Jet Fuel Prices WILL Be Climbing A LOT, and Soon

[jetflyer]

T-Bags,

By the way if you're going to personally attack me and call me a Dumba$s Luddite, atleast spell "Luddite" correctly. OH THE IRONY!! :laugh:

Jet

 

[jetflyer]

Forget petroleum...I wanna drive one of these:

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

I agree that electric cars like that Tesla Roadster or plug-in hybrids which drive 30-50 miles on electric batteries before using gasoline as the backup will be our future.

The batteries for the Plug-In hybrids keep getting better. Eventually we may be able to drive hundreds of miles on the batteries before using the gasoline as a backup.

That Tesla Roadster rocks doesn't it!? (Lotus body all electric with amazing range and acceleration)

I don't think Hydrogen should be our future. You have to use an equal amount of fossil fuels or some other energy source to produce the hydrogen.

It's not free!

Also hydrogen being the smallest element is very difficult to contain or keep as a liquid. The storage obstacle is almost unsurmountable and makes hydrogen not practical.

Plus Hydrogen is just a way for the BIG OIL COMPANIES to have a future after oil starts depleting. They were going to shift over their current gas stations to hydrogen stations, but this dream for the Oil Companies is quickly diminishing.

Electric transportation is a much more viable future.

Jet

 

[jetflyer]

I don't know why but a long post I did on the importance of oil to food production and a post by Rick James defending me are now gone.

Strange....

Well anyways I think that oil is so important to food production I'll post some highlights from what I said before:
From HERE:

WHY OIL IS SO IMPORTANT TO FOOD PRODUCTION

Petrochemicals are key components to much more than just the gas in your car. As geologist Dale Allen Pfeiffer points out in his article entitled, "Eating Fossil Fuels," approximately 10 calories of fossil fuels are required to produce every 1 calorie of food eaten in the US.

The size of this ratio stems from the fact that every step of modern food production is fossil fuel and petrochemical powered:

Pesticides are made from oil;

Commercial fertilizers are made from ammonia, which is made from natural gas, which will peak about 10 year after oil peaks;

With the exception of a few experimental prototypes, all farming implements such as tractors and trailers are constructed and powered using oil;

Food storage systems such as refrigerators are manufactured in oil-powered plants, distributed across oil-powered transportation networks and usually run on electricity, which most often comes from natural gas or coal;

In the US, the average piece of food is transported almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate. In Canada, the average piece of food is transported 5,000 miles from where it is produced to where it is consumed.

In short, people gobble oil like two-legged SUVs.

I recommend everyone read "EATING FOSSIL FUELS":

In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American. Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:

· 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer from natural gas

· 19% for the operation of field machinery

· 16% for transportation

· 13% for irrigation

· 08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)

· 05% for crop drying

· 05% for pesticide production from OIL

· 08% miscellaneous8

Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets, and household cooking are not considered in these figures.

Nitrogen is needed for crops to grow. Our topsoil is very deprived so natural gas is used for almost all of the nitrogen inputs today in our crops produced.

Without fossil fuels, the population of the Earth would not have gone from 1 billion in the mid-1800's to 6+Billion today.

When fossil fuels begin their decline the carrying capacity of the Earth will not be 6+ Billion any more, and there will be people struggling to get enough food.

So Bake I hope you can see, food production is very dependent on oil and other fossil fuels.

Hope you learned something!

Jet

 

[JohnDoe]

I saw that tesla roadster on the discovery channel the other night ("future cars" or something like that).

With the exception of the 100-150 mile range (not positive on that, but still great for an electric car) one would hardly know it was all electric. 0-60 mph in roughly 4 seconds. Not bad looking either.

Too bad it is around $90k to purchase.

 

[jetflyer]

I saw that tesla roadster on the discovery channel the other night ("future cars" or something like that).

With the exception of the 100-150 mile range (not positive on that, but still great for an electric car) one would hardly know it was all electric. 0-60 mph in roughly 4 seconds. Not bad looking either.

