Wikileaks shows peak oil is a reality

A._Badger

PeterZ wrote: »

Shale oil and gas will slow the decline, but its expensive to get out and the fields output declines very quickly.

Nothing more than a sticking plaster over the problem.

The UK needs to invest in nuclear and renewables asap and move away from oil as much as possible.

And we need to ensure that only British companies build the nukes and renewables.

Leaving aside your comments about shale oil (ill-informed if what read from supposedly expert sources is to be believed) exatly which British companies did you have in mind for building these new nuclear facilities?

You see, as I understand it, we no longer have any, thanks to a succession of clueless 'Green' government policies. If you know better, perhaps you would name them?

AD9898_2

bengalknights wrote: »

Wasnt there someting about artificial petrol being made, im guessing whichever scientists made it will soon be developing artificial oil to stop us running out.

Sometimes I wish I hadn't got caught up in the research of this subject, then I would be as blissfully unaware as this person, sometimes it's a good place to be.

Kohoutek

A._Badger wrote: »

Leaving aside your comments about shale oil (ill-informed if what read from supposedly expert sources is to be believed) ...

Here's an "expert source" – the International Energy Agency's November 2010 oil forecast. Regarding "unconventional oil", the IEA says:

In the New Policies Scenario, [unconventional] output rises from 2.3 mb/d in 2009 to 9.5 mb/d in 2035. Canadian oil sands and Venezuelan extra‐heavy oil dominate the mix, but coal‐to‐liquids, gas‐to‐liquids and, to a lesser extent, oil shales also make a growing contribution in the second half of the Outlook period

So, in other words, oil shale will have very little impact for another 20 years or so and even by 2035, the contribution to global oil supply is very modest.

As you can see, far more significant than any "unconventional oil" is crude oil (i.e. conventional oil) "yet to be developed or found". Since discovery of conventional oil peaked about 45 years ago, you don't have to be an alarmist to think that the "yet to be developed or found" wedge may be overly optimistic...

A._Badger

Kohoutek wrote: »

Here's an "expert source" – the International Energy Agency's November 2010 oil forecast. Regarding "unconventional oil", the IEA says:

That's ever so slightly disingenuous when the same ISA also said there is enough shale gas to last 250 years. So perhaps 'peak hydrocarbon' might be more (or less) relevant.

As for the OP - the following from the FT puts this latest Wikileaks silliness in a saner context:

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2011/02/09/wikileaks-gives-a-boost-to-peak-oil-theories/

The author's update is the important bit - a not very elegant way of trying to wipe egg off his chin, where he was assisted in placing it by the ever-funny Guardian.

AD9898_2

Kohoutek wrote: »

Here's an "expert source" – the International Energy Agency's November 2010 oil forecast. Regarding "unconventional oil", the IEA says:



So, in other words, oil shale will have very little impact for another 20 years or so and even by 2035, the contribution to global oil supply is very modest.

As you can see, far more significant than any "unconventional oil" is crude oil (i.e. conventional oil) "yet to be developed or found". Since discovery of conventional oil peaked about 45 years ago, you don't have to be an alarmist to think that the "yet to be developed or found" wedge may be overly optimistic...

Very good explanation and a good graph to go with it, I know the subject ultimately doesn't have good consequences but I do wonder why 'head burying in the sand' by many people seems to be such an attractive position to take.

Just take a look at that graph and how 'large' the 'yet to be developed part' is. Peak discovery was 1970, so how the hell are we supposed to find that much to offset the decline in current fields ???

Please tell me, as after 6 years on the subject I've yet to find any creditable answer. In fact the only argument people put up are 'renewables' and 'technology will save us', which are both just pie in the sky answers, with no facts attached to them whatsoever.

AD9898_2

A._Badger wrote: »

That's ever so slightly disingenuous when the same ISA also said there is enough shale gas to last 250 years.

There probably is.... at about 4-5 million barrels a day extraction rate at best, where is the 95% going to come from ?

StevieJ

A report from the Deutsche bank 'The end of the oil age'

http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/End-of-the-oil-age-DB.pdf

Kohoutek

A._Badger wrote: »

That's ever so slightly disingenuous when the same ISA also said there is enough shale gas to last 250 years. So perhaps 'peak hydrocarbon' might be more (or less) relevant.]

Peak hydrocarbons is less relevant when you consider that approximately 0.00001% of road vehicles, agricultural equipment, ships, aeroplanes and non-electric trains run on natural gas.

A._Badger wrote: »

As for the OP - the following from the FT puts this latest Wikileaks silliness in a saner context:

http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2011/02/09/wikileaks-gives-a-boost-to-peak-oil-theories/

The author's update is the important bit - a not very elegant way of trying to wipe egg off his chin, where he was assisted in placing it by the ever-funny Guardian.

I assume you're referring to the update that says "the person quoted in the Wikileaked cable, Sadad al Husseini, is a well-known peak oil theorist who has said this in public many times before"?

I'm not sure why that makes the Wikileaks article less credible...it makes it more credible if anything. The individual in question, Sadad al Husseini, should know more about Saudi Arabia's oil reserves than virtually anyone else in the world, given he worked as head of exploration at the Saudi Arabian national oil company less than five years ago.

What that update tells you is that the comments that Mr al Husseini made previously to the "peak oil community" were taken so seriously by the US government that a senior diplomat requested a private interview.

StevieJ

AD9898 wrote: »

Just take a look at that graph and how 'large' the 'yet to be developed part' is. Peak discovery was 1970, so how the hell are we supposed to find that much to offset the decline in current fields ???

If peak discovery was in 1970 how are the big oil companies regularly achieving 100%+ replacement levels.

Kohoutek

StevieJ wrote: »

If peak discovery was in 1970 how are the big oil companies regularly achieving 100%+ replacement levels.

Peak oil discovery means "peak conventional oil discovery". It means the stuff that's light and easy to extract.

The big oil companies "oil reserves" are defined as "oil equivalent reserves", which include conventional oil (usually just called "crude oil"), heavy oil, tar sands, natural gas. A lot of the reserve replacement recently has come from tar sands and gas.

Natural gas is less energy dense that crude oil; heavy oil and tar sands require much more complicated and expensive techniques to extract than crude oil.