free html hit counter Peak Oil Debunked: 282. LAHERRERE: LIQUIDS WILL PEAK AROUND 2020

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

282. LAHERRERE: LIQUIDS WILL PEAK AROUND 2020

To his great credit as a scientist, Jean Laherrere has accepted the common-sense criticism that liquids are what matters, not the irrelevant cult-object subset of liquids which Colin Campbell calls "Regular Conventional Oil" (see #43, #52 and #230) . Laherrere now accepts that biomass liquids and synthetic oil from coal are a form of "oil" and must be counted as such if we are to face reality.

Laherrere's latest forecast (from the recent EGU meeting in Vienna):
I have access to several technical databases.
Liquids production will significantly decline after a likely bumpy plateau 2010-2020 and likely chaotic oil prices.
30 years from now, production of easy oil will be 35% less than to day but production of all liquids (including from coal and biomass) only 5% less than to day.
So much for the near-term peak and deadly decline everyone's been hyping (unless, of course, somebody got to Laherrere and he's now "on the payroll"... LOL.)

5% down in 2030... Yup, that should give you plenty of time to get that rustic doomer hide-out you foolishly purchased up and running. Have fun cleaning out the barn for the next 25 years!! If you get tired, and want to know who to pin the blame on, click here.

Moving on... here's Laherrere's chart for all liquids. Note the URR of 3Tb likely, 4Tb possible (click graphs to enlarge):
And, for all you Hubbert-Linearization true-believers, here's Laherrere's new liquids linearization. Note how the linearization goes haywire after 2003. We were all set to hit 2250, and then Bing! the unexpected happens, and now we're heading for 3000 -- maybe even 4000. Which just goes to show how completely worthless HL is as a predictive technique:
-- by JD

56 Comments:

At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 5:31:00 AM PDT, Blogger Roland said...

Wow. I sure hope he's right about 5% decline by 2030.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 8:24:00 AM PDT, Blogger OilBurner said...

Finally some common sense.

Oil production may never hit the 120m bpd required for current predictions, but it won't crash overnight either.

You can be sure that no matter what you intend to predict, extreme events on either side are unlikely. Boring as it may seem, life tends to err on the middle option, time after time after time. That basic sanity check gives Laherrere a big thumbs up.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 9:57:00 AM PDT, Blogger Patrick David said...

Your analysis has several holes in it. Here's a good quote to dissect:

I have access to several technical databases. Liquids production will significantly decline after a likely bumpy plateau 2010-2020 and likely chaotic oil prices.
30 years from now, production of easy oil will be 35% less than to day but production of all liquids (including from coal and biomass) only 5% less than to day.

Well, fuels made from biomass require more energy to produce than they provide. So how is biomass a solution to our high consumption lifestyle? Also, coal is terribly costly to convert to liquid fuel- a fact the makes it a poor replacement of petroluem. Don't believe me? Nazi Germany desperately turned to liquified coal during the waning years of WWII and utterly failed. Those same cost issues still exist today.

Finally, even if oil peaks from 2020 to 2030, we need to begin NOW to find REAL solutions to the coming energy crisis. Biomass, coal, solar, wind-- even with technological advances that will surly come, we won't be able to replace the efficency of oil. There IS a major problem out there and if we wish to avoid one, the time is NOW. The key to your misguided optimism is that you forget to think about EROEI, Energy Returned Over Energy Invested. No one is going to run our economy on biofuel and liquified coal, no matter how much faith in science you have. I'm not quite ready to clean out my barn, but the "bumpy plateau" mentioned will become very bumpy indeed when energy price provoke a recession and the elderly cannot pay their energy bills.

I'm glad I had the chance to set you straight. This is indeed a complicated topic. For more information to set you straight, see

peakoilworld.blogspot.com

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 10:14:00 AM PDT, Blogger JCK said...

Well, fuels made from biomass require more energy to produce than they provide.

Every conversion between two forms energy involves a loss. If the input energy is solar or wind, who cares?

So how is biomass a solution to our high consumption lifestyle?

Why do we need to maintain a "high consumption lifestyle"? Is our way of life "non-negotiable"?

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 10:26:00 AM PDT, Blogger Joe said...

patrick_david said "
Well, fuels made from biomass require more energy to produce than they provide."

From NY Times Article on Brazilian ethanol - see
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/10/world/americas/10brazil.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5087&en=67cdf5cc49fb84f4&ex=1144900800

*****************
"Ethanol can be made through the fermentation of many natural substances, but sugar cane offers
advantages over others, like corn. For each unit of energy expended to turn cane into ethanol, 8.3 times as much energy is created, compared with a maximum of 1.3 times for corn, according to scientists at the Center for Sugarcane Technology here and other Brazilian research institutes.

"There's no reason why we shouldn't be able to improve that ratio to 10 to 1," said Suani Teixeira Coelho, director of the National Center for Biomass at the University of São Paulo. "It's no miracle. Our energy balance is so favorable not just because we have high yields, but also because we don't use any fossil fuels to process the cane, which is not the case with corn."

