PDA

View Full Version : Peak Cheap Oil Update - Part I: The glass is half empty



EJ
11-03-09, 03:21 PM
http://www.itulip.com/images2/bathtuboil300.jpgPeak Cheap Oil Update - Part I: The glass is half empty

ASPO-USA Conference Denver 2009 Trip Report and analysis

In October I attended and was a speaker at the annual Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas in Denver, Colorado. Approximately 500 attendees watched 70 speakers present on the geology, economics, and politics of peak oil. In this two-part report I synthesize what I saw.

For readers who are not familiar with the theory, peak oil refers to the process of total world oil production reaching a peak and then declining on a global scale as occurred in net oil exporting countries, such as the U.S. until the 1970s, the UK until the year 2000, and Norway before 2001.

My own interest in the topic started in the early 1970s when I read the 1972 book on energy and resource limits, Limits to Growth. I majored in Natural Resource Studies at the University of Massachusetts in the early 1980s, and later graduated with a BS in Resource Economics. My first iTulip writing on the topic was Energy and Money (http://www.itulip.com/energyandmoney.htm) in March 2006.

I presented at the ASPO conference on the outcome of inflation versus deflation debate, and participated in a panel on energy and the economy with author Kevin Phillips, Adam Robinson of RBS, and Dave Cohen of ASPO. My presentation is available to ASPO members and to iTulip Select members in Part II.

Before we discuss the controversial issues raised at the conference, we review and update the basics of the peak oil argument.

Peak Oil Primer

Robert Hirsch headed the first presentation I attended. In his “train the trainer” session, the audience got an idea of how ASPO-USA wants its members to represent the organization and its key arguments.

Hirsh is a long time energy industry and government policy heavyweight. His resume include Senior Energy Program Advisor at SAIC on World oil production; Senior Energy Analyst, RAND; Vice President of the Electric Power Research Institute; Vice President and Manager of Research and Technical Services for Atlantic Richfield Co.; Founder and CEO of $50 million/year APTI now owned by BAE Systems; Manager of Exxon’s synthetic fuels research laboratory; Manager of Petroleum Exploratory Research at Exxon; Assistant Administrator of the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration; and by Presidential Appointment, Director of fusion research at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and ERDA.

Hirsch wrote a paper in 2008 that quantified how historic declines in world oil supply cause proportionate declines in world GDP. In it he lays out the case for peak oil in a three-scenario framework:
"(1) a Best Case where maximum world oil production is followed by a multi-year plateau before the onset of a monatomic decline rate of 2-5% per year; (2) A Middling Case, where world oil production reaches a maximum, after which it drops into a long-term, 2-5% monotonic annual decline; and finally (3) a Worst Case, where the sharp peak of the Middling Case is degraded by oil exporter withholding, leading to world oil shortages growing potentially more rapidly than 2-5% per year, creating the most dire world economic impacts."
We selected the following slides from his conference presentation that make the peak oil case.

Hirsch chooses to begin his train the trainer presentation with one of several unintuitive points in the peak oil argument, that oil does not deplete in a linear fashion, like units of inventory picked off a store shelf as consumers buy them. But if the trainer is speaking to a true lay audience, that observation starts us in the middle of the story.

How many readers understand where oil came from or how utterly unique and irreplaceable petroleum liquid fuels are as a transportation energy source? Very few. So we begin the story here.

Gasoline and diesel, distillates of crude oil, are unique as a liquid fuel. The amount of work a gallon of these fuels can do when by volume burned simply defies imagination. Consider the most mundane act of the automobile owner, stopping off at a gasoline station to refuel. A mere ten gallons of gasoline propels a two-ton vehicle hundreds of miles up and down hills at speed in excess of 60 miles per hour. Try pushing your car ten feet on a flat driveway and you will begin to appreciate how much work the gasoline in your tank is doing. The amount of work a liquid fuel can do by volume is referred to as its energy density. Liquid hydrogen, by comparison, has less than one third of the energy density of gasoline. That means that you need three times as much by volume to travel the same distance, assuming both the gasoline and hydrogen powered engines deliver the same number of miles per gallon.

You can pour the gasoline into your tank on a hot summer’s day or in winter when the temperature is well below zero. Crude oil can be shipped through pipes over long distances in a wide range of temperatures and climates.

Crude oil, and its distillates, is the one and only substance like this. No other liquid that humans can dig out of the ground, refine, and pour into a tank at any climate on earth even comes close. Every other liquid fuel, such as liquid hydrogen, has to be manufactured out of something else, then compressed, and if stored as a liquid kept at temperatures hundreds of degrees below zero. You cannot transport any other fuel through hundreds of miles of pipelines. Crude oil and its distillates can be piped over long distances at a wide range of naturally occurring temperatures, and stored cheaply in unpressurized tanks.

We are using up this unique and irreplaceable liquid fuel source several million times faster than it was created by nature hundreds of millions of years ago. In a little more than two human life spans can we have used up half of all of the oil that took several million human life spans to accumulate.

To compare the ancient rate of oil creation to the modern rate of oil consumption, imagine an abandoned cast iron bathtub resting in a mythical forest. In this forest crude oil drips from the trees. In fact, all of the oil from all of the oil dripping trees hanging over the tub in this magical forest drips into this single iron bathtub.

The oil drips so slowly that it takes 16 years, or five million seconds, to fill the tub.

Each second represents one year of original crude oil creation that happened through biological processes that took place over approximately 500 million years. But rather than trees dripping oil, imagine a flotilla of tiny plants matted the surface of millions of square miles of steamy primordial seas. This floating mass turned a blazing sun, unfiltered by the rich atmosphere we have today, and ocean minerals into trillions of tons of oily plant matter.

As new plants grew on the sunny side of the massive floating mat, old plants died and drifted to the bottom ocean floor. There the oil-soaked material collected and decomposed, forming in pools and crevices as large as lakes. These folded and kneaded as the continents shifted, forming underground caverns filled with oil and gas like so much buried treasure, waiting to be discovered.

The crude oil we burn today is nature’s prehistoric bio-fuel.





About one hundred years ago, humans figured out a use for the crude oil that seeped to the surface of the ground above oil reservoirs far below. We could use it in internal combustion engines to fuel machines that transport food, goods, and ourselves. But how much oil is there for us to use this way?


Our simple analogy of a rusty iron bathtub full of oil represents the whole of it, all of nature’s biofuel collected in one place. In reality crude oil hides all over the planet, like pockets of cheese in gigantic lasagna of rock and salt. But for the convenience of our analogy that displays the difference between the ancient rate of oil accumulation and consumption since the discovery of oil as a fuel for transportation 100 years ago, our mythical oil filled bathtub sits out in the open and above the ground, as easy to drain as water from a tub when you pull the drain plug.

But instead of opening the drain, to model the rate of consumption starting around 1900, drop a cannon ball through the bottom of the tub to make a gaping, gagged hole.

Half the oil that dripped into the tub in five million seconds will be half gone in one second.

If you are 40 years old, that one-second of geologic time is your lifetime so far, plus your parent’s lifetime, plus your grandparents’ lifetime.

On this point there is absolutely no argument among peak oil believers and skeptics.

No one debates the fact that nature created crude oil and natural gas slowly over millennia.

No one debates the size of the hole in the bottom of the tub. World oil consumption drains the oil out of the earth at the rate of 85 million barrels, or 3,570 million gallons, every day. As more nations demand more oil, the hole in the bottom of the tub keeps getting bigger.

No one seriously argues that humans can replace by manufacture new oil with man made biofuels while also continuing to use it up at a rate that is hundreds of million times faster than it can be created.

