



> As far as peak production is concerned, which is the basic premise of this thread and the concept of peak oil, if you look at EIA data for world crude production, peak rates have already been reached early in 2007.




Which is what I postulated.

jog on
duc


----------



## aleckara

ducati916 said:


> *jono*
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed if we include the function of oil in the manufacture of plastics and 101 other applications.
> 
> However, as far as energy generation goes, incorrect. France has already done precisely this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have totally ignored the highlighted concept. If electric cars become economically viable for the mass consumer, then of course they will replace combustion based vehicles.
> 
> The correct questions are rather;
> 
> *Can electric cars become economically viable?
> *In what timeframe?
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what I postulated.
> 
> jog on
> duc




The real issue with electric cars is not whether they are viable or not. With the limited research into battery tech compared to the amounts invested in the engine I'm still seeing real progress made here.

No the real problem is whether the car makers have left it too late which I suspect they have. They have done it when they have been forced to do so and the trend of oil is becoming obvious - CEO's of major oil companies and oil companies are realising how hard it is to find oil and how OPEC has an increasingly major share in it.

While oil is getting to our hip pocket in terms of consumption and inflation people are less likely to replace their cars. They will make old assets last longer even if they are falling apart. People with money will buy them as an image statement but until the average person can afford them I don't see them making inroads into replacing the current vehicle fleet. And until they do I don't see them making a dent on oil.

Besides electric cars will only replace the petrol component of oil - leaving a glut of petrol on the market. Since all the other byproducts of oil will still be needed (same amount refined) the price of petrol would come down making petrol cars more competitive.


----------



## basilio

I recently posted an article which highlighted a far more rapid decline in oil production ( 9% a year)  than has ever been suggested by most peak oil theorists. 

There is reason for "terror" if this is even close to reality.

Up until the last few years oil supplies have always exceeded demand. The oil companies and OPEC  have basically kept the price at agreed levels by controlling supply. In particular Saudi Arabia saw itself as the swing producer who could add extra supplies relatively easily and also take them off the market.

There have been a few events over the last few years however that have caused many observers to wonder if the system as we knew it was still working.

1) A rapidly increasing demand for oil from China and India which has caused world demand to climb even more rapidly than expected

2) A noted rapid decline in large non OPEC oil supplies. In particular Norway, the North Sea oilfields and now the Mexican Cantrell field have  been showing  major declines in production.

3) *There has been no increase in Saudi Arabian production for 2 plus years * 

Think about the last statement carefully...Saudi Arabia is supposed to be the giant world oil producer. Whenever energy experts talk about where the new oil supplies will come from to fuel  American, European , Asian energy demands they say the saudis will increase production.

And yet as oil prices have doubled and trebled in the last couple of of years there has been no increase in production.  Why? If you believe Matt Simmons, and oil energy expert,  who has been examining world wide oil supplies closely its because *there is no further productive capacity available*. There goes the life blood of the west and the east...

The really nasty part however is in this report that has been leaked. Everyone in the industry is aware that oil fields rise peak and then decline. Everyone has recognised that most of the worlds oil fields are mature and probably ready to decline. *But I believe that until now very few people have realised how rapidly these fields are collapsing* 

Is there any other evidence for this suggestion? Consider  the production levels and profits of the major oil companies in the last quarter. Exxon reported an 8% drop in production, Chevron a 5.7% drop. And these were during times of peak prices.

There is another critical factor in the rapid decline of oil production which will amplify the impact on most countries. When oil supplies start to collapse the countries producing the oil *will supply the domestic market first.*. So when Mexico, Norway, et al start to see  a 10% and 20% reduction in production it means the exported oil will reduce by many times that figure. 

China for example was actually an oil exporter in the mid nineties. A decade later - HUGE industrialization and depletion of the oil fields has seen Chinese oil demand skyrocket and China become an large buyer of international oil.

Now thinking about developing alternatives. Sure its possible but these require immense new industrial infrastructures all of which require oil for the mining of raw materials, production of plant and establishment of infrastructure. Think of scores of new solar thermal power stations, wind farms, electric car plants...

And all this at a time when the the amount of oil able to be produced next year could be 9% less than now. 