Brazilian producers estimate that they have an edge over gasoline as long as oil prices do not drop below $30 a barrel. But they have already embarked on technical improvements that promise to lift yields and cut costs even more."

**************

Also, you stated "coal is terribly costly to convert to liquid fuel". How costly? Does it cost $30 barrel, $40, $50, $80? maybe even $100?

If, as it seems you believe we will have a huge shortage of petroleum then its price should be $150 barrel or more. At that point , Coal to liquid will seem extremely cheap.

BTW, many people think CTL is cost effective if Oil stays above $40 barrel.

Your analysis seems to have holes in it.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 11:11:00 AM PDT, Blogger emtel said...

patrick david,

Here's what you're saying:

BECAUSE the Nazi's failed at coal-to-liquid fuel conversion in the 40s, THEREFORE we will also fail.

Because we all know that nazi germany was the pinnacle of human technological achievement.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 1:01:00 PM PDT, Blogger Freak said...

"Well, fuels made from biomass require more energy to produce than they provide. "

- Biodiesel has a 3.2 to 1 ERP on Corn Co-Products, and Ethanol has a 1.67 to 1 Ratio on Corn Co-Products. This does not even account for Biodiesel from Algae, or Cellulosic Ethanol.

"coal is terribly costly to convert to liquid fuel- a fact the makes it a poor replacement of petroluem"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karrick_process

"Finally, even if oil peaks from 2020 to 2030, we need to begin NOW to find REAL solutions to the coming energy crisis. Biomass, coal, solar, wind-- even with technological advances that will surly come, we won't be able to replace the efficency of oil."

I Agree, but there is every reason to believe We are doing exactly that.

"I'm glad I had the chance to set you straight."

Don't get cocky you did not provide anything more than a typical mindless doom cult lie session.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 1:14:00 PM PDT, Blogger Dom said...

Ok, we all know that cornucopians like to change their definition of what oil is, but that's taking on two different arguments.
1) Peak Oil is geological. Produce CTL and it has nothing to do with the FACT of PO.
2) Will peak oil matter in the well-being of man? A COMPLETELY different question, dear JD. Don't care if you try to answer it - just don't mix up the issues, please.

Joe said:
Also, you stated "coal is terribly costly to convert to liquid fuel". How costly? Does it cost $30 barrel, $40, $50, $80? maybe even $100?
Right, how costly? Does OIL cost $30, $60 or $250 while you're trying to produce CTL? Then you'll know how much CTL will cost. Price (AKA US-Dollar) is relative! Not an objective measure, like you seem to think.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 1:36:00 PM PDT, Blogger Patrick David said...

Here's a measured response to all your concerns.

1. JCK: NO! The world should not, cannot, and must not maintain a high energy lifesyle. Most people on this blog seem to think the our lifestyle does not need to change. WRONG!

2. JOE: The amount of land needed to produce enough ethanol to satisfy our needs would be unsustainable. YES Brazil produces sugar and YES the Midwest produces corn, but for ethanol to replace petroleum, the scale would be just too large. ALSO, remember this: large scale industrial farming requires OIL to run farm machines. See a problem? Ethanol WILL be part of our energy future, but it's a net energy loser and still dependent on petroluem. I suggest you read David Pimentel's work on the subject.

http://www.acfnewsource.org/science/ethanol_woes.html


3. EMTEL:

You are not reading closely. What I said was that the SAME issues the plagued the Nazis in their coal efforts, STILL plague the energy industry. I do have faith in American ingenuity, etc, but sometimes, blind faith that markets and science will solve all our problems is not enough.


4. FREAK:

We are not doing anything CLOSE to addressing the coming energy crisis. As I have successfully explained, ethanol will not even come close to replacing petroleum. Food systems, transportation, housing arrangements, heating? Have we even touched all of these KEY issues? Nope.

Also, I hardly support the idea that I'm a part of a mindless doom cult lie session. I think the FACTS speak for themselves. I prefer to rely on science and reality rather than markets and HOPE.

Again, I'm glad I've had the chance to clear up some common misconceptions and misunderstandings about several very important topics. It is important not to confuse cockiness with knowledge.

PEAKOILWORLD.BLOGSPOT.COM

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 1:57:00 PM PDT, Blogger Rembrandt said...

Lahherrere is as always keen on target, he is the most knowledgable "peak oiler" i know. And also the most chaotic one :D. Anyway referring to his analysis, this is in line with earlier predictions (peak around 2015) only more detailed. This last sentence about all liquids refers to including coal and biomass. But in the graph itself all liquids means crude oil + heavy + extra heavy + NGL + tar sands + polar and so forth. not coal and biomass. This is a bit confusing. Or maybe I am still mistaken but from what I can see not.

Not really anything to comment except that Lahherrere has done a splendid job.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 2:14:00 PM PDT, Blogger Ross said...