One can logically debate whether the world is a fraction of a second before or beyond that half way point, whether the half way point might be extended a half second or so--or what happens when, eventually that half way point is reached, if it has not already.


http://www.itulip.com/forums/../images2/bh.jpg

No more shootin' at the ground and getting bubbling crude.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/deepwaterdrillinghard.gif
Today, to get oil you have to go deep. Really, really deep. And there are issues.





Today oil is so hard to find and produce that energy engineers have to invent radical new technologies to find and extract oil from six miles or more below the surface of the earth where pressure heats the oil to 500 degrees Fahrenheit and ordinary pipes melt trying to bring it to the surface. Usually the pressure turns the oil into gas, that is far more expensive to produce, transport, and store.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/oil_shale.gif





New technologies also allow engineers to extract petroleum from oil rich rock deposits called shale.

Common sense tells us that oil supplies must be growing dear if engineers can no longer draw oil from giant shallow reservoirs as they could as recently as the 1960s but are now forced to drill miles into the earth’s crust to extract oil and squeeze it out of rocks called "shale."

Valid, scientific debate raises the question of whether new exploration and production technologies will extend the production plateau period at the current 85 million barrels per oil consumption rate for a few more years, or even raise production above it.

The peak oil question is, are we 0.95 or 1.1 seconds into draining our tub of oil through the great hole of global oil consumption that took 5 million seconds to fill? Are we two, five, or ten years away from a global oil production decline? What are the implications of decline?

With these basics as background, we move on to the first chart in Robert Hirsh’s presentation.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil1.gif





An oil field is not uniform like our mythical tub of oil. It is irregularly shaped.

Think of a milkshake on ice that you drink through a straw. Say there are 20 sips of milkshake in the glass. The first 10 sips are easy. But after the milkshake falls to the level of the top of the ice, the last 10 sips become increasingly difficult with each sip. You are forced to pull the straw up and stick it in again between the ice cubes to get at the remaining milkshake. The rate of milkshake extraction falls. Instead of a steady series of sips each sip takes more time and effort.

When you take the last sips the liquid is next to impossible to get out of the bottom of the glass, but at least you can hold the glass up and see where the remaining milkshake is, and moving the straw around costs you nothing.

When engineers extract the last oil from an oil reservoir, they rely on expensive oil exploration tools, such as satellite imagining and seismic analysis, to “see” the oil. Drilling is highly capital intensive. A single deepwater dry well in Indonesia in 2004 cost $30 million.

The cheap oil is the oil at the top of the reservoir. After that, oil extraction grows more difficult and expensive.

At iTulip we call the phenomenon of the end of cheap oil and its impact on the economy Peak Cheap Oil.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil2.gif





When you hear about oil reserves expressed in big numbers, remember that consumption level—the size of the hole in our tub of oil—determines how long those reserves last. Ten billion barrels sounds infinite, but the world consumes 85 million barrels a day. One 10 billion barrel oil field is only enough oil for 117 days of global consumption at that rate.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil3.gif






The global economy is highly oil supply sensitive. Even small disruptions in supply produce outsized economic consequences.


http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil4.gif





Just as nations have for decades experienced oil production peaks, plateau, and decline, the world will, inevitably, also experience and oil production peak, plateau, and decline.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil5.gif





Fully 83% of the world’s major oil producing countries are past peak production and are in decline. Mexico and Russia are on the watch list.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil6.gif





World oil production appears to have peaked in 2004 and began to plateau in a pattern of peak and plateau that occurred in 54 major oil producing countries so far.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil24.gif





For example, European oil production peaked in 1996 then reached a plateau that continued until 2003. After that production began to decline.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil22.gif





The United Kingdom serves as an example of a more extreme peak oil dynamic on a national basis. North Sea oil production peaked in 2000 and has been in rapid decline ever since. The UK became a net oil importer in 2009.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil25.gif





If world oil production follows the pattern of Europe’s oil production peak, the result might look like this.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil7.gif





When, sooner or later, oil production peaks, estimates of the rate of decline of current oil fields globally range from the Cambridge Energy Resource Associates estimate of 4.5% per year to 8% per year by a range of other energy analysts.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil8.gif





To compensate for production declines in existing oil fields, new fields have to be discovered and brought on line. CERA estimates that 3.8 million barrels per day of new oil production must come on line just to maintain the current level of the global oil production plateau.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil9.gif




Recall the rule of thumb that ten billion barrels of reserves translates into approximately one million barrels per day of oil production. To produce 3.8 million barrels per day of new oil, as CERA says are needed to maintain the plateau level that began in 2004, the discovery and development of 38 billion barrels of new oil reserves are required. By Hirsh’s calculations, that means that over a ten-year period of 5% decline as much oil has to be found and extracted as once existed in all of Saudi Arabia, eight times over. Engineers need to find and mine oil from the earth’s crust, and squeeze it out of rocks, at a rate that is equal to the discovery of one Saudi Arabia sized oil deposit every 15 months. Hirsh believes that such an engineering feat is impossible.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil13.gif





Hirsh’s assessment is justified by the historical data on oil field discovery. More than 40% of oil production comes from giant oil fields. The rate of discovery of giant fields peaked in the 1960s. While giant fields are still being discovered, the rate of discovery has fallen from over 120 per decade in the 1960s, to 24 per decade of the 1980s, to 9 between 2000 and 2007.

During this fifty year period of declining large oil field discovery, technology for oil exploration vastly improved, with satellite and other tools revealing oil deposits hidden below the land and oceans. As shallow, conventional oil fields deplete at a rate of 5% per year, optimistically, and a new Saudi Arabia sized oil deposit must be discovered and produced every 15 months to compensate for the decline. This new oil must come from a combination of a small number of giant as-yet-undiscovered unconventional oil fields and from a large number of smaller oil deposits.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil11.gif





The question of peak oil production and decline is not an “if” question; it’s a “when” question. Has it already begun? If not, when? A minority of oil companies and energy research firms believe that oil production has not or will not soon peak. Most do.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil12.gif





Most oil production studies put the peak of oil production at or around the year 2011.

The evidence is overwhelming that conventional world oil production peaked in 2004 and reached a plateau of 85 million barrels per day. In Part II we analyze presentations given at the conference that make the case for and against the possibility that non-conventional oil—deepwater and shale—can maintain the current production plateau for an extended period. We also look at the distortions in demand and pricing produced by the global recession.

Continuing with Hirsh’s presentation, whether the oil plateau ends in a few years or ten, surely the day will come when global oil production declines. What then? Can’t we substitute other materials for oil?

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil14.gif





Hirsh goes on to explain another fact about hydrocarbons that few of us appreciate, that we rely on them not only for transportation but for many other industrial processes and materials as well.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil17.gif





This chart shows products that we consume and the hydrocarbons that are used to make them. How many of these products can be made with substitutes? At what cost?

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil18.gif





If you look around the room you are in, you will be hard pressed to find any that were not either made out of or manufactured using hydrocarbons. The substitutions suggested above do not take higher costs into account.

If hydrocarbons are about to become rare, the most obvious solution to keep them from becoming extinct is to use less for transportation so that we have more left for making products, such as plastics, that can only be manufactured using hydrocarbons.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil15.gif





But how? The current fleet of liquid-fuel-consuming vehicles and generators— hundreds of millions of units—depend on crude oil distillates. If the end of the production plateau is upon us, how can these possibly be converted to run on non-liquid fuels within ten years or less?

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil16.gif





Hirsh says that the only practical solutions are: conservation and rationing, wider use of heavy oils, more intensive oil recovery from existing fields, and conversion of natural gas to liquids and coal to liquids.

