World Oil Production to Peak in 2013

Page 1 of 2  
Does anybody know, that according to some Oil Geologists (e.g. Colin Campbell) in 2013 the world oil output is going to peak ? Are you aware what this does mean for all of us ? We have 4 years from now, until there will not be enough energy for travelling, heating and the most important for food for everybody of us. Oil prices will begin to peak, not 150 USD/barrel, much much higger prices are expected. Many people will loose their jobs and many of us will begin to starve. Alternatives will also be more expensive since the demand will increase astronomically. Alternative energy will also be much much more expensive, due to the demand and due to much higher costs. Making a wind turbine cost a lot of energy. Making ethanol cost a lot of oil (pesticides, insecticides, transportation, production, harvesting, fertilizers etc.). Making insulations cost also a lot of oil.
What is the solution ? The only way is to act now, individually. Now, where the oil prices are still cheap, although there is an increase, each individual can begin to prepare himself for these hard times in near future. Insulation of houses, solar cells, which are now more affordable (in ebay 1 W solar cells cost 1 USD or even less), solar water heating, solar heating with mirrors reflecting the sunlight to your home in winter, making your own wind turbine (a lot of instruction of cheap design can be found in the internet), buying a plug-in car or a hybrid vehicle, using energy efficient lightning, heating with heat pumps, making a winter garden etc. are some of the things each of us can do to prepare himself/herself for hard times and to save money and energy. There are also ways to save energy and try to extend the date a little bit by using the car only when necessary, using the bike instead of your car, using public transportation, converting the car to methane fueling, saving energy where ever it is possible, not only in your home also in your work, etc. will help to extend the date.
The other alternative is to wait until this date, actually the economical crisis is in its ending phase and the oil prices will again rise to record highs. But this is nothing compared to the prices when world oil supplies will deminish 4% yearly. And after this date (2013) very very hard times may come. Starvation and even worse things like war are the alternative.
If you act now, you will also help to produce new jobs in your country.
Regards.
You can find much more on: http://www.peakoil.net /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The best alternative is to stop having so many goddamn children.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
peakoil wrote:

Oh bother!
When Europe ran out of forests to harvest for charcoal, they turned to coal. Heck, the Industrial Revolution was coal-powered. When the coal got uneconomical, the world turned to oil. If cheap oil gets scarce, we'll find something else.
And we're NOT running out of oil (we may be getting low on CHEAP oil). World-wide proven reserves are greater than they've ever been. If all the environmentalists would just go somewhere and die, we'd have cheap oil for the next twenty generations.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Demand for oil is also greater than it's ever been, and increasing at an exponential rate (the current recession not withstanding.) And, it's been many a year since we discovered as much new oil as we pumped out.
The coming production peak means we will have used about half the recoverable oil in the ground. It's taken us about 100 years to get to this point, and for a lot of that time, demand was much less than it is today. So, going forward, you can bet it'll take a lot less than 100 years to use the rest. Twenty generations? I don't think so.
You're correct, though, that for the immediate future, we'll be running low on cheap oil. After the peak, we'll no longer be able to pump enough oil to meet demand and, thus, oil production will become supply limited instead of demand limited as it is now.
Since oil prices tend to be inelastic (i.e., price changes don't have a lot of impact on demand,) prices are likely to rise. How much depends on how successful conservation efforts are.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hatespam.com (Roughneck) wrote:

Where did you get that idea? Every oil shock has produced marked falls in demand above a certain level. That is where the urban legend about the life saving capabilities of the 55 mph limit came about. Driving (and other oil activities) fell off a cliff in the 70s and so did the fatalities. During that time, the fatalities per million miles driven stayed roughly the same while the number of miles driven fell.
--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hatespam.com (Roughneck) wrote in wrote:

We have not yet discovered all the world's accessible oil deposits. (nor began drilling or producing from what we have discovered.) So any claim of "peak oil" can be made is just a psychic prediction,and worth about as much.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

Not only, but there is an hypothesis that oil is being CREATED - in significant amounts and by dimly understood processes - as we speak.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dimly understood processes, eh? Now who's in need of a psychic? It would be nice if you were right, but I'm not holding my breath.
You're right about one thing, though - it's hard to predict the peak in advance. But, it will come, nonetheless. And, while there will be new discoveries, I wouldn't hold my breath for a miracle. Current estimates of recoverable oil are based in part on what we expect to find. So, in essence, the "new discoveries" are already accounted for.
All the counter arguments you put forth have been heard before - in the 1950s. Back then, it was put forth that the US would have a production peak in the coming decade. Then, as now, there were howls of derision and lots of folks with their head in the sand that were convinced that the oil would last forever.
US oil production peaked in 1970. Today, the US produces about half of the oil we did then. No amount of new discoveries, better technology, or "dimly understood processes" has been able to change that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hatespam.com (Roughneck) wrote:

Bur the peak of US oil production is largely a function of politics. We peaked in the production of oil that current laws and regulations will let us get at. Open up Alaskan areas (and especially the Gulf and other off-shore reserves) and we get a spike.
--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Politics plays a part, sure. But oil production is primarily driven by geology and economics. There're already plenty of places in the US that could be developed today.
As for Alaska? The most optimistic estimates put the recoverable oil around 16 billion barrels. Sounds like a lot...but it's only enough to meet US demand for 2 additional years.
Unfortunately, no combination of politics or economics is going to change the simple reality that there's only so much oil in the ground and our appetite for it is seemingly unending.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@hatespam.com (Roughneck) wrote in wrote:

Such as? IMO,you're full of crap,because with the recent high gas prices,they would have already begun producing. The only new domestic production I've read about is the individual land owners up in the Dakotas who drilled their own lands and sell the oil themselves.

and there's NO reason to not drill and produce from there.

