Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Global Oil Peak-What Affect on Airlines?

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

atpcliff

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2001
Posts
4,260
Hi!

Peak oil will not be confirmed until after it has occurred. Gharwar is the #1 source of oil for the world, and it looks like it has peaked. If Saudi has peaked, then either global oil production has peaked, or it's close.

Once global oil production has peaked, prices will continually rise until oil is not longer used as a transportation fuel.

The following is information is from Mathew Simmons, a Republican adviser to the Bush-Cheney energy plan So, for any of you who were thinking that Peak Oil is a Liberal/Commie/Green pile of bu!!shi!t, here's an oil insider to tell you that it's real.

Expert: Saudi oil may have peaked

"As oil prices remain above $45 a barrel, a major market mover has cast a worrying future prediction.

Energy investment banker Matthew Simmons, of Simmons & Co International, has been outspoken in his warnings about peak oil before. His new statement is his strongest yet, "we may have already passed peak oil".

The subject of peak oil, the point at which the world's finite supply of oil begins to decline, is a hot topic in the industry.

Arguments are commonplace over whether it will happen at all, when it will happen or whether it has already happened. Simmons, a Republican adviser to the Bush-Cheney energy plan, believes it "is the world's number one problem, far more serious than global warming".

Saudi oil peaking?

"If Saudi Arabia have damaged their fields, accidentally or not, by overproducing them, then we may have already passed peak oil. Iran has certainly peaked, there is no way on Earth they can ever get back to their production of six million barrels per day (mbpd)."

Simmons believes Iran's oil production has also peaked. The technical term for damaging an oilfield by overproduction is rate sensitivity. In other words, if the oil is pulled out of the ground too fast, it damages the fragile geological structure of the field. This can make as much as 80% of the oil within the field unextractable. Of course, at the moment, virtually every producer is at full tilt. The most important amog them is Saudi Arabia; their Gharwar field is the world's biggest.

Field damage

"A whistleblower in Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia's oil company, was first reported in The Washington Post. He had claimed that Aramco had been overproducing the giant Gharwar field and that if they did not slow down, they would damage the reservoirs.

"The faster you pull a reservoir, the faster you pull out all of the easy-to-produce oil," explains Simmons. "What happens is that you lose massive amounts of what the oil industry calls oil-left-behind still inside the field. These issues, as you can see, have been known about for years."

Overproduction

"In 1981 in their own book, Aramco and its World, something they give out to new employees and such, they openly talked about how maximising production would permanently harm their fields and that maximum production could not continue. They thought demand would fall and the fields would be sustained. Unfortunately that has not been the case."

The idea that Saudi Arabia could force its production up to 12mbpd or higher is met with scorn by Simmons.

"This is dangerous stuff," warns Simmons. "If we say they have not peaked and then they choose to further increase production, they will only hasten their field decline, and waste huge amounts of valuable oil into the bargain. And oil, as we are only now coming to realise, is the world's most precious resource."

Comments....

CLiff
YIP
 
Hi!

Does anyone know about what type of engines fuels we will fly when oil is too expensive to use? I have heard very little about advanced airliner powerplants, and would like to learn more.

This is what I know, and it's not much:

Embraer has been doing research with a recip and a jet that use biodiesel for fuel. The have engines flying on testbed aircraft.

Some of the European companies have recips that will run on biodiesel.

The major engine companies are working on "Pulse Jet" engines. They latest I saw they were just running on test stands. They use a number of small tubes and have an explosion of fuel and air that run the length of the tube and produce thrust. There are very few moving parts. They were talking about taking a high-bypass engine and putting the pulse jet units around the core of the combustion chamber to add thrust and dramatically cut fuel consumption.

I'm 99% sure that Boeings new 787 (dreamliner) does NOT use this technology.

If you have any knowledge of how we'll transition from oil to our next fuel, or you have any other comments related to the above, please respond.

CLiff
YIP

PS-Have a GREAT day!
 
Hi!

Paul:
I believe that nuke power in a plane is theoretically possible, but it is so far in the future it is impractical to aid us in the change from oil as an airline fuel to whatever is next.

Cliff
YIP

PS-Thanks for your commments!
 
I do believe that I saw some research being done on running biodiesel in jet engines. Not sure how far along that is.

On the GA front-

Do a search on AGE-85 fuel. I am still trying to find out what the status of it is. It's a biofuel designed to replace avgas. It looked like the FAA approved it, but then Cessna had some concerns about it and pulled their authorization. I haven't really been able to dig up any articles newer than about 2001, though.

LAXSaabdude.
 
PaulThomas said:
Any one knows if we could use nuclear power in planes like it's used in submarines?

Nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers use the reactors to create steam. The steam then is used to power electrical generators to run electric motors to turn the ships screws, or use steam pressure directly to launch aircraft with the steam catapult.

The reactor rooms on navy ships are very heavily insulated with extremely heavy and thick lead walls. Aircraft cannot deal withy that kind of weight and fly. Beyond that, reactors are not cheap to build, and safety issues would not allow for hundreds of airplanes flying over and into populated areas. There are some countries who will no longer allow our carriers to dock in their ports for the safety concerns. I believe Japan is one of those nations.

