I doubt this irrational exuberance over unconventional oil in N. America will last more than a decade. The US still imports 50% of its oil, the net energy is declining (e.g. boiling up tubs of bitumen), u.o. seems to need an $80 floor price and fracked wells decline after two years, not two decades. True people are driving less and cars are getting smaller but any finite resource must dwindle.

As to the US exporting coal that hardly helps the mitigation effort. It shows Europe and China aren't that serious about cutting back. Cheap natural gas may not last long. The Canadians need it to melt tar sands and the US finds gas powered stations easier to build and run than nukes. However if the US gets into LNG export the domestic gas price could double or triple. By the second half of the century we will need nukes to make synthetic fuel to keep planes in the air. Unconventional oil provides only a brief respite.

Like most of these articles, the interview is long on generalities, but then its difficult to say anything specific about the oil market which won't be contradicted by events tomorrow..

That said, it looks as if the OPEC states will keep the oil price about where it is - very high - with those high prices to stimulate major increases in production from the Canadian oil sand fields, and the big offshore fields now being discovered where the oil is more difficult to extract, as well as fracking..

Forecasting anything beyond about five years in the energy industry, however, is a waste of time.

Hi James,

It’s disappointing that you had no summary or opinion of your own to wrap up your interview.

The energy world in already standing on its head and Michael Levi makes many valid points but seems extraordinarily timid about outcomes. Even if some industry predictions available are questionable or in need a margin of error, the overall mix of the worlds economic/energy parameters are now reset.

The USA has announced it has enough shale oil and gas reserves to meet domestic demand for 600 years, the UK passed shale production legislation this week, the USA is on target to out-produce Saudi Arabia in oil production by 2017, Canada has commenced Shale oil/gas production, Japan has tied it’s gas price to the USA at 30% less than conventional gas supplies, Germany’s new build program is for 22 coal fired power stations (Lignite at 26%, god bless ‘em) and the UK’s similar program is for 30 gas power stations by 2030, with nine in production by 2019. Wow?

So now we know why the UK Greens have this week supported nuclear power generation, which is a bit catastrophic for their credibility after they spent the last 20 years destroying it. Thrashing anyone?

As they say in the ancient Chinese Curse, may you live in interesting times? Sadly for the warmertariat, it seems they never saw any of this coming. Perhaps a case of none so blind……..?

I suppose we can now relegate “peak oil” to the trash can along with, dead polar bears, rising sea levels, polar ice depletion, lost Himalayan glaciers and CO2 is a pollutant. On the other hand we might see a fresh round of “forecasts”.

I am sure everyone here wishes 'Peak Oil' dead, how about reviewing this link and the assoicated links within to gain a real sense of reality on our energy future

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-12-09/the-one-chart-about-oil-s-future-everyone-should-see

Cheers

Geoff

Geoff of Perth
for heaven sake go back to the chart you link in that story and take another look at it. You will see the way that it has all sources of oil declining after 2012 - not just one or a couple, but all. Teh assumption that unconventional oil would decline, in particular, is utterly absurd. After making that arbitrary assumption back in 2009, before the present boom, your analyst was then able to say we'd need huge new sources of oil.

Whoever put the chart together in 2009 would not dare do so now because the exact opposite is proving to be the case, yet some fool decided to write about in 2012. They probably used that chart, now that I think about it, because nothing else more recent suited the point they wanted to make.

Its always a good idea not to link outdated propaganda.

Curmudgeon, let me guess. You went to the link. Looked at the chart and had an emotional response that the author of the chart is a whacko because it does support your cornucopian world view then responded to Geoff of Perth.

I suggest that you go back and actually read the article so that you understand what the chart is saying. It is not saying that all sources of oil will be declining.

The chart simply says, based on the observed average decline rates from oil fields currently in production (the figure of 4% or thereabouts is generally accepted by organisations such as CERA and the IEA) that in 2030 oil production from existing producing fields will fall from current levels (approx 85mb/d) to 43 mb/d.

To meet projected demand requires an additional 62mb/d worth of new projects to come online (This is why the IEA keeps banging on about needing to find a couple of new Saudi Arabia's worth of oil over the next few decades). The point of the chart is that this oil will have to come from unidentified projects, not that any one type or all types of oil will be in decline. The key questions are of course whether these unidentified projects will come on line, in what timeframe and what oil price is required to make them viable.

As far as propaganda goes, the chart author is from the US Government's Energy Information Administration, hardly an organisation that is of the 'peak oil is a real concern' camp.

