There’s been a lot of discussion about claims that world oil output is going to reach a peak some time soon. If you look at the recent numbers, there’s a pretty good case to be made that world all output has already reached its peak at about 73 million barrels a day, a level reached in mid-2004, and sustained for the past two years.
Now there are lots of local factors that explain weak output in particular countries. Still, if the claims made by those who think oil output can keep on growing were correct, I would have expected the massive increase in prices (from a brief low of $10/barrel and a medium-term price of $20/barrel in the late 1990s to $75/barrel today) to produce a substantial expansion in supply.
This argument is pretty robust to whether oil producers believe that there is plenty of oil (implying that prices will come down again) or not. If prices are going to come down, then there’s a strong incentive to pump more in the short term, use secondary recovery from depleted wells and so on. If prices are going to stay high, there’s a strong incentive to bring large new fields online, even if they are in high cost locations. As far as I can see, neither of these things is happening.
Supposing that oil output has peaked, the obvious point to be made is that Peak Oil isn’t so bad. Sales of Hummers are plummeting, apparently, and lots more people are using buses (at least in Brisbane). And of course, the less oil there is to burn, the easier it will be to stabilise CO2 emissions (though we can’t just rely on Peak Oil – apart from anything else, there’s almost unlimited coal in the ground, far more than we can burn without frying the planet in the process).
Even if supplies have peaked (or, more plausibly, flattened out at the top of the curve), I doubt that prices will go much higher than this, though $100/barrel is certainly possible. If current prices are sustained, a lot of alternatives will become cost-competitive, as already seems to be happening with biofuels in the US. More importantly, demand is bound to respond more than it already has.
These graphs from the US DOE illustrate the long-run increase in oil output and the recent stagnation. (Looking at the data, I’m pretty confident that the time scale for the monthly data is out by a year – it should be 2004-6.)
John Quiggin 
taust – “However as the price of oil increases (as it will if the forecast is correct) demand will fall as oil substitutes come to be economic.”
You have not addressed the EROI issue of the ‘substitutes’. All of then are in the 5:1 or less range. Where does the extra energy come from?
Ender;
be patient, I need my lesson for the day EROI means ?
Joe, until Prof. Quiggin responds to your question you could try thinking about price control and rationing on the analogy of wartime. After all, the general price inflation you anticipate is the same thing as an uncontrolled black market.
And Mike Hart says: “We have invested extraordinary amounts of capital in a system based on cheap oil, look around you, the very cities and transport systems we depend upon are based on cheap oil. Who is going to bear the cost of replacement and subsitution, simple market price will not suffice because the price signals will be so distortional as to create a fundemental crisis.” True, but you have left out the military. It seems to me that a major force for violent dispute over remaining oil – as opposed to creative adaptation to a lack of oil – will be the world’s armies, navies and air forces. They are not without political influence, and will be very badly affected by an oil shortage. What general wants to re-learn cavalry tactics? What admiral wants to revert to coal-fired dreadnoughts (or even perhaps to the age of sail)? And what air marshal wants to wrestle with the idea of a steam-powered dirigible?
In reply to Gordon sometime ago;
the reference to the two French physicists is
arxiv.org/abs/con-mat/0002374
Bouchard & Mezard are their names.
You postulate we have a self correcting ecology. Whilst I am inclined to accept this as a high probability I would give a self sustaining ecology a higher probability.
If the ecology is self correcting then it can be expected to manage the changes wrought by just another species coming to dominance.
So the question is can we by planning and coordinated action reduce the costs to society from the coming changes?
Having seen the costs of planning and coordinated actions in the drive for a better life throughout history I am very wary of accepting that this is the time when planning and coordinated action will produce a better than other optioons outcome.
i am even more wary when the costs I am avoiding are to ‘nature’ and the costs I am increasing are to humans.
I went through the structural changes to the economy to give us a more free economy. The net gains were trumpeted far and wide by our policy elites; the scrapping of half a generation of teenagers and half a generation of 50+ were never disclosed and never adequately managed.
I am sure that the responses to climate change are going through the same policy elite driven debate and the costs to human society that will occur by the change are not being addressed. The emphasis is almost completely on the cost to nature of climate with the human costs of climate change only thrown in a frighteners. there is very little discussion of the benefits of climate change.
taust – EROI means Energy Return On energy Invested. To shorten it from EROEI to make it a bit less unwieldy however the concept is a ratio of the Energy Return you get compared to the Energy Invested in obtaining that energy.
Our global economy is based on the fantastic energy return of fossil fuels. For every uniit of energy invested in obtaining fossil fuels you get sometimes over 20 times the energy return from it this would be an EROI of 20:1 or an energy return of 19.
The Alberta Tars sands EROI is less than 5:1, Shale Oil is worse at 3:1. Extra Heavy Oil is about 8:1. All these resources require another readily usable fuel source to be present to be extracted. Crude oil basically is pumped out and sent to a refinery. The subsitutes require large volumes of water and natural gas to be processed to a state where it can be refined. That is why the energy return is much lower. Also if there is no natural gas there is not oil possible. At the moment Canada exports most of its natural gas to the USA. Assuming that all this gas was diverted to Alberta for Tar Sands refining then this would allow an output of about 10 million barrels per day of oil. This is less than half of what the USA currently cosumes per day. It also leaves gas consumers in the USA without most of the natural gas they need. The question is what do they want the oil or the gas??
