IEA announces 10 years to peak oil

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by eclipse, Aug 9, 2009.

  1. eclipse macrumors 6502a

    eclipse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
    #1
    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5634

    Anyone see anything on the mainstream news when this announcement came? The IEA is THE energy agency that our governments should listen to, and when they casually announced the beginning of the end of the oil age, I didn't hear a BLIP on the nightly news about it! :mad:

    Just a few scattered online reports for those who bothered to read them.

    http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2247241/iea-official-peak-oil-closer

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10588388
     
  2. bobber205 macrumors 68020

    bobber205

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon
  3. eclipse thread starter macrumors 6502a

    eclipse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
    #3
    There's not enough in ANWR to make a difference.
     
  4. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #4
    After extensively researching this, including attending lectures by Matthew Simmons. A couple of thoughts:
    A. This is nothing new, they have been predicting this for a while
    B. To call it a government agency is a joke, it just has a fancy title, there are numerous groups that measure it, most likely more accurate
    C. No number is accurate because Saudi Arabia lies about their numbers and have for decades.
    D. The most recent data about new proven reserves is a joke both sides of the debate
    E. We won't know when we peak, it will take at least 10 years because of subpoint C. The perception of Saudi Arabia announcing peak will be enough to cause the effects of actual peaking regardless if we have in fact peaked
    F. Just to play devils advocate, the trusted people per say in this Campbell, Lehere, Hubbert have all predicted a peak at various points, this is just another dot on the map

    ANWR is the largest joke to mankind:
    A. We will never drill there, it's too politically heated
    B. The amount of oil in ANWR equates to something like 1/2 of a percent of the U.S. remaining reserves on a good day
    C. See subpoint A
    D. ANWR would not lower gas prices at all, the recovery costs associated with getting the oil would take 15 years for the oil companies to start making a profit, and that assumes the high estimates, that comes from Exxon and the field would only be producing for 20 years on a good day
    E. The Wildlife there are becoming way too scarce, they are protected by so many different laws

    (I debated in HS, the topic last year was alternative energy, I did extensive research on peak oil, 25 books, etc, etc, etc...)
     
  5. eclipse thread starter macrumors 6502a

    eclipse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
    #5
    But previously they were "unconnected", unofficial dots on the map. This is the IEA for crying out loud!
     
  6. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #6
    No, see above. This is not really relevant or unexpected. Matthew Simmons gets more mainstream media coverage, after all he is one of the largest advocates for peak oil and was the former energy advisor to Bush.
     
  7. SactoGuy18 macrumors 68020

    SactoGuy18

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA USA
    #7
    I think we're not even CLOSE to "peak oil."

    I cite a number of reasons:

    1) We've barely started to exploit the oil in the Gulf of Mexico.
    2) We've yet to look for oil in eastern Siberia and the Nanavut Territory in Canada, places where there could be oil reserves measuring in the trillions of barrels of oil.
    3) We're only scratched the surface of the extractable oil from oil tar sands in Alberta, Canada. And nobody has really started to look at extracting oil from the oil tar sands in Orinoco River of Venezuela.
    4) There is potentially a couple of trillion barrels of oil locked in oil shale in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming.
    5) Political problems have resulted in substantial underuse of the very rich oilfields in Iran and Iraq.
    6) Brazil may have only scratched the surface of a potentially gigantic oil find off the coast of its own country.
    7) There may be around 300 billion barrels of extractable oil at the Spartley Islands between Vietnam and the Philippines.
    8) Modern technology has discovered we can use oil-laden algae to produce diesel fuel, heating oil, gasoline (petrol) and kerosene in the long run.

    Peak oil indeed. :rolleyes: It's almost like people crying "we're running out of food" when in reality famines in the 20th Century were caused by wars and deliberate political acts.
     
  8. eclipse thread starter macrumors 6502a

    eclipse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
    #8
    I cite a number of reasons:

    Why are they looking in the difficult to get to, expensive to drill, deep blue? Is it because all the easy to access, cheap to drill, close to the surface land oil is peaked out? Hmmm, expensive deep blue, slower to produce sea oil V cheap surface land oil... boy, I think we've just defined peak oil!