Too bad it is around $90k to purchase.

Their site says 250 mile range, but I'm sure doing 0-60 in 4 secs a few times will reduce that to 100-150 mile range really quickly!

Jet

 

[T-Bags]

"Therefore, EOR is not likely to increase reservoir peak production"

Wow, silly me!! I'm now wondering how the Kern River field production, which had previously peaked at around 40,000 BPD could have possibly increased from approx 25,000 BPD to approx 140,000 BPD after steam injection was started...

"31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer from natural gas"

I'm afraid now!! I didn't realize we fertilize our crops with CH4!! Oh wait... in reality, we use NH3!! The N doesn't come from Gas, the H's do. So, if you can use electricity to produce H2 for your nifty ALGORE 3000 sedan, then we can certainly use it to produce H2 for the production of NH3. If we can use electricity to power our ElectroNader mopeds, we can use electricity to power our tractors. Why do we use Natural gas? BECAUSE IT IS CURRENTLY THE CHEAPEST METHOD!!

Why did U.S. oil production peak in the 70's? BECAUSE IT WAS CHEAPER TO DRILL ELSEWHERE. PEAK OIL IS AN ECONOMIC PHENOMENON!! I could cut my family's petro consumption by 80% within WEEK if I needed to.

Why does it appear that oil production has "peaked"? Due to the extensive drilling done in OPEC countries during the 60’s and early70’s, the OPEC countries were able to hold back excess capacity after they organized which gave them the ability to influence world prices via output. Production capacity has not increased significantly in those countries since they nationalized the fields. They had no need to drill. Why waste money on a new well when you already have all the wells you need? Now we find ourselves in a differant situation. Now we are utilizing all of the world’s production capacity. Unfortunately, there is a lead time before you can start producing. When more capacity is needed, you must DRILL FOR IT. Our production today is based on PRICE EXPECTATIONS YEARS AGO! So, believe it or not, the world will have capacity come on-line in a couple years BASED ON THIS YEARS PRICES.

Frankly, not to be offensive, but I’ve forgotten more about petroleum economics than you’ve ever know. You are like a kid with flight sim trying to tell a 747 Capt. that he knows more about aviation. You are exposing yourself to the opinions of others and don’t have the intellectual tools to evaluate the relative merit of their argument

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Sustainable oil. The whole Oil from dinosaurs is bullcrap. It is a product of the earth. It goes too deep to be explained by organic materials. It is all the product of big business trying to keep their profits up. Now if you want to argue what it is going to do to the environment I could understand but peak oil is an urban legend created to steal money from your pockets.

 

[jetflyer]

Frankly, not to be offensive, but I’ve forgotten more about petroleum economics than you’ve ever know. You are like a kid with flight sim trying to tell a 747 Capt. that he knows more about aviation. You are exposing yourself to the opinions of others and don’t have the intellectual tools to evaluate the relative merit of their argument.

Wow. I didn't realize you were a Sky God.

Now that I know, I'll never question you again!

No reason to debate anymore what is true, we just need to listen to you.

If you say it's true it has to be, Oh Sky God T-Bagger...

Jet

 

[jetflyer]

Why did U.S. oil production peak in the 70's? BECAUSE IT WAS CHEAPER TO DRILL ELSEWHERE. PEAK OIL IS AN ECONOMIC PHENOMENON!!

From BP: http://www.yubanet.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/8/15426
Is that why even with record drilling and record EOR last year U.S. Onshore oil production in the 48 contiguous states is down from 10 mbd in 1970 to less than 4 mbd today?

Peak Oil is a GEOLOGICAL PHENOMENON!!

Jet

 

[T-Bags]

Wow. I didn't realize you were a Sky God.

Now that I know, I'll never question you again!

No reason to debate anymore what is true, we just need to listen to you.

If you say it's true it has to be, Oh Sky God T-Bagger...