Ethanol’s EROI is around 5:1 with 7:1 available from sugar cane. As modern industrial agriculture has been described as a process to turn fossil fuel into food it really does not make much sense to then turn this food back into fossil fuel substitute. The EROI of ethanol is only this high because fossil fuels are used as the energy input.
The fact that you had to ask what EROI is gels with you thinking that the transition can be easy. EROI is all that matters. There can be a transition however as I said before there will need to be changes to adapt to the lower EROI of alternative fuels.
“You have not addressed the EROI issue of the ’substitutes’. All of then are in the 5:1 or less range. Where does the extra energy come from?”
eg
Click to access Coelho.pdf
Both crop breeding and process technology still provide avenues for this value to rise further over time
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BEK/is_7_13/ai_n14874191
The bridge Berkely link in the previous comment documents EROI for sugar cane to ethanol in Brazil is approachin 10:1 in current practice.
At least sugar cane makes sense from energy efficiency arguments.
Ender should remember I have had a previous discussion with him about this topic, mentioning the 10:1 value . We also discussed the minimal use of petroleum based fertilisers in Brazilian sugar cane.
Enders
Thanks for the explanation. the oft favoured Hydrogen economy (rather a way of transporting energy than energy itself I know) must have a negative EROI.
There is a quote I like (Unfortunatly I never been able to track down the original) which said (approximatley) problems were like mountains you appear to get different views from different perspectives but to know the mountain you needed all the views.
However I still think the transition is not in need a centralised planning and enforcement.
The world has gone through energy changes already eg wood to coal (if you go to Ironbridge in the UK you can see the first coal based blast furnace _ a truly worthy World Heritage site).
The EROI will be reflected in the relative prices of the energy sources these prices will guide both uptake of the various alternatives and the research needed to develop better options.
The USA invested vast sums into coal bed methane in the energy crisis in the 1970’s. Only now is coal bed methane open market economic. There cannot have been a reasonable financial rate of return on the 1970’s investment. I fear the current investment in windfarms, biofuels etc will be shown to be as premature but at least in Australia the investment of public funds has been relatively small although the excise breaks are well hiddden in total value.
As the price of energy rises relative to the price of labour can we expect to see a return of the navvy. I’m not sure I would regard the re-emergence of the renewable energy of back breaking labour as an advantage.
At least the increased demand for physical strength will reduce the inequality in society as the price for those individuals prepared to do the work increases.
Ender wrote – “The fact that you had to ask what EROI is gels with you thinking that the transition can be easy. EROI is all that matters”
Ender you are too kind. The fact that taust had to ask what EROEI means shows that he doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about!
FYI: For people on the east coast 60 minutes is about to show a Peak Oil story. There has been truckload of stuff about peak oil and global warming in the media this weekend, with more to come on 4 Corners tomorrow night. Details here: Essential reading and viewing.
Who was it that said ‘roughly’ that the person who realises that they do not know is wise.
I’m late to this thread. Harry Clarke said something (a day or two back) about John Howard and his ‘daft’ LPG subsidies.
You’ve got to be joking, Harry. They’re not daft. They’re very carefully calculated. Have a think about who does best out of the conversion of a petrol vehicle to LPG. Obviously the person/family who drives the furthest. Who is that in political terms?
Why surprise, surprise, it’s the voter/family living on the outskirts of our major cities and commmuting significant distances every day to and from work in the city. And they just happen to live in a marginal electorate. That’s who is getting the subsidy. Now who’s daft? Not John Howard.
detribe – “Ender should remember I have had a previous discussion with him about this topic, mentioning the 10:1 value . We also discussed the minimal use of petroleum based fertilisers in Brazilian sugar cane.”
Actually this is quite false. Brazil actually only produces about 10% of it liquid fuels from sugar cane:
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/rapier/2006/0623.html
“The question then arises: “Just how much did widespread use of ethanol in Brazil contribute toward their energy independence?â€? The answer is: “Not muchâ€?. In 2005, Brazil produced 4.8 billion gallons of ethanol, or 114 million barrels. However, a barrel of ethanol contains approximately 3.5 million BTUs, and a barrel of oil contains approximately 6 million BTUs. Therefore, 114 million barrels of ethanol only displaced 67 million barrels of oil, around 10% of Brazil’s oil consumption. In other words, Brazil’s energy independence miracle was 10% ethanol and 90% domestic crude oil production. Brazil did not farm their way to energy independence.”
In the last discussion I did not have these facts. Therefore 90% of the liquid fuels used to produce the ethanol is from fossil fuels. This is probably why the EROI of Brazillian sugar cane ethanol is so high. As we also said before the sugar cane yields obtained per acre are only possible because of fertilisers. Without them the yields would be a less than a tenth of what they are now. Finally the destruction of the Amazon rainforest is being accelerated to make fuel: From
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/background5.php
“Biodiesel and the Amazon
Soya is almost certainly the most damaging choice – not just because it has very few greenhouse gas and energy savings compared to petrol or diesel. Soya cultivation is understood to be responsible for more Amazon destruction than any single other business in present times – including cattle ranching or logging. It is also linked to destruction of Brazil’s Atlantic forests.
Palm oil is, so far, a small business in Brazil, but also targets the Amazon.