What you suggest would make no more sense than trying to run an airplane with steam train locomotives of the early days of the Wild West, carrying coal in the hold to stoke the steam boiler with to turn the props and turbines. Not to mention the weight of the water, which ships don't need to carry. It's already all around them. Just as nuclear power plants for electrical power generation on land are built near rivers and other bodies of water required to both are a source for steam, and to cool the nuclear reactors to prevent a melt down.

There are practical, scientific and ecconomic limits as to what technology can do for us. A solar powered airplane has flown, but with only the pilot on board. Not likely for a 747 or crossing the pacific with only moon light.
 
Any one knows if we could use nuclear power in planes like it's used in submarines?

The USAF and NASA looked into that in the 50's and 60's. They found that the weights involved in some type of nuclear propulsion device would negate its effects. Regardless, I don't think anyone would allow nuclear powered a/c over populated areas.
 
Hi!

Here is an article in FORBES, not some left-wing magazine, that explains that high oil prices are here to stay, because of basic supply and demand constraints.

http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/2005/03/11/cx_da_0311topnews.html
"Oil Crises Now And Then
Dan Ackman, 03.11.05, 9:30 AM ET
...
In real terms, oil prices were higher in 1981 than they are now. But they had fallen by half by 1986. As the early 1980s prices were caused by OPEC and politics, they eventually fell. Many oil prognosticators today say oil is more likely to stay high as the price is a function of ordinary supply and surging demand, especially in India and China. Indeed, this morning, the International Energy Agency raised its forecast for China's oil demand this year by 100,000 barrels per day to 500,000 barrels."

CLiff
YIP
 
Convair rebuilt a B-36 damaged in a tornado with a working nuclear reactor on board called the NB-36H, it never powered the engines but it did run.

Check it out: http://cowtown.net/proweb/nb36h_jde.htm

The problem lies in a crash, obviously.
 
Last edited:
atpcliff said:
Hi!

Does anyone know about what type of engines fuels we will fly when oil is too expensive to use?

Coal dust...then America will be the new Saudi Arabia.
 
MOONSHINE!!!
That sh@t burns even when not lit!

Jobear
 
Hi!

Here's what the CEO of ChevronTexaco had to say, compliments of Investors Business Daily:

http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=26458788&brk=1

"Oil is no longer in plentiful supply. The time when we could count on cheap oil and even cheaper natural gas is clearly ending," ChevronTexaco Chairman David O'Reilly said in a recent speech."

Cliff
YIP
 
I Believe It!!

atpcliff said:
Simmons believes Iran's oil production has also peaked. The technical term for damaging an oilfield by overproduction is rate sensitivity. In other words, if the oil is pulled out of the ground too fast, it damages the fragile geological structure of the field. This can make as much as 80% of the oil within the field unextractable.

CLiff YIP


Most people have NO idea how true this is. The problem is the overwhelming desire for the quickest possible return on a drilling investment (sometimes referred to as greed).

The figures vary, but even in Texas where the Railroad Commission (they regulate oil production in Texas) has had what they call an "allowable" in place for decades that only permits producing 1/3 of the potential total daily production for any given oil well; you are still doing mighty good to recover just 1/3 of the total amount of oil in a reservoir before having to resort to a secondary or tertiary recovery system. The recovery costs will then be considerably more depending upon the method used and even then, you will probably leave more than half of the oil in the reservoir. Things may have changed in Texas as I haven't lived there in many years but I believe those percentages are pretty close You get the general idea anyway.

In my own state, as in most states, there is no allowable. You are free to let a well produce as much as it can as fast as it can and most people, especially people that have multiple investors (read: boiler room promoters) will let 'er rip so that the initial return looks good. The fact is, if you hit oil, that most of the wells in my area will come in pretty good after an acid job but if you leave them wide open they will blow down very quickly, say, from 100 bbls/day to 5 bbls/day in a week or two and slow to a barrel a day or less within a year. On the other hand, if you shut-in the pressure and produce about 5% of open flow, they will make oil for many years and in the long run, you'll produce a considerably larger percentage of the reservoir before having to go to secondary recovery.

The other peak oil problem is with the estimation of reserves. All oil producing countries and oil production companies want to have as many reserves on their books as possible to look good to their creditors. But, in reality, there is this huge difference between total reserves quoted by the "oil will last forever" crowd and the real "recoverable" reserves.

We've had the price of oil held down to the point where it was almost impossible for the small producer to make any money or increase reserves since the mid-eighties. People need to quit listening to the wishful thinkers, tree hugger's and conspiracy advocates and start believing that oil IS a finite resource which IS NOT as plentiful as salt water in the ocean.

This recent price boost is finally starting to encourage a little exploration into the shallow (cheaper) drilling areas again and we're gonna' need all we can get.

Too bad about the gasoline prices; if you'll pardon the expression, it's somebody else's turn in the barrel. :D
.
.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top