Jet

Which sounds an awfull lot like what a teenage flight sim jockey would say.

But you're probably right, a few weeks reading "theoildrum" between visits to the 911 conspiracy websites will leave you smarter than actually talking to the players and having friends at ARAMCO and most of the other major oil companies....

Just curious, but do you draw up plays during football season and send them to the coach of your favorite pro football team? If only he would listen, they'd won the superbowl...

"Peak Oil is a GEOLOGICAL PHENOMENON!!"

So if we had drilled in ANWR in 1968, is it possible in your myopic world that U.S. oil production would have peaked in 1973 instead? Were there other places we've since drilled in that we knew likely contained oil in 1972? Why didn't we drill then? BECAUSE OF ECONOMIC REASONS.

Tell you what though, go buy your cabin, stock it with all the statements from your commodities broker on all the inedible metals you think will be valuable when, in your world, we can no longer grow crops or drive any vehicles, and I'll either laugh at you when you've been proved completely wrong, or I'll come by and shoot you and take your paper to heat my house (since gold will be worthless.....you can't eat it or burn it and the bank won't return your calls when the global economy collapses into anarchy... )

 

[Phaedrus]

"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine"
--Michael Stipe

 

[jetflyer]

"Peak Oil is a GEOLOGICAL PHENOMENON!!"

So if we had drilled in ANWR in 1968, is it possible in your myopic world that U.S. oil production would have peaked in 1973 instead?

You're finally getting it.

Yes. Right after 1970, Prudhoe Bay, other Alaskan oil, and the Gulf of Mexico oil fields came online and U.S. oil production continued to decline.

The declines from U.S. onshore fields were just too much to overcome even with the new fields coming online.
(Sounds like today's global situation huh?)

Prudhoe Bay provided at a peak 1.4 Million Barrels per day and now produces less than 400,000 bpd.

ANWR is going to produce 10 years after it is given the go ahead 1 MBD for 20 years. This will not even make up for the declines in Mexico and Saudi Arabia last year alone.

Sky God Answer this: So since Onshore Oil field production in the Contiguous 48 states is down from 10 mbd to less than 4 mbd, can the U.S. flood the market any day now with an extra 6 million barrels of oil a day???

According to your economic theory yes, since Peak Oil is not a geological event.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Not if it means higher profits for the oil companies.

 

[T-Bags]

Jetty,
Here are a few clips from another, far more liberal, energy economist. If you have trouble with the bigger words, I'll help you out...

http://zfacts.com/p/62.html

http://zfacts.com/p/313.html

 

[jetflyer]

Sky God Answer this: So since Onshore Oil field production in the Contiguous 48 states is down from 10 mbd to less than 4 mbd, can the U.S. flood the market any day now with an extra 6 million barrels of oil a day???

According to your economic theory yes, since Peak Oil is not a geological event.

Answer the above questions. Why are you afraid to answer the questions?

Also: Why did the U.S. decide to produce 6 mbd less? (This is Six ANWR's)


Jet

 

[jetflyer]

T-Bags,

You confuse me.

Do you not understand what scalability is?

Do you know what crash programs for the Oil Sands say they can produce in MBD in 2016?

Do you know how long it takes and how much money it takes to build a Coal to Oil Plant that produces 50,000bpd?

Do you not understand the Export Land Model?

I really don't think you know the answers to any of these. If you did we wouldn't be having this conversation that you're engaging me in.

You would also respect my viewpoints a lot more and would stop belittling me.

Jet

 

[T-Bags]

Answer the above questions. Why are you afraid to answer the questions?

Also: Why did the U.S. decide to produce 6 mbd less? (This is Six ANWR's)


Jet

Yes, the U.S. could flood the market with 6 million BPD. We have about 750 MB just sitting in Salt Caverns....