Deforestation rates in the Amazon had been coming down for eight years until 2003 and then suddenly increased, almost solely due to soya monocultures. The business is largely controlled by a company belonging to the governor of the Amazon state Mato Grosso – Gruppo Maggi – and the US corporation Cargill as the main exporter. So far, it has been grown largely for animal feed in Europe, the US and China, and to satisfy Europe’s demand for GM-free soya. A soya-based biodiesel programme, supported by President Lula’s government, is almost certain to accelerate the destruction of the Amazon forest. Vast tracts of Amazon forest are being set ablaze to clear the land for soya – and fires spiral out of control during droughts.
Whilst soya businesses are reaping high profits and helping the government to pay foreign debt, infant mortality and starvation have reached record levels around Mato Grosso’s soya plantations. Ongoing violence against indigenous people has been recorded by Amnesty International and by the United Nations. As Survival International quote from one tribe: “Soya is killing usâ€?14.”
“adapt to the climate change as and where it occurs. eg move to the tropics where there will be the smallest relative change”
With logic like the above, who needs a silly argument.
Endor, the links I gave mentioned recycling of vinasse waste from ethanol factories as a fertilizers obviating use of petrochmeical fertiliser. I’d be interested to see your source for use of petrochem fertilisers in Brazilian sugar cane.
QUOTE Use of fertilisers in sugarcane fields is controlled. Replaced with
by-products of industrial production (vinasse and filter cake).UNQUOTE
I dont see your point about extent of ethanol use as a fuel disputes the prposition that sugar to ethanol EROI value is close to 10 in Brazil.
But there seem to be other views on how much ethanol fuel is being used in Brazil now, that put it at 40% trasport fuel
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4081
In 2005, Brazil produced 16.5 billion liters of fuel ethanol (45.2 percent of the world’s total) with the United States a close second at 16.2 billion liters, or 44.5 percent of the total. Ethanol provides roughly 40 percent of Brazil’s non-diesel fuel and 2–3 percent of U.S. non-diesel fuel.
Taust, thanks for the Bouchaud and Mezard reference, but I don’t see that it applies to a situation of declining resources, only to the distribution of existing resources – as far as I could tell, as a mathematical semi-literate.
Here is a simple conceptual model. “Given initial inequality of wealth, and given that the price of a declining nonrenewable resource tends to rise over time, then access to that resource will tend to be more and more limited to the wealthy over time (only the wealthy will be able to buy it). If the resource is an income-producing asset, then the incomes of the wealthy will also tend to rise over time.”
This increase in inequality will be due to the decline in the amount of resource and the corresponding concentration of its ownership, not because of any overall tendency of societies or economies to concentrate existing wealth, as proposed by Bouchard and Mezard.
There is an interesting article on “wealth condensation” in Wikipedia here.
I understand your scepticism about the effectiveness of government action in response to crises like global warming. But I think we have to try, because the alternative is just to let the “have-nots” die by the million. And the experience with CFCs (the Montreal Protocol) was pretty positive.
PrQ,
I note that the graphs have not yet been changed. Could you point to your source data so that we can see the data for ourselves?
detribe – “Ethanol provides roughly 40 percent of Brazil’s non-diesel fuel and 2–3 percent of U.S. non-diesel fuel.”
Farm machinery and transport trucks etc are almost all diesel. As you can see from the production figures Brazil produces only 10% of its transport energy from ethanol – do you dispute these figures?
From Wikipedia:
“Presently the use of ethanol as fuel by Brazilian cars – as pure ethanol and in gasohol – replaces gasoline at the rate of about 27,000 cubic metres per day, or about 40% of the fuel that would be needed to run the fleet on gasoline alone. However, the effect on the country’s oil consumption was much smaller than that. Although Brazil is a major oil producer and now exports gasoline (19,000 m³/day), it still must import oil because of internal demand for other oil byproducts, chiefly diesel fuel (which cannot be easily replaced by ethanol).”
“QUOTE Use of fertilisers in sugarcane fields is controlled. Replaced with
by-products of industrial production (vinasse and filter cake).UNQUOTE”
And this is for every single farmer in Brazil?? The fact that all the transport and farm machinery is powered from oil means that this is really just a way of converting oil into food and then back into food – whats the point?
Ender, I thank you for making it clear that diesel is big in Brazil.
But your comments are irrelevant to whether sugar cane ethanol makes sense in itself
Its the EROI value of 10 which saying that ethanol made sense in itself on energy terms. What it means is that the energy 1 input is trivial compared to the output 10. Sure with maize,EROI=1.3(fuzzy accounting tho) your argument is valid but with sugar cane no.
I still dispute your assumption that there is heavy fertiliser use in sugar cane in Brazil and the related assumption that this invalidates the EROI which is calculated based energy inputs including fertilisers as part of the assessment. Fertiliser is counted in getting to EROI of 10 and 10 means energy for fertiliser is trivial (less that 10% of output) compared to output.The input calculation also includes the transport energy for tractors and such. That the whole point of the energy calculation
Brazil in the past is a country that had little oil and the sugar cane indusry developed with minimal use of fertiliser. Its not like the fertiliser intensive maize sector in the US. The industry developed as a low cost industry and this includes breeding cane varieties that does well without fertilisers.
As far as every farmer in Brazil. -I’m talking only about farms devoted to ethanol, where the RECYCLE their vinasse as a fertiliser- recycling is an ecological concept you would be familiar with. That all I have to talk about to demonstrate ethanol itself makes energy sense.
As far as extending diesel from sugar cane, it may be that butanol would make some sense. BP and DuPont are about to build butanol plants in the UK using sugar beets.
As far as your point about biofuels only being a fraction of total fuel demand, I completely agree. Their only an extender for oil to keep the farmers happy, and well have to go electrical hybrid and nuclear for sure, sooner or later, and travel less.