Yet by Hirsh’s calculations, even if all of these methods of oil depletion mitigation are applied, assuming the optimistic 5% median annual global oil production decline rate, the world will still experience an oil shortage of 30% compared to current consumption rates.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil19.gif





Mitigation that reduces demand, the size of the hole in the bottom of the tub of oil, only compensates for a fraction of the decline in production.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil20.gif





By now it should be obvious to readers that oil will not become nearly extinct like the bison on the American plains. The giant hole in the bottom of our bathtub of oil will not remain so large that the second half that collected over 31 million seconds rushes out as quickly as the first half, not in half a second but instead at a slower and slower rate.

Just like the milkshake in the glass of ice, the last five sips will be more and more difficult to find and produce over time. Oil engineers will not be able to locate and extract the oil as fast as before. Yet demand for oil will remain high because our transportation systems depend on oil. The price will rise, and the hole in the bottom of our tub will get smaller.

In economic terms, higher oil prices means that the global economy will shrink.

Hirsh’s 2008 analysis of the impact of rising oil prices on economic growth revealed an approximate 1% decline in GDP per 1% decline in the oil supply. The 30% decline in oil supply in ten years following the end of the plateau in oil production at 5% per year, implies a 30% drop in GDP in a decade. During the first three years of The Great Depression, between 1930 and 1934, U.S. GDP declined 24%. Peak Oil implies a per-capita economic decline even more severe than The Great Depression, although the economic decline may be more gradual.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil21.gif





Hirsh states that the trajectory of the economic decline caused by declining oil production is unknowable because of the interaction of the economy and investment in oil exploration and production. Our analysis in early 2009 suggests that the collision of the FIRE Economy and Peak Cheap Oil will produce a series of economic booms and busts. The 30% decline will occur in an oscillation of rising prices, recession, falling demand, rising demand, rising prices, and recession.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil10.gif





Hirsh believes, and the data support his thesis, that global oil production peaked in 2004 and remains on an 85 million barrel per day plateau. The 2008 to 2009 financial and economic crisis curtailed E&P efforts that picked up in 2005, the year after global production peaked. Merrill Lynch recently forecast a production decline of up to 30 million barrels per day by 2015. In Part II we review the detailed forecasts of various presenters. One of those forecasts accounts for the fact of rising oil prices since early 2009 even though enormous inventories of oil and gasoline exist today as a result of the global recession. Peak Cheap Oil will exaggerate the oil boom-bust cycle, and macro-economic cycles as well.

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil23.gif





In sum, Hirsh believes that the world is five years into a global oil production plateau and that over the next two- to five-year period oil production will decline. Our view is that as the Peak Cheap Oil process continues, oil prices will rise, but not in a linear fashion. The global economy will experience a series of oil price shock recessions that will cumulatively produce the 30% decline in real GDP that Hirsh expects.

Our Peak Cheap Oil model from early 2009 represents the process in the following stylized chart. It suggests theoretical oil prices for each Peak Cheap Oil boom-bust cycle as well.

To find a critique of Hirsh’s work, we looked at several web sites that purport to debunk the peak oil case. We were unable to find any that make a logical, well-documented case.

For example, the third paragraph of the lead article on the blog peakoildebunked.blogspot.com titled “Why Robert Hirsh is Dead Wrong” states:
“Here's the fine print, from the Hirsch Report:
Nevertheless, this analysis clearly demonstrates that the key to mitigation of world oil production peaking will be the construction a large number of substitute fuel production facilities, coupled to significant increases in transportation fuel efficiency. The time required to mitigate world oil production peaking is measured on a decade time-scale. Related production facility size is large and capital intensive. (P. 6) “Let's break that down. Note that conservation plays no role whatsoever in Hirsch's "mitigation". None. Zero. His idea of "solving" the peak oil problem is to build horrendously expensive, highly polluting facilities for producing substitute liquid fuel (CTL, GTL, heavy oil) so that everyone can continue driving their current vehicles in a completely business-as-usual fashion.”
The blogger writes “conservation plays no role whatsoever in Hirsch's "mitigation". None. Zero.” Somehow he missed the phrase “coupled to significant increases in transportation fuel efficiency” that appears in the portion of the Hirsh report that he quotes.

Every other peak oil-debunking site that we found employed careless analysis, bad math, and generally weak arguments.

Next we explore the model in the context of familiar iTulip concepts: FIRE Economy versus Peak Cheap Oil. The timing of the economic oscillations of Peak Cheap Oil is unpredictable, as is the extent of oil price increases and declines in recessions. In Part II we take a shot at estimates. Short-term factors include excess inventories due to global recession, as we have today, future supply shocks due to under-investment that we expect to see between 2012 and 2015, anti-asset price deflation monetary policy, anti-oil cost push inflation monetary policy, and dollar reserve status changes.

Special Note: It was a pleasure to see many iTulip members at the ASPO conference.


<table valign="top" align="left" border="0"> <tbody><tr> <td>http://www.itulip.com/forums/../images2/1oxpower300.jpg</td> </tr> </tbody></table>Peak Cheap Oil Update - Part II: The First Peak Cheap Oil Cycle ($ubscription) (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=131461#post131461)

ASPO-US Conference Denver 2009 Trip Report and analysis
• Peak Cheap Oil Cycle has displaced the FIRE Economy Bubble Cycle
• Natural Gas Mini-Bubble or
• Why banks want us to believe the U.S. has 100 years of natural gas reserves and
• The U.S. can’t fuel a fleet of liquid natural gas (LGN) powered trucks and reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 30% as some assert
• Oil prices will spike to above $150 before 2012

In October I spent an hour with reporter who was putting together a package about asset bubbles for syndication. He asked the usual questions, including the status of The Next Bubble (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/02/0081908) in alternative energy and energy infrastructure that I wrote about in Harper’s Magazine.

Then I told him, as I did readers here earlier this year, that it appears that we will indeed get a "green" boom largely financed with government money, but it's not likely to develop into a full blown bubble of the kind we saw in technology stocks in the 1990s or in housing from 2002 to 2006. There's no private sector credit Ponzi machine to finance it.

Government can assist in bubble creation with monetary policy, by failing to enforce banking regulations, and by permitting new forms of credit to inflate asset prices the way securitized mortgage debt inflated housing prices, but government cannot create a colorful and exciting private market balloon out of strips of government bond burlap. My reporter appeared crestfallen.

In any case, bursts of high oil prices from the Cheap Oil Cycle will cut future asset bubbles short.

Regrettably, just as the concept of a Bubble Cycle goes mainstream, as I described it four years ago in The Bubble Cycle is Replacing the Business Cycle (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2405#post2405), the Bubble Cycle is no more.

The grim predictability of asset bubbles will be missed, with their characteristic multi-phase structure of price distortion that is ultimately mean reverting. Our Peak Cheap Oil Cycle model is far more complex and less deterministic. It will remain a work in progress at least until we get through one complete turn of the wheel, to see how monetary and currency policy adapts, but at least we are starting off with a solid, working hypothesis that we have been developing since 2006. Today we give our readers a first look. more... $subscription (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=131461#post131461)

iTulip Select (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1032): The Investment Thesis for the Next Cycle™
__________________________________________________

To receive the iTulip Newsletter or iTulip Alerts, Join our FREE Email Mailing List (http://ui.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?m=1101238839116&p=oi)

Copyright © iTulip, Inc. 1998 - 2009 All Rights Reserved

All information provided "as is" for informational purposes only, not intended for trading purposes or advice. Nothing appearing on this website should be considered a recommendation to buy or to sell any security or related financial instrument. iTulip, Inc. is not liable for any informational errors, incompleteness, or delays, or for any actions taken in reliance on information contained herein. Full Disclaimer (http://www.itulip.com/forums/../GeneralDisclaimer.htm)<!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message -->

Masher
11-03-09, 08:00 PM
Technology will save us?