    (sighs) Is it tar sands? Is it heavy thick frozen gooey stuff? How fast can it be produced? Does it require a nuclear reactor to build just to heat the crap and start it flowing? In other words, is it a liquid oil under pressure that will just shoot out, or is it basically bitumen that must be cooked up, slowing down the whole mining and refining process yet again? I think we just defined peak oil again! Cheap, easy oil gone... sticky, gluey crap left behind that will be more expensive to process and slower to get to market. Ooops.

    See above. 3 million barrels a day by 2015... or so I remember from reading about it a few years ago... but still, that's 5 years after 2010. Do the math.
    And you thought tar sands was bad... now try getting oil out of rock.
    I've already asked you... you're the one asserting "Substantial"... but can you please define it on a "million barrels per day" basis?

    AND WHY OH WHY does the optimistic IEA disagree with you?
    May have, probably, click your ruby slippers together and say "There's no stuff like oil" three times and maybe your dream will come true?
    Proof? Anyway, 300 billion / 84 million per day / 365 days a year = 9 years of oil at current rates of extraction. But it won't come out of the ground at 84 million barrels a day because THAT's the whole world's accumulated mining and refining capacity... so a slow trickle from there might help a bit.

    No, that's in the long, long, long, long 40 thousand square miles run.

    Peak oil INDEED! The Australian Federal Senate concluded
    “There is no universal panacea, no one perfect solution”. Chapter 4:4

    Chapter 3:20

    Self-delusional denial is an ugly thing. I suggest you read more. I'm not bothering to go through all these trite little one liners of yours with any seriousness... I've been following this for 5 years and am bored out of my mind by the psychological games people play with themselves in the name of staying in their "Comfort zone".

    This is the IEA saying it is bleeding obvious that we are near peak oil. Sure EV's and algae and tar sands and gas to liquids and coal-to-liquids and rail and trams and trolley buses all exist as technology options... but they are not all here yet, at the scale we need them, in the REAL world yet are they? It's going to take a LONG time to build the rail and trolley buses we need. But with people like you dancing around in denial... arrrgh. Why do I bother? No, you were right, it's all a bad dream, go back to sleep, it's all OK. Want some bedtime cookies and milk? There you go. Back to sleeeeeeep.......
     
  9. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #9
    OOOO WEEE another report about peak oil and yet again the deadlines gets moved.

    Less than 10 years ago peak oil was... RIGHT ABOUT NOW and now it has been moved another 10 years.

    There is a lot of oil left all over the world. The problem with it is cost. It cost to much per barrel to get. With oil prices at 60 or less a barrel it is not worth getting it because it cost 75 bucks a barrel to get it out of the ground. Shell oil cost around a 100 a barrel to get so currently it is not worth it to get it. At 140 a barrel it is but not when it is less than a 100.
     
  10. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #10
    LOL.


    and ten years from now they will move the line where?


    this is getting as humorous as hearing we will all starve soon...
     
  11. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #11
    That's not true, the 80s estimates were heavily downgraded, the proven reserve data is a joke. Also, you have to remember that there is plenty of oil we know about that will never be cost effective, some of this oil is in the gulf. Oddly, just because it is there does not mean Exxon will drill.

    We have done the research, it's not there. Once again, see proven reserves.

    Tar sands oil is not going to be used:
    A. It is not cost-effective
    B. It is three times as worse then burning straight coal enviormentally speaking
    C. The amount of recoverable oil is a fraction of what there
    D. It is going to be ridiculously expensive and it will take decades to start drilling there, we do not have the tech now to be effective

    See above, it's not cost effective. Proven-reserves and recoverable reserves. The idea of trillions of oil just lying around is a complete joke. The oil companies spend billions annually trying to find oil, there is simply nowhere else left for the oil to be hiding.

    Not true, Iraq is operating at full capacity, plus the oil fields that Saddam burned in a couple of wars were not great for the numbers. Iran's numbers are not so known, but they do not have a motherfield

    No, Brazil is using sugarcane ethanol for a reason

    That is blatantly untrue. I think that you meant "Spartly." There was a reason why when the joint-oil exploration went on in the 1990s it produced zero barrels.

    That doesn't solve the problem. Algae fuel is just in the beginning process and that is a cop-out argument in relation to peak. The problem with oil is that it is one of the world's greatest resources because of the amount of energy it holds and the versatility of it. Thanks for the concession.