Ps. Ender. I do think the biofuel hysteria has some tangible and valuable benefits. One is taking various EU subsidies for agriculture, including carbon-credits, which the green plant photosynthesis CO2 fixation ( biological carbon sequestration) achieves, and burning them in European cars, tractors and buses, instead of releasing them as subsidised food on world markets. EU farmers still get their subsidies but third world and Australian farmers get better prices for their crops. This is already showing up on world sugar and oilseed market traded prices.
Yes, over all its food being turned into fuel, but the EU has too much food and not enough fuel, and the rural poor of the world have not enough income or income security, and should be given every opportunity to expand their income. Burning Belgian,s Butter,s Better.
(sorry apostrophes not workin,)
detribe – “As far as your point about biofuels only being a fraction of total fuel demand, I completely agree. Their only an extender for oil to keep the farmers happy, and well have to go electrical hybrid and nuclear for sure, sooner or later, and travel less.”
I do see that we are in broad agreement which is good. I still am not sure that Brazil ethanol has an EROI of 10:1 however at the moment I do not have any data to the contrary – I will research it.
Really we have to drive less. Electric cars and plug in hybrids, as good as they are, will still put an intolerable strain on the electricity infrastructure if we simply replace our huge heavy cars and wasteful driving habits with electric cars of the same size. An electric SUV is still a waste.
The bottom line from Peak Oil and Global Warming is that changes have to be made to adapt to the lower EROI of alternative methods of transportation. We cannot nuke our way out of trouble as then we just run into other problems. The only real answer is to adapt to a lower and vastly more efficient energy regime. The times where we had enough energy to waste as much as we wanted to are coming to a close.
I believe peak oil already happened as of December 2005. Production topped 85 million bpd and since then it has retreated. Gulf of Mexico production has recovered since, also the price of oil rose from $55 back then to over $70 for most of this year, yet the market didn’t receive more oil in response.
theviewfromthepeak.net
ETHANOL AND SUGAR PRODUCTION: SUGARCANE AGRIBUSINESS EVOLUTION IN BRAZIL, LUIZ CARLOS CORRÊA CARVALHO, 2005 (or earlier)
http://www.abareconomics.com/outlook/presentations/carvalhol.ppt
has a discussion and documentation, including energy balances, (actually EROI=10.5 in this presentation) of some of the points I was trying to make with Ender about the highly evolved efficiency of the Brazilian ethanol industry.
There is an extensive literature online about Brazil, so this it the tip of the iceberg…
And Ender, I don’t propose we JUST nuke our way out it , we are going to have to try every trick in the book, and in several million new books yet to be written, or decide just now we know there is only one real answer.
Paul Erhlich tried that approach in India and would have condemned millions to starvation. I much prefer Norman Borlaug’s remedy – just get out there and do it .
I prefer to be optimistic about how much can be done, rather than moan groan about what will have to be stopped. Its a glass half full or half empty thing.
Enders quote of August 28th, 2006 at 10:51 am
“Soya is almost certainly the most damaging choice – …
… and to satisfy Europe’s demand for GM-free soya. A soya-based biodiesel programme”
This is a standard mindless Green NGO rant. I wouldn’t trust much of it unless it was all put to searching scrutiny first, and I don’t have the time at the moment.
But I’ll make one point : Just who were the so called “environmentalist” NGOs that forced Europe to switch away from US soybeans (grown nowhere near the AMazon) to Brazil to avoid US GM varieties based on a fraudulant scare blitzkrieg; Why werent they thinking about the Amazon then?
Thats right the same groups currently these last weeks making a fuss about some the CONSEQUENCES of that trade shift, which they themselves created by their own fraudulant scare campaign (oh, that by the way produced a lot of donation revenue and publicity for those organasations)
At the moment Greenpeace and friends are trying hard to cover their tracks on this fiasco.
Fortunately a few of us have good memories on those events.
Furtunately also soybean output is most recently shifting further, to Argentina for instance
“The only real answer is to adapt to a lower and vastly more efficient energy regime. The times where we had enough energy to waste as much as we wanted to are coming to a close.”
Exactly.
Gordon Re your 29th inst.
The model did not include a steady increase in the total wealth. However what it did show was wealth get distributed over time among a population (clogs to clogs in three generations is a anecdotal phrase which sums up the situation)
My concern about doing something reducing climate change is magnified because I can see no set of actions that will have any reasonable prospect of reducing climate change. I am thus very much more interested in identifying the actions that will adapt our society to climate change.
Certainly for Australia absolutly nothing we do will have the slightest effect on climate change. Therefore I am disinclined to support policies that will harm my fellow Australians for no practical purpose. OK if in order to trade I need to do something I will adopt the French method of passing the required law but having it full of loopholes.
Australia is at long last in economic terms back to the situation at its founding by the British. Our nearest neighbours now want to trade with us. Now the East India Company no longer exist to stop us. We have an economic system in place that does not fool us that we can price ourselves independent of the market.
The climate change nostrums all seem to assume we can make decisions without worrying about the economic consequences.
My nostrums let economics dominate and adapt to the climate consequences because I believe this will do least harm to humans.
Nature will do its adapting and appears not to need my help after some 3 billion years of the adaption thing. All right I know the universe has been evolving for 15 billion years.
Source: http://www.whiskeyandgunpowder.com
I’ve taken the liberty of editing out the advertisments.
