Showing posts with label peak oil. Show all posts
Showing posts with label peak oil. Show all posts

2011/08/21

How long do we have?

This post highlights the potential timeframes we have to deal with as far as any energy-intensive solution to impending climate change and sea level rise is concerned.

You will recall that with the global CO2 levels now passing through 390ppm, there is nothing standing in the way of an eventual melt-out of most of the global ice sheets, and consequent 70 to 80 metre sea level rise.

This chart is our view of the future of oil supply for small nations that are net importers of oil.




The chart uses two sources of data:- 
Declining production data from the IEA World Energy Outlook 2010's expected crude oil production from Existing fields plus part of the IEA's Fields yet to be developed and Fields yet to be found.  
and
Consumption data from the CIA World Fact Book:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html
The net-exporter's consumption is incremented by a modest 2.9% per year from 2010 levels.


The premise is that net exporting nations will continue to favour supplying their internal consumption over exporting their oil during the next 20 years.  These nations will thus become prime locations for global manufacturing as oil supplies to the net importing nations become more tenuous.  


At the same time their production capacity will be affected generally in the same way as the rest of the world, as depicted by the IEA's WEO2010.  

The suggested rate of increase of the internal consumption of the producing nations used in the chart above of only 2.9% per year is likely to be very 'conservative', but things get quite bad enough fast enough with that rate; people can make their own assessment of the more likely rate and the following implications.  (Saudi Arabia's internal consumption is rising at about 5.5% per year, for example.)


The largest oil importers (say the top ten importers including USA, China, Japan, Germany, South Korea and India etc) will make (have made) agreements with other exporters to assure supply of their import requirements over the same period - at any cost.  


This leaves 'what's left' of global oil exports for the other 140 net importing nations, including many nations with little or no internal oil production at all.


The 'what's left' for these 140 nations is depicted on this chart as what could be termed a 'Triangle of Hope' spanning on the y axis from about 68 to 80 million barrels per day giving them about 12 mmbl per day today, running out to zero available to them around 2016!  


==ZERO! FOUR YEARS TIME.==  


And the internal demand of the net exporters reaches their present day production levels in 20 years time.  At which time there is nothing left to send to any of the importers.


At that stage, 20 years out from now, this chart suggests that the only oil that will be availably to any nation will be the oil it produces itself.  It appears that there will not be any nation with a surplus of supply over demand.  Its my guess that past that date any global oil movements will be by way of private treaty between parties with something to trade rather than within any open market.


I offer this perspective on the global oil supply situation as an incentive to viewers to hasten their personal and community preparations for the coming 'interesting times'.

For a fuller version of this post with background info refer to: 
http://oilshockhorrorprobe.blogspot.co.nz/2011/10/when-might-new-zealands-oil-imports-dry.html#more


Kind regards


Nigel

2011/03/04

Christchurch and The Emperor's Clothes - Some Harsh Realities

Christchurch and The Emperor's Clothes - Some Harsh Realities

Nigel Williams 
Updated March 5, 2011.