    See above, we won't ever know when we peak, rather the perception of peak. The difference between peak and running out of oil is huge, the latter we are not close to. The problem will be the economic panic around the perception of peak. The larger problem is that discovery is way down and use is way up. The fact remains we have not come close to finding another Gahawar. Saudi Arabia has used water-drilling and other methods that have severely effected the longevity of their oil and what we are finding today for the most part will never be recovered because of a variety of reasons.
     
  12. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #12

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/22225.html

    The article is from 2007 but the deposits have been confirmed since then.

    I think I read that the upfront costs to develop the field will be over $100 billion.

    The logistics and expertise needed means it won't be open for years, if at all. It would also take a sustained market price of over $100 a barrel for the investment to be viable. But, like with so many promising new finds, this one is subject to extreme hazards and production could go in fits and starts. In ten years, we'll need more than occasionally producing fields...
     
  13. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #13
    If the upfront costs are $100 Billion for a couple of billion barrels, iThink by most math it qualifies for not financially viable. I believe ANWR becomes "worth it" financially if oil is at $111.
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    You probably both meant "Spratly".
     
  15. eclipse thread starter macrumors 6502a

    eclipse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
    #15
    Rodimus Prime and Shivetya, this is not some kid with a fixation on "Mad Max" movies, or Kevin Costner in "The Postman" (interesting book, terrible movie). No, this is the International Energy Agency. Remember those guys, set up in the 1970's to advise us on oil matters and warn us about future crisis?

    They just warned us.

    If you pay to install a security system in your own home, when the alarms go off do you just sneer and say "Ha, it will just be the cat again!" :mad:
     
  16. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #16
    Market forces will slowly kick us out of the oil business, I don't expect an overnight hike in prices, but as they slowly climb we need to make sure we have tech in development to switch over.
     
  17. SactoGuy18 macrumors 68020

    SactoGuy18

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Location:
    Sacramento, CA USA
    #17
    Right now, oil companies are starting to drill for oil where the oceans are around 10,000 feet deep. That right there could open up HUGE tracts of oil never thought possible to extract in the past--like literally right smack in the middle of the Gulf of Mexico itself or even beyond the continental shelf of our continents in many places.

    Also, the technology used to extract highly viscous crude oil in California (e.g, mechanical pumps, and pressurized injection of steam, CO2 gas or even special detergents) could be applied to every above water oilfield on Earth. That could mean oilfields that were supposedly "tapped out" could get that last third of oil that older oil extraction technology couldn't get out.

    And don't forget coal--scientists are working on improvements to the Fischer-Tropsch process to turn coal into a form of crude oil at more economical prices, and that could mean coal (which we have a lot more of in proven reserves than oil reserves!) could be used to make petroleum products.

    In short, there's a lot more oil out there than people thought even just 20 years ago. :)
     
  18. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #18
    I really hope that oil becomes cost adverse enough that new tech like wind and solar become more mainstream. The sun and wind are going to be there much longer than our oil reserves.
     
  19. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #19
    as one who has worked in the oil industry, some of these posts are humerous:cool:
     
  20. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #20

    Not as much as you think. Most of those things you listed already had known oil reserve in them. It was a matter of cost and technology to get to them. Also all the ones you listed currently have production shut down or very limited because it cost more to get that oil out of the ground than they can sell it for. Yes we have the tech. Yes we have some of the wells up and running but they are also shut down because it cost more to get it out of the ground at those location than it can be sold for.....

    I love some of the crap people spit out that really know nothing about the oil industry.
     
  21. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #21
    The idea of there being more oil then we thought 20 years ago is not so accurate. We thought that there was more recoverable oil then there is.
     
  22. eclipse thread starter macrumors 6502a

    eclipse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
    #22
    Why?

    I was at a CSIRO peak oil briefing once where a non-geologist simply briefed the room on the global oil statistics, the countries that have demonstrably peaked, those that haven't, and the economic data indicating future demand.

    The guy was briefing a room full of oil extraction specialists, working in the forefront of efficiency gains and new technologies. But by the end of the talk they were squirming in their seats under the burden of the GLOBAL oil picture, which none of them have taken in.

    I know another employee of Shell, who assured me that there was 30 to 40 years of GROWTH yet.

    But now it's the IEA saying peak oil!

    So... from what angle is this amusing? Is it the whole subject of running out... :confused: or is it more my colourful description of tar sands? ;):D
     

Share This Page