—– Forwarded message from Whiskey & Gunpowder —–
From: Whiskey & Gunpowder
Subject: Peak Oil and Bakhtiari’s 4 Phases of Transition
Greg’s Note: In this article, our intrepid correspondent Byron
King presents some heretofore unpublished comments by one of
the world’s foremost experts on Peak Oil, Dr. Ali Morteza Samsam
Bakhtiari. Dr. Bakhtiari is recently retired as a director of the
National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). This, in and of itself,
makes his viewpoint important to the world’s energy industry. We
at Agora Financial and Whiskey & Gunpowder are pleased and
privileged to be able to present this important and newsworthy
report. We thank Dr. Bakhtiari for his willingness to share his
thoughts with Byron. And if you want to share your thoughts, send
an e-mail to your traveling managing editor here:
greg@whiskeyandgunpowder.com
Whiskey & Gunpowder August 25, 2006
by Byron W. King
Pittsburgh, U.S.A.
Peak Oil and Bakhtiari’s 4 Phases of Transition
IN A RECENT ARTICLE entitled “Nothing Like Business as
Usual,” published Aug. 11, 2006, in Whiskey & Gunpowder, I
outlined the views on Peak Oil of a man named Ali Morteza
Samsam Bakhtiari. Dr. Bakhtiari is a former senior energy expert
who spent his long career, which started in 1971, employed by the
National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) of Tehran, Iran. During the
course of his employment with NIOC, he held many important
positions of trust and responsibility.
Dr. Bakhtiari is now fully retired from NIOC, in accordance with a
mandatory age requirement. He has no current official link with
the company. Still, and fortunately for us in the Western world, Dr.
Bakhtiari is an independent energy consultant who writes and
speaks to a worldwide audience on the subject of oil depletion in
general, and Peak Oil in particular. He is among the pioneers of the
global “Peak Oil” theory.
What Are the 4 Phases of Transition?
My recent article on Dr. Bakhtiari discussed in general his views
and recent comments on Peak Oil and worldwide oil depletion. I noted his predictions of oil costing in the range of $100-150 per
barrel in the not-too-distant future. And I referred to what Dr.
Bakhtiari characterizes as the “Four Phases of Transition” (which
he labels T1, T2, T3, and T4) in a world of declining conventional
oil output. I received much e-mail from readers asking me to
amplify what Dr. Bakhtiari means by these latter terms. That is,
what are the “Four Phases of Transition”?
I asked the good doctor this very question, and his reply was, “As
for T1, T2, T3, and T4, they are still very vague concepts, but if
you allow me a few days?I shall try to explain to you what I think
about these four.” And good to his word, within a few days, Dr.
Bakhtiari was kind enough to forward some amplifying thoughts
on the matter. Here is what he sent to me, to share with the readers
of this newsletter.
Dr. Bakhtiari’s 4 Phases of Transition
“The four Transition periods (T1, T2, T3, and T4) will
roughly span the 2006-2020 era. Each Transition [will]
cover, on average, three to four years.
“The major palpable difference between the four Ts is their
respective gradient of oil output decline — very small for
T1, perceptible for T2, remarkable in T3, and rather steep for T4. In fact, this gradation in decline is a genuine
blessing for those having to cope and adapt.
“It should be borne in mind that these four Ts are only an
overall theoretical structure for future global oil output.
The structure is thus so orderly because [it is] predicted
with ‘Pre-Peak’ methods, ‘Pre-Peak’ assumptions, and [a]
‘Pre-Peak’ set of rules.
“The problem is that we now are in ‘Post-Peak’ mode, and
that none of [the] above applies anymore.
“The fact of being in ‘Post-Peak’ will bring about explosive
disruptions we know little about, and which are extremely
difficult to foresee. And the shock waves from these
explosions rippling throughout the financial and industrial
infrastructure could have myriad unintended consequences
for which we have no precedent and little experience.
“So the only Transition we can see rather clearly (or
rather, we hope to be able to comprehend) is T1. It is clear
that T1 will witness the tilting of the ‘Oil Demand’ and ‘Oil
Supply’ scales — with the former dominant at the onset and
the latter commanding toward the close (say, by 2009 or
2010).
“But even during that rather benign T1, the unexpected might become the rule and the orderly ‘Pre-Peak’ rapidly
give way to some chaotic ‘Post-Peak.’
“In any instance, the overall structure of the ‘Four
Transitions’ is a general guideline for the next 14 years or
so — as far as global oil output is concerned. In practice,
reality might prove to be worse than these theoretical
Transitions; but certainly not better.”
Analogy to Chemical Phase Transitions
Dr. Bakhtiari has a background in chemistry. He holds a B.Sc. and
Ph.D. in chemical engineering, granted by the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland. He has worked in
industry and taught at a university level in the fields of both
chemistry and chemical engineering for about four decades.
I asked Dr. Bakhtiari if it would be fair to say that he is using the
term “Transitions” in a manner similar to what are known as
“phase transitions” in physical chemistry? Of course, the analogy
need not be an exact chemical description. But I asked him if that
concept from chemistry would be a proper way of helping to
explain his thinking process.
By way of definition, in physics and physical chemistry, a “phase
transition” (or “phase change”) is the transformation of a thermodynamic system from one phase to another. The
distinguishing characteristic of a phase transition is an abrupt
change in one or more physical properties; in particular, the heat
capacity of a unit of matter coupled with a small change in a
thermodynamic variable, such as the temperature.