Thanks leckos, you have articulated exactly what I wanted those posting and reading on this site to understand.

Unfortunately, Curmudgeon is a 'lion' of the peak oil denial camp and as someone with only a sorry BSc (as he describes it), I would think that he would look at the facts rather than spruik his warped sense of reality, based on his biased journalistic existence.

Curmudgeon should focus on the 'rate' of oil production rather than his myopic and cornucopian belief in 'she'll be right, we have plenty of cheap energy yet to be found or in reserve'.

As a journalist for the AFR, perhaps he would be better articulating the reality of our current and future Australian economic position.

Australia is headed into a massive recession starting, oh about now, just about every economic fact and figure is showing the growing decline of our fiscal standing and our economy is in the early stages of a free-fall. You won't hear this from Curmudgeon because he can't see the woods for the trees. He is exactly the same when it comes to energy, he just does not get it.

Perhaps he would be better off reading a little more widely and doing some real scientific analysis, his posts might then reveal a more moderate and realistic expose of reality, instead of the 'it's all good' mantra we have got used to hearing from him.

Geoff of Perth and leckos,

Your “link wars” are so infantile, why you don’t try to put a case together without batting people over the head with your favorite, narrow and selective links. Surely you are both old enough to read available information from a broad spectrum of sources and make your own case.

You have this parasitic relationship with someone else’s opinions, isn’t it time you formed your own?

Thanks spindoc for your input.

I could list hundreds of links that demonstrate 'peak oil', that being the flow rate of 'conventional' oil is now in the process, is in the past, or is about to decline.

There are huge reserves of oil left in the gound, but it is not the light sweet crude our economy is used to having, thus, economic growth, based on this mantra is totally flawed.

I am also of the opinion, the tight gas 'boom' we are currently witnessing, is just that, a boom, and with all boom's come busts and the bust is not far away. Current tight gas production is un-economic at current prices, the current investment is a ponzi scheme.

You cannot retain the level of historic economic growth we have grown accustomed to in the last 100 years, based on a model or assumptions made in the past. The new frontier, if you are happy to call it that will be restrained by a fossil fuel industry that now needs to expend more and more money, time and related resources on remaining oil and gas that returns a lower 'energy return on energy investment'. You don't need to be a genius to work out we are all on a merri-go-round to higher energy costs, lower productivity, lower growth, lower per-capita wealth and a myriad of other indicators that make the article and Curmudgeon's assumptions unachievable or extreme at the very least.

Physics always triumphs economics, it's just that those who spruik the 'cool aid' economic mainstream model don't get reality and I have come to the conclusion, never will.

I would bet that Curmudgeon would think it wise for a young couple with say $40,000 in the bank, should consider going out to buy a house given the low current 'cash' rate. Lets see in 12 or 24 months time whether or not this would have been good advice. My guess, very bad, lost their $40,000, lost about 40-50% equity in their 'new' home and probably lost their jobs as well.

Let's see, history will be the judge!

In 1985 we were in a wildcatter partnership in Texas with 28 producing wells. We sold out our share in this for an amount calculated on the then $18 U.S. per barrel, and thought we'd agreed a good price for our share, especially when the price dropped back a few months later after we'd sold to $11 per barrel.

However I haven't posted this comment to discuss oil in depth, but to ask if any member of the Forum has any knowledge about the battery invented by Tesla which negated any use of oil. Upon his death mostly all his records were seized by the American government, and to date have never been made public. Imagine how much longer oil would last if just all the cars and trucks in the world used Tesla's invention

leckos
for heaven go and look at the chart.. then sit and think. Ask yourself what has happened in the oil industry since 2009.. vast below sea recoveries and na major revolution in the industry.. so to bleat about standard depletion on existing discoveries in a 2009 grasph is absurd.. And it is even worse when you talk about unconventional oil which is straight price dependent.. it has nothing to do with reserves.. of which there are trillions of barrels.. the Canadian oil sands will produce if the price is right, and keep expanding production. You will also find that the OPEC oil production simply hasn't fallen away as the chart states. Production is being managed to keep the price stable.

Not only is the chart obviously wrong, even if the article gives semi-plausible reasons for those lines (to those who don't know about recent history), its out of date. Geoff of Perth linked out of data peak oil propaganda and expected people to be fooled by it.

What is it about peak oil that people must cling to it. Its like dealing with creationists..