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/45935 (Matt Simmons link)

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2008/10/31/peak-oil-are-oil-prices-destined-to-rise-again/


----------



## Aussiejeff

The RBA's own updated September 2008 research bulletin on Australian oil production and useage makes for a very interesting (and somewhat concerning) read.

http://www.rba.gov.au/PublicationsAndResearch/Bulletin/bu_sep08/oil_prices_aus_economy.html


----------



## Aussiejeff

Another thought provoking link.....

http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3657

I find it rather interesting that in 2007, 28% of our imported oil came from VIETNAM! 14% came from PNG and 13% from MALAYSIA. Only a tiny fraction (4.0%) came from SINGAPORE. Seems odd, then, that we base our prices on the Singapore crude benchmark! 

aj


----------



## steve80

Oil priced did peak and we should see comfortable landing around the $40.00


----------



## basilio

Hi  AussieJeff,

Thanks for the Oil Drum reference. It pulls together all the threads of this discussion and in particular

1) The rapid depletion of  oil from most of the worlds oil suppliers and* in particular t*he ones exporting oil to Australia.
2) The effect this will have on the oil exports from these countries to Australia.

It is very grim reading. I suggest forum members who (blithely) suggest everything will be alright take the trouble to read the analysis and reconsider. The facts are we are facing a diabolical situation and unless the government wakes up to it quickly and acts with authoritarian decisiveness we are completely stuffed. But to take this action it needs informed community opinion leaders who also recognize the situation and support such actions.

I suggest this website, this community and this forum and should be amongst those leaders


_
We all have a right to our opinion but not our own facts._

http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3657


----------



## Smurf1976

ducati916 said:


> However, as far as energy generation goes, incorrect. France has already done precisely this.



Not as far as I'm aware they haven't. 

France has about 80% nuclear electricity (10% hydro, 10% fossil fuels) but they are still cooking with gas, running cars on petrol / diesel, aircraft on kerosene and so on. All they've done is replace most of their fossil fuel power generation, and France did have a lot of oil-fired generation in the past, with nuclear power.

Closer to home, much the same in Tasmania. But I'll let you in on a little secret - even the Hydro's cars, trucks and planes are fuelled by oil. There's a reason for that and it's the same reason the French are still using plenty of oil.

*Practically all alternative energy sources are viable as a replacement for oil on a large scale ONLY if (1) the energy consumption takes place in the form of electricity (2) production and consumption are connected to a grid with centralised dispatch controlling the majority of generation. Without BOTH of those criteria being met, anything on a scale big enough to make a real difference falls in a heap technically, environmentally and/or financially.* 

Hence those with business to lose from alternative energy are perfectly happy, and will even encourage, all manner of "feel good" systems that produce small amounts of power at a cost too high and in a manner technically incapable of supplying the vast majority of system load. Such ideas make consumers feel good but arguably harm the environment and long term energy supply by diverting resources from far more productive approaches to the problem.


----------



## Naked shorts

steve80 said:


> Oil priced did peak and we should see comfortable landing around the $40.00




care to expand/elaborate?


----------



## nick2fish

steve80 said:


> Oil priced did peak and we should see comfortable landing around the $40.00




Yeah right ....Care to put your house on it ????????


----------



## nick2fish

Here is an analyst oblivious to almost everything except the sound of her own vocal cords. Oil @ $10-$30 barrel (maybe the 30  sorry Steve u win)http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=960474937


----------



## Naked shorts

nick2fish said:


> Here is an analyst oblivious to almost everything except the sound of her own vocal cords. Oil @ $10-$30 barrel (maybe the 30  sorry Steve u win)http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=960474937




It seems a bit stupid to predict oil to go that low. Has she forgotten the amount of cars in the world? or our reliance on plastic? Or that investment into alternatives has slowed?

When companies make suggestions like these, it often makes me wonder if they are saying it so all the idiots watching CNBC go out and sell oil (or hold off from buying it), so the company can buy it all up at a cheaper price


----------



## joeyr46

If you look at the last 5 years as being a mania not a real price increase (Not just oil but all commodities) then seeing the prices react back to 2003 levels or possibly earlier makes sense. Copper has a range for the last 80 years or so of between 55cents and $1.20 and then suddenly goes to $4.00 or so were would you expect it to go back to when the mania is over.
I guess it depends on whether it stays above $1.20 as things have changed or goes right back to it's normal range.
Only time will answer that but I would'nt be surprised to see prices back into their old range. Normally manias fully retrace or more than retrace the full extent of the rise.
If the price stays above $1.20 for Copper then deflation may not be so bad but if it goes below that then we may be in for more than a rough ride IMO


----------



## Naked shorts

joeyr46 said:


> If you look at the last 5 years as being a mania not a real price increase (Not just oil but all commodities) then seeing the prices react back to 2003 levels or possibly earlier makes sense. Copper has a range for the last 80 years or so of between 55cents and $1.20 and then suddenly goes to $4.00 or so were would you expect it to go back to when the mania is over.
> I guess it depends on whether it stays above $1.20 as things have changed or goes right back to it's normal range.
> Only time will answer that but I would'nt be surprised to see prices back into their old range. Normally manias fully retrace or more than retrace the full extent of the rise.
> If the price stays above $1.20 for Copper then deflation may not be so bad but if it goes below that then we may be in for more than a rough ride IMO




Are those figures adjusted for inflation?