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bISSLbNiGB0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bISSLbNiGB0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

I believe it.

metalman
11-03-09, 08:10 PM
believe what?

kartius919
11-03-09, 08:48 PM
Excellent post, but the demand side the equation is quite sparse. I don't understand how the "possible world future GDP" was constructed. Does that take into account peak oil w/ a 2007 peak production as the baseline? What are the assumptions?

We see demand fall off a cliff while only in the early stages of this depression. Gov'ts may stimulate all they want, but eventually someone has to pay the piper. In a way, Prechter and Mish are correct that real wages and demand will continue to fall. Chinese energy consumption regardless of what they publish will eventually have to meet reality. They can't continue to build shitty apartment complexes forever while food prices skyrocket. For the next decade, I fail to see how demand for energy can keep up with 2007 peak global productivity.

What are your estimates of future global GDP? What do you see as the driver that keeps energy demand relatively flat? Will government expenditure continue to substitute for lack of consumer demand? If so, how long can that last until civil disorders gash a hole in energy demand? What happens to oil demand under a currency crisis?

We saw in the Great Depression that misallocation of capital during boom years can result in devastating declines in productivity in bust years. This real estate and us consumption global misallocation is far greater than the 20's, so how does it not end with massive declines in productivity in the near future.

Btw, the first scenario is a pipe dream. If we have learned anything from the financial crisis, it should be that governments are incompetent.

MulaMan
11-04-09, 03:51 AM
1. http://www.solarroadways.com/

2. The idea of people living in suburbs is absurd for many reasons, not just peak oil and will end. Cities and towns will return. Much more effiecient way of living. Walking to the store, what a concept.

3. Warren Buffet buys the largest railroad in America. What a concept.

Personally, I can't wait for peak oil so that the world can move forward into the 21st century.

On the other hand China is making a huge mistake by following a 20th century industrialization strategy. Short China.

Chris Coles
11-04-09, 06:27 AM
The real problem is not transportation, but food production. Almost all our food is entirely energy related. We might feel that the defining numbers are related to transport, they are not. The defining numbers are population growth. If we had difficulty with food production, expected to need to double over the next century, before Peak Cheap Oil; where are we with a decline of oil production of 30% over the next two decades?

kartius919
11-04-09, 06:43 AM
There are other limits to food production besides energy. More important and significant bottle necks would be water, arable soil, erosion, desertification, etc. I don't think our current population growth is sustainable and no way population can double. Food supply will limit growth as in those who can't afford it will starve. Even so, declining GDP will decrease energy demand for industrial and transportation uses. This will decrease energy demand even if energy demand for food production remains flat. Also, as people get poorer, the diet shifts to more grains and less meat. Grains are less energy intensive per calorie than meats.

grapejelly
11-04-09, 09:20 AM
Thanks for the excellent work. I have two criticisms.

EJ, I think you discount the evidence for oil being part of the primordial ooze (http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Fossil-Fuels/dp/0387952535) that formed when the earth coalesced, and NOT being a fossil fuel.

I think the evidence is strong. And this means that the amount of petroleum in the earth is vast and the reservoirs refill themselves. And new drilling methods that go deeper will tap this vast amount of oil, or if not oil, then gas.

Secondly, the problem today with oil production and exploration is more the problem of socialism.

For awhile, the explorers and producers were profit-seeking companies. Now they are overwhelmingly caretaker governments concerned with milking the oil industry in their respective countries for short term vote-buying.

Basically, you have a vibrant producing machine that has turned into a public works project. Very little capital is invested and the exploration and exploration has been winding down for many years.

The answer of course will be more socialism and more government control.

And a bonus criticism: there are actually very bad new bubbles forming even as we discuss this. Currently a bubble is forming in US sovereign debt. It is fueled as all bubbles are by an excess of credit and a mania in asset purchases funded by the debt. In this case, government debt goes to the banks, who use it to purchase financial assets.

I'm not sure how, but China's bubble is part of this and we can expect the bubble in China and in sovereign debt to pop at the same time, perhaps in several years, with devastating results.

I do think GDP will decline. I agree with you there. Due to the Depression we are in, and the policies of "stimulus" and massive "injections" of fiat that will perpetuate and lengthen the Depression in the same way these identical policies worked to make the Great Depression as bad and as lengthy as it was.

Chris Coles
11-04-09, 09:52 AM
There are other limits to food production besides energy. More important and significant bottle necks would be water, arable soil, erosion, desertification, etc. I don't think our current population growth is sustainable and no way population can double. Food supply will limit growth as in those who can't afford it will starve. Even so, declining GDP will decrease energy demand for industrial and transportation uses. This will decrease energy demand even if energy demand for food production remains flat. Also, as people get poorer, the diet shifts to more grains and less meat. Grains are less energy intensive per calorie than meats.

This came up for debate on Country file, a BBC Farming program recently and has to be balanced against a very simple fact, a great deal of the land is only good for producing grass and then the only way to convert grass to food is through livestock farming.

FRED
11-04-09, 10:03 AM
Thanks for the excellent work. I have two criticisms.

EJ, I think you discount the evidence for oil being part of the primordial ooze (http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Fossil-Fuels/dp/0387952535) that formed when the earth coalesced, and NOT being a fossil fuel.

I think the evidence is strong. And this means that the amount of petroleum in the earth is vast and the reservoirs refill themselves. And new drilling methods that go deeper will tap this vast amount of oil, or if not oil, then gas.

The science shows that the minute quantities of petroleum that might possibly be of abiogenic origin are not commercially viable. Most of the oil and gas ever discovered, on the order of 99.99% of it, is proven to be of biogenic origin. The fact is that at high pressure and temperature oil "cracks" and turns into gas. It's simple physics. In Part II we review a presentation by a geologist at the ASPO conference who has a theory of why some oil, but not much compared to shallow deposits, exists at these depths is due to unique geology of the fields.


Secondly, the problem today with oil production and exploration is more the problem of socialism.

For awhile, the explorers and producers were profit-seeking companies. Now they are overwhelmingly caretaker governments concerned with milking the oil industry in their respective countries for short term vote-buying.

Basically, you have a vibrant producing machine that has turned into a public works project. Very little capital is invested and the exploration and exploration has been winding down for many years.

That is half true. Governments have proven themselves to be inefficient at oil production, but quite good at finding it. Government influence tends to cause oil fields to be depleted more quickly than otherwise, but that fact only reinforces our forecast.


The answer of course will be more socialism and more government control.

You are agreeing with one of the key Peak Cheap Oil trends we identify in Part II. Government influence over energy resources will increase in response to Peak Cheap Oil.

Not all planning is socialism. Sometimes planning for the future is prudent, and lack of planning is irresponsible.


And a bonus criticism: there are actually very bad new bubbles forming even as we discuss this. Currently a bubble is forming in US sovereign debt. It is fueled as all bubbles are by an excess of credit and a mania in asset purchases funded by the debt. In this case, government debt goes to the banks, who use it to purchase financial assets.

No, not by our definition. To call everything that rises rapidly in price a "bubble" is to make the term meaningless. We have a more specific use for "bubble" here in order to preserve the usefulness of the term.