“Geoff of Perth, It’s always a good idea not to link out-dated propaganda.”

Yes Mark you are quite right.

It’s just such a pity you fail to heed your own advice!

Let me surmise, you work for the AFR, therefore you are at the very least at the behest of the big banks (somewhat 40% plus of the total ASX value in today’s dollar terms), you write oped on behalf of your major sponsors and those that keep you employed at the AFR. This equates to be big energy, big pharma, big advertisers, big anyone willing to spend significant funds to keep the AFR and therefore yourself employed! Fortunately for you no pecuniary interest involved!

You tend to tow the ‘party line’, that is: keep the growth is good mantra in the forefront of your reporting, never mind the reality that is our economy, god forbid we upset the 1% and the sheeple continue to get sucked up into the growth is good mantra, let’s all get a mortgage, borrow some more money, hock ourselves to the eyeballs (never mind Australian private debt now exceeds GDP), but don’t tell the sheeple that!

You wax and wane over government policy, Reserve Bank interest rate cuts and provide missive that is just that little bit shy of directing the sheeple to do something direct, this always gives you your out, especially when you have made a bad call.

Ironic that the Reserve Bank and APRA failed to alert investors and the general public that in 2008, 2 of the 4 big banks needed the US Fed to bail them out, we are now about to see all of our 4 big banks face the iron plate at the next BBQ.

Ironic again that the MSM, including the AFR, continue to spruik the Australian economy is immune to the rest of the world’s ills, what a joke.

We are current where the US economy sat in late 2006, the ASX is at an almost near high, inflation is under control and the property markets is sound. Cough.

Mark tell the truth, honesty=freedom.

Spindoc, amusing. I have formed my own opinions based on a wide range of reading over a long period of time. It just so happens that as a result of this reading and subsequent analysis my opinions differ greatly to the mainstream view. At risk of being accused of participating in an infantile "link war" I suggest my 20 odd OLO articles indicate that I have formed my own opinion http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=5886

Ad hominem arguments don't really support your cause but I guess they might make you feel better.

Curmudgeon, the idea that a 'revolution' has occurred in the energy industry blinds you to seeing the underlying issues (but I guess it gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling that people such as Geoff and myself must upset). Your comment indicates that you still don't understand what the said chart says (perhaps Upton Sinclair's astute observation is relevant here: 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it')

Where does the vast majority of the worlds liquid fuels come from? Conventional crude oil (over 70mb/d). Tight oil, synthetic crude etc are only marginal sources (without looking it up about 4-5 mb/d) and NGPLs the production of which is growing reasonably strongly aren't in the main useful as a transportation fuel.

So the 4% decline rate from existing fields (you have not provided any evidence to suggest that this figure is not correct) implies that we lose around 3mb/d from decline each and every year which needs to be replaced. This is nothing new, the oil industry has been facing this issue for decades. It is highly unlikely, based on all of the predictions that I have read, from both "peak oilers" and non peak oilers that tar sands/tight oil etc are going to ever produce more than around 10 mb/d. Not an insignificant amount of course but not enough to make up for the 60mb/d or thereabouts required to sustain or grow current levels of oil production over the next 20 years

Geoff your last post has exactly what to do with oil production? All it tells us is that you hate "BIG". Perhaps that is what makes you cling to your wishful thinking, that peak oil is past.

With Geoff refusing to accept firm obvious evidence it does indicate how hard it is going to be to put the global warming fraud to bed once & for all.

If those who want to believe in peak oil can still do so, I wonder if a glacier running down Sydney harbour would be enough for the Greenpeace/greenie crowd to admit, even to themselves. that the whole story was an work of fiction.

Just yesterday I heard some people arguing against the leaked IPCC draft report admitting that "it was the sun baby" after all, causing "some" warming. They are starting with only admitting the sum is partly responsible, but I suppose dragging it out long enough can keep some employed through to retirement.

Meanwhile the warmists are starting to deny their god, the IPCC. Must be hard facing facts, when you so want the myth to be true.

Thank you leckos,

You have an opinion; it is clearly based upon what I’m sure is a vast quantity of links as a result of you being a “member of the Australian Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO Australia)” So we know you have lots of “ammo” in the locker .

The mantra of Peak Oil, like all other Peak “something”, has been thrust upon an unsuspecting public for one reason and one reason only, an alarmist threat of “it” running out, designed to frighten people into supporting action against the man made production of CO2 emitting fossil fuels. Pure, unadulterated Agenda 21.

