Global Challenge: Recently, new data on available oil reserves, new deep-water deposits, oil sands and especially “shale gas” has given rise to concerns about what these resources means from a climate perspective. The seminar “Peak Oil Postponed?” Aims to analyze the importance of these tasks.
Charles AS Hall, a professor at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, and one of the authors of the book Energy and the Wealth of Nations. Hall has coined the term Eroi, “energy return on investment” and highlights this concept the significance of the various assets, net energy.
Participating is one of the most renowned in the field, Professor Kjell Aleklett of Uppsala University and chairman and co-founder of ASPO. Aleklett published earlier this year, a summary of ten years of controversial research about “peak oil” theory in the book “Peeking at Peak Oil.”
Presenters and discussion leaders: Eva Alfredsson and Wijkman
Part 1: Peak Oil Postponed? – Kjell Aleklett
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kwISi7DMLI&feature=player_embedded#!
Part 2: Peak Oil Postponed? – Charles AS Hall
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwdwUStzxww
Part 3: Peak Oil Postponed? – Q&A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIcSeJE8-1E
The Swedish morning newspaper Svenska Dagbladet publiched an article by Charles AS Hall the same day as the seminar took place. This is a translation of this article by Michael Lardelli.
(The article in Swedish: http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/dyrare-olja-orsaken-till-lagre-tillvaxt_7646542.svd)
Expensive oil is the cause of lower growth
The problem is not that oil is running out. The problem is what happens when oil production can no longer meet the world’s and national economies’ increasing needs. So writes the US professor Charles A.S. Hall who visits Sweden today.
If and when oil production begins to decline this will probably mean the greatest crisis that western civilisation has ever faced.
Charles A.S Hall
It is clear that the majority of the world’s economies are no longer growing – either they are not growing at all or they are not growing as they “should” and once did. Most are keen to blame this on politicians or on erroneous monetary or financial policy. Fewer understand that we live in an increasingly resource-limited world. The world’s most important raw materials – oil, gas, wood, groundwater, fish etc. – are gone, severely reduced or seriously polluted.
Let’s look at our most important fuel, petroleum (i.e. oil and natural gas). We live in an “oil age” to a significantly greater extent than we live in an information age or a postindustrial age.
Look around you. Nearly everything that we do in our society is determined by petroleum use. It provides us with food, transport, employment, education, media, comfort, chemicals, fertilizers and medicines. The proportion of our energy use provided by petroleum has hardly changed in more than half a century. Solar energy represents less than one percent and is only marginally increasing its share of total energy use. Some gains in efficiency of energy use have occurred but our economies continue to use the same amounts of oil, gas and coal every year.
Previously, oil use increased steadily by two to three percent per year but this has recently hovered around zero – in nearly perfect synchrony with our declining economic growth.
The problem is not that oil is running out rather than what happens when oil production can no longer meet the world’s and national economies’ increasing needs. Population growth and increased domestic use of petroleum by the oil exporting nations worsens the situation. “Peak oil” means that moment in time when the rate of oil production can no longer be increased. “Peak oil” is not a theoretical concept. Rather, it is a very real occurrence that happened in the USA in 1970 and has occurred in approximately 60 of the world’s 80 oil producing nations.
The question is when peak oil will occur for the world as a whole? Comprehensive data analysis shows that it has already occurred or soon will.
At the same time the cost of producing every new barrel is rising. To a great extent this is due to the fact that EROI – “Energy Return on Energy Invested” – or the energy profit per unit of energy invested is declining for oil (and for most other fuels). This declining energy profitability means that resource depletion is overwhelming any technical advances in energy production or use.
Currently, approximately one coffee cup of oil (or any other fuel) is burned for every dollar we spend. To our best knowledge there are no substitutes for oil and gas in terms of quality and scale. None at all. As every beer drinker knows a glass begins full and finishes empty. The faster one drinks the quicker the beer runs out and eventually the bar closes. Economic growth is accelerating the emptying of the world’s oil reserves.
There are still enormous quantities of oil remaining underground, maybe five times more than we have produced so far. The problem is that most of this remaining oil is low quality which means that the energy profitability of its production is low and will decline until eventually one barrel of oil will be required to mine one barrel of oil. Rising prices will not solve this problem.