Fact is,Obama WANTS oil prices to climb.He's said so.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you'll recall the debate last year about opening up abunch of new areas to drilling, it was pointed out quite often that the oil companies are sitting on lots of existing leases that they aren't using.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm
Why aren't they drilling there? Economics! Not politics.

Whether he does or not is irrelevant. He doesn't control the world supply. But, as we approach and pass the production peak, prices are quite likely to increase. and dramatically.
Without high prices, though, there's not a lot of incentive to develop substitutes, which we're going to have to do. And, the sooner we do that, the less painful the post-peak world will be.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roughneck wrote:

No more dimly than the classic view: "The original creation of oil or petroleum is not well understood. There are several theories, but the matter is still one of scientific controversy." http://www.bydesign.com/fossilfuels/links/html/oil/oil_create.html
One of the big "gotchas" is how did hydrocarbons pop up on Jupiter and Saturn if hydrocarbon creation depended solely on decomposed plant material?
Then there's this book: "The deep, hot, biosphere" (Amazon.com product link shortened)43340325&sr=8-1

I agree that no amount of discoveries or technology will change production rates. Changes in the political world will. But it doesn't matter.
Oil is fungible. Oil from here is pretty much the same as oil from there. Price is pretty much inelastic.
Furthering the goal of increased domestic production to diminish reliance on foreign hostile regimes is kinda silly in that most of our "foreign" oil comes from Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're certainly correct that more study and research is needed. But, the consensus today is that the vast majority of oil and coal formation requires millions of years of heat and pressure.
So, is oil being "created" today? Certainly. Is it being created fast enough to help us? I wouldn't hold my breath.
Thus far, no evidence of old oil fields "sponanteously recharging" themselves has presented itself.

Political changes will have some effect, but oil production is more a matter of economics and geology.
If all regulations were eliminated tomorrow, and we could drill and produce anywhere, it still wouldn't move the production peak by more than a couple of years. And, it would make the decline that much more painful.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roughneck wrote:

Consensus? Sure. There is still a substantial group that doesn't buy it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In most parts of the world, true. In the continental U.S., politics plays a substantial role in oil production.

Even if you're right that we'd get only two years, that's stll two years more research, two years cheaper energy, and a two years greater chance that India and China will engage in a nuclear war - with two billion dead - thereby diminishing world demand for oil by 40%.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

You may want to check the facts about that: http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Quite a few nations in the top 15 are not exactly "friends" of the USA.
Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries) (Thousand Barrels per Day) Country     Feb-09     Jan-09     YTD 2009     Feb-08     YTD 2008 CANADA     2,515     2,544     2,530     2,464     2,527 MEXICO     1,364     1,430     1,399     1,327     1,317 VENEZUELA     1,139     1,353     1,252     1,131     1,214 SAUDI ARABIA     1,115     1,362     1,245     1,627     1,563 ANGOLA     671     543     604     350     468 IRAQ     554     568     562     780     658 NIGERIA     498     509     504     1,025     1,110 RUSSIA     478     516     498     451     421 BRAZIL     381     450     417     172     200 ALGERIA     372     720     555     384     514 VIRGIN ISLANDS     333     367     350     351     366 UNITED KINGDOM     285     147     212     155     185 KUWAIT     251     242     246     266     252 ECUADOR     243     278     261     186     224 COLOMBIA     241     269     256     240     218
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
G. Morgan wrote:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
I misspoke. "Most" of our imported oil does not come from Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria. These three countries account for a measly 30%. You have to add Saudi Arabia and Iraq to get above 50%.
According to the text:
"The top five exporting countries accounted for 64 percent of United States crude oil imports..."
The top five are Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Angola. While some are not exactly "friends" of the United States, none are overtly "hostile."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<SNIP past this point>
There is little credible claim of hydrocarbons or better still organic compounds in general in general relying on decomposition of plant material to come into existence when there is evidence that such compounds exist but evidence of actual life forms is lacking.
High temperatures are considered likely to exist in deeper layers of the atmosphere of the planets that consist mostly of atmosphere, lightning is known to exist in the clouds of Jupiter, and plenty of hydrogen and carbon can be found in some form or another in those planets. Most of the hydrocarbon content determined so far to exist in the "gas giant" planets is methane last time I heard.
For another thing, there is tendency among biologists to consider that presence of organic compounds is a prerequisite for origin of life, and not the other way around.
Meanwhile, fossil fuels on Earth are traceably all so old as to lack carbon-14 to extent indicating age of 40,000 years or more - and it is generally considered that when C-14 is present to extent of age under 6 or 7 figures, it is from contamination rather than from the fossil fuel being actually being so recently formed. Most fossil fuels are found in rock formations indicating age more like 200-300 million years when that can be determined and I have yet to hear of any accompanied by decent evidence that they were less than 10's of millions of years old.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

Who considers Nigeria to be much of a friend of USA?
They are ruled (by not that great a majority) by a nominally-Christian extremely-corrupt bunch that, among other things, makes Nigeria's #2 export and America's most-noted import from Nigeria being scams as noted in all-too-much notable e-mail spam.
As for second place faction in Nigeria, that is fundamentalist Muslims so backwardly fundamentalist that it took foreign embarassment effort to stop them from executing a rape victim for adultery.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

Well, nobody I know. But they are not "hostile."

Still, you've got to admire their technical ability, inventiveness, and entrepreneurial skills. Kinda like the pirates in Somalia.

Yeah, shameful that we would try to impose our moral standards on an equivalent culture. An under-commandment in Islam is that women are temptresses and men, however strong, will always succumb to overt blandishments. We just need to understand and empathize with their way of life.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.