The focus upon oil is a not very clever attempt to break up the fossil fuel mix into something you think you can make a case for; this as in the expression “conventional oil” which further granularises this mix. The principle being that if you can make a case against part of the overall fossil fuel mix, you think you can apply this to all fossil fuels, thus maintaining the rage for Peak oil.

This is an unforgivable abuse by pseudo-information. The public has been conditioned, to see oil as representation of our energy resources and you are maintaining this misconception.

What you are actually doing is ignoring that fact that the fossil fuels we use include a huge range of gases, oils and coals. That mix is changing all the time based upon a mixture of politics, energy type (product), demand, price, technology and availability. This entire entity is called a “Market” so why focus upon only one part of that market and only one product within available products?

The problem you now face is that the whole “rationale” behind the CO2 thingy has just collapsed with the release of the draft AR5 report from the IPCC, it’s all gone, a busted flush.

The fossil fuels issue must be addressed in its entirety. Given all sources of fossil fuels do we have enough to meet the economic growth that all nations need to improve prospects of all humans?

Cont.

Cont.

Once you have arrived at that point we can now discuss “the market”. We often talk about free markets but the energy market is not one of them. The energy market is very badly skewed (and screwed) by finance and policy, so any meaningful analysis of your position (opinion) has to account for the non-market variables that Agenda 21 has imposed.

The first is policy. The introduction of CO2 caps, targets, taxes and RET’s have sliced our industrial capacity in two, those industries that benefit and those who don’t.

Next we have financial interference. The injection of vast sums of public money into renewable energy in the form of subsidies, green credits, loans and grants which are always paid for by the consumer. These have again split our industrial capacity into two classes, those who receive those funds (commercial opportunists and rent seekers), and those who pay for it, other “polluting” enterprises and again, the public.

The energy market in its totally has been so severely bent out of shape that space has been created for the proselytizers to hop in an cause more confusion and opportunism.

I ask for your opinion on the following questions;

Who besides the public is paying for all this besides our taxes, inflation and energy costs?

To what extent do you believe that the “market” can operate in its current flawed state and why?

Given the total market mix of all fossil energy types, how long do you think the market can meet demand and why?

Why do you think that even after the injection of billions of Euro’s over 25 years, Germany has only managed to generate 6% of demand from renewable resources?

What is your opinion of those countries that are or will switch to shale oil/gas and or coal?

What do you think will happen to the market share now held by oil and to what extent and over what period?

Is there enough fossil fuel to reach the next step function in the technology of energy supply within say, the next hundred years?

Thanks.

If you drive a petrol or diesel powered vehicle, you're driving an algae powered vehicle!
Albeit,the algae was laid down millions of years ago and subjected to metamorphosis.
Most of those same vehicles, will happily run just as well on CNG, [methane,] or biogas, [methane.]
Some algae are up to 60% oil, and extracting it is mere child's play.
Algae absorb 2.5 times their bodyweight in Co2, [carbon emission,] and under optimised conditions, double that bodyweight and emission absorption capacity, every 24 hours.
Some hardy enough to cope with smoke stack emission in a closed cycle environment.
A foreign firm is now growing large ponds of it in our Northwest, and shortly able to supply the mining industry, with all its diesel requirements!
Others are doing what we should be doing, while we wast precious time squabbling about what should be done, or whether the planet is warming or not!
[A conversation two warm and comfortable frogs might have, while being slowly brought to the boil in a pot?]
Sooner or later we will have to end our reliance on oil; and or, the greedy grasping price gouging foreigners, who screw every last dollar from us, for it?
We should start now, to end for all time, that dependence!
Turning our biological waste, via closed cycle two tank systems, into onsite bladder stored methane, [Aussie innovation,] will enable us to power our homes and high rises, for very little. Adding in food scraps/wastage, will produce a saleable surplus.
Methane consuming ceramic fuel cells, which produce free hot water, [more Aussie innovation,] would be a useful place to start.
Electric vehicles powered by CNG, or home-made biogas, [methane,] and water cooled ceramic fuel cells, which produce mainly water vapour and an energy coefficient of around 60%, [triple that of a petrol powered piston engine,] part of our eventual independence.
Electric engines consume nothing, whenever waiting at lights etcetera, and a 60% energy coefficient, plus regenerative braking and a solar collector paint job, [Aussie innovation.] More than adequate in terms of comparative range and refuelling requirements!
Oil peak? Who cares?
Rhrosty.

