Monday, October 13, 2008

Pastor Jim on OIL & Energy (part one)

A New Peak for Your Mapby Jim Walters
Picture a big Easter egg hunt, with a bunch of kids scouring a park where 1,000 Easter eggs have been hidden. As the kids fan out and begin to pick up eggs, let’s plot a graph that shows their production in terms of “Eggs per Minute.” With each passing minute, the number of eggs found in that minute will increase, so our graph will resemble the first half of a classic bell curve, with the production line going upwards and right.
However, a funny thing happens when half the eggs have been found. The rate of finding eggs (production) will flatten out, because the kids have found all the eggs that were in plain sight, and from here on they’ll be rooting around under the bushes and burrowing into the more difficult hiding places. Even later, as the number of eggs remaining gets really small, the production rate really drops, and our production line comes down sharply, completing the bell curve just as the last egg is found.
The Easter egg hunt describes what is happening with global oil production today. Petroleum geologists believe that roughly half of all the oil that will ever come out of the ground has already been pumped up, and so the bell curve that tracks “oil production per day” is reaching a flat peak at around 88 million barrels of oil per day. It’s not a “peak” as much as it is a “mesa top,” but petroleum geologists call it a peak, namely “Hubbert’s Peak.”
Mr. Hubbert was a petroleum geologist with Shell back in the 1950’s, when he first observed that oil production in any field (or group of fields, or continent, or planet) would follow a bell curve (like the Easter Egg hunt). When Hubbert predicted that gross oil production in the lower 48 states would peak in 1970, everyone laughed at him.
They stopped laughing in 1970 when production in the lower 48 states peaked, pretty much when Hubbert had said it would. The peak production rate was around 11 million barrels per day. Would you like to know what it is today? Just over 6 million barrels per day (from the Continental 48 states). Hubbert later passed away, but his successors used his equations to accurately predict the peaking of the Alaska Prudhoe Bay, in the Gulf of Mexico, and even the North Sea. ALL of those fields have peaked.
So, today America burns 22 million barrels of oil daily, but only produces about 9 million, including Alaska and the Gulf. That means we import, from other nations, 13 million barrels a day, at the staggering cost of $100 per barrel, that’s one-point-three billion dollars every single day. That’s the “largest transfer of wealth in history” that T Boone Pickens is talking about.
Half of all the world’s oil endowment is still in the ground. If the geologists are correct, there’s at least another trillion barrels remaining. Note that at the rate of 88 million per day, those trillion barrels will be GONE in about thirty years. And remember, we’ve already used the "easy to find” oil (eg: Texas) and much of what remains is the “hard to find” oil (eg: under deep ocean water) or, it is in the hands of people who don’t like us very much. That’s the long-term problem.
The short-term problem is that while “supply” is peaking, “demand” just keeps growing. Since 2002, India and China ceased exporting surplus oil and now import (just like us) to meet their own needs. We are all competing for the same oil in a “commodities” market, where “supply and demand” factors fluctuate. The price of oil is no longer pre-determined by OPEC or “big oil.” No, the entire market is driven by speculative forces. Oil companies and investors buy like crazy when they think demand is strong; then they sell like mad when supply catches up and demand shrinks. At the last Presidential election, oil rose through $40 a barrel and soared eventually to $140. Now it’s falling through $90. You can expect these cycles to continue, with “higher highs” and "lower lows.” Most places in the world pay more than $5 per gallon of gasoline at the pump. The ultimate problem is, what will we use to first supplement, and then replace oil? Will it be oil shale or oil sands, ethanol, solar, wind, hydrogen, or some of each? Next week I will attempt to explain why none of these options alone will be a simple answer, and why the phrase “The Long Emergency” is a good descriptor of the global energy situation.
For more info: “Hubbert’s Peak” by Richard Deffeyes; “Twilight in the Desert” by Matthew Simmons; “The Long Emergency,” by James Kunstler; or just google “peak oil.”

5 comments:

BVCBearTracks said...

Jim,
OPEC controls oil pricing throughout the world. The largest cohesive group of OPEC producers is the GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council), consisting of Saudi, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman and Bahrain. Their pricing is based on the Dubai Plat – which is the price F.O.B. (freight on board) for tankers at the Dubai port. Currently, for all OPEC nations the corresponding Plat pricing relies on the US dollar.

(mbr of BVC)

BVCBearTracks said...

con't from first comment:

The Oil Minister from Dubai recently indicated that his nation will bring up the option of changing Dubai Plat pricing from the USD to the EU at the next meeting of the GCC in December/January.