This paper gathers together information that is relevant to the condition of Christchurch, New Zealand.  It raises some `home truths' that will be unpalatable to many, particularly at a time so close to the recent series of tragic events.
But as a Christchurch-born boy I feel I have a duty to drag these harsh realities into the open; to discuss The Emperor's Clothes.  So, before you shoot the messenger, please listen to what he has to say.
Introduction
As the dust begins to settle on another devastating earthquake in my dear hometown, the clamour to resume business as usual and rebuild something new and `iconic' on the rubble of the old is gaining momentum.
Our government is struggling to find the money to help restore the city to its former glory, especially with the multiple hits of the earthquakes on top of the generally depressed economic conditions nationally and globally.
Deep down I'm sure the decision-makers know that they are going to have to be very careful with every penny that is spent on Christchurch.
The city is proud of its heritage.  The combined European and Polynesian presence has left its mark on place and history stretching back atleast 800 years.  If we are to build a new and more resilient city then we must look for a place and manner of community function that has a genuine potential to provide a future at least as long as the city's noble past.
We must use the knowledge we have of the state of the world today to must ensure that what we re-build today will be of service to our children, and to their children for many generations; to  ensure that our efforts will reap the same rewards that we enjoy today from the efforts of our forefathers many centuries ago.
Among the mud, dust and rubble of this trembling town there are many spirits stirring.  Some will urge us to take swift and decisive action with the risk of repeating many of the errors of the past; others, three in particular, will demand of us the utmost strength to think deeply of them, and to find the courage to make very hard choices based on what these spirits tell us.
These three sleeping spirits stand on each other's shoulders; each reinforces the effect of the ones beneath as time passes. 
The first spirit will awake and open its eyes in a time frame of years, perhaps months.  Its name is FIRE.
The second spirit raises its head in a time frame of decades, perhaps years. Its name is FOOD.
The third spirit bares its teeth in timeframes of centuries, perhaps decades. Its name is FLOOD.
FIRE
To support in just a few years the building of a third of a city that has taken 150 years to build before will require a significant amount of energy.  That first build and work to date was enabled by the fire of cheap readily available high-density energy; first coal, then oil.
In one of its many increasingly blunt statements about the global energy predicament the International Energy Agency stated in 2009 that "…global oil supply is expected to decline at about 6.7% per year from its peak in 2008."
This means that by 2020 the theoretical oil supply for NZ will be only 55% of the 1990 level.  That's the IEA, and they should (and do) know.
The recent Parliamentary Research Paper The next oil shock? restates warnings by other agencies that: "…another supply crunch is likely to occur soon after 2012 due to rising demand and insufficient production capacity…"
The report Peak Oil Vulnerability Assessment for Dunedin (Dr Susan Krumdieck et al.; 2010) notes that: "The peak and decline in world oil supply will be a driver for long-term fuel consumption reduction to around 50% of current levels by 2050.  The possibility of fuel shocks will be ever-present."
Comment: These are not idle threats to our way of life; these are plain realities that we ignore at our peril.  Sometime soon we will have another oil price spike and within the next 10 to 40 years (2020 to 2050; that long, if we are so lucky) global supplies of conventional oil (the stuff we use to rebuild cities with and to take Johnny to school with) will be down to 50% or less of today's level.
This will impact not only on the choice of urban form for a rebuilt city but also on our ability to move food supplies long distances, and to obtain materials for the production of essential manufactured goods and agricultural efforts.
The FIRE is flickering now, and it will surely die.
FOOD
Christchurch's new town will continue to rely on the production of its rural hinterland as the cornerstone of its economic wealth and reason for being.  How viable is that production?  Remember that by 2050 for sure we will be fortunate to have perhaps half the oil for transport, agricultural chemicals and production that we do today.  We will `eat local', or we will not eat at all.  What else can go wrong with our ability to feed ourselves in Christchurch?
Refer to the New Zealand Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry:  The EcoClimate Report - Climate change and agricultural production. http://www.maf.govt.nz
The EcoClimate report presents projected changes based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) third and fourth assessment reports.
Figure 7: `Projected changes to the frequency of droughts' shows the projected driest annual conditions in the 2080s under (a) low medium and (b) medium high scenarios for conditions that currently occur on average once every 20 years.
This Figure shows Canterbury experiencing once every 20-year drought conditions every 5 to 10 years under the low medium scenario and every 2.5 to 5 years under the medium high scenario.
Comment: So, bearing in mind the necessarily conservative approach adopted by the IPCC, it is virtually certain that Canterbury will be experiencing once-in-20-year drought conditions every 5 to 10 years by 2080, possibly as frequently as once ever 2.5 years.
The eastern areas of New Zealand have already had samples of these conditions, and the Ministry's report confirms that these dry conditions will continue to arrive with increasing frequency.  Agriculture (particularly with low energy inputs) will be hard to sustain as  Plains dry out. 2080.
Because, by 2080, the Earth's atmosphere and temperature will not yet be in balance with the climate-altering forcings we have imposed, these conditions in Canterbury will continue to get worse for some considerable time beyond 2080.
The absence of readily available or affordable oil for transport, agri-chemicals, fertiliser, and energy for irrigation will make it very difficult for Canterbury to sustain a form of agriculture that will provide local food to a population of four to five hundred thousand people.