I'm not sure how, but China's bubble is part of this and we can expect the bubble in China and in sovereign debt to pop at the same time, perhaps in several years, with devastating results.

Specifically, China has property and stock market bubbles, per our definition.


I do think GDP will decline. I agree with you there. Due to the Depression we are in, and the policies of "stimulus" and massive "injections" of fiat that will perpetuate and lengthen the Depression in the same way these identical policies worked to make the Great Depression as bad and as lengthy as it was.

Yes and no. The story of the Great Depression is complex and nuanced. The original error of excessive credit expansion has no painless solution.

Kadriana
11-04-09, 10:19 AM
This came up for debate on Country file, a BBC Farming program recently and has to be balanced against a very simple fact, a great deal of the land is only good for producing grass and then the only way to convert grass to food is through livestock farming.

I was reading an article a couple months ago saying how the tradition of lawns came over from England but America's climate and soil isn't made for lawns. You think how much energy is put into watering, fertilizing, mowing grass. Imagine if people grew their own food instead. Compost instead of fertilizer, weeding instead of mowing and collect rain water instead of using a hose. I think people will adjust their lifestyles if energy and food costs start to rise too much.

Slimprofits
11-04-09, 12:04 PM
I was reading an article a couple months ago saying how the tradition of lawns came over from England but America's climate and soil isn't made for lawns. You think how much energy is put into watering, fertilizing, mowing grass. Imagine if people grew their own food instead. Compost instead of fertilizer, weeding instead of mowing and collect rain water instead of using a hose. I think people will adjust their lifestyles if energy and food costs start to rise too much.

A guy I know that is 72 years young retired a few years ago and converted his roughly 1/2 acre backyard into many plots for annuals and perennials. He's got a nice hobby and neighborhood micro-business.

The lawn to me is pointless.

ThePythonicCow
11-04-09, 01:17 PM
The science shows that the minute quantities of petroleum that might possibly be of abiogenic origin are not commercially viable. Most of the oil and gas ever discovered, on the order of 99.99% of it, is proven to be of biogenic origin. The fact is that at high pressure and temperature oil "cracks" and turns into gas. It's simple physics. In Part II we review a presentation by a geologist at the ASPO conference who has a theory of why some oil, but not much compared to shallow deposits, exists at these depths is due to unique geology of the fields. There is an enjoyable read on the subject of abiotic ("not biological") oil at Debunking the "Abiotic" Theory of Petroleum Formation (http://dailyduck.blogspot.com/2006/03/debunking-abiotic-theory-of-petroleum.html). It agrees with what FRED says here, that abiotic oil exists, but in insufficient quantities to be of much use to humans for energy.

don
11-04-09, 01:49 PM
A guy I know that is 72 years young retired a few years ago and converted his roughly 1/2 acre backyard into many plots for annuals and perennials. He's got a nice hobby and neighborhood micro-business.

The lawn to me is pointless.

A world with only essential plastics.

I'm ready :)

Roughneck
11-04-09, 03:45 PM
As someone who has spent 30 years in the oil and gas industry I would agree that we have reached peak "cheap" oil. I think this country with our 4 year political cycle and lack of energy policy is setting the stage for future hardships for it's people. We need to address the issue of energy security. It IS the most pressing crisis we will face, not health care or even global warming. We do have lots of energy resources here. The eastern gulf of mexico likely holds as much gas and oil as the western gulf. We need to be making hard political choices now or when the crisis hits we will be behind the eight ball. I wonder what is more of a threat to the tourism industry on the eastern seaboard? 6 dollar a gallon gas or an oil rig 75 miles of the coast? We need to develop our fossil resources as a bridge to the future. Millions generated by leasing gulf waters and western shale deposists could be used to fund energy research. Instead we spend millions researching global warming. Which would have a greater impact on future green house gas emissions? We need a manhattan or apollo scale project for energy development. People also need to understand the scale and investment required to harness and use low density energy sources like wind and solar. It would take a wind farm the size of the state of california and several square meters of solar panels for every citizen to produce 1/3 of our energy needs from each respectively. The current cap and trade legislation will do nothing more than siphon capital needed for investment and put it in the hands of politicians who will miss allocate the capital on social programs and foreign wars. Not to mention the cut the traders will take off the top. With an economy based 70% on consumption where will the GDP come from when people are spending their entire paychecks on food,shelter and energy? When oil spiked to $140 people in the northeast were wondering how they would afford to heat their homes and put gas in the car. Replacing hydrocarbon liquids as a transportation fuel should be the first priority but also will be the toughest challenge. I do believe in the creativity and ingenuity of the american people. If government would provide some leadership and vision we could conquer this problem. But alas, we have had neither wisdom or leadership in washington for a very long time.

ThePythonicCow
11-04-09, 04:24 PM
Well said, Roughneck.

metalman
11-04-09, 04:45 PM
As someone who has spent 30 years in the oil and gas industry I would agree that we have reached peak "cheap" oil. I think this country with our 4 year political cycle and lack of energy policy is setting the stage for future hardships for it's people. We need to address the issue of energy security. It IS the most pressing crisis we will face, not health care or even global warming. We do have lots of energy resources here. The eastern gulf of mexico likely holds as much gas and oil as the western gulf. We need to be making hard political choices now or when the crisis hits we will be behind the eight ball. I wonder what is more of a threat to the tourism industry on the eastern seaboard? 6 dollar a gallon gas or an oil rig 75 miles of the coast? We need to develop our fossil resources as a bridge to the future. Millions generated by leasing gulf waters and western shale deposists could be used to fund energy research. Instead we spend millions researching global warming. Which would have a greater impact on future green house gas emissions? We need a manhattan or apollo scale project for energy development. People also need to understand the scale and investment required to harness and use low density energy sources like wind and solar. It would take a wind farm the size of the state of california and several square meters of solar panels for every citizen to produce 1/3 of our energy needs from each respectively. The current cap and trade legislation will do nothing more than siphon capital needed for investment and put it in the hands of politicians who will miss allocate the capital on social programs and foreign wars. Not to mention the cut the traders will take off the top. With an economy based 70% on consumption where will the GDP come from when people are spending their entire paychecks on food,shelter and energy? When oil spiked to $140 people in the northeast were wondering how they would afford to heat their homes and put gas in the car. Replacing hydrocarbon liquids as a transportation fuel should be the first priority but also will be the toughest challenge. I do believe in the creativity and ingenuity of the american people. If government would provide some leadership and vision we could conquer this problem. But alas, we have had neither wisdom or leadership in washington for a very long time.

well put, rn. the next peak oil cycle kick the usa economy back to 1990s gdp. all the $$$ will go to eat and heat. i''l be trading this...

http://www.cupel.com/copyright/gold_eagle_obverse_side.jpg

...for this...