Spindoc, we all have opinions and we all have "ammo in the locker" when it comes to the arguments we make whether that is for and against gay marriage, climate change belief or disbelief, or in this case whether peak oil is an issue or not. Yes I have a view, formed and constantly refined over time as new information comes to hand and I continue to investigate, analyse and think about an issue which concerns me. So what exactly is the point that you are trying to make?

As far as the mantra of peak oil being thrust upon an unsuspecting public, based on my experience (as well as other people I discuss these issues with) I would be greatly suprised if more than a very small percentage of the population has heard of the term peak oil and of those who have even fewer understand what it is.

In response to your comment I would state the following:
1. anyone who does understand peak oil would tell you that peak oil is not about running out of oil (clearly an absurd notion) but rather about supply being insufficient to keep up with demand (and at a cost that the economy can afford). An enormous difference. The running out of oil line is a not very subtle attempt used by those who don't believe in peak oil to try and destroy the peak oil argument and because most people don't understand the difference it is very effective.
2. virtually the only time that peak oil gets mentioned in the mainstream media is when some pundit denounces it ala Alan Kohler a few months back with "the death of peak oil."

Oil's aint oil's Spindoc, hence why virtually every organisation, governmental, business or ASPO separate oil into different categories. Conventional crude oil has very different properties to tight oil, oil shale, oil sands etc which impacts upon their economics, production profiles, production rates, energy return on investment etc.

cont

So this is hardly psuedo information but rather detail you need to actually understand the situation. I make no apologies for focusing on oil, at the expense of other energy sources, because it is of course the predominant source of energy for transportation and not easily replacable.

The market view of an economy might see all energy sources as being interchangable but from a physical and practical perspective that is far from being the case. Yes a transition could theoretically be made to other fuels but this will take enormous capital investment and a timeframe measured in decades and I see no indication, other than at the margins (a few hybrid cars here, a few CNG light trucks there), to suggest that the necessary actions are being taken. And of course in switching the second and third order impacts of attempting such a transition also need to be considered.

I have to go so can't answer your specific questions but I will say that:

a. an industrial civilisation of the type we have now can't be powered by renenwable energy
b. shale oil/gas will no doubt be produced for a long time to come but not at rates that will offset the decline of conventional oil and gas production
c. as thermodynamics and not the market ultimately dictate energy supply, and we have exploited the easiest to exploit energy sources first; over the next 100 years, regardless of technological advances, we will need to get by with less energy. This is my whole point, we need to learn to get by with using less energy and other resources. We can do that and still live in reasonable comfort, different lifestyles yes, but that is far from being the end of the world! The crux of the problem is that our current economic system only works if consume ever more energy and resources.

Thanks leckos,

The point I was making in relation to “ammo in the locker” is simply that you would be considered an “expert” on this subject. As such, a centrist rather than a narrow advocacy position might reasonably be expected. By centrist I mean that today’s market reality must be part of the assessment rather than what used to be.

By way of example, when you say in relation to the market that “The market view of an economy might see all energy sources as being interchangeable but from a physical and practical perspective that is far from being the case”. You are again recognizing only a single element, the product, even then only one of the many products in use. That market is changing all the time based upon a mixture of politics, energy type (product), demand, price, technology and availability and more rapidly now that ever.

The market, like any other market, sees these parameters in total because each element impacts upon every other element and by necessity, directs investment in that market.

You go on to imply that the market cannot respond within decades. You suggest “Yes a transition could theoretically be made to other fuels but this will take enormous capital investment and a timeframe measured in decades and I see no indication”. This statement fails to recognize that the market IS changing almost monthly let alone over decades.

You say “Oil's aint oil's Spindoc”. True, oil is just one of many oil products alone in the overall energy mix, see para two, last sentence. So when I say “This is an unforgivable abuse by pseudo-information” I mean precisely that, the omission of all other market parameters except one of the many products, plus the omission of the market distortions caused by green initiatives, is an unforgivable abuse by pseudo-information because it is incomplete. As an expert you have a duty to present all the issues not just that which suits your associations (ASPO Australia) and your advocacy.

Looking forward to more when you have the time. Thanks.