Agricultural production will be in dire straights, as will one of Christchurch's main reasons for being.  In Christchurch by 2080 the combination of the energy situation and the increasing frequency of drought conditions will mean that FOOD will be hard to find.
FLOOD
If we are looking at local food supplies, then the most productive land (before much of it was filled over for housing – Bad move!) was on the coastal soils including Marshland and in the rich soils of the valleys of the Port Hills (Watch that rock-fall!).  In common with all coastal cities, Christchurch has to consider the impact of sea level rise on its plans for investment in the development of the repaired town.   
Hansen recently suggested that a 10-year doubling time in the rate of ice sheet melting was plausible; pointing out that such a doubling time from the current observed base of 1 mm per year ice sheet contribution to sea level in the decade 2005-2015 will lead to a cumulative 5 metre sea level rise by about 2095.  Hansen has found that actual data points to a shorter doubling time of around 8 years.
Comment: The steps into Christchurch's Cathedral are at 6.197m above mean sea level, or less than 5 metres above high tide.
So by the Year of Our Lord 2100, high tide will see ocean fish nibbling the Cathedral's altar cloth and the coastal strip containing the premium market gardening soils will be awash.  By 2200 AD with at least 10 m of sea level rise Captain Cook will be right, its 'Banks Island' not 'Banks Peninsula'; Lyttelton Port becomes inaccessible from The Mainland and two-thirds of present-day Christchurch City is reclaimed by the sea.  200 years is barely the duration of European association with the Cathedral City.  Not long. Certainly not long enough.
With the absence of cheap oil that will be evident by late in the century our ability to transport food and commodities long distances will be compromised, and drought conditions will make it difficult to produce sufficient food to meet the local demand of a large city.  Rising seas will by 2100 have inundated prime coastal market gardening areas further exacerbating the food supply situation, as well as taking over a third of the existing urban area including most of the parts of Christchurch which have suffered the worst effects of liquefaction in the recent earthquakes.
The sea will rise faster and faster over a number of centuries until the amount of grounded ice left to melt begins to decline significantly.
As James Hansen declared in his 2008 testimony to Congress: "No stable shoreline would be re-established in any time frame that humanity can conceive."
Sea levels will eventually stabilise when all the ice that there is to melt is melted, and the seas have risen about 75 metres, plus a bit for thermal expansion.  Rangiora and Rolleston will be gone, and Dunsandel and Ashburton will be seaside towns perched on the 15 metre high eroding sea cliffs of the shrinking and desolate Canterbury Plains.
By late in the century the lack of oil-powered transport and construction equipment will mean that it is impractical to consider building any sort of barrier to the rising sea (after all it would have to be built by hand), and the inevitability of continued sea level rise for centuries makes any development or reconstruction within the long reach of the rising ocean a temporary arrangement at best, and a criminal waste of the effort, money and resources used in its construction at worst.
By 2100 the sea's inroads will confirm that the continued habitation of what is currently Christchurch City is unwise, and indeed pointless.
In time FLOOD will wipe clean the slate that was Christchurch.
Conclusion
We have lit the fire and consumed the oil, the burning of the fire has changed the climate, the changed climate is bringing the heat and drought, and the heat is melting the ice that is filling the oceans.
Within the next couple of years the all-sustaining fire of cheap energy is going to flicker, and oil (and all it means for us) will be beyond our economic reach within 10 to 40 years.  In particular the city’s ability to source staple food supplies from long distances away will be compromised; the principal source of food will have to be that grown locally.  Two years to perhaps 40 years, if we're lucky.
Over the next 60 to 70 years progressively worsening drought conditions on the Canterbury Plains will become so extreme that, in combination with the lack of oil supplies to support drought-tolerant agricultural production, the overall viability of large-scale commercial food production will be suspect. 60 to 70 years, and it will not get better.
Within the next 50 to 100 years the progressive and inexorable rise in sea levels will become evident as coastal areas are inundated.  By 2100 the surf could be running through Cathedral Square.  The sea will continue to rise and "...No stable shoreline would be re-established in any time frame that humanity can conceive".
These are the realities that a local view of the much-discussed impacts of resource depletion, climate change and the inevitable and progressive rise in sea levels will have on the existing city of Christchurch.
Over our lifetimes and the lives of our children and grandchildren these impacts are – as far as we are concerned – inevitable and unavoidable.
So Where and How for Christchurch?
The changed climate is expected to give rise to more floods in the rivers over the plains. Perhaps a modest new city in the foothills at the top of the plains watered by gravity fed canals from the great rivers may be a possibility.
The hills above Timaru will eventually be the best harbour on the edge of the plains, and the downs there may become a safe haven if water supply can be assured.
But whatever the solution we have a marvellous opportunity to take part in a consciously joyful process to re-establish a meaningful and viable city that can look forward to a future at least as long as its past.  To achieve that we must bring the talents of the entire community to bear on the realities that confront us.
We must ask:  “Where is the best place to apply the effort and money we are planning to spend rebuilding Christchurch?”  Sadly, one place is sure; NOT Christchurch.
We have no time and no money to loose.  The informed community must debate the final answer to that question before any more money is wasted. 
With the right outcome from this debate we can look forward to the best and most meaningful times of our lives.
~/~
Update 13 June 2011.
Article in Christchurch Press re Hansen referring to The 100 Metre Line:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/5130776/Flood-risk-grows-as-ground-slumps

