Mind the Gap... world energy crisis approaches, dire consequences for planet
(c) 2006, leamy | 31.07.2006 11:47 | Climate Camp 2006 | Analysis | Climate Chaos | Ecology | Technology | World
Last year, for the first time since 1992, the UK became a net importer of crude oil as a result of terminal decline of the North Sea oil and gas fields. The British government doesn't appear to worried yet and apparently thinks the country can simply buy the energy it needs so quite some time to come. "The government consider that the world's oil resources are sufficient to prevent global total oil production peaking before 2030," said energy minister Malcolm Wicks earlier this month. Wicks said that the Government are already putting in place policies that will "help ease the UK economy away from power supplied primarily through fossil fuels" - probably a reference to the recent energy review and the U turn on nuclear power.
It's not just the UK having to deal with these issues as the North Sea goes into decline. Mexico's, which is the 2nd largest exporter of oil to the U.S., is seeing a massive decline in it's most important oil field, Cantarell. Supplying 60% of all Mexico's output, and the second largest oil complex in the whole world, Canatrell production peaked in late 2004 and since then has nose dived a massive 15%.
"Cantarell is going to fall a lot, and quickly," said Guillermo Cruz Dominguez Vargas, a former executive of Petróleos Mexicanos. "I can't imagine the strain on this society if there is nothing to replace it." Leaked to Mexican newspapers, Pemex's esitmates that it is possible that production will crash by an incrediable 71% from May levels in just three years. Such a rapid decline would not only have a serious impact on Mexico but also on the global price of crude and on the U.S. which relys on Mexico for much of it's oil needs.
Beyond individual super fields reaching their peak, the last few years has seen more and more multinational oil companies announcing decline in their total production. In the first half of this year, Premier Oil was producing an average 33,600 barrels of oil per day, down between 1% and 2% from last year. Statoil said it's year-on-year decline was mainly a result of maturing fields on the Norwegian Continental Shelf and BP last month announced a 2.5% fall production compared to the same period last year.
Meanwhile, world government's slowly coming to terms with the implications a decline in global oil production and are scrambling around for alternatives.
While the UK talks of nuclear, rising oil prices have encouraged China's massive coal industry to invest in a new generation of coal liquefaction projects. Coal liquefaction converts coal from a solid into liquid fuels and with a global peak of conventional oil production predicted to occure within the next five years, those countries with lots of coal will be looking at China's progress with great interest.
History provides only a handful of examples of this technology being develeoped on a large-scale. During the second world war the Nazi's built plants to try to stave off their oil crisis which eventually grounded their air force and stalled their tank advances. South Africa also developed these technologies as a result of economic sanctions in 1960s. There was also a surge of interest during the OPEC oil crises of the 1970s but the return of cheap oil after the North Sea bonanza put a stop to developement.
China is the world's second-largest producer of energy, being the world's largest producer of coal and the fifth-largest producer of crude oil. Nether-the-less it still imports 30% of the energy needs - and 47% of it's oil. Despite domestic production of crude oil increasing by a healthy 2.1 % in the first half of this year, China's net crude oil imports increased by a massive 17.6 % in order to meeting the growing demands of it's economy.
Surprisingly, China's government has just stepped in with measures they claim are designed to slow down the rapid growth of the coal-liquefaction industry - moves reported to be at least partly due to fears that excessive development is polluting the environment and putting to much demand on water supplies.
However, these curbs take may actually have the opposite effect as they simply put an end to the approval of coal liquefaction projects with an annual production capacity under three million tons. In other word's they discourage only small plants and thus may result in much larger projects being proposed.
It is reported that there are at least 30 coal liquefaction projects currently in development stages in China. Some of these projects are joint ventures with multinationals such as Shell Gas and South Africa-based energy giant Sasol.
Professor Lin Boqiang of Xiamen University warned that the repaid growth of the industry would damage the already deteriorating environment of the country. Coal liquefaction produces huge amounts of pollution and uses massive quantities of of water, something which most coal-rich parts of China are already very short of.
Large-scale take up of this technology around the world would result in a significant increase in CO2 emissions and contibute to pushes levels beyond critical tipping points beyond which positive feedback loops result in ireversable runaway global warming and the snuffing out of most live on the planet.
--
Talk about these issues and what if anything we can do about them at the Earth First! summer gathering in Wales and the Camp for Climate Justice near leeds in a few weeks time.
"Cantarell is going to fall a lot, and quickly," said Guillermo Cruz Dominguez Vargas, a former executive of Petróleos Mexicanos. "I can't imagine the strain on this society if there is nothing to replace it." Leaked to Mexican newspapers, Pemex's esitmates that it is possible that production will crash by an incrediable 71% from May levels in just three years. Such a rapid decline would not only have a serious impact on Mexico but also on the global price of crude and on the U.S. which relys on Mexico for much of it's oil needs.
Beyond individual super fields reaching their peak, the last few years has seen more and more multinational oil companies announcing decline in their total production. In the first half of this year, Premier Oil was producing an average 33,600 barrels of oil per day, down between 1% and 2% from last year. Statoil said it's year-on-year decline was mainly a result of maturing fields on the Norwegian Continental Shelf and BP last month announced a 2.5% fall production compared to the same period last year.