Common examples of phase transitions are the solid-to-liquid
transition (melting) and liquid-to-solid transition (freezing). Or
consider the liquid-to-gas transition (boiling/evaporation) and gas-
to-liquid transition (condensation). Or consider the solid-to-gas
transition (sublimation) and gas-to-solid transition (deposition). In
each case, a small change in the temperature of the system leads to
a major transformation of its phase or state of matter.
The reason I asked the question of Dr. Bakhtiari, and used terms
from physical chemistry, was his statement, “The major palpable
difference between the four Ts is their respective gradient of oil
output decline.” My interpretation of that comment is that at each
“transition” point where the gradient changes, we might view that
as the “phase change” analogous to, say, frozen water melting, or
hot water boiling.
And as for how much we do not know in a post-Peak Oil world, as
Dr. Bakhtiari noted, that could be analogous to the phenomenon
known as “flash evaporation.” That is, if you raise the temperature
of water to something well below its standard boiling point, but then rapidly change some other condition, such as lowering the
atmospheric pressure above the water, the water “boils” at a lower
temperature and lower pressure regime. This might be considered
similar to some abrupt, unanticipated event reducing the supply of
oil; for example, warfare, natural disaster, or unexpectedly rapid
depletion and decline in a major oil-producing region of the world.
Dr. Bakhtiari replied as follows:
“I certainly like your idea of ‘phase transition,’?especially
the analogy from ice to water, which occurs gradually.
Start with ice and end with water, while to the very last
second there is some ice present.
“I also agree that at the junction of two Ts, there should be
some kind of a milestone. For example, at the close of T1,
Supply should totally dominate Demand?I am toying with
[the] idea, very preliminary, that close of T2 could be
OPEC [oil production] surpassing non-OPEC [oil
production], although OPEC died in 2004.”
Other Thoughts on World Oil Production
Dr. Bakhtiari’s statement that “OPEC died in 2004” is an
interesting viewpoint, in light of his idea about the nature of T2,
when OPEC production will surpass non-OPEC production. To explain this further, let me refer back to February 2006, in the
ASPO-USA newsletter, in which Dr. Bakhtiari wrote:
“It goes without saying that when assaying Middle Eastern oil
reserves, one should tread carefully. Because, on the one hand, oil
reserves’ estimation is both a science and an art; and on the other
hand, seen from the point of view of most Middle Eastern
countries, oil reserves are more political than geological. Thus,
nonscientific views come to prime over science and further
enhance the various types of shades that have led to an overall
opaque situation in the Middle East.”
Dr. Bakhtiari wrote this in the context of a discussion in which he
estimated total oil reserves in the Middle Eastern group of major
oil-producing nations (Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the
United Arab Emirates) as about half, or even less, than what the
respective national governments claim. Here is a table, prepared by
Dr. Bakhtiari, from that article:
In a remarkable comment following this table of information, Dr.
Bakhtiari noted in the article that:
“As for Iran, the usually accepted official 132 billion
barrels is almost 100 billion barrels over any realistic
assay. If the higher figure was for real, its oil industry
would not be struggling day in and day out to keep output at between 3.0-3.5 million barrels per day (inclusive of
Persian Gulf offshore).”
Coming from a former senior official of NIOC, this is an utterly
astonishing comment with immense implications. It may explain
much about the current Iranian government’s view of its options
for setting future industrial, economic, political, and military
policy, although Dr. Bakhtiari certainly did not say this, and I do
not want to put words in his mouth.
In February 2006, Dr. Bakhtiari further summarized his thinking
on the subject of oil reserve estimates as follows:
“Notwithstanding the importance of conventional oil
reserves, their days might now be numbered (both in the
Middle East and elsewhere).
“Oil reserve estimates were useful in the era before ‘Peak
Oil.’ But in the aftermath of the mighty Peak (as, for
example, in the present ‘T1’ period), they tend to become
stale and rather useless, as field-by-field analysis and
prediction takes over (e.g., Ghawar, Cantarell).
“So it will not be long now before we will have to say
goodbye to all these mesmerizing oil reserve figures and
dump the whole reserves file into the all-encompassing ‘dustbin of history.'”
Irreversible Decline and the Need for Immediate Preparation
In another recent statement, Dr. Bakhtiari has said this:
“The decline of global oil production seems now
irreversible. It is bound to occur over a number of
transitions, the first of which I have called T1, which has
just begun in 2006. T1 has a very benign gradient of
decline, and it will take months before one notices it at all.
But T2 will be far steeper?My World Oil Production
Capacity model has predicted that over the next 14 years,
present global production of 81 million barrels per day will
decrease by roughly 32%, down to around 55 million
barrels per day by the year 2020.
“Thus, in the face of Peak Oil and its multiple
consequences, which are bound to impact upon almost all
aspects of our human standards of life, it seems imperative
to get prepared to face all the inevitable shock waves
resulting from that. Preparation should be carried out on
individual, familial, societal, and national levels as soon as
possible. Every preparative step taken today will prove far
cheaper than any step taken tomorrow.”
The Need to Cope and Adapt
In his message to me, Dr. Bakhtiari stated that the “gradation in
decline (between T1, T2, T3, and T4) is a genuine blessing for
those having to cope and adapt.” Indeed, it is a blessing, but only if
informed people and the industrial and political policymakers of
the world will actually take Peak Oil as a serious matter and set
policy accordingly.