----------



## gfresh

Pays to remember the long-term fundamentals and problems at times like these where the oil problem has "gone away" from the public consciousness. 

I found this a good reminder: 
http://www.financialsense.com/Market/allison/2008/1222.html

Oil has already dipped below $US30, albeit briefly..


----------



## jonojpsg

Great article gfresh!  I am reminded of WayneL's comment (i think) from the outliers thread where he pointed out that 1 USDoil contract is worth $1000 per dollar per barrel change!  Based on that, the recent fall could have made $100k per contract, and if you look forward, there is definitely potential to make the same going back the other way!  Nice trade if you get on to it


----------



## Sdajii

Considering peak oil is such a critical issue, and whether it happened 18 months ago or will happen in 1-5 years, most authorities seem to agree that peak oil is right about now, it seems strange we talk about this as little as we do. Whether we're just ahead of it or just behind it isn't really all that important in context of oil's 400 or so year timeframe of being a massive part of our energy picture - we're up around the top right now.

Potentially, within a few short years or even months (probably years) it'll be clear that we've passed peak oil, which could really cause some big movement. Will we see oil prices jump and supply dry up, causing starvation and economic crisis on unimaginable levels? Will a high oil price prompt the rapid development of alternative technologies which will in turn bring about a crash in oil prices and great prosperity? Alternatively, in 5-10 years will it become clear that in the middle east there is more oil than they've let anyone know about? I'm surprised that at this point in history, with the potential for imminent dramatic events, most people don't even know what "peak oil" is.


----------



## Agentm

Sdajii said:


> Considering peak oil is such a critical issue, and whether it happened 18 months ago or will happen in 1-5 years, most authorities seem to agree that peak oil is right about now, it seems strange we talk about this as little as we do. Whether we're just ahead of it or just behind it isn't really all that important in context of oil's 400 or so year timeframe of being a massive part of our energy picture - we're up around the top right now.
> 
> Potentially, within a few short years or even months (probably years) it'll be clear that we've passed peak oil, which could really cause some big movement. Will we see oil prices jump and supply dry up, causing starvation and economic crisis on unimaginable levels? Will a high oil price prompt the rapid development of alternative technologies which will in turn bring about a crash in oil prices and great prosperity? Alternatively, in 5-10 years will it become clear that in the middle east there is more oil than they've let anyone know about? I'm surprised that at this point in history, with the potential for imminent dramatic events, most people don't even know what "peak oil" is.





technology keeps getting better

 i know of technologies that are very clever, from the oil giants own research to clever engineers.

yes there is a requirement for these technologies to help with demand, and imho some of them will eventually lead to better than 10% extraction rates

early days, and i recall a long time ago being convinced of peak oil


----------



## Sdajii

Agentm said:


> technology keeps getting better
> 
> i know of technologies that are very clever, from the oil giants own research to clever engineers.
> 
> yes there is a requirement for these technologies to help with demand, and imho some of them will eventually lead to better than 10% extraction rates
> 
> early days, and i recall a long time ago being convinced of peak oil




So, I take it you think oil is going to last us indefinitely? (at least the next hundred years or more?)


----------



## Agentm

Sdajii said:


> So, I take it you think oil is going to last us indefinitely? (at least the next hundred years or more?)




i think the potential to extract the 90% that didnt get extracted is there

i see a lot of cash going into some very clever technology, and i follow that research with interest. i think there are ways of extracting not yet contemplated by the masses..  new technology..

lets just say i enjoy science fiction, but i also admire those who invest in things that a lot of folk would think is science fiction..

i think 100 years of oil is potentially just the tip of the ice berg


----------



## Smurf1976

Sdajii said:


> Considering peak oil is such a critical issue, and whether it happened 18 months ago or will happen in 1-5 years, most authorities seem to agree that peak oil is right about now, it seems strange we talk about this as little as we do. Whether we're just ahead of it or just behind it isn't really all that important in context of oil's 400 or so year timeframe of being a massive part of our energy picture - we're up around the top right now.
> 
> Potentially, within a few short years or even months (probably years) it'll be clear that we've passed peak oil, which could really cause some big movement. Will we see oil prices jump and supply dry up, causing starvation and economic crisis on unimaginable levels? Will a high oil price prompt the rapid development of alternative technologies which will in turn bring about a crash in oil prices and great prosperity? Alternatively, in 5-10 years will it become clear that in the middle east there is more oil than they've let anyone know about? I'm surprised that at this point in history, with the potential for imminent dramatic events, most people don't even know what "peak oil" is.