Geoff of Perth and leckos

One more go at making you two see reason. I'm not denying this 4 per cent decline rate you cling to, leckos, but simply pointing out that its IRRELEVENT. It certainly may be so for conventional oil reservoirs. The problem with the piece of propaganda Geoff of Perth linked was that it assumed the decline for all sources of oil and did not allow for the ongoing increase in reserves in the same field. Oil fields are far more dynamic that that idiodic graphic allowed for. It even made the same mistake for unconventional oil when the decline is for just that part of the resource they are using at the moment. Its a clear attempt to mislead, and should be treated with contempt. As for the idea that the energy revolution is some invention of mine, start reading. You'll find a review of the available material very helpful.

Geoff of Perth
I see the truth has stung sufficiently for you to indulge in silly abuse and hard left conspiracy theory fantasies which I won't dignify with a response. If you don't want to be shown to be wrong, don't link outdated propaganda. My advice would be to make some effort to acquaint yourself with what is happening in the oil industry. Bloomberg has some excellent material freely available. The oil world has moved beyond peak oil, so should you.

leckos says

a. an industrial civilisation of the type we have now can't be powered by renenwable energy
______________________________________________________________

This is where a lot of people get it so wrong. Of course our civilisation could be powered by renewable energy. This is just simple physics, add up the energy available in any one renewable resource and and it soon becomes obvious that more than enough energy is available. For example solar energy works out at an average over 240 watts per square meter and the sun is always shinning somewhere. I really could not be bothered to do the maths but the amount needed to supply all the world's power needs would likely only be measured in tens of square kilometres.
The problem is cost put a high enough tax on CO2 emissions and the market will get you there quick enough.

Warmair have you ever lived with solar, or any other alternate power? I very much doubt it.

Every one I know, who has ever had to "roll their own" power, can't get onto the grid quickly enough.

Be it a small one family set up, or one to service a 700 guest resort, they have all been prepared to spend huge sums to stop generating their own.

Your suggestions show you have no idea of how a power grid works.

Hasbeen
_____________________________
Yes I have experience of solar power I helped to install a system for a club I am a member of. The system has been a great success and has saved us $20,000 by not connecting to the power grid and continues to save us money as we have no power bills. There is of course a need to set aside some money for batteries which will probably need replacing in about 10 years but we are still a long way ahead just counting what we saved on power bills.

I also have a number of friends who are on solar, and connected to the grid and this also works well. There is also an advantage to the power companies, because the systems are likely to be producing near maximum output during peak periods.

I do not know how much clearer I can be, the problem with renewables is they cost more compared to fossil fuel plants. No one form of energy is going to solve all our power requirements for example on its own coal, is not suitable because of the long lead times required to bring generators on line, resulting in the need for very expensive peek power generators such as gas turbine.

We could if we were prepared to pay the cost change over to reneables for electric power in about a decade. At this point in time that would be very expensive because first we would have to write off all the fossil fuelled generators and secondly under the present system the fossil fuel power is cheaper.

The practical answer is to retire fossil fuel plants as they reach the end of their lives and replace them with renewables. The cost of not reducing our CO2 emissions is the damage that it will, and is doing to the climate. Unfortunately it seems that we would prefer that someone else in the future pays for this problem, just so long as we can reduce our electric bills by a fairly minor amount.

Warmair, we couldn't even build the factories to produce all the "alternate" power generating gear we would need in 10 years. This would accelerate as we closed real power plants, & depended on the Micky Mouse occasional power resulting from the closure of those power plants.

Just in passing warmair, where do you teach?

I vouch for solar. I do not pay for power, between solar and batteries i am alt power 24/7. During the day excess goes to the grid. Hasbeen has aged ideas.

Some years ago, the CIRSO, came up with a solar powered hydrogen producer, the size of a microwave, that would reportedly produce enough hydrogen to power the family wagon; and or, the daily commute.
Conventional engines, with just a little re-plumbing, will hum away happily, on Hydrogen.
The old method of producing hydrogen, relied on, [catalyticly assisted,] cracking the water molecule.
A method when modernised, will likely replace refineries, which crack the hydrocarbon, in a process, which is a least as hot, and produces products far more volatile than Hydrogen.
Burning hydrogen in either conventional engines or fuel cells, reunites it with oxygen to make water again; meaning, as long as the sun shines, we can make as much as we want and for far less to us than the current price of transport fuel.
Unconventional oil, serves nobody save the demonstrably dominating, monolithic massive, four trillion a year plus oil industry, which we've become far too reliant on.
The oil industry will end, long before we run out of oil, by pricing itself out of the energy market!
Look, there are numerous and endlessly sustainable, far less costly alternatives.
The stone age didn't end for the want of stone!
Large scale algae production, would save both the Murray and all who depend on it; given, algae production uses just 2-3% of the water of traditional irrigation, and waste or salt water is just fine.
We can and should convert all our biological waste, into bladder stored methane, and use that to power our homes, utilising Aussie invented ceramic fuel cells, which would cost far less than the current 40 grand, with economies of scale.
Keeping this methane from adding to the atmosphere, a very useful goal, on its own!
Hydrogen production as already outlined, completes the picture!
Why we are drilling for oil? I mean, every off the shelf rig costs at least a billion, and money better spent!?
However, if we are to continue to drill, shouldn't we at least focus on products, than require little or no carbon creating refining?
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty,

