Peak Oil

[Wysiwyg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.