Meanwhile, world government's slowly coming to terms with the implications a decline in global oil production and are scrambling around for alternatives.
While the UK talks of nuclear, rising oil prices have encouraged China's massive coal industry to invest in a new generation of coal liquefaction projects. Coal liquefaction converts coal from a solid into liquid fuels and with a global peak of conventional oil production predicted to occure within the next five years, those countries with lots of coal will be looking at China's progress with great interest.
History provides only a handful of examples of this technology being develeoped on a large-scale. During the second world war the Nazi's built plants to try to stave off their oil crisis which eventually grounded their air force and stalled their tank advances. South Africa also developed these technologies as a result of economic sanctions in 1960s. There was also a surge of interest during the OPEC oil crises of the 1970s but the return of cheap oil after the North Sea bonanza put a stop to developement.
China is the world's second-largest producer of energy, being the world's largest producer of coal and the fifth-largest producer of crude oil. Nether-the-less it still imports 30% of the energy needs - and 47% of it's oil. Despite domestic production of crude oil increasing by a healthy 2.1 % in the first half of this year, China's net crude oil imports increased by a massive 17.6 % in order to meeting the growing demands of it's economy.
Surprisingly, China's government has just stepped in with measures they claim are designed to slow down the rapid growth of the coal-liquefaction industry - moves reported to be at least partly due to fears that excessive development is polluting the environment and putting to much demand on water supplies.
However, these curbs take may actually have the opposite effect as they simply put an end to the approval of coal liquefaction projects with an annual production capacity under three million tons. In other word's they discourage only small plants and thus may result in much larger projects being proposed.
It is reported that there are at least 30 coal liquefaction projects currently in development stages in China. Some of these projects are joint ventures with multinationals such as Shell Gas and South Africa-based energy giant Sasol.
Professor Lin Boqiang of Xiamen University warned that the repaid growth of the industry would damage the already deteriorating environment of the country. Coal liquefaction produces huge amounts of pollution and uses massive quantities of of water, something which most coal-rich parts of China are already very short of.
Large-scale take up of this technology around the world would result in a significant increase in CO2 emissions and contibute to pushes levels beyond critical tipping points beyond which positive feedback loops result in ireversable runaway global warming and the snuffing out of most live on the planet.
--
Talk about these issues and what if anything we can do about them at the Earth First! summer gathering in Wales and the Camp for Climate Justice near leeds in a few weeks time.
(c) 2006, leamy
Comments
Hide the following 11 comments
lies
31.07.2006 12:32
it is produced constantly at great depth and then percolates up to the cavity's that we draw it from.
a dead field will slowly refill itself if left alone.
unless it's american because they re-use dead fields to dump toxic waste.
besides, the saudi's have a lot more oil than they admit to and the falkland islands float on the stuff.
(you didnt think thatcher went to war for a few sheep-farmers and a secret hotel/polo-field for political disidents did you!)
smithy
Bigger Lies
31.07.2006 13:25
what a load of tosh.
A Geologist
evidence.
31.07.2006 18:57
post your science.
here's mine:
http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html
now maybe you are a geologist, and maybe your not,
but i'm an engineer and i'v seen oils produced by hot catalysts as a byproduct, so i know it can happen.
smithy
DNA in oil
31.07.2006 21:36
Secondly, yes the Russians have oil wells that are several miles deep, but the Earths crust (which is made up of layers of sedimentary rock (sea-bed) or igneouse rock (volcanic out-pourings) ) is upto 20 miles thick. This means that it is theoretically possible to find oil in the sedimentary rocks at those depths.
Thirdly, when oil is extracted from underground it will either flow up because of the great pressures it is under, or water has to be pumped down to force it up. Some oil deposits are found in rock that acts like a sponge, so if you pump the oil out of a cavity, than that cavity could be replenished over time.
Finally, peak-oil is a red herring because it relates to existing reserves. There will always be new deposits being discovered at greater depths for hundreds of years to come, it's just a matter of economic viabilty to extract it.
Once you put aside rational scientific knowledge and understanding you begin walking along a dimmly lit path.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
A Geologist
say you are right....
31.07.2006 21:58
although you are not
I am right...
01.08.2006 00:19
Being scientifically minded I don't mind testing out any hypothesis, but when the facts don't add up one can safely dismiss it. If not, then one becomes a simple minded idealogue that will accept anything if it conforms to a presusposition.
You asked for the science, and you got it. It's not a case of being right or wrong, but what is the most likely explanation. If you want to believe something for which there is no known evidence then that is your right, just as it's your right to believe in tooth fairy's, santa clause or alien abduction.
I wouldn't say you are 'wrong', just that you have a faith based belief system.
A Geologist
shortage of supply?
01.08.2006 01:45
the people who supply it, and by doindg so they drive up the price.
then the americans (who own both the oil-exchanges) drive it even higher.