Transperth buses converted 2 of their buses to run on hydrogen. After a brief period they announced the trial was being discontinued as it proved too costly. They didn't announce any further details - like in what area the cost was incurred, or the price differential which led to their decision.

Have seen no mention of wind power as an alternative either, yet these windmills cover vast areas in the U.S., and other parts of the world -even being built at sea. Have to believe they offer another way to offset use of oil, and are not there purely for decoration. I understand a whole community in Arizona is powered this way.

worldwatcher, Rhosty, 579 and warmair,

You are all without doubt, the best equipped people in relation to data that I’ve ever come across. Data is in your heads and at your fingertips. I don’t know your ages however; you have all clearly invested a great deal of time and effort into acquiring the data you have available to you and that which you articulate.

Sometimes I look at your posts and say wow! I can’t possibly compete with that. On other instances I read your posts and cannot for the life of me, make any sense whatsoever.

This is clearly a dichotomy that needs further investigation because it does not make any sense.

What does occur to me is that the data you present clearly has some meaning to you, even though idiots like me cannot make any sense out of it, so here is an explanation that might assist all of us.

There are three layers of the structure of all things we know. At the lowest level is data. Data is everything that is stored, in books on line or in people’s heads; it is just that, data.

The next level in the hierarchy is information. Information is simply data that is topic specific. A distillation of data that is context sensitive.

After this we have knowledge. Knowledge is an adjective, a doing word, an actionable something. It is the application of information into an action or result.

This is where you clearly have some difficulty because you have no idea how to apply the data that is in your heads, you cannot convert data into context sensitive information and you cannot make knowledge out of the stuff going around in your heads.

This is very sad because I’m convinced that there is some form of intelligence between your ears, I just can’t put my finger on it.

The best advice I can offer is for you all to stop reading and start thinking. Start with reading your posts and asking yourselves, If I were someone other than myself, what on earth would I make of that

Well an interesting lot of posts.
One point which no one has made is that the shale oil projects are in
reallity a Ponzi scheme. Because the wells have a decline rate of
40% to 60% a year, they have to keep drilling full time and pouring
money into the system. The number of drilling rigs employed is falling
and that is why shale oil is about to start declining.
I suggest you check the financial standing of the shale companies.
BHP got out and Cheasapeake has had problems.

What many do not realise is that the break even point of a well is $85
on average. As conventional oil declines the amount of shale oil will
become a greater proportion. This why much of a fall in price is
virtually impossible.

We are currently paying around $110 a barrel and I would be very
surprised to see any sort of fall in that.

Bazz re-read the first post, second sentence. As to declining yield the example I give is tar sands but fracking is a good example as well. Some commenters here steeped in market folklore think high prices create more fuel supply. True enough if consumers can afford it but not much extra energy may come with that high price.

Spindoc,

I speak here only for myself. This is supposed to be an ideas and shared information forum. I really do not need a lecture on either the implied lack of my erudition or the facts I share.

1.Fact - I have travelled on the hydrogen fuelled buses. They were discontinued here because of hydrogen transportation costs regarding distance from generation point to distribution point, although they were proved successful [through data obtained] in operation in 6 other country's who trialed them.

2. Fact - I have personally visited a community in Arizona who rely on solar and wind power for their needs. There is much data attached to these two facts, but I leave it to those who may be interested to research the associated data for themselves.

Worldwatch, at the risk of boring the others, as you being new to here,
this subject anyway, hydrogen powered buses have been tried by the
bus manufacturers.
I got this first hand from someone who was managing director of the
largest bus & fire engine manufacturer in the UK and who designed,
developed and introduced the trial buses.
I will be having Christmas dinner with him so will ask him about the
latest developments.