The U.S. didn't decide to produce 6 million BPD less oil, the OIL COMPANIES DID!! Why? Because on balance, it would have costs them MORE to produce the oil than THEY COULD HAVE SOLD IT FOR, or in their mind, the RISK of a price collapse during the period of positive cash flow of a given project resulted in the use of a discout rate that gave the project adverse economics. And what did the price of oil do? IT WENT DOWN.

So lets do this slowly.... Peak oil production PER PERSON WAS IN 1978! Since then OIL PRICES HAVE GONE DOWN. SINCE THEN, PER CAPITA GDP WENT UP. SINCE THEN, I GOT FATTER DUE TO GLUTTENY. SINCE THEN I GOT A BIGGER, FASTER, TRUCK.

Again, slowly. On average, per capita oil use is LOWER than in 1978, but LIFE is BETTER. FOOD PRODUCTION IS HIGHER. What part don't you understand? The Geology of oil is NOT a problem. We will NEVER USE ALL THE WORLD'S OIL

 

[jetflyer]

I think the smartest thing you just said was "We'll never use all the world's oil" Well yeah....

Way to dodge my question. Of course we could dump the 700 MB that are in the salt caverns. That wasn't my question.

Do you agree that the 6 mbd decline in US onshore oil production was because the US passed peak oil in 1970?? For the second time why are you afraid to answer this.

The fact is that even with EOR most of the oil production is LOST forever. The internal pressures in the fields are so gone that even EOR will not ever get back the 6 mbd of lost production. You may be able to get back 1 mbd but probably not more.

Peak Oil is geological for Mexico as well:
The Cantarell Field in Mexico produced 2,000,000bpd at the beginning of 2006 with EXPENSIVE, EXPENSIVE NITROGEN INJECTION used as the EOR method. At the end of 2006 Cantarell was producing 1,500,000bpd. NITROGEN INJECTION CONTINUES.

Did the Mexican oil company PEMEX CHOOSE to pump 500,000bpd less oil in 2006?
According to you, YES!!!! BS.

You're just proving yourself to be a retard by continuing to dodge these questions.

Peak Oil is geological for an individual oil field. Peak Oil is geological for an individual country.

Do you think Great Britain has chosen to have their North Sea Oil production decline by 14% per year? They are using every EXPENSIVE, EXPENSIVE EOR technique they can think of.

Read this from a Coal to Oil website on the potential of Coal to Oil to prevent Peak Oil:
http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/html/peaking.htm

If peak oil is now, there will be a liquid fuel shortage while mitigation measures are ramped up.
After 10 years of Crash Programs:
-Vehicle Efficiency will contribute the equivalency of 2 mbd of oil
-Gas to Liquids will contribute the equivalency of 2 mbd of oil
-Heavy Oil/Oil Sands will contribute the equivalency of 8 mbd of oil
-Coal Liquids will contribute the equivalency of 5 mbd of oil
-Enhanced oil recovery will contribute the equiavalency of 3 mbd of oil

You seem to have this fantasy that 200 MBD of coal to oil can be brought to market tomorrow if the money was there.

There is something called scalability of time that you don't understand. How fast can these things be increased? How fast can the new coal mining be brought online? How fast can the coal-to-oil plants be built?

YOU ARE WRONG T-Bags about scalabilty. Even if your credentials are great, this doesn't mean you're right,
Jet

 

[jetflyer]

T-Bags,

Do you also agree that the faster the decline of current fields the harder mitigation will be?

Do you agree that an 8% decline in current fields will be a lot harder to mitigate with alternatives than a 2% decline.

The scary thing is that since EOR is being used on so many fields to extend the peaks like the North Sea, Ghawar, Australia, Mexico, etc. that we're starting to see decline rates reaching the mid-to-upper teens.

What really matters after peak is the decline rate in current fields.