SCAM!
besides, if it wasnt for the fucking americans all driving 8mpg hummer's just to go to KFC or the paper-shop the oil would be consumed at only 2/3rd's of it's current rate.
did you know that in bush's america if you buy a BIG vehicle like an SUV or a pickup you can actually get a tax-concession?
the higher the fuel-consumpion the higher the tax-concession!
now that's just fucked-up.
smithy
Think it through
01.08.2006 11:29
yes, easy answer but it requires a conspiracy between competing companies and more importantly, between nations, in order for your theory to hold water.
It makes no sense that mexico would fake it's prediciment and loose out on a massive income just when prices are at record levels.
Likewise, why would UK oil companies fake a decline in north sea oil and gas production when it results in a switch to imports from russian companies, and a switch to coal?
How could the oil companies have conspired since the 1960's to publish dwindling discovery rates when individually their companies value and the investiment they attract is directly based on their claimed reserves?
You make no sense. think it through.
> then the americans (who own both the oil-exchanges) drive it even higher.
yes, financial speculators (from all nationa) do drive up the price. the amount of oil contract traded each day far exceed the actual available oil. each contract passes hands a half dozen or more times before ending up with a commercial buyer who actual intends to take delivery. this is the same with all commodoties, and yes it is a scam - welcome to capitalism.
> besides, if it wasnt for the fucking americans all driving 8mpg hummer's just to go to KFC or
> the paper-shop the oil would be consumed at only 2/3rd's of it's current rate.
no it wouldn't. where do you get this crap from!? the U.S. uses 25% of the worlds oil.
of that, almost 2/3 is used for transportation (which includes diesel trains, trucks, ships, and planes)
So, culling ignorant SUV driving americans could not achieve the reduction you claim - not even close.
Clearly the price hikes are due to profiteering but I wonder why you feel the need to cherry pick you facts to suit your conspiracy theory rather than consider the implications of entering an era in which oil doesn't flow as easily and cheaply as it has in the past.
n
Oil Companies conspiracy
01.08.2006 19:03
http://www.countercurrents.org/peakoil-blance170404.htm
A Geologist
Go look at
02.08.2006 04:56
bob
Had a look
02.08.2006 11:39
Read those two chapters in his book again (if you have time to waste on such nonsence) and you will see that he is not really providing any evidence that peak oil isn't real, instead he is simply pointing out that it benefits oil companies (in terms of massive short term profits) and so claims that oil companies have conspired (apparently since the 1950's) to hype up fear over supplies running out. It takes very little effort to poke massive hole in his claims.
Let's look at ExxonMobile, one of the worlds largest oil companies, it's been instrumental in efforts to deny the link between climate change and carbon emissions and it's also busy trying to deny that the peak oil is approaching. They've been running full page ad's in major newspaper all over the world trying to reasure people that the oil economy is completely safe... "Oil is a finite resource, but because it is so incredibly large, a peak will not occur this year, next year, or for decades to come.", they say. This hardly appears to match Gregs implications that ALL the worlds oil companies have been consipiring to make us think there is a shortage when there is not.
Let look at another of his claims, that America wants to keep Iraq's oil in the ground. This is demonstratively false since the american forces have been protecting the oil facilities since day one of the invasion and american companies are pouring billions of dollars into getting the oil flowing again. Despite over 300 attacks on oil installations and pipe lines by insurgents since 2003, oil production is back up to 2.5 million bpd (equal to it's pre invasion levels) and they are speaking of repeating pre gulf war levels of around 4 millions bpd by 2010. Some people are going so far as to predict an eventual output of 6 to 8 million bpd within 10 years (which represents over 75% of america's daily consumption!!).
More fundementally, Greg makes the common mistake of concluding that peak oil is about running out of oil (which it is not) and then wasting his time proving that there is still loads of oil in the gound (which obvisouly there is). He points at non-conventional hydrocarbon reserves such a tar sands and shale (of which there are certainly masses and masses of) and suggests that a peak in production of convential oil will easily be replaced by these untapped resources. Greg appears to share the optimisim of the companies trying to obtain investment in order to develope technologies that have so far failed to provide economic methods to extract these fuels at anything approaching a significant level of production. The fact of the mater is that these are low quality reserves that require masses amount of energy to extract. He claims that all oil prices rise, these reserves become more economic, but he ignores the fact that rising oil prices also effect the cost of the energy required to extract oil from tar sands and shale etc.
While there is no doubt that the world will increasingly turn to non-conventional hydrocarbons, they simply can not replace the cheap easy oil with been enjoying for the last hundred years or so. More importantly, a shift to such reserves is PROOF OF PEAK, not evidence to dispute it! Oil companies are increasingly looking at these expensive to extract reserves because peak is real.They are looking at these reserves because discoveries of conventional oil peaked in the 1960s and because we are using about 4 barrels of oil for every new one we discover.
Greg's handling of the peak oil issue is embarrassing and discredits everything else he has written which is a shame. I for one will being taking what he has to say with a pinch of salt from now on since his peak oil ideas reflect badly on his ability to do good research and draw out meaningly analysis.
greg bollocks