The lifetime of the fuel cells is not long enough to make them viable.
Hydrogen can not be stopped from leaking through connections, pipes
and through the walls of the tanks.
Hydrogen vehicles cannot be parked in underground car parks and
places where they are parked must have especially designed roof ventilation.
Then there is loss of fuel when not being used, it destroys the
economics of operating hydrogen vehicles.
The worst of the economics is in the distribution network.
It cannot be afforded.

It is a dead technology for transportation. It is no longer on the list.

Taswegian, I was making little different point.
What I was pointing out was that to make shale oil viable they have
to keep putting money into the system, to enable the next years income
to be raised. They can do it while the drilling costs can be kept down
but as the easiest are drilled and exhausted the drilling becomes more
expensive. I think this explains the falling rig count.
However with such fast decline rates a fall in rig count must mean a
fall in production.

So we are in agreement on that I think. Certainly, except for brief
volatility, lower prices are just impossible as the only new oil is expensive.

Hydrogen has safety problems. It not only contains hydrogen it contains oxygen. Therefor a tank full of this mix virtually becomes a hydrogen bomb. Good for running engines under water with no ventilation.
Some americans produce hydrogen with solar and store it for winter heating. They use old large gas tanks to store it in, but is not compressed.
Spindoc must have learning problems.

Spindoc says To worldwatcher, Rhosty, 579 and warmair,

The best advice I can offer is for you all to stop reading and start thinking. Start with reading your posts and asking yourselves, If I were someone other than myself, what on earth would I make of that
_________________________________________________________________________

I took your advice and read a fair number of your previous posts, I found some difficulty in understanding what you were trying to say, possibly due to too many long words like wheelbarrow, which nobody uses these days. The one thing that seems clear to me is that you have decided for whatever reason not accept the vast body of knowledge on climate change.
As for my own posts I found them all beautifully clear and absolutely brilliant but of course I am slightly biased.

Warmair said;
you have decided for whatever reason not accept the vast body of knowledge on climate change.

Funny you should mention that, the draft AR5 IPCC report has a bit of
a bombshell, it has done a bit of a climbdown on global warming.
Not so many Hurricanes, cyclones or temperature etc.
Not a total reversal of course, but less emphasis I guess you could say.

warmair says, "The one thing that seems clear to me is that you have decided for whatever reason not accept the vast body of knowledge on climate change".

On the contrary, I'm in full support of the all the science that has contributed to the draft AR5 report from the IPCC and most of the report itself. It makes very good reading but I'm not sure you will enjoy it. Perhaps you could share your thoughts on it with fellow OLO'ers.

Bazz,

Thank you very much for your further information regarding hydrogen trials. This is why I joined this forum - to exchange knowledge and ideas, and to stimulate further research on topics.

When we were drilling in Texas we discussed the possibility that in the not too distant future oil exploration would become the province only of the large multinational corporations who had much greater financial resources than our consortium to be able to absorb drilling costs.

Back in the late 70's, we invested in shale oil. Needless to say, the recovery costs were prohibitive, the company went broke, and we all lost our investments. A case of win some, lose some, which is what happens when exploring new technologies. Maybe there is new technology available now to make it viable. Needless to say, we will not be investing this time around.

Much of the discussion here accepts without question the statements
of the various authorities both government and commercial of the future
production levels of oil & gas.
If there is one single uniting factor in their predictions is that
they are always wrong, and wrong by very very large amounts.
This article covers this problem;

http://tinyurl.com/cz7gy67

It is a problem because governments and business accept them without
question and plan our future on them.
It explains Australian government slackness in the face of reality.

spindoc Says
It makes very good reading but I'm not sure you will enjoy it. Perhaps you could share your thoughts on it with fellow OLO'ers. ______________________________________________________

The full draft was leaked from the site below
http://stopgreensuicide.com/
By Alec Rawls who claims to be an expert reviewer which suggests he is a knowledgeable scientist which he is not. He is a well know climate change sceptic, who it seems volunteered as a report reviewer, to give him access to the draft. He does not appear to understand even the simplest scientific concepts such as the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

So far I have only got through the Technical Summary, the report is no fun to read because it is full of acronyms and weird units such as PgC yr–1.The conclusions are pretty sobering for projections beyond 2030. I can't find anything in it which is hope for optimism. The ice is melting faster than ever, the sea level is rising, the lower air temperatures are increasing, and the sea is still gaining energy due to the imbalance between incoming radiation and outgoing radiation.