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/09/img/heating_oil.jpg

pity the poor saps who listened to this guy...

http://rockinthecashspa.com/images/cash_4_gold_ed.jpg

we_are_toast
11-04-09, 05:48 PM
As someone who has spent 30 years in the oil and gas industry I would agree that we have reached peak "cheap" oil. I think this country with our 4 year political cycle and lack of energy policy is setting the stage for future hardships for it's people. We need to address the issue of energy security. It IS the most pressing crisis we will face, not health care or even global warming. We do have lots of energy resources here. The eastern gulf of mexico likely holds as much gas and oil as the western gulf. We need to be making hard political choices now or when the crisis hits we will be behind the eight ball. I wonder what is more of a threat to the tourism industry on the eastern seaboard? 6 dollar a gallon gas or an oil rig 75 miles of the coast? We need to develop our fossil resources as a bridge to the future. Millions generated by leasing gulf waters and western shale deposists could be used to fund energy research. Instead we spend millions researching global warming. Which would have a greater impact on future green house gas emissions? We need a manhattan or apollo scale project for energy development. People also need to understand the scale and investment required to harness and use low density energy sources like wind and solar. It would take a wind farm the size of the state of california and several square meters of solar panels for every citizen to produce 1/3 of our energy needs from each respectively. The current cap and trade legislation will do nothing more than siphon capital needed for investment and put it in the hands of politicians who will miss allocate the capital on social programs and foreign wars. Not to mention the cut the traders will take off the top. With an economy based 70% on consumption where will the GDP come from when people are spending their entire paychecks on food,shelter and energy? When oil spiked to $140 people in the northeast were wondering how they would afford to heat their homes and put gas in the car. Replacing hydrocarbon liquids as a transportation fuel should be the first priority but also will be the toughest challenge. I do believe in the creativity and ingenuity of the american people. If government would provide some leadership and vision we could conquer this problem. But alas, we have had neither wisdom or leadership in washington for a very long time.

Hmmmmm, you seem to be a bit vague about this energy development you mention. Could you be a bit more specific on what you would like to see being done?

Mega
11-04-09, 06:00 PM
What about Linsey Williams?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147#
Laugh if you will but when oil hit +$140 & everyone said it would hit $200 (Because of Peek oil) Linsey came on Alex Jones & said his contact sez its going below $50!

I & other laughed................we know What happened next.

Mike

metalman
11-04-09, 06:02 PM
In a way, Prechter and Mish are correct that real wages and demand will continue to fall.

what? prechter and mish have turned into inflationists? when did that happen?

metalman
11-04-09, 06:29 PM
What about Linsey Williams?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147#
Laugh if you will but when oil hit +$140 & everyone said it would hit $200 (Because of Peek oil) Linsey came on Alex Jones & said his contact sez its going below $50!

I & other laughed................we know What happened next.

Mike

right prediction, wrong reason.

http://willfulcaboose.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/fruitcake.jpg

rogermexico
11-04-09, 07:24 PM
This came up for debate on Country file, a BBC Farming program recently and has to be balanced against a very simple fact, a great deal of the land is only good for producing grass and then the only way to convert grass to food is through livestock farming.

Chris

You are correct. Petroleum based- annual grass agriculture with its rapid soil destruction is as unsustainable as our oil consumption. Animals eating perennials and returning nutrients to the soil is the only sustainable way to feed people.

I recommend "the vegetarian myth" by Leirre Keith ( a former vegan) to all who think it is green to eat plants instead of animals.

If humans don't reduce numbers, nature will do it for them.

Roughneck
11-04-09, 07:59 PM
Hmmmmm, you seem to be a bit vague about this energy development you mention. Could you be a bit more specific on what you would like to see being done?<!-- / message -->

The first prority would be a replacement for liquid hydrocarbon fuels for transportation. This would have to be done in stages. There is a fuel cell technology being developed that uses gasoline to seperate hydrogen. Fuel economy is increased roughly 80% and the emissions are much less. That along with electric hybrids and the use of natural gas in fleet vehicles would be a first step. This is where we really need an apollo scale project.

I believe we should deveop wind,solar AND nuclear energy along with clean burning coal for power generation.

I think we all need to be realistic. We will not wean ourselves off fossil fuels over night. It is going to take a lot of time and money. I'm not sure the suburbs will die but you are already seeing developments where retail shopping,entertainment etc are developed in walking distance in the community. Kind of like a "town" enviroment. That way people only really NEED to drive any distance to work. You could have an ulltra fuel efficient or electric vehicle for commuting or a cental hub for mass transit.If you could turn your roof into a giant solar cell we could greatly reduce energy needs. I don't claim to have all the answers but there are some really smart people in our scientific community. If we focus our "energy" on finding solutions I think it can be done.The key is we need to recognize the problem and start finding solutions.

jandkmeyer
11-04-09, 08:04 PM
How many of the animals eaten in the US are feeding on grass, do you think? I would guess they are the exception and the vast majority of animal's diet is grain, mostly corn, which is heavily reliant on petroleum. Post Peak Oil grass fed will be the only way and they will be fewer and more expensive. Get ready for a diet with less meat, which will probably cut the health care bill.

I saw a film on Cuba where they were cut off from their Russian oil supply and had to go organic to survive. They lost weight and got healthier.

jk
11-04-09, 08:54 PM
see also the gregor article i previously posted- excerpt:

When the post-peak phase gets underway the price amplitude increases even further, playing havoc with supply and demand. As demand gets killed, and then finally collapses, it causes confusion about supply. But then, as demand returns, any questions about supply are soon answered as demand once again bumps up against the supply ceiling.

(jk -the chart represents production hitting a diminishing supply ceiling, a recession dropping demand, then a recovery increasing demand til it hits the ever-lowering production ceiling again. price movements will become more extreme even as variation in production becomes less extreme.)

http://gregor.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/contracting-triangle.gif (http://gregor.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/contracting-triangle.gif)
http://gregor.us/oil/overhead-crush/

metalman
11-04-09, 09:37 PM
see also the gregor article i previously posted- excerpt:

When the post-peak phase gets underway the price amplitude increases even further, playing havoc with supply and demand. As demand gets killed, and then finally collapses, it causes confusion about supply. But then, as demand returns, any questions about supply are soon answered as demand once again bumps up against the supply ceiling.

(jk -the chart represents production hitting a diminishing supply ceiling, a recession dropping demand, then a recovery increasing demand til it hits the ever-lowering production ceiling again. price movements will become more extreme even as variation in production becomes less extreme.)

http://gregor.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/contracting-triangle.gif (http://gregor.us/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/contracting-triangle.gif)
http://gregor.us/oil/overhead-crush/

http://www.itulip.com/images/peakcheapoil1973-2014.gif

Economic M.A.D. Revisited: Turning point (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10244) jun 2009

jk
11-04-09, 11:28 PM
http://www.itulip.com/images/peakcheapoil1973-2014.gif

Economic M.A.D. Revisited: Turning point (http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10244) jun 2009

yep. i think gregor's oil production/supply graph pretty much produces ej's price chart. same thing.

Chris Coles
11-05-09, 09:22 AM
Hmmmmm, you seem to be a bit vague about this energy development you mention. Could you be a bit more specific on what you would like to see being done?


Before Fred jumps in and shuts me down for Spamming, I want to suggest that, with energy now being recognised as the most important subject for debate, what I am about to say is particularly relevant.


You cannot research new thinking, without an acceptance that, if you preclude any area of thought from the outset, you remove new thinking before you start. And, in so doing, you will have restricted the potential for access to knowledge, you cannot know exists; without the research. A classic catch 22.
So first of all I have to admit to being in a quandary about this question of specifics with regard to energy research having written a new book about gravity and, as a part of that discussion, have proposed new thinking about how both photons and also electrons are generated. So I am going to tell you all a story. (Apologies, not a short one).

My book is sufficiently controversial that, while my Principal Investigator, (a Prof of both Electrical Engineering and Physics), has placed, (very bravely in my humble opinion), on record, a foreword for the book; he is having real difficulty adding another letter, (to support), my further interest in creating a completely new, totally independent, research institute for research into gravity and new forms of energy, which in turn, will look at all these ideas of mine here in the UK. (Where I am convinced it should be located).