Totally agreed there. We're asleap at the wheel big time on this one.

But it's a reality that most genuinely serious events come as a complete surprise for most people. 

On 1st January 2000, very few would have expected the word "terrorism" to dominate the coming decade, just as now in 2010 very few are giving oil much thought.


----------



## Agentm

Smurf1976 said:


> Totally agreed there. We're asleap at the wheel big time on this one.
> 
> But it's a reality that most genuinely serious events come as a complete surprise for most people.
> 
> On 1st January 2000, very few would have expected the word "terrorism" to dominate the coming decade, just as now in 2010 very few are giving oil much thought.




uuummmm

peak oil was very 80's

like its not a very modern fear, its been touted for decades

i recall a peak oil sermon by a top commsec analyst at an oil conference, and post his huge peak oil tirade, the room was pretty subdued,  

anyway, the next speaker, a very well respected oil legend very eloquently and politely spoke on behalf of the room and politely told him that about  zero of what he just went on about was believed by any in the oil industry

lol

sorta like believing in the loch ness monster i guess..

anyway, some believe in it, and in ufo's

others see it in terms of economics and technology

early days in oil.. real early


----------



## brty

Agentm,



> peak oil was very 80's......its been touted for decades




Ever heard of the boy who cried 'Wolf', one day he was right. My recollection of the oil debate at the time was of oil running out in 30 years, not about peak production.



> zero of what he just went on about was believed by any in the oil industry




Yet many from the oil industry claim there is not much easy oil to be had, this includes the heads of Total, Shell and Petrobas. Perhaps they don't know what they are talking about either  .



> early days in oil.. real early




Can you please show some numbers from a reputable source that confirms your statement??

brty


----------



## derty

Agentm said:


> technology keeps getting better
> 
> i know of technologies that are very clever, from the oil giants own research to clever engineers.
> 
> yes there is a requirement for these technologies to help with demand, and imho some of them will eventually lead to better than 10% extraction rates
> 
> early days, and i recall a long time ago being convinced of peak oil



When you say 10% are you talking about only being able to extract 10% from each reservoir, or are you talking about 10% of the existing global oil that includes the super massive fields down to the multitude of little 100 barrel (and less) pockets that must sit all through oil fields. Do you have any links to information on this?

That tar sands are able to be exploited, that oil exploration is now occurring in +1km deep waters, that people are considering oil shales and that the POO is back up around the $80 mark to me means that something isn't going too right at the moment.


----------



## brty

As an addition Agentm, the following from..CNBC



> Frank Glaviano, who just retired after 34 years at Shell, most recently in charge of exploration and production in the Americas, including the Gulf of Mexico.






> The deepwater around the world is being explored, and needs to be explored. The world consumed 80 million barrels a day in oil, the last time I checked. And all the easy oil's been found," Glaviano said.




That does not quite mesh with your assertion of...



> zero of what he just went on about was believed by any in the oil industry





brty


----------



## Wysiwyg

> The deepwater around the world is being explored, and needs to be explored.* The world consumed 80 million barrels a day in oil*, *the last time** I checked*. And all the easy oil's been found," Glaviano said.




During everyday namby pamby life, most people have no idea what that amount of oil consumption is so I checked the i'net for some figures and BP had a table to work with using year 2009 estimates.

According to BP, and one would hope the figures aren't fudged, the daily world oil consumption estimate is  ...

1) Total World = 84,077,000 barrels of oil per day. (84 million)

Now another of BPs' tables has a figure for world proven oil reserves ...

2) Total World Proven Oil Reserves = 1,333,100,000,000 barrels. (1.333 trillion)

So if we divide the number of Proven by the number Consumed we have a very rough estimate of how many days left of proven oil.

*1,333,100,000,000 / 84,077,000

= 15855 days approximately  
= 43 years approximately*

_DO NOT PANIC_


----------



## derty

Wysiwyg said:


> *1,333,100,000,000 / 84,077,000
> 
> = 15855 days approximately
> = 43 years approximately*
> 
> _DO NOT PANIC_



If you look at the gross numbers it looks like a big number divided by a small number.

When you have a look at what the numbers are made up of the big number gets a bit wobbly. 

Of the 1300 billion bbl (Gbbl) we have:
*267 Gbbl from Saudi*, who being from OPEC have production rates based on reserve size and who haven't had any reserve reductions from 1988 from when they conveniently increased their reserves by 50% overnight.
*179 Gbbl in Canada*, largely in the form of Tar sands.
*138 Gbbl in Iran*, with an unexplained 30% increase in reserves in 2002.
*104 Gbbl in Kuwait*, 40% inc in reserves in 1983.
*98 Gbbl in United Arab Emirates*, with a 300% increase in reserves in 1986.