Nice work JD.

Interestingly, I read a report on P.O. out of France about 18 months ago now, that indicated '2013' was going to be the year. Not sure how they came up with such a specific number, however it fits with the data you've just provided.

At the same time, as price of a barrel is rising (again), there is more and more talk in Austr of alternatives, mostly aimed at conservation....smaller cars, public transport, less trips etc. This has got to the point that even those boring 'current affairs' shows are giving hints n tips.

Also, Aussies are now starting to trade up from their SUV's to more economical vehicles, and the various state/local & federal governments are to "10 % Ethanol mix" for all govt vehicles.

So I think that we (the planet, 'cept for Hummer owners) *are* doing something in a steady fashion to mitigate the problem.

Ross
PS The Germans pretty much invented space flight, just reporting to terrible executive at the time...seems like a pinnacle of sorts to me.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 2:14:00 PM PDT, Blogger Roland said...

It is important not to confuse cockiness with knowledge.

LOL!! Of course, how could we make such a mistake. JD has written almost 300 blog articles in support of his point, but thanks for coming round here and proving him wrong in 5 minutes.

Makes me happy to see that Rembrandt gives Laherre the thumbs up. :-)

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 2:41:00 PM PDT, Blogger DC said...

Also, I hardly support the idea that I'm a part of a mindless doom cult lie session. I think the FACTS speak for themselves. I prefer to rely on science and reality rather than markets and HOPE.

*yawn* Then stop mindlessly throwing out flawed whoppers like Pimentel's shit-job of a paper and strawmen like "there's not enough land!" Until then, you warrant no further consideration. Sorry, get a clue.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 2:44:00 PM PDT, Blogger DC said...

Again, I'm glad I've had the chance to clear up some common misconceptions and misunderstandings about several very important topics. It is important not to confuse cockiness with knowledge.

Oh, what irony.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 3:33:00 PM PDT, Blogger Chris Vernon said...

So what's the news here? Lahherrere's analysis for conventional oil is very much in line with the early peakers.

He goes on to make some further analysis for other sources of oil. These are far more uncertain though - there are different technologies and different economies involved. The rampup of these new liquid fuels is extremely uncertainly since we don't really have any idea about how the global economy will react to the peaking of conventional oil.

An aside - I had the privilege to talk to the CEO of Sasol Chevron today. He said the global output of gas to liquids (that's the business he's in) would reach 800,000 barrels per day by 2015. That struck me as a SMALL NUMBER!

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 3:52:00 PM PDT, Blogger Freak said...

PATRICK DAVID,

You obviously haven't read anything on this blog. You have your head so far up your ass frankily that there is no point in posting for you here, no one is going to listen to how you say what you say, or even the substance of what you say. I'm not trying to censor
you but your endeavor here is futile, this is a think tank of sort where problems are debated, discussed and weighed out. You are far to close minded and arrogant to need to engage yourself in this forum. You aren't telling anybody anything we didn't already know. You are repeating the same old Peak-Dogma that we've all heard before. Please unless you want to offer something productive to the discussion, don't waste your time or ours. Have a nice day :)

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 3:57:00 PM PDT, Blogger Freak said...

And one more thing PD, You really just popped up like an obnoxious 4 am infomercial and started yelling at everybody. You might want to work on your approach, as well as relying on VERY dated reseach, you need to go set yourself straight before you start yelling that tired old crap at everyone over here and I might suggest taking the time to read past posts in this blog as a beginning.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 4:02:00 PM PDT, Blogger Omnitir said...

Patrick david said:
Most people on this blog seem to think the our lifestyle does not need to change. WRONG!

Uh huh. WRONG! You should try actually reading the blog sometime instead of just automatically assuming that people here are all a bunch of cornucopias who think that nothing is going to change.

Most people here are well aware of the need for change, and the POD blog tries to promote change. We don’t need to live such a wasteful lifestyle in order have a high standard of living. However POD also tries to look at the PO issue more objectively. Over at the oil drum one gets the impression that we are all doomed and there is no point in searching for solutions. WRONG!

What we need are far less people insisting that there is nothing that can be done, and far more people aware of the need for change and actively pursuing change.

POD doesn’t deny the need for change but rather it promotes it. However it does deny the doomer hype and herd thinking that is causing many people to give up on the future.

Stop being a part of the problem and start looking for how to be a part of the solution.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 4:05:00 PM PDT, Blogger Joe said...

Dom,
You said:

"Right, how costly? Does OIL cost $30, $60 or $250 while you're trying to produce CTL? Then you'll know how much CTL will cost. Price (AKA US-Dollar) is relative! Not an objective measure, like you seem to think."

Are you talking about using OIL to produce the power that is need to run the CTL process. You're kidding right? You have a pile of coal, why the heck would use oil?!

The main reason the cost of CTL will go up is if the cost of coal goes up... otherwise except for normal inflation, as the process is improved the cost goes down.

Just curious, do you also think we use oil to produce most of our electricity?

