Peak Oil Level 4

The Crisis of Civilization

Posted by Matt Beer - March 8, 2013 - Climate Destabilisation, Climate Level 4, Economics, Economics Level 4, Energy, Geo-politics, Level 4, Oil, Peak Oil Level 4

This 77 min pseudo documentary “The Crisis of Civilization” is based on the Book by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed of the same name. It goes through multiple parts each exploring various elements of our interconnected world, namely Climate Catastrophe; Peak Energy; Peak Food; Economic Instability; International Terrorism; and the Militarization Tendency with some final thoughts on a Post Peak World. I have mixed feeling about this one and I still can’t figure out if I like it. For starters it really is just a long talk done in an interview style with some old stock footage and the occasional custom animations to provide some visual distraction. I don’t have a problem with this, but that is what the pseudo documentary refers to.

What it does do well is take a holistic view of the world and the many problems we are currently facing and pulls them together. I am in broad agreement of most the overall stuff that Nafeez talks about, especially highlighting the link between our current neo-classical economic model and energy use. But the scientific/academic side of me cringed a few times at some of the statements he made and I was inwardly saying “that’s not technically correct”. It just made me question his thinking when he said this and this and therefore that. There was certainty some cherry picking of data and some logical inconstancies that made his truth more obvious than it fact it likely is.

For example he talked about how the world oil production would peak (I agree), then he said that nuclear energy uses oil (yes) and therefore oil peaking would make uranium mining unviable (which I cannot agree with). Yeah sure it might not work under the exact market conditions of today, but if I was a head of state with an oil crisis on my hands I would sure as hell prioritise getting oil to critical economic functions like electricity generation. Lets not confuse peak oil with running out all together and there is a hell of a lot of waste in the system so making just a small saving in domestic transport will free up more than enough to make nuclear energy viable (or building renewables for that matter). There certainly is a risk of what Nafeez talks about coming true, but there is probably a bigger likelihood that collective human effort and technology will be directed into solving some of these energy problems. That side of things doesn’t really get a mention. I could go through another few examples but I won’t.

What I will say to you watch this to get an overview of our problems from holistic viewpoint. You should certainly be aware of the broad areas that this film covers and how they fit together. As for the details I would say don’t take them as the gospel truth even there is a lot of truth in there. This is still basically another opinion film and I generally always have a problem with pure opinion as broad statements can be made without the viewer knowing the truth behind them. This is why I will continue to stick to keeping data at the centre of any videos and articles that I make.

World Oil Supply Debate – ASPO & John Hofmeister

Posted by Matt Beer - November 24, 2012 - Economics, Energy, Level 4, Oil, Peak Oil Level 4

An excellent debate between Dr. Tadeus Patzek (Chair, Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering, University of Texas – Austin, ASPO USA Vice President) & John Hofmeister (Ex CEO of Shell, Founder of Citizens for Affordable Energy) covering the topic “The World Oil Supply: Looming Crisis or New Abundance?”.

Despite the debate there was much agreed upon, largely that global trends, such as growth in demand from China and India, will force oil prices upwards and that current US energy policy is inadequate in addressing this problem (but agreeing on the what the future policy should be is another story).

Economy, EROEI, Oil, Peak Oil, Video

US Energy Security Council Inaugural Event 2011

Posted by Matt Beer - December 14, 2011 - Energy, Geo-politics, Level 4, Oil, Peak Oil Level 4

This 105 minute informal talk with a panel of about 10 members of the US Energy Security Council which includes many former heads of the military, US Senate, oil industry and governmental bodies most of which have “honorable” before their names (Ex CIA Boss James Woolsey, Senator and Professor Gary Hart and Alan Greenspan to name a few).

While this is not a new subject, this event attempted to frame the debate as there being a monopoly in one of the most profoundly important sectors in our economy and that monopoly is a great weakness which leave us all exposed if we do not do something about it. I am of course talking about oil being the only real source of energy for all the cars, trucks and airplanes currently operating in the world today. This council argues that the principle role of government is to create markets and have them work. A monopoly is an example of a market not working. In this regard they argue that they are not being anti-oil but rather pro choice or pro fuel choices.