All in all there is an estimated 300 Gbbl of sudden OPEC reserve revisions, all unexplained. You can argue that that still leaves 1000 Gbbl which is still a very big number. Well have a look at the following figure to see what types of oil makes up the global reserve figure. All of a sudden the amount of easy oil doesn't look so good and that amount is likely quite bogus too. We haven't got 43 years of easy oil left.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#Proved_reserves

comprehensive BP energy review 2009: http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_int...l_review_of_world_energy_full_report_2009.xls


----------



## THE BUZZ

If the numbers are correct and there is 40 odd years of oil left, I wonder how long it will take before production slows as older fields start reducing output in their declining years... 

add to that the "westernising" of China, India etc. then that 43 years may     arrive much quicker.

Saudi Arabia has probably reached peak oil already, they supply roughly 25% of the worlds oil supply, the Ghawar oil field which is the largest oil field in the world has only an estimated 70 billion barrels of oil left.

They are bringing on line new MEGA fields but are deeper and harder to extract, as will probably be the case everywhere else in the world.

Oil will be around for centuries but will be scarcer and MEGA expensive IMO.

Supply will struggle to keep up with demand.

Oil will literally be " Black GOLD ".


----------



## Wysiwyg

THE BUZZ said:


> They are bringing on line new MEGA fields but are deeper and harder to extract, as will probably be the case everywhere else in the world.




A method I just learned of is a snake well ...



> Snake wells
> 
> A snake well criss-crosses a reservoir. Combined with Smart Fields ® technology, a snake well can access multiple pockets of oil to produce the equivalent to several individual wells. It reduces the chance of oil being left behind and it lowers cost.




While Shell Brunei have a well 8 km long. Deeper and deeper with Smart Technology they go. 



> Recent Champion West campaign
> 
> The most recently completed phases ended in June 2007 with five new snake oil wells and three gas wells on stream. A new unmanned Smart drilling platform with remote well-testing operations via a multi-phase flow meter was installed in 2005 to allow oil and gas export via two new pipelines to the Champion complex some 6 miles (10 km) away.
> 
> *The Champion West team delivered some of the longest wells in BSP history ”” up to 5 miles (8 km) along hole ”” each with up to four producing zones with full-flow control, pressure and temperature monitoring.* The project also implemented a world first of integral running of Smart cables through swellable packers. The snake wells campaign was completed in 343 days, 49 days earlier than planned, and with around 21 miles (34 km) of hole drilled.


----------



## jonojpsg

Gotta remember that Peak Oil is nothing to do with running out of oil as such, but reaching the maximum output that we can produce.  At this stage there is little evidence to support any claim that production will be able to move more than a few percent higher than it is currently...ever.  

It matters little how many ways you can drill a well; if there are no more super giants out there, which there aren't, or at least no-one's found one in the last forty years of looking!, then the kinds of flow rates that you can produce will not match up to the level of field decline from current fields.

So at some point in the next five years, depending on how demand goes with the way the world economy is staggering atm, we will reach a point where demand exceeds supply and there is nothing anyone can do about it.  POO will increase accordingly.


----------



## nioka

By AAP | 02.08.2010 07:16 AM 

NYMEX

*World oil prices climbed on Friday as investors shrugged off concerns that the US economic recovery could stall following a slower economic growth rate in the second quarter.*

New York's main contract, light sweet crude for delivery in September, rose 59 cents to $US78.95 per barrel.

London's Brent North Sea crude for September also gained 59 cents to $US78.18 per barrel.

Prices fell below the $US77 level after the US government announced early on Friday that growth slowed dramatically to 2.4 per cent in the second quarter of this year, but the oil market recovered in line with Wall Street stocks.

The market performed generally well for the week given the big US inventory build and disappointing economic data, traders said.


----------



## condog

Irrespective of whether your a believer in Peak oil or not, its no doubt world oil demand imo is expanding faster then world oil supply. As such until we find credible replacements for oil we are in for generally much higher oil prices, at a worst case scenario catastrophically high oil prices. 

As a result imo oil investments are well worth a punt. On the ASX , WPL is the obvios choice and right now its invested a lot in its Pluto development, but has not yet seen any returns from it so may well be worth a go. Persoanlly i prefer to focus on smaqll caps into shale gas inthe US, like AUT and SEA. Iv analysed many but narrowed it downt to those two as my prefferred options. EKA is also good , but imo AUT and SEA far better. Both have quality acerage and world class operators.


----------



## moXJO

Funny how long it's been going on

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-june-16-2010/an-energy-independent-future


----------



## basilio

> Re: Peak Oil
> Funny how long it's been going on
> 
> http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...pendent-future




Comon folks we all need a bit of history and levity on this topic. This is really worth 7 minutes of your life. Jon Stewart is just so droll and on the ball.