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 4:32:00 PM PDT, Blogger Roland said...

Lahherrere's analysis for conventional oil is very much in line with the early peakers.

That's missing the entire point. The other peakers, unlike Laherrere, have not included non-conventional oil in their analysis. But in the real world it doesn't matter whether oil comes out of a normal well or from recycled bat droppings, as long as it's black, sticky and makes your car go. Laherrere is demonstrating what the early peak hypothesis actually means when you include other oil sources in it.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 4:59:00 PM PDT, Blogger Chris Vernon said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 5:01:00 PM PDT, Blogger Chris Vernon said...

No, my point is that recycled bat droppings aren't necessarily analogous to the normal oil we all know and love so much. There still exist serious economic and technical uncertainties with alternative sources of oil. The ability to deliver tens of millions of barrels per day worth of net energy being one of them.

Sure it might work - but we certainly don't know with any confidence that at least 40mbpd will come from such sources in 2050. That's a wild-ass guess.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 5:40:00 PM PDT, Blogger DC said...

"There still exist serious economic and technical uncertainties with alternative sources of oil."

Yeah, go ahead and sell that bit to the Brazilians. Brazil: the case study that the whole of the doomer camp sweeps under the rug.

I'm sorry, but from the source of these graphs, Laherre still comes off as a cook with Matlab. Based on what I read, I am more inclined to believe that he is trying to cover his rear so that he can avoid taking any blame for his dubious methods/forecasts. It's still the same mumbo jumbo: the USGS study is flawed, OPEC reserve estimates are shit, reserve growth is just bad accounting, etc. It's all in there. Frankly, he comes off as quite ridiculous.

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 7:19:00 PM PDT, Blogger sameu said...

yes the brazillians only needed 30 years and a huge grant program to get 50% of their cars running on ethanol

just a matter of copying that and doing it 20 times faster

see that's the problem with every alternative, how good they may or may not be

implement it on a nationwide scale and we're talking decades

 
At Tuesday, April 11, 2006 at 7:29:00 PM PDT, Blogger Joe said...

Patrick David:

You said:
"The amount of land needed to produce enough ethanol to satisfy our needs would be unsustainable."

I always laugh when I see this argument. What do you mean when you say satisfy all our needs? Its almost as if you are saying that as of 2010 we will have no more oil and we have to find ONE substitute!?

After oil peaks, production will slowly decline. Ethanol will be one of many substitues for oil that will take up this slack.

You also said: "large scale industrial farming requires OIL to run farm machines"

This again implies that we will have no more oil and you also seem to imply that it is impossible to run farm machinery without oil. If we have to, we could use CTL or ethanol but I am guessing that farm machinery will be a perfect application for fuel cells.

Finally, we are all making extrapolations here based on current technology. Fifty years from now, we will have dramatically different technology for doing everything.

Sameu,
Why do we need to do it 20 times faster than Brazilians? Also, why do we have to do it all? If sugar cane is a better alternative for ethanol, there are many tropical countries that could use the cash this crop would provide.

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 2:30:00 AM PDT, Blogger Dom said...

Hey guys,

have you looked at the price of sugar recently? Funny that it has also begun rising on a geometric curve...

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 2:55:00 AM PDT, Blogger Dom said...

Joe wrote,
Just curious, do you also think we use oil to produce most of our electricity?
OHH, you almost got me there;-)

Joe, I think that deserves a lecture from my side, don't you think?

Electricity is made of coal, Hydro, Uranium and gas, etc, etc.
(So far so good).

Have you looked at the price of ALL resources recently? (Good, I haven't either) I must admit, I don't know what the price of coal is at the moment. But compare gas, uranium, oil, iron ore, copper and what have you (even sugar...), and you'll notice that most are twice as expensive as five years ago.

Why? Because OIL supply is tight (or at least expensive) - not yet even short!

What will happen to the price of coal when 50% is used to power CTL and 50% used as coal turned to oil? You still have to produce existing electricity capacity AND power your mining machines, transport etc... Let's just assume :-) it will be more expensive.

Do YOU want to do the math? I sure don't...

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 4:38:00 AM PDT, Blogger Roland said...

But compare gas, uranium, oil, iron ore, copper and what have you (even sugar...), and you'll notice that most are twice as expensive as five years ago.


Say what?

POD post with sugar and food prices.

Commodities are more expensive, but I don't think most of them are in a linear relationship with oil.

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 5:46:00 AM PDT, Blogger Rembrandt said...

I still don't really understand the context of the last comment by Lahherrere about all liquids decline by 5% including coal and biomass and the graph of all liquids peak in the document (which I think does not include coal and biomass).

As to people like DC who think lahherrere is a cook, he has access to various databases, including all of Total's data. He is the one who worked on many graphing technique's like parabolic fractals (you don't know that one do you :D). I consider him as the most credible source data wise on oil production, he has te data and the knowledge and he is French (the best geologists come from france). Only thing is that he is chaotic but who is perfect anyway.