Jet

 

[T-Bags]

From it's "peak" in 1979, worldwide oil production dropped 15% to hit a low in 1983. 15%!!!! It didn't reach the 1979 level again until 1994. Did we all starve? NO. The notion of peak oil came from a statistical view of oil production, NOT from extensive studies of reserviors. That's where the Bell Curve reference comes from. I'm not disputing the notion that oil production may have peak, I'm saying IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT HASN'T MATTERED. Even among the true believers, I haven't seen any of them that predict that we'll wake up one morning to empty oil tanks. EVEN THEY see a gradual dropoff. RELAX, HAVE A DRINK!!

 

[jetflyer]

I do think the liquid fuel deficit will be a bigger deal than you, but oh well. It's getting late. So let's have that drink!
:beer:

 

[T-Bags]

"Did the Mexican oil company PEMEX CHOOSE to pump 500,000bpd less oil in 2006?
According to you, YES!!!! BS."

No, the mexicans are morons, and Pemex is a horribly managed government entity.
Would production have declined in Mexico if the country was open to unrestricted drilling by U.S. companies?

Oil production in Iran and Iraq has never recovered from the Iran/ Iraq war. Does that mean the vast reserves those countries had just vanished? Or does it mean it is sitting in the ground because the government is too incompetant to get it out? Is that "geology"?

When production drops because some idiots blow themselves up will trying to steal oil from a pipeline in Nigera, is that GEOLOGY?

When we haven't drilled in Somolia (so think their are huge reserves there) because the place is lawless, is that GEOLOGY?

Would Venezualen production be higher if Hugo Castro, i mean Chavez hadn't fired all the professionals in the industry and replaced them with cronies? Is that GEOLOGY?

Yes a faster decline hurts more than a slow decline. What real evidence do you have that we will see a rapid wordwide decline?

 

[jetflyer]

Oil importers will deal with larger declines.

Consider this from an earlier post. It is my explanation of the Export Land Model by Texas Geologist Jeffrey Brown:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiggums
Here are some numbers to consider. We consumed 7.593 billion barrels of crude oil in 2005. When peak oil hits the experts are looking at a decline rate of 3-7%. Taking the mid number, 5%, you are going to be short about 1 billion barrels per year in by the third year of the peak oil event.

Wiggums,
Since you read articles at the www.theoildrum.com blog have you learned anything about geologist Jeffrey Brown's (oil drum id: West Texas) Export Land Model?

It has actually been proven. It is also why the importers of oil are going to have to deal with instead of 5% declines something more like 10%.

The "Export Land Model" works like this:
Act like all the exporters of the world are one country. We'll call it Export Land.

This Export land produces 60 million barrels a day.
They export 40 mbd.
They consume internally 20 mbd.

--When the declines begin they will lose 5% per year from their production. So after one year their production drops from 60 to 57 mbd.
--Their internal consumption will continue to rise, especially since their economy is getting such an incredible boost because of the oil revenues, and consumption will climb like the exporters today are seeing at about 5% per year. So after year one their consumption has climbed from 20 to 21 mbd.
--End of year 1: Available oil to importers is down from 40 mbd to 36 mbd.
A loss of 10%!

--Year 2 production of Export Land down to 54.15 mbd
--Internal consumption of Export Land up to 22.05 mbd
--End of year 2: Available oil to importers down from 36 mbd to 32.1 mbd.
A loss of 10.8%!!!

I think I actually did a good job explaining that. Do you agree?

So because the Export Land model will probably be what happens to the world, we'll need more than DOUBLE (about 2.25 X) the 28 new coal to oil plants you came up with just to keep our energy level even!

We're not used to having level consumption, and level consumption alone is horrible for an economy.

Competition for these available exports will heat up tremendously between countries like the U.S. and China. This is why China is circling the globe to lock in long-term contracts.

Understanding the Export Land Model will make one understand that the problem will be even worse than they first thought.

A 10% decline rate for importers is scary as hell..........

The DOE Study didn't even consider the Export Land Model when they made their assumptions on future needs.

 

[jetflyer]

From Montequest at http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic20373.html+decline+rates

Recent projections indicate an 8% decline which would reduce production by 50% in less than 9 years.

