Paging RC, Downstreamer: Is the Hubbert Curve for real?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

King Hubbert's work, as expanded and updated by several experts, (see http://www.hubbertpeak.com/index.asp -- sorry, link impaired) seems to indicate that we are at or near the peak of global oil production. Is this credible? Is it happening? The implications strike me as enormous, sort of a slow motion y2k disaster (to bring this back OT). Your thoughts -- and those of everyone else -- would be appreciated.

sidebar for Chuck the night driver: My north-of-Albany contact prepped for the worst, got the best, sighed with relief, and still hasn't broken his preps. But the armor is back in the armory again.

-- Cash (cash@andcarry.com), January 13, 2000

Answers

Thanks for the info.

C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), January 13, 2000.


"But the armor is back in the armory again."

What does that mean? Just curious.

-- not really any (of@my.business), January 13, 2000.


* * * 20000113 Thursday

Cash:

To turn a phrase, it depends on what is meant by "peak." That is, peak production by today's capacity? Near exhaustion of fossil fuel resources?

Your "slow motion ... disaster" scenario is a little shortsighted, isn't it? After all, Brazil virtually runs on ethenol and methanol; "clean" alternatives to fossil fuels. Disaster is a little strong.

Innovation will take care of any adaptation "curve."

Just my US$0.02!

Regards, Bob Mangus

* * *

-- Robert Mangus (rmangus1@yahoo.com), January 13, 2000.


Very likely it's true, though the timeline is uncertain.

Getting oil out of the ground is a lot like getting water out of a sponge. First it gushes, then the flow slows, ultimately you have to squeeze to get anything and that also diminishes in effect.

However, forget any 1970's or "Mad Max" nightmares about there suddenly being no oil at all. What will happen is that as the flow from existing wells and established oilfields starts to slow, the price will rise. Gradually, over a decade or two. This will make it profitable to do various things such as

1. Work harder on squeezing oil out of existing oilfields

2. Drill new known fields which were formerly too small or too inaccessible to bother with.

3. Switch to alternative energy sources.

The last is the most interesting. In recent years, wind power and solar power have come within sight of being viable. These technologies are improving, and a rising oil price would provide a huge incentive to develop them faster. (At present, with cheap oil, the incentive is small to nonexistent).

Boringly and pollutingly, there's also no shortage of coal to be had (for at least the next century).

What would be disastrous for the world would be a 1970's style shock, causing oil supplies to SUDDENLY go from plenty to acute shortage. If this curve happens and things change fairly gradually (and voluntarily, as dictated by an ever-increasing oil price), it won't hurt too much and perhaps could even be seen as a benefit.

If you're specifically thinking automobiles, find out about hybrid cars (they're already on sale in areas with really bad smog trouble, but with cheap gas don't yet make sense on pure economic grounds). These combine a battery for short journeys on pure electrical power and to give the brief power surges that driving needs with an ultra- lean-burn ultra-efficient constant-power gasoline engine to top up the batteries during longer journeys. I recently read a review of one, and the reveiwer liked it. Things have come a long way from the milk float, and probably have a long way further to go.

-- Nigel (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), January 13, 2000.


Get moveable solar panels during the next decade you can use the rest of your life; $17,000 now ought to get the entire set up for a big home. Be ready for energy cost inflation to skyrocket.

-- sunshine (sunshine@smart.com), January 13, 2000.


Solar satellites. Geothermal. Cold fusion. Hot fusion come to that. Get over it.

The giraffe is wearing a top hat. A TOP HAT.

-- Servant (public_service@yahoo.com), January 13, 2000.


>>3. Switch to alternative energy sources. <<

Further to Nigel's comments, Ballard Power unveiled its latest fuel- cell technology at the Detroit Auto Show this past Sunday. This thing is close to going into production (2002/2003)and it has the potential to revolutionize the car industry.

(FWIW, I'm not a Ballard shareholder - but I was I had bought a year ago!)

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.


oops..

"but I was I had" should be "but I wish I had"

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.


--Bob Mangus-true, brazil makes a heap-o moonshine to run their autos. they do this with slash and burn the jungle clearing for sugar cane production, which is dependent on the fossil fuel industry for chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilizers). It has a finite life as well (runout of oil and jungle at present rate of destruction, next decade), directly tied to pump out of the ground oil. FWIW

-- itain'twhytookay (alledged@rumor.unverifiable), January 13, 2000.

I'm no expert in Mr. Hubbert's work, but the comments on this thread could be 3 years behind. Please go and find information about the explorations/findings done by big oil in the Caspian Sea and the Sea of Arals'koye. Vast reserves. And is not decades of oil reserves, but centuries to come. And with the new and developing technologies of oil extraction, it ain't gonna be scarce for a while. Oh yeah, with huge price and geopolitical implications. And while the oil flows in a regular fashion, forget about alternate sources of energy to be cost effective to the common guy. Enviromental implications, notwhitstanding.

-- Eli (Eli@zephyr.net), January 13, 2000.


While I am not familiar with the specifics of Hubbert I'm familiar with various curves related to Oil reserves.

I would suggest the following article link on this issue... Provocative. Strong arguments can be made that we're running out of oil and for we've got a 100+ years of oil left to go. The problem is...even if we have all of this oil...the real question is how cheap is it to get to. A lot of the oil we simply cannot reach or cannot reach economically. And that therein lies the rub.

http://www.tocqueville.com/brainstorms/brainstorm0052.shtml

-- RC (racambab@mailcity.com), January 13, 2000.


see also www.dieoff.org for great links/info

it's not even the COST of extracting the last bits of oil that matters, it's when those last barrels require more energy to extract than they contain. experts can disagree on WHEN that point will be reached, but it is a certainty.

y2k might turn out to be a bump in the road, but our civilization can't change the basic laws of thermodynamics (or atmospheric chemistry)

see also

www.climatesolutions.org

-- off-the-grid (have.wind@solar.com), January 13, 2000.


Hey guys, your Brazilian assessment is outdated. After big time gov subsidies in the late 80s and early 90s, Brazil is rapidly abandoning sugar cane to ethanol projects and neat ethanol cars and reverting back to conventional gasoline. I don't have the stats, nor the time to go get them but its true. From a 'net energy gain' perspective ethanol production can't compete with oil. Brazil found out the hard and expensive way. The US still spends $10s of millions on ethanol credits that predominately go to ADM via higher ethanol prices.

In terms of Hubbert, the above responses seem pretty good. I have studied his theories and I'll say this, in the late 40s he accurately predicted when lower 48 oil production would peak. His worldwide assessment has been skewed to the right by reserves being more dynamic and prodigious than anticipated. There's a big mystery phenomenon now where oil reserviors seem to be replenishing themselves from lower levels. Deep non-sedimentary geology is turning up much more vast amounts of hydrocarbons than they should. This is rock formed when and where there was no organic material. We've also found hydrocarbons on meterors.

So LadyLogic says this y2k thing is gonna be a 1 or a 2 and she doesn't know oil is a fossil fuel. I hate to say it but the joke on this group. As I said before, God's cruel irony, Lady Logic was right.

-- Downstreamer (downstream@bigfoot.com), January 14, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