 _____________________________________________________

PS  It's far more entertaining than the latest tome of just why we going down the toilet with Peak Oil. 
http://www.energybulletin.net/stori...pse-global-civilization-current-peak-oil-cris


----------



## So_Cynical

basilio said:


> Comon folks we all need a bit of history and levity on this topic. This is really worth 7 minutes of your life. Jon Stewart is just so droll and on the ball.
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> 
> PS  It's far more entertaining than the latest tome of just why we going down the toilet with Peak Oil.
> http://www.energybulletin.net/stori...pse-global-civilization-current-peak-oil-cris




His writers are droll and on the ball...John has great delivery and screen presence.

Interesting the comment 3 down from the top.

-------------

"Here is one of the best-kept (or most ignored) secrets of the last 50 years. Here's a truly "green" solution to energy independence for the U.S. and all the nations on earth. There exists a CLEAN, SAFE, NON-PROLIFERATING nuclear reactor design called Molten Salt Reactor (MSR)"

------------------

Looks like the Thorium message is slowly getting out there.


----------



## Wysiwyg

I wonder if reduction of this planet's mass by turning crude into gas will effect inter star/moon gravitational pull. If the balance between sun and earth or moon and earth is delicate then earth could move further from the sun with less mass to maintain the present distance. Tidal influence from the moon could change with a change of distance.


----------



## pixel

Wysiwyg said:


> I wonder if reduction of this planet's mass by turning crude into gas will effect inter star/moon gravitational pull. If the balance between sun and earth or moon and earth is delicate then earth could move further from the sun with less mass to maintain the present distance. Tidal influence from the moon could change with a change of distance.




Burning liquids or solids (petrol or coal) changes the molecular compositions, but not the mass. Even if you consider the volatility of the resultant gaseous compounds, which may lead to a small amount of evaporation into Space, there won't be any "reduction of this planet's mass" to speak of. Atmosphere has been bleeding into Space since Day Dot; compared to the total mass, that's such a tiny fraction that the change of distance from the Sun will amount to centimetres.

If anything, it's the effect of Global Warming that can lead to increased atmospheric bleeding. But even if Earth were to lose half its atmosphere, it would amount to nothing compared to the combined mass of Sun and Earth. Remember that it's the product of both masses that determines the relative orbits of the two.
(see: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Kepler-s-Three-Laws )


----------



## bellenuit

pixel said:


> Burning liquids or solids (petrol or coal) changes the molecular compositions, but not the mass. Even if you consider the volatility of the resultant gaseous compounds, which may lead to a small amount of evaporation into Space, there won't be any "reduction of this planet's mass" to speak of. Atmosphere has been bleeding into Space since Day Dot; compared to the total mass, that's such a tiny fraction that the change of distance from the Sun will amount to centimetres.
> 
> If anything, it's the effect of Global Warming that can lead to increased atmospheric bleeding. But even if Earth were to lose half its atmosphere, it would amount to nothing compared to the combined mass of Sun and Earth. Remember that it's the product of both masses that determines the relative orbits of the two.
> (see: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Kepler-s-Three-Laws )




I never studied biology, but I assume that there is also an increase in mass of the earth due to the Sun's effect on plants. When a plant grows and becomes heavier, the increase in weight must come from the nutrients and other chemicals absorbed into the plant during the growth process. Since the Sun's energy drives all this, presumably the energy consumed by this process and not left off as heat or light must be converted into mass by the E=MC^2 law. Probably an extremely negligible amount, but somewhat counteracting what bleeds into space nevertheless.


----------



## pixel

bellenuit said:


> I never studied biology, but I assume that there is also an increase in mass of the earth due to the Sun's effect on plants. When a plant grows and becomes heavier, the increase in weight must come from the nutrients and other chemicals absorbed into the plant during the growth process. Since the Sun's energy drives all this, presumably the energy consumed by this process and not left off as heat or light must be converted into mass by the E=MC^2 law. *Probably an extremely negligible amount,* but somewhat counteracting what bleeds into space nevertheless.




"Probably an extremely negligible amount" indeed. The reduction of atmospheric CO2 into plant carbon consumes energy, which adds mass to the tune of roughly a factor 0.3 * 10 ^ -9.
That same factor (minus an insignificant loss due to entropy) applies in reverse when coal is burned back into CO2, which contains less energy, hence less mass.
Overall, the effect of plants consuming CO2 and animals producing it, is therefore a zero-sum game. Only the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 - by unfettered burning of fossil fuels - contributes to a tiny loss of planetary mass at a rate of about 300g per Megaton of *additional *CO2.