Commented in:
http://www.rebuildchristchurch.co.nz/blog/2011/6/flood-risk-in-christchurch#comments
and
http://astroblognz.blogspot.com/2011/05/christchurch-quake-warnings-extended-by.html
and
http://www.silobreaker.com/flood-risk-grows-as-ground-slumps-5_2264631227124285530
~/~

2009/08/07

The 'Other Problem'. Resource Depletion and Climate Change


While a little off-topic, the following is a New Zealand perspective on the issue of resource depletion. Since we need these resources to meaningfully address our past and future influence on climate and sea level rise, it is pertinent to consider these matters.




In summary:

*IEA says that oil production is now declining at 6.7% per year and there is no prospect of an upturn in production.

*Shell, BP, Mobil and Caltex are all attempting to sell their retail fuel systems in New Zealand as there is no future in the business. Now.

*New Zealand's only oil refinery is up for sale, and the most likely buyer is a USA refiner who needs Marsden Point's production to serve the USA market. Now.

*All the gas production from Taranaki is owned by an 100% overseas operator, who exports it all elsewhere.


Conclusion:

When these sales go through then the security of New Zealand's fuel supply to domestic consumers will drop to third-world levels.


We will have very limited bargaining power for supply of crude, and even less for supply of usable fuels: Diesel, Petrol and Gas.


This threat is real, and current, and confirms that we have a very short window of time to do anything about climate change and sea level rise, while at the same time the depletion of oil and other resources has a direct impact on our day to day survival.


It seems to me that we should use the time and resources we have to relocate critical national infrastructure above the 100 metre line, and to commence an urgent Cuba-style adoption of in-city food production to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels for food production and transport.


---

Big gas pulling out of the pumps


By GARRY SHEERAN - Sunday Star Times


Last updated 05:00 26/07/2009

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/2674283/Big-gas-pulling-out-of-the-pumps


Petroleum industry watchers say all four oil company majors could exit the local

retail market and revolutionise the ownership of NZX-listed NZ Refining.


It's understood Exxon Mobil has joined Shell in seeking buyers for its

downstream retail assets, including extensive service station networks and

shares in the Whangarei-based refinery company. Negotiations on the sale of both

stakes are understood to be well advanced.


McDouall Stuart analyst John Kidd said all four globally owned companies were

facing tight margins on petrol sales in a mature, over-pumped local market with

little growth opportunity.