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 9:01:00 AM PDT, Blogger DC said...

yes the brazillians only needed 30 years and a huge grant program to get 50% of their cars running on ethanol

...see that's the problem with every alternative, how good they may or may not be

implement it on a nationwide scale and we're talking decades


I call bullshit.

No learning curve effects, eh? There's nothing to leverage from the Brazilians? How about globalization? I guess there's no incentive for some of those saucy South Americans to come over and make a killing by getting our industry up and running? How about all of the brand spanking new attention on ethanol by all stakeholders? Just lip service? How about the whole national security issues and resultant premium on oil? No, I guess there's nothing incentivizing ethanol here in the states.

Ethanol won't ramp up immediately, but there's no for it to do so. It needs to start ramping up just to put a bite into the risk premium of oil these days.

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 9:18:00 AM PDT, Blogger goritsas said...

From my perspective, the two largest issues surrounding the Solids-to-Liquids game are lead-time and environmental impact.

First, I’d like to know how Lahherrere knows the conversion capacity will be sufficient to meet the gap left by declining conventional. That sounds much more like the work of an economist or some (N)GO committee. He must be privy to some rather extensive and extremely confidential information regarding the investment decisions that will be required to put into place an industry of significant size in a relatively short time. Will the investment be large enough and provided soon enough to make this possible? Will the planning process and public hearings, etc. take place soon enough and conclude in short order to facilitate the growth?

Secondly, my understandings of the conversion processes themselves indicate they don’t play nice with the neighbourhood. Since I know someone will set me straight, I would not be too keen on CTL (tar sands, shale oil, et al.) turning the environment into a toxic waste dump. Given there seems to be issues with water availability globally these days, I’m not sure using large quantities of water would be a good idea either. So, all in all, from a strictly production point of view, is CTL et. al. such a good idea?

As an aside, maybe big oil wants high prices so they can get out of the Middle East dependency loop themselves. Imagine the strategy, it’s truly beautiful. The competition for Canada is even irrelevant. Although the Chinese have got contracts in place, I can’t imagine the US government would feel to bad about turfing them out. New industry, great location, no troublesome Mullahs and such, perfect.

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 9:20:00 AM PDT, Blogger byofoels said...

Nice work Patrick David :) I see your "measured response" was met with invective and venom, by the usual BLOWhards here at Peak Oil Deloused.

Their responses show that facts are unwelcome. The TECHnotopian Syncophants who ply these this blogoCourt (JD is King here) really have no interest in facts. All they are care about is impressing His Majesty the Devil's Advocate. Given that, I can't wait to rub their noses in their own CORNucopean nonsence

All biofuels are a waste of energy. It is impossible to power an entropic industrial system (agriculture) with the by-product of that system (fermented alcohol), and expect enough energy (transport fuel) to leak out of that system to drive mom and the kids to soccer practice. That would be Perpetual Energy :)

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 9:41:00 AM PDT, Blogger emtel said...

byofuels,

No, it wouldn't be perpetual energy. The excess energy generated by biofuels comes from the sun. Plants are just solar->chemical energy converters.

If you don't believe its possible to get positive EROEI on biofuels, you'll have a tough time explaining how people heated their homes with wood before the discovery of oil.

Patrick David:

None of the arguments you've put forth are anything new to anybody who's spent more than a day reading about peak oil on the web. That would include, I imagine, everybody who regularly reads/comments on this blog. There's no point in responding to any of your specific claims, since JD has already written wonderful rebuttals to everything you've said (and actually cited his sources...) - but, you can't be bothered to read what JDs written already, so I won't waste my breath.

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 9:59:00 AM PDT, Blogger byofoels said...

Emtel,

You are also confusing energy efficiency with energy return.

Yes plants convert and store solar energy. And yes, we can burn it to release it. The only additional energy required to use this energy is the effort to dry and collect the cellulose.

However, it takes more additional energy to grind the biofuel feedstock, to hydroglyze it, to ferment it, to distill it, to clean it, to package or ship it. More energy than was collected by the sun.

sorry to rain on your biofuel parade

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 10:26:00 AM PDT, Blogger Khebab said...

Rembrandt wrote:
Only thing is that he is chaotic but who is perfect anyway.

I have to agree, His paper is very hard to follow and is poorly structured, too bad!

His EH category seems to include a bunch of very different liquids: synfuel from tar sands, NGL, synfuels from CTL?

His green curve is conventional crude oil and the red curve is all the other non conventional sources (mainly NGL + tar sands). He performed a HL fit on the red curve which gave an URR around 1Tb. This URR should be for tar sands and NGL only. We have no historical data for CTL or other source of liquids for transportation so there is no way we can perform an HL anlysis on those. Note that NGL (condensate) are a byproduct of gas fields and are therefore harder to track but should be closely related to gas production.

Ideally, CTL, tar sands, etc. should have their own separate HL analysis.