Add to that, I am being shunned by every professional scientist, I believe because of fear that any support may result in the absolute destruction of their professional careers as scientists. My local UK government source of grant has made it absolutely clear that they think I am a raving lunatic, a classic crank. Friends have tried to find support, taking a copy of the book as a ink-jet printout to pass on, only to receive strange replies. Copies sent by me to the likes of the Royal Society in London have resulted in total silence, yet, when another friend, a member of the Institute of Physics tried to go in to talk to the RS, their reply was that they do not permit such contact, they will only do so by invitation. Without an invitation forthcoming.....

Without a doubt, one of the reasons for the fear is that, if I am right about my thinking, then everything they have been taught has to be thrown away. And that is a very difficult thing for a professional to have to contemplate at the height of their career. As a result, I have a book ready for print, with the research institute created as a ephemeral thought online with an outline of what we will do and how we will do it, even a perfect location, (IMHO) but at every turn, no matter how we try - no funding.

To give you an idea of how obtuse this is, take a look at the July 2004, (yes, this is a story covering many years), edition of Scientific American, pages 26 to 35, The Extraordinary Deaths of Ordinary Stars by Bruce Balick and Adam Frank. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-extraordinary-deaths (I recommend the printed edition). In the first edition of my book about gravity I had used, as an illustration of what I am describing, part of which is the underlying mechanism for the formation of Planetary nebula, a copy of a photograph, taken by Bruce Balick, of a planetary nebula. So what? That Scientific American article tells us that, in general, they do not know the underlying mechanisms for the formation of what are called Planetary Nebula. So, take a look at the last paragraph on page 35, it reads:

We are hardly the only astrophysicists to be awed, puzzled and challenged by enigmatic images from Hubble and other instruments over the past decade. Nearly every field of astronomical research has a similar tale to tell. New information ultimately upends the best of theories in every field of research. That is the nature of progress. Discovery is often disruptive, it clears out old niches and prepares the way for big (and often disorienting) leaps forward. Scientific theories are built to be used, but they must be mistrusted, tested and improved. (my emphasis).
Remember that to use the original image I had asked permission and had passed on a copy of the first edition when it became available. So when the article came out I emailed Bruce Balick, (prof at Washington State), to ask to meet and talk, his answer was: "Too busy, no time, good luck". Also, remember, Scientific American also had to know why they had written that final paragraph.

A second edition produced as an E-book, (drafts of which had been passed around to many more scientists), including the team working with the Hubble Space telescope, has, (as every edition since), a very detailed description of how the Whirlpool Galaxy has evolved and that I was contemplating a poster to illustrate the mechanism. You might like to go and find that when the Hubble team decided to celebrate their 15th anniversary, they produced two images, one of the Whirlpool galaxy and the other of a dust cloud, The Eagle Nebula; exactly what I need to be able to create that poster. But no mention of me or my book. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2005/12

Very thought provoking.

By this last April, I had finished another new edition of the book, (I keep adding to it), and decided to change direction by starting a viral marketing campaign, not about that subject, but another, (that EJ is very familiar with), my thoughts on the subject of how to break that log jam of the funding for new ideas and, thus, new job creation. Part of that thinking had been placed as a new thread on iTulip. http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=7480

To start my new ball rolling, I took everything I had ever written about the difficulties of funding new thought and thus new jobs, from my experience as an inventor, and created a new, free to download PDF book titled: The Road Ahead from a Grass Roots Perspective. www.chriscoles.com.page3.html (http://www.chriscoles.com.page3.html) and sent a copy to The Times, London, (Our UK Paper of Record). Since then, ~ early September, they have permitted some 60 of my comments, (please note that they can be VERY restrictive as to the number they permit), a good example being: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6859447.ece
or again, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6889765.ece

The crux of what I see as the problem with research into energy is the very simple fact that we do not have any usable funding mechanism for such research. What we have today is either government grant, or VC funding. The first will only look at the ideas coming from established players such as universities or large companies, the latter is so blinkered by feudal attitudes towards their marketplace and a wish to make huge fortunes in months, that they are absolutely unusable. I will not go there. Period.

Energy, magnetic energy, electromagnetic energy, is going to answer all of your long term problems. The real problem is funding, or to be precise, the lack of it. THAT is your problem.

LargoWinch
11-05-09, 11:44 AM
First of all: wow!




Energy, magnetic energy, electromagnetic energy, is going to answer all of your long term problems.


Chris, that is quite a bold statement and one which I sincerely hope it is true.

If I may ask the obvious million dollars questions: just how much funding would be required and how long is "long term"?

Chris Coles
11-05-09, 01:10 PM
First of all: wow!




Chris, that is quite a bold statement and one which I sincerely hope it is true.

If I may ask the obvious million dollars questions: just how much funding would be required and how long is "long term"?

Largo, let us take this from an assumption that one needs to be able to pay a top flight Prof full tenure just to lead what will become a major research centre funded by (hopefully) public donation, then I would not expect to be able to even start the ball rolling without something in the region of $30 million day one, (£UK20 million). The property I have in mind for its location was on sale here in the UK a while ago for £12 million.

Long term, most of the funding will come from profits from the spin off from the sales of the book; the associated educational materials. If my theories turn out to be correct, then, (as outlandish as this sounds), I own what will turn out to be a good part of the subjects of Physics and Astronomy. So we will be supplying all the basic experiments and associated materials to every school, college and university on the planet.

I must add that this is for a very wide range of subjects. I seem to have been able to describe everything from a new model for the structure of the proton, right through to a complete description of every object in the universe. Everything goes out the window. Ideal Gas Law, Quantum dynamics, Uncertainty, all go. Take as a simple example, the inner structure of the sun will now be quite different. So using that as a simple example, imagine how many schools will need to throw away everything they have related to the sun?

Most of what I want to do at the start is related to computational visualisations. Those in turn form the backbone for the educational materials.

The book is much simpler as a book launch is much less costly. Yes, I am planning to add to it between now and Christmas, but as I do everything including typesetting and cover design, that all gets done at one and the same time. I have recently been talking locally about, (as I am stuck unable to move forward), that perhaps I should set up a simple experiment to show the potential for the control of gravity. But that has in turn resulted in someone trying to get into the house through the front window and my own thought process has shown me that I am taking a big risk in trying to do that while unfunded. What I may do now is less than I intended earlier this autumn.

I am sure that some who have recently been given a ink jet printout of the most recent edition have instead of offering to help, may well have already set off to try and answer that question without me. Theft of IP is very prevalent in todays society. But what can I do?

I am trying to gain access to some value I have with telecom patents I own, but that is stalled - very frustrating.

Roughneck
11-05-09, 01:12 PM
My plan would be to lease the eastern gulf,coastal california and the western shale deposits to provide funding for research. But I think Chris makes a very valid point.What is needed now is out of the box thinking but sadly the scientific community frowns on people who question the status quo.

Chris Coles
11-05-09, 01:35 PM
How long is long term?

Good question. I want to start by answering in general rather than specifically about my own projects.

As I see it, the greatest problem we face today, and when I say we, I mean all of us, is the perception that the only way forward with investment is to take control from day one and get out by selling on ASAP. We all lose by that mechanism which centres investment on the idea of profit from speculated asset appreciation. That in turn drives everything we see as wrong about the FIRE economy.

My free book, The Road Ahead sets out strict rules for long term investment into new business. Read Chapter three. So in that case, long term is as long as the originator wants to remain in complete control of their enterprise. The investor has to recognise that, instead of investing for control and their short term gain, they are investing for the long term benefit of their local community and in which case, their long term return is dividend income from long term profits. Asset price does not come into it.