…etc

---


US firm seen eyeing NZ refinery


By GARETH VAUGHAN – BusinessDay


Last updated 13:41 24/07/2009

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/2671676/US-firm-seen-eyeing-refinery


Valero Energy, the biggest US oil refiner, may be seeking to buy this country's

sole oil refinery the New Zealand Refining Company, Bloomberg News reported.


The report comes after The Independent revealed yesterday that Exxon Mobil was

looking to sell its New Zealand petrol stations, tank farms and 19.2 percent

stake in NZ Refining. Shell also has a series of Kiwi assets on the block

including its 17.4 percent NZ Refining stake.


That means a total of 36.34 percent of NZ Refining is up for sale. Other major

shareholders in the Marsden Point-based refiner include BP with 23.66 percent,

Chevron with 12.69 percent and the Canadian owned Emerald Capital with 13.12

percent.

…etc

---


Now I wonder WHY there is `little growth opportunity' in the local market? I

don't think it is because we wouldn't use more if we could get it; so maybe its

because they know there is no more to give us?


Why would they be flicking off the local retail arm, unless it is to get out of

a market that is about to collapse? And why try to seize control of our only

refining capacity, unless they wanted the capacity to spin product away to other

markets?

---

---

Warning: Oil supplies are running out fast


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-f\

ast-1766585.html


Catastrophic shortfalls threaten economic recovery, says world's top energy

economist

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Monday, 3 August 2009


The world is heading for a catastrophic energy crunch that could cripple a

global economic recovery because most of the major oil fields in the world have

passed their peak production, a leading energy economist has warned.


Higher oil prices brought on by a rapid increase in demand and a stagnation, or

even decline, in supply could blow any recovery off course, said Dr Fatih Birol,

the chief economist at the respected International Energy Agency (IEA) in Paris,

which is charged with the task of assessing future energy supplies by OECD

countries.


...

The IEA estimates that the decline in oil production in existing fields is now running at 6.7 per cent a year compared to the 3.7 per cent decline it had estimated in 2007, which it now acknowledges to be wrong.

...




http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5638

Temporary Recession or the End of Growth?

Posted by Gail the Actuary on August 6, 2009 - 10:25am


This is a guest post by Richard Heinberg. Richard is a Senior Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute and author of five books on resource depletion and societal responses to the energy problem. He can be found on the web at www.richardheinberg.com and www.postcarbon.org.


...About 85 percent of our current energy is derived from three primary sources—oil, natural gas, and coal—that are non-renewable, whose price is likely to trend sharply higher over the next years and decades leading to severe shortages, and whose environmental impacts are unacceptable. While these sources historically have had very high economic value, we cannot rely on them in the future; indeed, the longer the transition to alternative energy sources is delayed, the more difficult that transition will be unless some practical mix of alternative energy systems can be identified that will have superior economic and environmental characteristics....


...The winding down of this historic growth-contraction pulse doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the world, but it does mean the end of a certain kind of economy. One way or another, humanity must return to a more normal pattern of existence characterized by reliance on immediate solar income (via crops, wind, or the direct conversion of sunlight to electricity) rather than stored ancient sunlight....


...However, while there is not as yet general agreement on the point, climate change itself and the needed steps to minimize it both constitute limits to growth, just as resource depletion does. Moreover, if we fail to successfully manage the inevitable process of economic contraction that will characterize the coming decades, there will be no hope of mounting an organized and coherent response to climate change—a response consisting of efforts both to reduce climate impacts and to adapt to them. It is important to note, though, that the measures advocated here (including the development of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, a rapid reduction of reliance on fossil fuels in transport and agriculture, and the stabilization of population levels) are among the steps that will help most to reduce carbon emissions.

...



http://www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-4/2003-4-01.htm


Cuba has transformed its agriculture from a low productivity, highly subsidized, high input system to one that is more productive and greener, while removing subsidies.


But its not perfect by any means:


http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/04/16/cuba.farming/index.html

HAVANA, Cuba (CNN) -- President Raúl Castro has moved quickly since taking the reins of power from his ailing brother, Fidel, last year to boost food production by putting more land into the hands of profit-earning farmers.

Government officials hope that, with more land into production, the nation would need to import less food.



And so on...


Nigel