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 11:03:00 AM PDT, Blogger popmonkey said...

patrick david spake thusly:
1. JCK: NO! The world should not, cannot, and must not maintain a high energy lifesyle. Most people on this blog seem to think the our lifestyle does not need to change. WRONG!

you must be new here or something. no one here has ever said our lifestyles won't need to change. in fact i'm willing to bet you that most of the contributors here have already made many changes to have a smaller energy footprint. most obvious of all is the blog's author, he doesn't drive, he uses a space heater, is considering a diet of grey mush from a pressure cooker (:D), etc.

my family has made major changes as well. i switched to a job where i telecommute 2-3 days a week, we all bike and walk a lot more, use public transport (e.g. 2 years ago we would have driven from oakland to sacramento to visit friends, now we take amtrak :D)

what have you done??

as far as ethanol, i think we all agree that traditional "ethanol from corn" is pretty much a loser. you should catch up on what's going on in the biofuels world these days. google for biofuels algae for a start.

byofuels (clever name, ha ha) spews:
Nice work Patrick David :) I see your "measured response" was met with invective and venom, by the usual BLOWhards here at Peak Oil Deloused.

Their responses show that facts are unwelcome.


what facts? this blog is all about facts. all you two "BLOWhards" have provided are regurgitated opinions and a link to a long debunked (not just by this blog) paper...

p.s. it would be nice to see both your ips ;)

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 11:16:00 AM PDT, Blogger byofoels said...

Popmonkey, 30 years of algae research has come to naught. Lipid production suffers unless you starve media for N and Si. This turns off reproduction. This problem has never been solved.

Furthermore production systems are seriously flawed. Evaporation and bacteri contamination in open systems renders them inoperable. Closed systems are way to expensive

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 1:08:00 PM PDT, Blogger popmonkey said...

byo: sources? this sounds like good info.

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 1:41:00 PM PDT, Blogger Joe said...

Dom

You said:
"What will happen to the price of coal when 50% is used to power CTL and 50% used as coal turned to oil? You still have to produce existing electricity capacity AND power your mining machines, transport etc... Let's just assume :-) it will be more expensive."

I agree, prices will rise. What I am much more worried about however is that they will rise too slowly. You see, I think we have too much cheap oil and way too much cheap coal. We need to fight the real problem - C02 and global warming.

Peak oil is just a small bump for the world economy... global warming, that is a huge issue.

What we need, and we need it soon, is a large carbon tax. That is the only thing that will wean the world of cheap fossil fuels.

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 2:13:00 PM PDT, Blogger byofoels said...

Popmonkey,
Here is the url (sorry don't know how to embedd)
www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 3:09:00 PM PDT, Blogger Patrick David said...

I find it so funny that many bloggers here keep vomiting forth the idea that I and others don't have facts where ALL ALONG we have provided to links to CREDIBLE research!!!

Is this a case of see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil?

Or is this just a case where people are confronted by the reality of energy depletion and they cannot cope.

Well, if you MUST have more and more facts, here's more of them.
By the way, YES I and others have been repeating this argument for years. Indeed it is tired and old, mainly because people refuse to listen. For more truthiness, see

http://www.peakoilworld.blogspot.com/

gristmill.grist.org/story/2005/6/27/9325/57114

www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18825265.400

www.enginemanufacturers.org/ admin/library/upload/297.pdf

www.b100fuel.com/archives/2005/09/seattle_biofuel.html

www.worldchanging.com/archives/003786.html

www.mindfully.org/Energy/ 2003/Ethanol-In-Gas-Problems3jun03.htm

www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/

Buena suerte,

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 3:33:00 PM PDT, Blogger Roland said...

I find it so funny that many bloggers here keep vomiting forth the idea that I and others don't have facts where ALL ALONG we have provided to links to CREDIBLE research!!!

You'll have to do more than provide a bunch of links. We've all read that stuff. We've all done research. We've made up our own minds.

You can't just appear at someone's blog saying it's all bullshit and expect everyone to believe you, just because you've read a few websites. You're free to debate us on specific issues, but stop constantly reiterating that you know better.

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 4:40:00 PM PDT, Blogger sameu said...

dc wrote:

I call bullshit.

No learning curve effects, eh? There's nothing to leverage from the Brazilians? How about globalization? I guess there's no incentive for some of those saucy South Americans to come over and make a killing by getting our industry up and running? How about all of the brand spanking new attention on ethanol by all stakeholders? Just lip service? How about the whole national security issues and resultant premium on oil? No, I guess there's nothing incentivizing ethanol here in the states.

Ethanol won't ramp up immediately, but there's no for it to do so. It needs to start ramping up just to put a bite into the risk premium of oil these days.


of course there are many incentives to promote ethanol

but these incentives are the same as 30 years ago, only worse today

but did you see anything happen?

And assuming when everything and everyone is pro-ethanol it still will take many many years to get the whole stuff working
regulations, supply lines, adapting the cars etc etc. It's just reality that you can't switch overnight to ethanol.

