rhinefire

Since Hugo Chavez's move on June 26 to nationalize oil along with Russia bullying more oil companies out of the oil fields, the war in Iraq and Mexico barring invetors from putting money into the troubled Pemex the world oil supply is headed for trouble. Without new fields annual production output will fall by 3% annually while the growing world needs 4 million new barrels per day. Venezuela's ouput has toppled by 25% to 2.4 million bbls/day. Exxon and Conoco are getting out. Chavez fried the majority of the mamagers after the 2003 strike and so thereis a critical shortage of knowlegeable people. Venezuela could easily slip in to a negative production decline. Russia's production is half what it was a few years ago. They forced British Petroleum to sell off part of a monstrous field for a measly $700,000,000, a drop in the bucket of the fields potential. So folks as these nations put the heat on ad steal from the "Ugly American" the would could easily be headed for very dark days and sadly most of you don't realize the ramifications of such a world crisis.

Maybe-not

I see this as a positive developement. Oil is mainly extremly harmfull to the globe. As such we should rely on Bio fuels. (2'd Generation who aren't made from valuable food, but leftovers from harvesting). In this way, we safe the globe for a lot of CO2 and other sorts of ****.

ashurbanipal

This has very little to do with why oil production is declining. Venezuela's industry has taken some hits recently, but their output is running at roughly 90% capacity right now. Russia is, last I heard, at 100% capacity.

Read this next sentence very, very carefully--enough times so that its meaning sinks in:

Oil production decline is an inevitable result of geology and physics.

If all it took were some investment in infrastructure, why has U.S. oil production declined since 1970? It's not just environmental regulations as we're obviously still pumping oil. Why is North Sea production declining? Why is Kuwaiti production declining? Why is Canadian production declining? We're pumping full out and drilling more wells all the time (I live in a major oil producing state; I've taken note of the recent scramble here).

It's a complicated subject, but oil production starts out slow, ramps up, reaches a peak, and then declines. It doesn't matter how much is invested or what techniques are tried--some techniques can shape the curve, but they can't alter the fact that there is a curve.

Iraqi oil is currently being used to mask a severe Saudi production slide. That's why we're perpetuating the war; if we do not do so, the economy won't just tank, it'll collapse as people realize the ugly truth.

As for Pemex: they've never been technically profficient as some American companies. But at this point that doesn't matter; Canterel is in permanent and steep decline. No amount of money thrown at the problem is going to help that.

More like 8-10% annually after an initial 2-4% decline.

I don't know about that figure, specifically, but demand is certainly growing. Guess whose fault that is?

Most of that has very little to do with how the oil fields are managed. They're simply not capable of producing much more. The decline is due to geological and physical factors. There are above-ground issues in some areas (Nigeria, for instance), but overall, they make up very little of the reason for the overall decline.

All true, but beside the point.

Uh, OK. Wouldn't a negative decline be an increase?

I don't think it's fallen quite that far, but it's getting there. Depends on which of their peaks we're looking at. Thanks to their economic collapse of 95-98, they're one of the few countries to have a double peak.

Of course. We'd do the same and be much less gracious about it.

It's not a question of if anymore, only a question of when. I expect the **** to hit the fan in the next five years, ten years at the outside. See below for details.

As for the rhetorical aspect of your comment: it seems very ill-advised to me. Sounds like you're suggesting that our oil somehow got under other people's dirt, and they're downright despicable for trying to keep it for themselves.

Can you honestly say that you do? The threat of peak oil is something that has never been faced throughout all history. There is no economic activity anywhere in the world (except among those still living in stone-age) that does not depend, directly or indirectly, on inputs of oil.

Our economy must continue to grow in order to function. As energy is withdrawn from the economy, however, it will have to shrink. This will cause it to implode. Most of it is imaginary anyway.

The worst implication of peak oil is that without constant inputs of petroleum, the world's agricultural system can only support about one billion people, give or take a little. I've heard estimates as high as 2 billion, but those invariably factor in some murky variable for human ingenuity. Not that I don't believe in human ingenuity, I just point out that people were practicing agriculture for about 12,000 years without much progress in yields until oil came along. It would seem that if we were going to have any brilliant ideas, we'd have had them already.

So if we will shoot each other over a new x-box and we will riot because of a power-outage, what will we do when trucks no longer bring food to the local supermarket? From an ecological perspective, we will have to find a way to bring our numbers back into equilibrium with the environment. The quickest way to do this is war. And I think that's probably what will happen, on the grandest and most bloodthirsty scale anyone has ever seen. Probably far more than the necessary 5 billion will die.