In this regard, when it comes to his efforts in explaining Peak Oil
to a worldwide audience, Dr. Bakhtiari is a prophet. His efforts, his
writings, and his work embody the old saying that “Time takes no
holiday.” Simply allow me to end by expressing my deepest thanks
to Dr. Bakhtiari for sharing his thoughts with me, and recalling the
words of Dante Alighieri, who wrote in Purgatorio, Canto III, “It is
the wisest who grieve most at the loss of time.”
Until we meet again…
Byron W. King
taust – ‘My concern about doing something reducing climate change is magnified because I can see no set of actions that will have any reasonable prospect of reducing climate change.”
No there are plenty of actions that will reduce climate change. What you are saying here is “My concern about doing something reducing climate change is magnified because I can see no set of actions” THAT WILL NOT COMPROMISE MY CUSHY WASTEFUL LIFESTYLE “that will have any reasonable prospect of reducing climate change”. If that is what you are really saying then this is true. The problem here is that without any supporting evidence you regard climate change as a problem that you can adapt to and have your lifestyle without change. However the 7 million ton elephant in the room is that you do not know this to be the case. Climate change could be so drastic so as to compromise the carrying capacity of the planet and lead to billions of deaths or it could be nothing at all. You or anyone else on this planet do not know which of these scenerios, or any scenerio in between, will come to pass. Yet you are prepared, just through your inability to compromise some wasteful luxuries, to bet the farm on climate change being adaptable to. Sounds like dinosaur thinking to me.
“Certainly for Australia absolutly nothing we do will have the slightest effect on climate change. Therefore I am disinclined to support policies that will harm my fellow Australians for no practical purpose.”
And this is where you are the most incorrect. At the moment Australia is a shining beacon for inaction. As one of the highest per capita greenhouse emitters in the world we serve as a model for countries wishing to resist action on climate change. In our government’s stubborn refusal to reduce emissions in any meaningful way we are a prime example of a resource rich country unable to find a way to reduce emissions without affecting the economy. We also had a leading role in nobbling Kyoto so it became almost ineffective. In these ways our contribution to climate change emissions are far beyond what we actually emit.
This could be so different. With our abundant renewable resources and a visionary government we could instead be the beacon for how to transition an economy to renewable energy. In this way we could be selling billions of dollars worth of value added manufactured renewable products to Asia creating thousands of meaningful Australian jobs rather than selling low value primary products like coal and woodchips. We would also be contributing to lowering greenhouse emissions in these countries and allow us to punch well above our weight in reducing climate change.
All that is lacking is vision.
On the 4 Corners programme the other night, John Howard said that Australia would be silly to impose a domestic carbon tax as that would just allow China to buy our coal more cheaply. It is a very good point. The same amount of coal would still be burnt – but in China rather than here. The amount of C02 pollution in our shared atmosphere would be the same.
John Howard understands economics very well.
The lesson for us as individuals is that it is ridiculously naive to cut our personal electricity consumption. This will just lower the price and allow savvier consumers to get a nicer lifestyle at cheaper cost.
John Howard says he will not be part of a global system where China and India do not have the same stringent requirements as us. Likewise I refuse to turn of my lights, computers, A/C at home because I can’t be sure that every other bugger in Australia isn’t doing the same thing.
wbb – Simple answer: Stop exporting coal.
You think I’m being irrational? What course of action is more rational? destroying the planet’s climate –OR– forgoing a few billion in export income?
Australia is the biggest coal exporter in the world. Howard and others say we can’t make a difference to GHG emissions on a global scale. Bollocks! We could stop exporting coal tomorrow and make a HUGE difference.
FOR ENDOR
Re The implications that Biodiesel doesn’t make energy sense in terms of an unfavourable EROI, here is evidence
NREL/SR-580-24089 UC Category 1503 Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus
Click to access 24089.pdf
Estimates EROI=3.2 for soy biodiesel
Also
http://www.local23.org/biodiesel/Overview_of_Biodiesel_and_Petroleum_Diesel_life_Cycles.htm#5.1
An Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles
Pimentel, D. and T.W. Patzek, “Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and
Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower,� Natural Resources
Research, 14(1): 65-75, 2005
A contrary view to NREL
Comparison of Pimentel and NREL finding, establishing NREL estimate of EROI=3.2 for so biodisel is realistic
Click to access Biodiesel%20Energy%20Balance_v2a.pdf
Biodiesel Energy Balance, Jon Van Gerpen and Dev Shrestha
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of Idaho
NREL/SR-580-24089 UC Category 1503 Life Cycle Inventory Biodiesel Petroleum Diesel Urban Bus
Its worth noting that Pimental’s conclusions on EROI for maize conversion to bioethanol are at variance with several other groups too, perhaps reflecting less detailed engineering expertise in his area. Or perhaps his co-author was an inexperienced student.
detribe – “Re The implications that Biodiesel doesn’t make energy sense in terms of an unfavourable EROI, here is evidence”
Just one question – where does the methanol come from?
For those with the time here is failry conservative analysis of energy needs, coming supply problems and other scenarios, a very conservative paper but has some good basic work on alternatives and replacements. Source US Army (Engineers Corps) Could not past the link directly but here is the address: http://www.energybulletin.net/13737.html
enders
If Australia changed its policy of inaction; which other country in the world would change its actions ?
We have a poor per capita greenhouse emissions because we are a high standard of living country without signifcant access to hydro (a fault of nature) and nuclear energy (political and economics).
All the doomsday scenarios have a time scale over which humans can adapt. In the past adaption has always proven to be the least costly solution for human beings.