----------



## qldfrog

pixel said:


> "Probably an extremely negligible amount" indeed. The reduction of atmospheric CO2 into plant carbon consumes energy, which adds mass to the tune of roughly a factor 0.3 * 10 ^ -9.
> That same factor (minus an insignificant loss due to entropy) applies in reverse when coal is burned back into CO2, which contains less energy, hence less mass.
> Overall, the effect of plants consuming CO2 and animals producing it, is therefore a zero-sum game. Only the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 - by unfettered burning of fossil fuels - contributes to a tiny loss of planetary mass at a rate of about 300g per Megaton of *additional *CO2.



probably compensated if not overwhelmed by the constant meteorite shower the earth is subject to...
we are probably getting heavier and heavier with age;
I can prove it each time i climb on the bathroom scale


----------



## Wysiwyg

pixel said:


> Burning liquids or solids (petrol or coal) changes the molecular compositions, but not the mass. Even if you consider the volatility of the resultant gaseous compounds, which may lead to a small amount of evaporation into Space, there won't be any "reduction of this planet's mass" to speak of.



Thank you very much Pixel. I can see the result of evaporation (rain) but that is a "physical change" and solid changes like a melted iceberg will only take the place of the water it displaced when it was ice and not raise the sea level. I found this line below for others that may be interested which explains the chemical reaction of a liquid hydrocarbon. 



> Sometimes the reactants (starting materials) and products (end materials) may be difficult to see especially if they are gases For example when petrol (a liquid hydrocarbon made up of carbon and hydrogen) burns it reacts with oxygen gas (from the air) to produce water (vapour/ liquid) and carbon dioxide(gas). So within this reaction there are two reactants and two product and two of these are colourless gases (oxygen and carbon dioxide) and the water formed as a result of the burning may be formed as steam and be difficult to see. Consequently all that would be observed apart from the flame is that the petrol is disappearing.
> The rate of chemical changes varies enormously from those which are very slow (such as rusting) to those which happen instantaneously (such as fireworks exploding).
> In chemical changes the amount of particular substances may change but the total amount of materials does not. *In chemical changes as in physical changes matter cannot disappear nor appear from nowhere. It can only react to form something else.* So if 16g of methane gas burns in oxygen (a total of 80g the resulting products will weigh 80g i.e.44g of carbon dioxide and 36g of water).


----------



## qldfrog

Wysiwyg said:


> solid changes like a melted iceberg will only take the place of the water it displaced when it was ice and not raise the sea level.



hum not strictly true;
if you put a plastic bottle full of water in your freezer, you will find that it will tend to overflow; ice takes more space than water but iceberg ice will float so some of the extra volume  (for a given mass) will then be out of the water.
This compensates.
But the melted water will be cold and will cool down the water which will then influence its density (will reduce its volume)
all this to take into account in global warming model  (yet in GW case, the melting of ice cap not on sea and the ensuing ocean rises is much much more important)
physic is balance, to any force/effect you will find a counter effect.
it is the beauty of phisic to my mind


----------



## explod

Cost of fuel rising up to $1.70 a litre at bowser's today and the media talking of a supply problem.


----------



## basilio

This article  popped up in my Pocket list. It certainly  looks as if oil is in terminal decline with all that implies for the oil markets.
The story makes it clear that electric cars, trucks and all transport mediums are accelerating and will replace fossil fuel based  transport very rapidly. Good value



			Bloomberg - Are you a robot?


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> The story makes it clear that electric cars, trucks and all transport mediums are accelerating and will replace fossil fuel based transport very rapidly.



I don’t disagree with the basic premise that the writing is well and truly on the wall for internal combustion engines in mainstream use.

I do note however the issue of timeframe and that even a rapid transition would in practice still take quite some time given the time it takes to turn over the fleet.

Cars it’s roughly 20 years for the majority but not the lot. Bigger things that move it’s 25 - 30 years. Industrial plant that doesn’t move it’s 25 years minimum. Etc.

Oil demand may have peaked but it will take quite some time to drop to minimal levels. Time to ramp up production of electric etc vehicles and stop building petrol or diesel ones then time to turn over the fleet is considerable.


----------



## basilio

Smurf1976 said:


> I don’t disagree with the basic premise that the writing is well and truly on the wall for internal combustion engines in mainstream use.
> 
> I do note however the issue of timeframe and that even a rapid transition would in practice still take quite some time given the time it takes to turn over the fleet.
> 
> Cars it’s roughly 20 years for the majority but not the lot. Bigger things that move it’s 25 - 30 years. Industrial plant that doesn’t move it’s 25 years minimum. Etc.
> 
> Oil demand may have peaked but it will take quite some time to drop to minimal levels. Time to ramp up production of electric etc vehicles and stop building petrol or diesel ones then time to turn over the fleet is considerable.