Turning to what I am trying to do, if, IF, the book succeeds, then the publishing company, that I own, becomes very valuable indeed. So a good chunk of the profits will go back into further research. But the research has to be completely independent. Not funded by donations from major companies that will only suppress the long term potential. Equally, I would be devastated if the gravity research became another military project dominated by such as what we can now see is absolutely dreadful CIA mentality. (Another reason for wanting to keep this here in the UK). So I want to keep the research completely independent and funded by public donation. That way, we can open the results and where we make discoveries, we can allow many to benefit without losing control of the long term development of the underlying subjects

So the research becomes a public charity. Everyone working within under the same sort of environment as any other, medical charity, for example.

The manufacture of the experiments is a publishing spin off. But, as time goes forward, inevitably, there will be a crossover between the research institute and the publishing arm.

Chris Coles
11-05-09, 01:39 PM
My plan would be to lease the eastern gulf,coastal california and the western shale deposits to provide funding for research. But I think Chris makes a very valid point.What is needed now is out of the box thinking but sadly the scientific community frowns on people who question the status quo.

What are you suggesting? Is that the US government lease the land and use that income to fund energy research? Or that the owners of the land do so?

Verdred
11-05-09, 03:21 PM
I like the discussion that has ensued (grass fed cows and all), but I MORE like the fact that, as far as iTulip is concerned Peak Cheap Oil isn't up for debate; Or to put it differently, the assumption is Peak Cheap Oil until proven otherwise (or technologies are scaled up, what-have-you). If I want discussion of PCO I can go to either ASPO or Oil Drum (though to be honest, it isn't debated much there either because PCO is now so dramatically apparent). The key advantage here is the merging of AN ASSUMPTION OF PCO and the (d)evolving Global Economy. With that, I move on to Part II. Thanks iTulip.

*T*
11-05-09, 03:22 PM
Secondly, the problem today with oil production and exploration is more the problem of socialism.

Grapejelly, is there any problem you do not think is caused by too much socialism?

*T*
11-05-09, 03:33 PM
My plan would be to lease the eastern gulf,coastal california and the western shale deposits to provide funding for research. But I think Chris makes a very valid point.What is needed now is out of the box thinking but sadly the scientific community frowns on people who question the status quo.

Whilst I agree with this sentiment, even solutions where the physics is quite well understood (fusion, solar, wave) are woefully underfunded. Rather than print money to support the banks, why did we not emply all those quants to do real science instead? (which is what most of them wanted to do in the first place).

Roughneck
11-05-09, 07:22 PM
Chris, the oil in the eastern gulf is in federal waters. Much of the western shale deposits sit on federal lans as well. If we would use these resources and allocate the money for energy research it would buy us some time and give us some money to help solve the problem.

rbarrie
11-05-09, 09:31 PM
I have read that the bakken oil formation in Canada & the US is a huge resource (between 400-500 Billion barrels) of light crude. I have attached some links:
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/local/story.html?id=5f07f6b9-815f-4058-9e25-17fb0c61cd61
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/05/23/f-langton-bakken.html

Did any party at the conference touch on this play?

metalman
11-05-09, 09:34 PM
in 2 yrs the peak cheap oil cycle will be as obvious as the old asset bubble cycle is today...

metalman
11-05-09, 09:39 PM
I have read that the bakken oil formation in Canada & the US is a huge resource (between 400-500 Billion barrels) of light crude. I have attached some links:
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/local/story.html?id=5f07f6b9-815f-4058-9e25-17fb0c61cd61
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/05/23/f-langton-bakken.html

Did any party at the conference touch on this play?

those stupid, lazy, drunken canucks... leaving all that free oil laying around...

http://gtothesquare.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/lazy_cat.jpg

GRG55
11-05-09, 10:33 PM
those stupid, lazy, drunken canucks... leaving all that free oil laying around...

http://gtothesquare.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/lazy_cat.jpg

Bud Light? Not likely. Up here we drink...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XdLheUC7kA

and...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDTa1Abw7Lc

Chris Coles
11-06-09, 03:14 AM
Many thanks GRG, made my day. :D:D

LargoWinch
11-06-09, 09:15 AM
Thank you Chris for your detailed and enlightening replies. Please keep the community updated with your fascinating project!

I would like to read your book, "The Road Ahead", but I cannot find it on cyberspace. A quick Google-fu search leads to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Ahead), but this can't be...right? ;)

LargoWinch
11-06-09, 09:20 AM
those stupid, lazy, drunken canucks... leaving all that free oil laying around...

http://gtothesquare.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/lazy_cat.jpg





Payback time. ;)


http://euroross.blogspot.com/Quebec%20Nordiques.JPG

http://images.wikia.com/openserving/sports/images/thumb/d/d0/WinnipegJets.png/150px-WinnipegJets.png

Chris Coles
11-06-09, 11:52 AM
Thank you Chris for your detailed and enlightening replies. Please keep the community updated with your fascinating project!

I would like to read your book, "The Road Ahead", but I cannot find it on cyberspace. A quick Google-fu search leads to this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Ahead), but this can't be...right? ;)

Sorry about that Largo, I had shortened the title which reads in full: The Road Ahead from a Grass Roots Perspective. Try this link www.chriscoles.com/page3.html (http://www.chriscoles.com/page3.html)

GRG55
11-08-09, 01:20 PM
I have read that the bakken oil formation in Canada & the US is a huge resource (between 400-500 Billion barrels) of light crude. I have attached some links:
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/local/story.html?id=5f07f6b9-815f-4058-9e25-17fb0c61cd61
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/05/23/f-langton-bakken.html

Did any party at the conference touch on this play?

The Bakken's a decent shale oil play that looks like it's in danger of being overcapitalized.

Recoverable reserves are currently estimated at between 1% and 2% of the oil in place - which is still a hell of a lot of oil*. And no doubt technology will increase that recovery rate over time. The main issue is the same as the shale gas plays. The wells deplete rapidly, so maintaining production becomes like running on a treadmill...the more wells you have, the more new wells you have to drill to keep the production and cashflow from falling. Hence my comment about overcapitalization.

Having said that, the best of the wells in the Bakken, although expensive to drill and complete, pay out in under one year, so for the moment the economics are pretty attractive.

[* The midpoint of that estimate would be about 6 Billion barrels of recoverable oil. By way of comparison, the prolific West Texas Permian Basin, first drilled in 1921, has produced about 11 Billion barrels cumulative to date]

mooncliff
11-10-09, 12:29 AM
I would modify the title slightly to

Part I: The glass is half empty (and what is left is the dregs)

maTTz
11-12-09, 01:39 AM
The Bakken's a decent shale oil play that looks like it's in danger of being overcapitalized.

Recoverable reserves are currently estimated at between 1% and 2% of the oil in place - which is still a hell of a lot of oil*. And no doubt technology will increase that recovery rate over time. The main issue is the same as the shale gas plays. The wells deplete rapidly, so maintaining production becomes like running on a treadmill...the more wells you have, the more new wells you have to drill to keep the production and cashflow from falling. Hence my comment about overcapitalization.

Having said that, the best of the wells in the Bakken, although expensive to drill and complete, pay out in under one year, so for the moment the economics are pretty attractive.

[* The midpoint of that estimate would be about 6 Billion barrels of recoverable oil. By way of comparison, the prolific West Texas Permian Basin, first drilled in 1921, has produced about 11 Billion barrels cumulative to date]

http://www.itulip.com/images2/peakoil2.gif
So if we're consuming 85 million barrels of oil per day, and a 10 billion barrel find only gives us another 1 million barrels per day, then does that mean the best we can hope for is a bit over 1% of our oil consumption from this Bakken field? not quite the 10 Saudi Arabia's is it...