Marxism was touted as how to prevent capitalism (forecast to be an absolute catastrophe) adaption to capitalism so far has proven to be less costly to humans.
You are correct my belief in my lifestyle is such as I do not believe in wearing a hair shirt and covering myself with ashes without good evidence that it will address the challenges in my life style
Currently the big challenges I would like my politicians to address are: how to speed up good governance in Africa and to a lesser extent the Arabian peninsular and; how to prevent obesity becoming the killer of poor people throughout the world.
Both of these if not addressed will kill more people in a more immediate time frame than the worse scenarios for climate change.
Both of these have solutions which are practical without the need world government or for me to change my lifestyle.
I am proud of what western civilisation has achieved (without being unaware of the achievements of other civilisations) and I am pained by the mistakes of the past and try to avoid making the same mistakes again.
The climate change issue has all the making of an elite generated industry complete with its own history. All past experience is that such industries have a negative impact on reaching real solutions to the issues they purport to address.
However your values mean you value being on the losing side so you will be fully satisfied in the future.
taust – the main point is that Australia could be a world leader in renewable power and lead by example rather than being the deputy sherriff. I would rather us be a leader rather than a follower. We export coal and woodchips and IMPORT the high tech lifestyle that you are so proud of. Western civilisation has done good things and bad things. To ignore the bad like environmental destruction is to ignore the ramifications of our technology. This no regrets strategy is OK as long as it lasts.
I find in discussion with conservatives such as yourself (I hope you don’t mind being classified as this) is as a group you tend to be very black and white in your thinking. When someone like myself says that it would be a great ida to conserve energy and stop wasting so much and you respond with the hair shirt/live in a cave argument. Saving energy does not mean that you have to live in a cave. There is enormous potential for energy savings just by insulating houses and businesses better and investing in cooling and heating equipment that uses half the energy to do the same job. You can see it now with the difference between 6 star fridges and 3 star ones. Banning 3 star fridges and air conditioners and making 6 star the minimum has the potential to save massive amounts of power.
Finally you do not know what will happen in the future. You do not know if you can adapt without massive loss of life. You do not have any plans for problems of energy supply. You only thought is to continue the way we are going because it seems to be working OK and hope for the best. Which is fine but why are you imposing this on the people that do not want it? You talk of communists etc is just a scare to the reds under the bed sort of stuff. None of what I say is communist or otherwise it is just common sense.
how to prevent obesity becoming the killer of poor people throughout the world.
Interesting how you seem happy to assert this claim, while being dismissive, indeed slanderous, about no less sound claims of climate change and its consequences. To wit:
The climate change issue has all the making of an elite generated industry complete with its own history.
And the obesity ‘industry’ doesn’t? Hasn’t already?
Your use of the word ‘elite’, is also interesting, perhaps even deliberately provocative and divisive.
Are you seriously suggesting we take a democratic vote to decide if the science of climate change is reliable, or if climate change is a very serious problem for humans? While we are at it, maybe we could solve the energy problem by democratic fiat too, and simply vote it away. Might even work for old age, as well.
Can I suggest it is not smart to be using the word ‘elite’ in this manner. It is illegitimate and inflammatory rhetoric, and does your case no credit.
If you think climate change is just some self-serving fad by foolish and/or unscrupulous scientists and environmentalists, then show us how it is done and rebut the science. Should be easy enough. Like to see you try.
And why is obesity is only a problem for “poor people throughout the world”? Truly poor people the world over do not die from obesity. They die from mostly preventable disease, malnutrition, overwork, and violent conflict, often at the hands of their own governments.
My dear taust, you can deny climate change for as long as you like, but if oil production peaks it will be undeniable. You won’t be able to pretend its not happening, and you will have to deal with the reality that your lifestyle is no longer sustainable.
I invite you to poke holes in the idea of Peak Oil here: Peak Oil Primer
I’ve tried and I can’t. There may be arguments about the timing of the peak but the basic premise is hard to deny.
There is no way of rationally denying peak oil. It will happen sometime.
However the countries with free markets will access the oil they need at the price reigning for oil given the demand at the reigning price
The world goes through these periodic changes to energy sources wood to coal to whale oil to petroleum.
Ask yourself who gains through these periodic peak oil panics.
Is it Petroleum companies who run the line more subsidies for exploration a myriad alternative energy sources who need subsidies for something? Who subsidizes the wealthy consultants who give advice to all the movers and shakers?
Trust the market; save the subsidies and worry about something that is worth an individual worrying about?
taust – “However the countries with free markets will access the oil they need at the price reigning for oil given the demand at the reigning price”
And if it is not available??
“Trust the market; save the subsidies and worry about something that is worth an individual worrying about?”
Why not just trust God? Your belief in the market is wonderous to behold. How come a simple thing like a market can solve any problem no matter how complex? To me it is just you surrendering to a higher power, the market, because you want to believe that it will solve all your problems.
You are becoming hysterical Ender, no one is equating a free market with God.
rog – “You are becoming hysterical Ender, no one is equating a free market with God.”
And neither an I. However you are suggesting surrending control to a higher power. the market, that will miraculously fix everything. You do not specify how the market will fix everything or provide examples where the market has fixed everything. You just ask us to have faith.
I didnt suggest anything of the sort Ender, you are imagining things.
rog – OK then rog how will the market fix everything?
[…] the local blogosphere proved more enlightening. John Quiggin has a couple of useful posts, “Is Peak Oil here already” and “Carbon: too much not too […]