Pv -panels great stuff, thin film pv even better, zero energy homes, all very nice, but to implement this on a nationwide scale, I stay with my original point of view, it takes decades.

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 4:54:00 PM PDT, Blogger Patrick David said...

You said: You can't just appear at someone's blog saying it's all bullshit and expect everyone to believe you, just because you've read a few websites. You're free to debate us on specific issues, but stop constantly reiterating that you know better.


Hi Rolando,

Umm..... I AM debating you on SPECIFIC issues and stating my argument with SPECIFIC facts. So basically you are saying is that you've read it, you understand it, but you refuse to take credible research and facts into account? Pardon me if I scoff at those who still believe that the Earth is flat.

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 5:33:00 PM PDT, Blogger Omnitir said...

Byofoels:
The TECHnotopian Syncophants who ply these this blogoCourt…

Ah, what masterful debating skills you have. Can’t think of a real argument so you resort to name-calling and praising the arrogant wisdom of other members of your herd/cult/groupthink. Yes, that will convince us that the end is nigh! What a wonderful first impression.

expect enough energy (transport fuel) to leak out of that system to drive mom and the kids to soccer practice.

And is it not at all even remotely possible to come up with an alternative to driving the kids to soccer practice in the SUV? I guess we can’t expect kids to go back to riding bicycles to get around, because that would mean the end of life as we know it, right?

 
At Wednesday, April 12, 2006 at 6:17:00 PM PDT, Blogger venky said...

I find these two statements by Laharrere hard to reconcile.

*All liquids will peak by 2015

*30 years from now all liquids (including coal and biomass) will only be 5% down.

Thats hard to believe, 20 years after the peak, and only 5% down.

 
At Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 1:21:00 PM PDT, Blogger Freak said...

Byofuels, Patrick David,

What are you advocating?

Suicide?

 
At Thursday, April 13, 2006 at 4:38:00 PM PDT, Blogger popmonkey said...

freak, of course not. depopulation so they can continue driving their hummers. i'm still waiting to hear what patrick is "doing about it"...

 
At Wednesday, June 7, 2006 at 4:32:00 AM PDT, Blogger Disgorge! said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At Wednesday, June 7, 2006 at 4:34:00 AM PDT, Blogger Disgorge! said...

CTL is terrifically polluting. I lived 150 miles from the world's biggest CTL plant, SASOL, and we would frequently choke on the sulphur dioxide - burning eyes, sore throat. You can see the plume of pollution from space, via satellite, it's huge. CO2 emissions are off the charts. Without some serious advances in CO2 sequestration, this technology is going nowhere.

 
At Wednesday, June 21, 2006 at 1:51:00 AM PDT, Blogger Simon said...

Firstly, no offence to all the people who had contributed and researched on the possibility of When Peak Oil will arrive and when chaos starts to disintegrate our surrounding environment and life. (Please do see all the inverted commas ““)

Peak Oil may be predicted many times over to “occur” “naturally” by “2013 to 2015”, if we continue to use petroleum “without” panic and hoarding of oil…as per many who predicted that high oil prices will “reduce demand” of many who are Peak Oil aware like us and people from other high oil users “will reduce” oil consumption gradually because of high oil prices.

Many had been “convinced” that there are “no geopolitical tension” in the world and Venezuela or Iran “will not” cut oil supply even after a possible “attack” or bring any particular country to bring “democracy to their country” and Canada can “increase” their speed of oil extraction from the tar sands as and when the world need it.

Oil Prices will remain “affordable” as alternatives such as “bio-fuel” can be grown exponentially by “not using” any oil base fertilizers & pesticides. Fresh water will remain “abundant” to give massive crops in the world to grow “sustainable food” & “bio-fuel” for all the world population.

Electricity that had been produced in many different methods in different country and different parts of the world…those people from resource poor countries “can” rely on just imported Oil, Natural Gas, Tar Oil from highly “stable countries” of the Middle East such as Saudi, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela and others.

People will be able to “afford substantial” increase in cost of living as they purchase 2000+ types of Oil base products such as those plastic items, PVC pipes, CD & DVD, W4D Spray, Clothes, roads (tar), fertilizers, pesticides, CD covers, Hand Phones, and etc. and also they can “depend on” alternatives bio-fuel to transport manufactured food and goods from china and other parts of the world via “bio-fuel, hydrogen, fuel cell, electric” planes and ships.

World weather will remain “mild” and “absolutely no” natural disaster to affect refinery plants and oilrigs. All oil drilling and exploration “can get” 95% success rate of reaching Sweet Light Oil every year and “infinite resources” such as coal, natural gas, tar sands, uranium or plutonium will “never” run out.

There are “no electricity used” by electrolysis on water to create “abundant” of hydrogen enough for the hydrogen economy.