The decades of inaction on developing a proper energy policy has meant that the US has developed one by default. That is: “We do have an energy policy. We rely on a single fuel. We buy it from a cartel controlled by people who don’t like us very much. And every five years we go to war to maintain that privilege”. The council members are deeply worried about the effects that an inevitable oil price shock will have on the US economy and the people within it as history has shown these price spikes help trigger recessions (I will assume they are also concerned about the rest of the world but as they are talking to an American audience we’ll let it slide).

Talk covers a range of issues, such as:

How there are many hidden costs to oil – the War on Terror, 30-40% of the US military budget directly and indirectly securing oil, climate change, social tension when oil prices rise, etc.
Another supply shock is on the cards. As most of the oil reserves are located in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region where there is great political instability, especially after the Arab Spring. How long will it be until the next Libya occurs? There have already been attacks on oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, when will there be a successful one?
Rise of developing nations. China is securing first rights to purchasing oil around the world meaning when a supply shock comes they will be more insulated and the world market will be that much tighter.
Alternative fuels. There were a few on the panel gunning for methanol though some of their arguments sounded a little too good to be true for me. While it theoretically makes a lot of sense the actual practical and economic reality is less clear.

Perhaps the most important point is that all cars built today should be flex fuel vehicles. It only costs $100 to add in a sensor chip that detects the fuel on board and makes small changes to the fuel injection and spark plug timing to enable the engine to burn whatever mixture of ethanol or petrol/gasoline is in the tank. $100 buys flexibility for the fleet of the future and may in the long run save us billions, potentially trillions of dollars. This has happened successfully in Brazil and should be an easy mandate to pass by governments in the rest of the world. Key word should.

The same goes for developing a sensible policy on energy.

Biofuels, Conventional oil, Crude Oil, fossil fuel, Gasoline, Geo-politics, Oil, Transport, United States, Video

Stanford Uni – Transportation & Climate Change

Posted by Matt Beer - December 4, 2011 - Energy, Level 4, Oil, Peak Oil Level 4

Andreas Schafer, director of the Martin Center for Architectural and Urban Studies at the University of Cambridge, discusses the impact of the transportation sector with respect to climate destabilisation (change) and growing carbon emissions. Specifically he talks about the specific factors at play including passenger kilometres travelled (PKT), energy intensity per PKT and emissions intensity of given fuels with data for various countries at differing stages of economic prosperity. Andreas finds a lot of commonality between the amount of time different countries populations spend travelling and the proportion of GDP they spend doing so.

While there are vast differences in emissions impact between countries they all seem to follow a similar trend as they develop, it’s just where they lie on that curve. As people get richer they generally spend more on faster modes of transport (walking > bike > car > train > plane/high speed rail) and cover more kilometres/miles. This is compounded by the fact that as countries get richer, there has been a tendency for more women in the workforce which has resulted in less children and lower occupancy rates in vehicles (as well as more money to spend on travel). The existing trends for energy intensity are also heading in the wrong direction becoming higher and not lower. The gains made in engine efficiency have been more than offset by larger, faster and more powerful vehicles and the example of Toyota Camry has shown that 24 years of advancement has resulted in a 20% increase in fuel use. He also quickly summarises the relative carbon intensity of various fuel/vehicle combinations although most of the alternative fuels are a long way away from being at the scale our current conventional oil fuels are used.

Andreas then looks to the future to see what the potential impact policies can help to guide technology and social/behavioural patterns into creating a sustainable transport systems. In short, with the most effective policies in place we might be able to reduce emissions intensity of the worldwide by 30-50%, the impact of massive populations of the emerging countries such as China behaving more like western countries is likely to lead to at best a doubling of emissions from transport. Without these policies it could be 3 to 4 times more than today.