If and when the global peak of oil production occurs and production begins to decline western civilisation will probably face its greatest ever crisis. This will fundamentally change our economies and our lives. And yet no politicians (and only very few scientists) have this issue on their radar screens. There are many ways we can adapt to this new reality but not if we choose to ignore it.
CHARLES A.S HALL
Professor at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry and author of the book Energy and the Wealth of Nations
Aleklett's Energy Mix 
Sten Nerell
November 12, 2012
Tack för ett intressant seminarium. Intressant information, bla om shale oil och hur området växt fram genom åren.
Bakken ser verkligen ut att vara en “sweet spot” och det blir intressant att följa tillväxttakten framöver. Kanske blir det lugnare redan 2013. Även om både Bakken och Eagleford formationen i Texas har mer att ge så planar shale oil produktionen ut sucessivt fram mot 2020 enligt flera bedömningar. Shale Oil utgör som sagt ingen skillnad när det gäller Peak Oil i det stora hela.
Saknade en del viktig information om oljesanden. Framför allt om SAGD-metoden som står för huvuddelen av tillväxten inom oljesanden, se CAPP 2012*:
million b/d 2011 2015 2020 2025 2030
Total 1.74 2.48 3.39 4.50 5.33
Mining 0.89 1.21 1.52 1.93 2.17
In Situ 0.85 1.27 1.87 2.57 3.16
*) Källa: http://www.capp.ca/forecast/Pages/default.aspx
SAGD är betydligt skonsammare mot miljön än mining. SAGD tar bara en bråkdel så mycket markyta i anspråg och 90% av producerat vatten återvinns. Tekniken förfinas kontinuerligt och allt lägre SOR (förhållandet mellan injicerad ånga och producerad olja) uppnås, bla annat mha av solventer och sk infill wells, tex MEG – Christina Lake och Cenovus – Foster Creek.
Din beskrivning av befintliga pipelines ut från Kanada var inte komplett. Du angav att det endast finns en pipeline (Keystone) och nämnde Keystone XL och Northern Gateway som de enda planerade projekten.
Det stämmer inte. I CAPP 2012 ges en helt annan bild:
Av den befintliga pipelinekapaciteten 3498 kbopd (antal tusen fat olja per dag) utgör 1931 kbopd tung olja.
Keystone (den befintliga) transporterar för närvarande endast 591 kbopd, varav 75% = 443 kbopd tung olja.
Keystones pipeline transporterar endast 23% av den tunga oljan som lämnar Kanada idag.
Enbridge transporterar beydligt mer tung olja, 1246 bopd, dvs 65% av den tunga oljan till raffinaderierna i den amerikanska mellanvästern.
Det finns dessutom fler nya pipelineprojekt än Keystone XL och Norther Gateway.
AB Clipper Expansion Heavy +120 (in 2014)
Keystone XL Light/heavy +830 (in 2015)
Trans Mountain TM Expansion +450 (in 2017)
Enbridge Gateway +525 (in 2017)
Nothern Gateway har sina nackdelar, men jag undrar om beskrivningen av First Nation som det största problemet är korrekt. Känner mig lite tveksam där. Visserligen har de stöd från större amerikanska oljebolag med intressen i raffinaderier som tjänar mycket på dagens flaskhalsar, men jag undra om de inte får ge vika för nationella intressen. Tror snarare att den känsliga havsmiljön i British Columbia är ett större problem.
För övrigt så finns det alternativa projekt som inte nämns i CAPP 2012.
Cushing är idag den stora flaskhalsen, för att oljan ska nå raffinaderierna i Texas. Ett antal pipelineprojekt inom USA planeras och byggs för att förbättra situationen, bla Seaway som för närvarande reverseras till 450 kbopd och 2014 kommer att expanderas till totalt 900 bopd samt Keystone XLs södra del, 550 bopd, blir klar 2013.
Kanske ska nämna att ca 25-30% av pipelinekapaciteten för tung olja så utgör utspädningsolja, vanligtvis naturgaskondensat.
Det här var det enda jag vill kritisera. I övrigt var det som sagt mycket intressant.
Tack!
Sten
aleklett
November 13, 2012
En del av det du framför som kritik har jag med om jag ensam håller ett föredrag på 45 minuter. Nu var tiden begränsad.