Even Exxon says existing field decline is 4 to 6%

I am also inclined to believe we are past mid-point ( because of over-stated reserves) and, due to tertiary extraction methods, the decline will be quite steep.

And if these declines are any indicator...

#3 Cantarell in Mexico ~ 14%/year decline.

#2 Burgan in Kuwait ~ 14%/year decline.

#13 Prudhoe Bay in Alaska ~ 11%/year decline.

#12 Samotlor in Russia ~ 9% decline.

Saudi Arabia just admitted an 8% decline for their mature fields.

But we won't know until it is past.

Jet

 

[jetflyer]

From: Pup55 at http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic20373.html+decline+rates talking about a thread that can be found here:
http://peakoil.com/fortopic2748.html

We did something like this awhile back. We reviewed the production data for all of the countries that were post-peak and tried to deduce how steep the decline curve would be.

On average, the decline is about 6% for the first year after the peak, and usually after about 3 years post-peak, the proverbial average nation is pumping about 87% of peak capacity.

It remains to be seen whether or not future decline curves will be the same shape. When this year's BP Review comes out, we will have a chance to recalculate some of this.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Lets see. They can get $20 a barrel to max out their current fields or they can pretend they are having a 6% decline which causes the market to freak out and prices to jump to $70 a barrel for doing less work. Sounds like the answer to your question right there. What incentive is there for countries/companies to flood the market with more oil than is needed. NONE!!! IT IS A CARTEL. THESE COUNTRIES CONTROL THE PRICE OF OIL BY CONTROLLING THE AMOUNT PUT ON THE MARKET!
It is the same as the diamond industry. Diamonds are not as rare as some other minerals. But they become rare when one company controls the mining and distribution to the rest of the world. If Debears was to dump diamonds on the market the price would drop and they would make LESS money for putting MORE diamonds on the market. Business 101.

 

[T-Bags]

From Montequest at http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic20373.html+decline+rates


Jet

Despite all the horror of production rates falling that much at CERTAIN FIELDS, worldwide oil production has stayed relatively flat. THAT'S THE POINT!!

 

[jetflyer]

IT IS A CARTEL. THESE COUNTRIES CONTROL THE PRICE OF OIL BY CONTROLLING THE AMOUNT PUT ON THE MARKET!

Squirrel,

OPEC were the big, bad guys in the 1970's but ever since their goal has been to keep the price low enough that people do not swith to alternatives to oil.

If people would have switched to alternatives in the 1970's then 75% of their oil would not have been needed.

The 8% decline they admitted to was in their mature fields. This is common across the world. They have to bring on new oil to replace the mature fields. Nothing new there.

Their incentive is to keep the price of oil low right to peak oil. They have really lost control of price these last TWO YEARS, because OPEC has been pumping 100% all this time. There is no more spare capacity.

So if they kept oil prices low right to their peak, then Saudi has 50% of their oil left.
Also it coincides with a world peak and according to the DOE report, prices will now skyrocket.
So Saudi has now gotten the world to a point where Saudi will profit tremendously from the last 50% of their oil at tremendous profits.

So greedy OPEC does much better after peak, even though the production after peak will be getting less and less each year, and they ensure buyers for 100% of their oil.

When you hear it like that you can see that OPEC's greed can be seen in a different light huh? They didn't care about the world economies after peak, because they knew they'd have buyers after peak. So they didn't care about warning the world and had incentives to lie about how much oil they had.

 

[jetflyer]

Despite all the horror of production rates falling that much at CERTAIN FIELDS, worldwide oil production has stayed relatively flat. THAT'S THE POINT!!

Good point.

But we're at the point, like in the U.S. was at in 1970, for the world right now, where all the fields are pumping full tilt and production is staying flat.

As you know then U.S. production started declining. The U.S. didn't want production to decline! They started doing enhanced oil recovery, in-field drilling, searching everywhere for new fields. Yet production continued to fall and water-cuts in fields crept up.