For a link to his co-authored official work – Transportation in a Climate-Constrained World – and raw data from some of his slides please visit www.transportandclimate.com

Climate Change, Climate Destabilisation, Conventional oil, Stanford University, Transport, Video

Stanford Uni – US Shale Gas

Posted by Matt Beer - November 28, 2011 - Energy, Level 4, Natural Gas, Peak Oil Level 4

John Curtis, Professor of Geochemistry and Director of the Potential Gas Agency at the Colorado School of Mines, looks at the US shale gas industry from a holistic level right down to the molecular level. He covers the different formations found throughout the States with the size of the potential resources in the ground. He then talks about the differences in make up of the shales which affect how easily this can be extracted with the relatively new hydraulic fracturing techniques. A key point of his talk is that the different shale formations cannot be treated the same and production is not uniform, even within the same formation. A lot of the molecular science is still unknown but early research has shown that studying the carbon isotopes (carbon atoms with differing numbers of neutrons) can be an indicator of how productive a gas well might be. A good talk to watch this as there are many things he covers along the way which help fill in the gaps of how the shale gas industry works and what the potential of it is in the future.

fossil fuel, Natural Gas, Stanford University, Unconventional Gas, United States, Video

Gasland

Posted by Matt Beer - November 22, 2011 - Energy, Level 4, Natural Gas, Peak Oil Level 4

I watched the documentary Gasland which was put together by Josh Fox a month or so ago and really enjoyed it. Well maybe enjoy isn’t the right word. Since then my information journey into oil has spilled into the very similar world of natural gas (the csis.org talks on the subject in particular) so I feel I can comment on the film.

In this last decade production from unconventional gas has grown from almost nothing in 2002 to around 25% of North American gas production in 2011 (with shale gas and coal bed methane accounting for around 10% each). It is a boom of epic proportions that has it’s roots in a 1980′s tax break for unconventional gas production. Since the ’80′s experimentation has taken place in the Barnett Shale region (Texas) of methods to unlock the “tight” gas through various techniques. Through a lot of trial and error a breakthrough was made in 1998 where the right mix of water, chemicals and sand was pumped down a well bore under extremely high pressure in a process called hydraulic fracturing, fracking (or fraccing) for short. It basically untightens the gas by generating lots of mini earthquakes that create cracks in the rock which are propped open by the sand allowing the gas to flow (increasing permeability).

The basic premise of Gasland is that this method of gas production is harmful to the environment and to human health. Josh’s main concern is that natural gas is now being found in water aquifers used for drinking water purposes and once they are contaminated there is no going back. Water from then on will have to be treated and being an ex water industry employee I can testify that that will be very expensive. This is demonstrated with alarming precision with the numerous kitchen taps that are lit on fire. He also raises questions about the chemicals used in the fracking fluids which the companies can keep secret as they are propriety knowledge needed for competitive advantage as well as the impacts on air quality to local residents health. All throughout the film Josh questions why there is not sufficient regulation in place to prevent this.

Unsurprisingly there has been some criticism directed towards this documentary for not being “accurate”. Most notably comments about how methane can be naturally occurring in groundwater, something which is not mentioned throughout the documentary despite Josh apparently knowing this. The extent of the importance on this point I cannot comment. But for me the main point of the film is how can a process so new, with so many questions surrounding it be allowed to carry on without the gas industry proving that it is indeed safe before they proceed with one of the greatest gas booms in history?

This is an extremely legitimate question and one in which the US Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu asked forming the SEAB subcommitee to look into it. These questions still stand, most notably:
- the degree at which best practice fracking operations are conducted.
- the amount of monitoring conducted establishing a baseline and showing the post-frac effects.
- the quality of well casings installed, assumed to be the main cause of leakage into aquifers.
- the ability of fracking to generate small surface earthquakes.