Absolutely.  If you check out the story it's quite clear that the changeover will takes decades.  But 30-40-50 years is a blink of an eye in terms of big changes. 

2050 is 30 years away - well within touch for some massive turnovers of infrastructure and consumer goods.


----------



## basilio

I just realised the misunderstanding between saying that electric cars/trucks will replace fossil fuel transport very rapidly  and the total time it will take to complete the changeover.

Yes it is very feasible that within 5--10 years electric cars/trucks will dominate vehicle sales to the point that  new ICE vehicles will be quite small
However it will take a further 20 years plus to see the current stocks of ICE vehicles retired.


----------



## Smurf1976

basilio said:


> Absolutely. If you check out the story it's quite clear that the changeover will takes decades. But 30-40-50 years is a blink of an eye in terms of big changes.



Agreed.

I'm just always cautious on this issue since I've had the discussion many times with people who for whatever reason miss the difference between "new car sales" and "fleet composition". It comes up quite a bit that one, failing to account for the time to turnover the fleet.

I'm referring to people in general there, not specifically on this forum.


----------



## orr

Hey guy's ...
One important thing to keep in mind with regard Fleet turn over. Although ICE vehicals have become more fuel efficent the comparitive cost advantage of EV is in the realms of one third when compared to an ICE vehical.
Take these generics:-(tax issues and maintenace can be discussed elswehere/or not)
Average fuel (similar to that of a large passanger car) consumption of *all* Aust vehicals is ...13lt/100km.
13lts @ $1.30/lt  *circa........$16/100km..*.
A Tesla3(standard size passanger car)  consumption 16kw/h per 100km
16kwh @ $0.35/kwh *circa..$5.60/100km

*For business as  rapid  a change as possible  to EV will be an imperative which hasn't been the case with 'like for like'... And the bigger component oil based fuel is to a business, the BIGGER that imperative.


----------



## Smurf1976

For business use EV's would solve a lot of problems.

I've worked in places with shared "pool" cars and without exception it always comes to the same point. Management finds it necessary to issue a formal direction that no car shall be returned less than a quarter full of fuel. Give it a year and the same direction is issued again following another incident.

Because getting staff to actually put fuel in a shared car seems to always be a problem. 

Enforcing an "always plugged in when parked" EV policy would be far easier.


----------



## Value Collector

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed.
> 
> I'm just always cautious on this issue since I've had the discussion many times with people who for whatever reason miss the difference between "new car sales" and "fleet composition". It comes up quite a bit that one, failing to account for the time to turnover the fleet.
> 
> I'm referring to people in general there, not specifically on this forum.




Reminds me of a saying “If you find your self stuck in a hole, the first step to freeing yourself is you stop digging out the bottom of the hole”

the actual date in the future that we find ourselves with a 100% zero emission fleet is not overly important, what is important is first stopping the growth of carbon emissions, and then eventually reducing carbon emissions.


----------



## qldfrog

Smurf1976 said:


> For business use EV's would solve a lot of problems.
> 
> I've worked in places with shared "pool" cars and without exception it always comes to the same point. Management finds it necessary to issue a formal direction that no car shall be returned less than a quarter full of fuel. Give it a year and the same direction is issued again following another incident.
> 
> Because getting staff to actually put fuel in a shared car seems to always be a problem.
> 
> Enforcing an "always plugged in when parked" EV policy would be far easier.



Except that it remain easier to top up a petrol car, even if with nearly empty tank than jumping on a shared car, plugged in but with still warm seat from previous user, and with a 5% charged battery and 20km range....


----------



## moXJO

qldfrog said:


> Except that it remain easier to top up a petrol car, even if with nearly empty tank than jumping on a shared car, plugged in but with still warm seat from previous user, and with a 5% charged battery and 20km range....



I had problems on jobsites with the EV EWP.
Some bastard would use ours over night and leave it flat. 
The diesel ones was easier to get going. But then the trade off of fumes for convenience.


----------



## sptrawler

Smurf1976 said:


> For business use EV's would solve a lot of problems.
> 
> I've worked in places with shared "pool" cars and without exception it always comes to the same point. Management finds it necessary to issue a formal direction that no car shall be returned less than a quarter full of fuel. Give it a year and the same direction is issued again following another incident.
> 
> Because getting staff to actually put fuel in a shared car seems to always be a problem.
> 
> Enforcing an "always plugged in when parked" EV policy would be far easier.



I think that will be a big issue with emergency service vehicles, if they have two currently, my guess is they will have two + standby when they go BEV.


----------