Combine that with global warming, and we're in for one hell of a ride. I give the human race, at best, about a 50-50 chance of surviving the next century.

And the point of my comment is that no one really understands everything that's going to happen. We know that the consequences of peak oil will be severe and far-reaching. What, specifically, those consequences will be, we can only hesitantly guess.

As for this:

I would suggest a little more research. We can certainly produce biofuels from non-edible material. But it currently takes more petroleum as an input to the process than is replaced in burning the biofuels. And biofuels are just as poluting as gasoline and diesel. The polutants are different, but just as dangerous.

Sergeant Stinger1

---
Sadly most of US don't realise the ramifications of such a world crisis???
So, YOU are smart and know about this BUT MOST of us are stupid and don't realise it?
Don't hop up on your high horse just yet! There are probably 300 million more Americans that are ahead of you. So go to the back of the line!
---
With that said, yes, we should be concerned about future oil problems like shortages.

__________________
I guess bush and the Repukes won cause Americans are totaly SCREWED!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AMERICAN ARMED FORCES, THE BEST IN THE WORLD

nikitas3.com

It didn't take long. Over the last 100 years, Western man developed the highest standard of living ever based on oil. Soon along comes the environmentalist to decry everything that has made life better. Their end-of-the-world stories are legion. They are intellectuals, doubters, scare-mongers and cranks. Most of all, they haven't got the foggiest idea how to actually run anything. They sit in their offices pontificating on everything while producing nothing. Every idea that they propose from solar energy to biofuels is low-yield and inadequate. Despite their nonsense that American energy production has peaked, we know for certain that we have many, many centuries of petroleum on our shores in the form of coal, oil, and oil shale. Ecologists are blocking it. The most efficient means of electrical production ever, nuclear power, is being blocked by the same people. (If radiation is so dangerous, how do people live in Hiroshima today?) What we need is rationality and courage. The world is NOT running out of oil. It is running out of people to counter the propaganda machine of the enviro movement, which is a leftist/socialist movement designed to undermine the successful capitalist economies. Look around rural America and you will see millions who have been thrown out of work or are underemployed or unable to find work because of, town by town, the obstructionist policies of these "caring" ecologists. But they are not "caring" at all. They are hardball political opportunists who want to turn rural America into a giant nature preserve, no matter who it hurts. Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more.

ashurbanipal

I think it really started in 1868, so it's been more than 100 years.

I think environmentalists are pointing out that we depend on nature for our lives, and we're destroying nature at an alarming rate. No environmentalist I know of is claiming that we must decry anything that makes life better.

So I suppose you'd have no trouble naming 20 or 30 distinct scenarios that didn't come true? I mean, ones made by environmentalists?

Doubters? Scare-mongers? Cranks? OK--but intellectuals? Now you've just gone too far...

Yeah, last I heard, Greenpeace is run by some real conservative anti-environmental hard-asses.

Well, what's your bright idea?

We do? I'd love to hear details.

They're blocking, what, exactly, and how are they blocking it? Can you give us ten or twelve examples of specifically how Ecologists are blocking, uh, whatever it is you're talking about?

I don't know about it being the most efficient ever, but I do think it would be our best bet. That said, it takes a lot of oil to produce a reactor, so it's really too late to go that road.

Uh, what? What does that have to do with radiation? The bombing occurred over 60 years ago. Radiation's almost gone.

[quote=nikitasWhat we need is rationality and courage.[/quote]

Yes, I agree. We also need people to take their own advice.

What does this have to do with the environment?

Of course the world is not running out of oil. However, we are rapidly approaching the point where oil supply enters irreversible decline.

Maybe because people are starting to see that's it's the truth? Look, I can just go stand outside for a little while and realize that there's something increasingly crazy about the weather. Most people are starting to see that as well.

Hmmmm....seems to me that it's designed to save our asses, but I guess people of good will can reasonably disagree.

You know, now that you mention it, I do know quite a few people who have been thrown out of work by caring ecologists. Why, just the other day, my Aunt, who works as a nurse, was accosted at her clinic and thrown out by a big hulking guy! She said he was wearing a T-shirt that had the words "caring ecologist" on it! A lot of my friends have told me similar stories...maybe there's something to what you're saying.

If they're hardball political opportunists, then it would seem you're saying they would benefit from turning rural America into a giant nature preserve. Just how will they benefit?