Given that the US Fed Reserve has “created” more than $4 trillion in the last 6 years and the US economy is slowing, one of the only things propping the dollar up is the fact that the world’s energy market is relying on the dollar and enhances the velocity of the currency. If OPEC goes to the Euro, we’re in for bigger trouble than the credit crisis. (bvc mbr)

BVCBearTracks said...

Jim,
it's not related to supply and demand whatsoever but pure speculation. Speculators, through futures markets, are manipulating oil prices similar to what the Hunt Brothers tried to do to Silver prices in the 70's. Demand could not have gone up 500 % in 5 years and could not have gone down 40% in 3 months. It's people like T Boone Pickens hyping demand then promoting his own wind farm company. If the price was set by supply and demand the current price would be in the $50-$70 range. Congress may put restictions on oil speculation. Saudia Arabia said it would cut production by 500 million barrells to stabilize oil prices and the price still dropped $15/barrell within a week. It's not supply and demand. (BVC Mbr)

axs4dave said...

Hubbert was prescient in his forecast 50 years ago, but it is really only part of the story. Enhanced oil recovery techniques have made the old rule-of-thumb recovery of 25% of the oil in place (OIP) obsolete. Now it is quite common to double or triple this recovery.

The real figure for what the crude oil supply actually is, is at what price we are willing to pay for it. At $10/bbl there is virtually no oil available. On the other hand, at $150/bbl there seems to be an abundant supply. (The Canadian tar sands presently figure that their production costs are about $30/bbl). Coal liquification and Oil shale offer huge reserves, but at significantly higher costs than the present market justifies.

The biggest problem with expanding the tar sands production is the lack of manpower and facilities around Ft. McMurray. Water is an issue (I saw one proposal for a water pipeline from Lake Athabasca), but if Suncor etal could get around the environmental and political issues, and get people up there, they could produce huge additional volumes of oil. There are many ways to get heavy oil to flow (refining, friction reducers, diluents, …), but the lack of manpower (and living space) keeps a lid on things at present. Truck drivers presently make $150k/yr but a mobile home costs $500k to live in. Just FYI..., to give you a little perspective, Alberta is about the same size as Texas.

The Premier of Alberta, Ed Stelmach and the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper are both pro-development, but there are a lot of environmental roadblocks that keep much from happening.

I agree that coal liquification and oil shale are still uneconomic at today's price of $84/Bbl but there is a market price where they will be.

As you mentioned, South Africa and Germany have used the Fischer-Trophs out of necessity to produce their liquid fuel. It is a lot more expensive than pumping oil out of the ground, but there are huge energy reserves available at the right price. Several companies are looking at in-situ and surface plant CTL projects at the present market price. I think that there is one in-situ project starting around Laramie next year.

I had a summer job in college with TOSCO (The Oil Shale Corp) where I got a first hand look at retorting oil shale. In 1975 the price of a barrel of oil was about $7 and we projected that the TOSCO II process could produce oil (kerogen) at $25/bbl. The biggest problem other than the high retort cost was the fact that spent shale expanded (as I recall about 20%) so the environmental issue with disposal was a real problem.

Shell's in-situ test on the western slope seems to me to be so energy dependent that they will be hard pressed to generate enough liquids to offset the heat they put in the ground. I have worked on a few projects with Shell over the years and they have a pretty impressive research division, but my personal opinion is that this one is a "dog". Even if they can produce crude oil from this project, I believe the % recovery of resource will be quite small (surface retorting results in 85% recovery).

The next big source of energy will probably be from natural gas. Compressed natural gas (CNG) has some drawbacks as a mobile fuel due to the weight of storage, but liquefied natural gas (LNG) may very well be the answer. LNG offers comparable weight to energy ratios as diesel and gasoline and the recent discoveries of natural gas look extremely promising. This will not occur overnight, but could happen within the next 5-10 years.

Yes, I have heard about Matthew Simmons. His ideas sound pretty good, but his detractors seem to think that he is too simplistic. I haven't gotten around to reading his book on Saudi Arabia, but it is on my list of things to read.

Bottom line… there are a lot of energy sources available. It is just a matter the costs (both $ and environmental/political) that we are willing to spend.

paul said...

How should we as Christians prepare for "the long emergency"? Are there opportunities to help our communities? The impact of increasingly high transportation costs on the suburban lifestyle of commuting everywhere is likely to be significant. I found the short film The End of Suburbia, featuring commentary from Kunstler and others, to be chilling.

Although the comparison is perhaps a bit of a stretch, I think of God sovereignly sending Joseph to Egypt to prepare them for the years of severe famine.