In 2004, Chevron said 33 out of the major 48 oil producing countries are past their peak oil and in terminal decline( www.willyoujoinus.com supply section).

Now if you add Mexico, Saudi, and Kuwait that have just joined that list it goes to 36 out of 48 that are past their peak.

Some countries are still adding a lot of oil (Brazil, Angola, Nigeria, etc.), or are past their peak but keeping production from falling too much by adding new fields.

The major point of peak oil is that there is a tipping point where the additional Oil Projects will not be enough to keep oil production for the world from falling by 1%. (2007?)

Then the next year the additional oil projects won't be able to keep the oil production from falling 2%. (2008?)

When more and more fields go in to decline or when more countries join the 36 out of 48 past their peak eventually production will fall and the fall will accelerate atleast for the first couple years, while the price skyrockets, and this will stimulate the alternatives to start.

Then and only after the price spikes, because we chose not to be preemptive on peak oil, alternatives will start to come to market.


Read this from a Coal to Oil website on the potential of Coal to Oil and other alternatives to prevent Peak Oil:
http://www.ultracleanfuels.com/html/peaking.htm

If peak oil is now, there will be a liquid fuel shortage while mitigation measures are ramped up according to the above site which references the DOE study.
After 10 years of Crash Programs these are supposed to be best case scenario additions to oil supply:

-Vehicle Efficiency will contribute the equivalency of 2 mbd of oil.

-Gas to Liquids will contribute the equivalency of 2 mbd

-Heavy Oil/Oil Sands will contribute the equivalency of 8 mbd

-Coal Liquids will contribute the equivalency of 5 mbd of oil

-Enhanced oil recovery will contribute the equivalency of 3 mbd of oil

But if declines were an average for the first 10 years 5% then we'd have lost 35 million barrels a day from our current 85 mbd. The above 20 mbd from crash programs wouldn't have overcome the declines.

This leaves the world with a substantial Liquid fuels deficit.

Also you can't consider what it takes to make the world have LEVEL oil consumption. The world desires climbing oil consumption.

So at a 2% climb in desired consumption for 10 years the world would desire 104 MBD in 2017.

So anything causing oil production to not climb is also bad(why the price is 6 times more expensive now than in 1998)

Eventually the crash programs and other forms of transportation will arrest the declines and our way of life with climbing energy consumption will continue.

The DOE Study says that the liquid fuels deficit will be over 20 years though if alternatives are started at peak oil.

The earlier we start and the more effort we give it, the sooner we can get back to the good living again.

This is why I've been writing my Congressman and telling people. I was hoping to help spread the Peak Oil word so we could get to the good times sooner, and hopefully before the declines began. I think we're too late for that though, but we still have to start NOW trying to replace oil and hard.

Who doesn't want "GOOD TIMES!" I know I do!! That's why I'm talking about this!

Those are my points....
Jet

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Additionally, Saudi Arabia’s key oil and finance ministers assured the audience — which included US Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan — that the Kingdom has the capability to quickly double its oil output and sustain such a production surge for as long as 50 years.

So you are saying it is big conspiracy and every nation is pretending to have more oil so they can continue high production? I am not denying that we are in a precarious situation and it could impact our economy because we currently rely so much on the middle east for its oil, but peak oil seems like more of a conspiracy theory than any other theory. We know so little about crude oil and where it comes from, how it formed. Wells run dry and replenish themselves for no apparent reason. And I would say it is more likely that the world oil market is tighter controlled than most lay people are lead to believe. It takes a lot of money to start oil exploration/development. There is a lot of incentive for the current leaders in the oil industry to delay developments of new markets. It is called supply and demand. A slow increase in supply which barely keeps up with demand will keep profits high. Ten years ago OPEC was giving their oil away for $16 a barrel because they were producing too much. That will not happen again. It is easier for them to perpetuate a PEAK OIL scam then it is for them to say they are cutting production to increase price because one of their princes wants a A380 as a private jet.