Oh…I believe that world wide inflation will “NOT” affect the world economy and the US Feds “will not increase” interest rates for next few months. There shall be many “High” paying jobs will be opened for grabs as global economy “growth” upwards…

All City and Suburb kids “will be able” to afford $60 happy meal with a sweet “Free” Plastic Toy…. in a few years time….

North Korea “will” sign a non-testing and producing agreement of long-range ballistic missile and will “not” to sell the missiles to IRAN or any countries. Israel or USA will “not” use 1st strike against IRAN even if they continue to breach the suspension of enrichment of uranium way above 5%.

Oh…there might be snowstorm in coming August towards September…. (figure it out why)

 
At Wednesday, June 21, 2006 at 1:54:00 AM PDT, Blogger Simon said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At Wednesday, June 6, 2007 at 3:12:00 AM PDT, Blogger Phillip said...

$US 1,000 says that global conventional crude oil production (no gas liquids, no heavy oil etc) will never hit 95 million per day. Any takers?

 
At Friday, June 15, 2007 at 2:21:00 AM PDT, Blogger Dan said...

"It will take DECADES"

Um - I'm thinking we *have* decades.
Worst case scenario is a depletion curve of 10% per year - this is pretty hairy and something like this will cause societal collapse and then martial law. Unless we are retarded this will result in a *massive* decrease in consumption and probably some kind of *mandated* build program. We do *not* need oil to build things. The pyramids and machu pichu and imperial rome were all built without oil.

In any event - it's most likely that we will have a bumpy plateau which worst case scenario will be a string of recessions and recoveries. Not every single business will go bust and there will be MASSIVE incentive to create something that works.

As a matter of fact we already have it.
If we discount ethanol as being a total solution and we discount biodiesel as being a total solution then are we screwed?
Hell, no. We still have sh!tloads of electricity.

We no longer have to deal with the problem of intermittency either - we have technical solutions in various forms.

The best of all is that even though peak oil is mainly a *transport* problem it is at least possible to substantially mitigate it provided the market picks the winner and doesn't go down a stupid ethanol path - fortunately it *is*.

The best possible outcome is battery powered electric cars - we have the technology to produce acceptable vehicles right *now*.
So they are $10K-$20K more expensive than vehicles right now?
Big deal - so we extend the leasing period for a vehicle out to 10 years instead of 4 if need be. The fleet could be changed over entirely in less than a decade by a simple financing trick.

Where will the *energy* come from to build all these vehicles?
We don't NEED extra energy - we're ALREADY building cars and that is figured into our energy demands.

There's more:
The usual doomer contention is that we CANNOT scale up wind and solar because it is net energy negative. That might have been the case ten years ago when Jay Hansen came out with dieoff. It hasn't been the case for at least four years now. In addition: the contention that intermittent sources cannot be scaled up past 20% is a crock. The province of Navarra in Spain is doing that right now with 70% from renewables.

There's yet more:
California Utility PG&E is planning to use the degraded (but still useful) used battery packs from hybrids as a storage medium.
With a large hybrid fleet the intermittency problem goes away.

So what are we left with?
Transport problem? Nope
Food problem? Nope
We are left with an *infrastructure* problem.

 
At Monday, November 5, 2007 at 11:46:00 PM PST, Blogger skintax era said...

"If you don't believe its possible to get positive EROEI on biofuels, you'll have a tough time explaining how people heated their homes with wood before the discovery of oil."

Emtel, that really is a remarkably poor example for the positive EROEI of present day biofuels, in fact it's hard to imagine one that more undermines your position. The only reason it was ever a positive equation was because NO energy had to be invested in the forests that were harvested for firewood-they were already there. As these pre-existing energy reserves were used up, the distances that needed to be travelled to get the wood, and the price of wood, became greater and greater, until the EROEI was negative. People, first in the UK, then in the rest of europe, first the poor and then everyone, were forced to use coal, even tho it was reviled as filthy and even considered devilish. Once energy input(replacement of forests) was required, firewood's EROEI was out of the question.

 
At Friday, September 25, 2009 at 1:58:00 PM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The only reason it was ever a positive equation was because NO energy had to be invested in the forests that were harvested for firewood-they were already there."

So in other words, we stopped using forests because of declining EROEI?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

In fact we stopped using forests because the demand outstripped the supply and then a replacement was found.

Otherwise people would have starved until they fitted inside the amount of wood that could be sustainably harvested. Nothing to do with EROEI and everything to do with too many people.

If people could have built wood in the cities, they would have, but they didn't. Instead they invented mills such as water mills and windmills. If we hadn't discovered coal and oil we would likely have grown slower and been forced to rely on natural energy flows but would ultimately have been forced to develop those mills to a much greater degree and with likely human hardship along the way.

Fortunately, now that we are forced to look back at using natural energy flows, we have developed not only much better windmills and watermills but have also invented PV solar panels, Thermal Solar Panels and a host of other technologies we can use in the interrim (natural gas powerplants and ICEs as well as nuclear power).

We have plenty of options.
Place your bets gentlemen.

DB

 

Post a Comment

<< Home