For me one of the main questions is the amount of fugitive gas (mainly methane) emissions that are released over the lifetime of the well. One of the main reasons there has been a rush to gas is that is seen as a cleaner, more climate change friendly fuel. The perfect fuel to help the transition to a zero carbon energy system. But it would only take a small percentage of leakage for the overall effect of shale gas to be just as bad as coal. And for those who know that the immediate warming effects of methane are much higher than CO2 (72 time over a 20 year period, 25 times over 100 years) we can legitimately ask what is the point, especially when it further deflects spending on renewable energy sources.

So I can only hope that the rest of the world is in not such a hurry as the US is rushing into shale gas without first answering the many questions that Gasland helps to raise. Europe, particularly France, does not seem keen on it. But without China and India proceeding with similar caution the climate change game could well be over.

Here is what I believe to be a shortened version (46 mins) of the full hour and a half Gasland film. Please see the full length film through legitimate means or at least donate via www.gaslandthemovie.com (which is a little hypocritical of me, but sorry Josh I’m keeping my limited funds for my own war chest). Should 46 mins be too long for you, you can get the cliff notes from the 7 min clip at the bottom.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhfvhy_gasland_news?start=3

Dylan Ratigan Show clip

Climate Change, fossil fuel, Fracking, Natural Gas, Shale Gas, Unconventional Gas

Stanford Uni – Unconventional Gas Potential Boosted with Carbon Sequestration

Posted by Matt Beer - November 13, 2011 - Climate Level 4, Energy, Level 4, Natural Gas, Peak Oil Level 4

Geophysics Professor Mark Zoback explores the potential of unconventional natural gas (shale gas, coal bed methane and tight gas) sources replacing coal as a step in transitioning the US economy towards zero carbon. He briefly describes the three different varieties and how they are produced. During his description of coal bed methane he talks about how the methane found in coal seams is actually adsorbed on to the surface of the coal and in order to extract it, the methane needs to be desorbed off the coal by reducing the pressure. But another way is to actually pump CO2 down into the coal seam and as the carbon dioxide likes to adsorb to the coal surface more than the methane it can actually replace it. So the concept is pump down CO2 into coal bed methane wells and boost methane production. Just like EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery) in oil reservoirs it could be a huge win-win scenario. The concept may also apply to shales as well.

Unconventional gas production as well as this type of Carbon sequestration is still in the very early days of study, but the potential could be very promising.

Update (Oct 2012) – found the link was dead and here is what I hope is the same or a very similar talk.

Carbon Capture & Sequestration, CCS, Climate Change, Natural Gas, Unconventional Gas, United States, Video

CSIS – IEA Medium Term Oil & Gas Market

Posted by Matt Beer - November 8, 2011 - Climate Level 4, Energy, Level 4, Natural Gas, Oil, Peak Oil, Peak Oil Level 4

I would of liked to be able to post the 2011 version of this up but every version of CSIS.org recording of the event (youtube, www.csis.org, itunes) seems to end after 7 mins. Still the 2010 version is quite similar and should give you a decent summary of the shorter term issues and what is in the pipeline for oil and gas at the moment.

Check out the csis.org page on the event for the slides that accompany the presentations.

Biofuels, Conventional oil, GDP, Natural Gas, Oil, Unconventional Oil, Video

CSIS – International Energy Agency WEO 2010 Summary

Posted by Matt Beer - November 7, 2011 - Climate Destabilisation, Climate Level 4, Coal, Energy, Level 4, Natural Gas, Oil, Peak Oil, Peak Oil Level 4, Renewables, Sustainable Economy

Definitely worth a watch. The big boys from the IEA give their take on the very important annual World Energy Outlook report which was released November 2010.

Click the link for the csis.org page detailing the event, the speakers and the slides that go with the presentations.

Climate Change, Conventional oil, Economy, environment, fossil fuel, GDP, Global Warming, Oil, sustainability, Transport, Unconventional Oil, Video

CSIS – Geopolitics of Clean Energy

Posted by Matt Beer - November 7, 2011 - Climate Level 4, Energy, Geo-politics, Level 4, Peak Oil Level 4, Renewables

For more info on the event, including slides on the presentations at csis.org

Clean Energy, Economics, Economy, Geopolitics, Renewables