How then, do we move backwards? How does a society, with most of the people having no clue of future events, move from being dependent on a vast and intertwined network of goods and services produced by the indigenous people of whereever, to a local resource and renewable energy based society, and do so in the timeframe available (20-30 years using the most liberal extimates, 10-20 with resonable estimates, 5-10 with worst case scenarios), all the while prices on everything increasing, world politics getting more militaristic, governments continuously reducing civil liberties, shortages of goods on the market and weather patterns resembling bad Hollywood movies?
"I have purchased the book and just read it. This is a work narrowly focused on energy geology with only minimal discussion of possible social, economic, and geopolitical consequences. This is not a criticism, it is a very good petroleum geology book for the lay reader with a nice historical perspective. Technical issues in exploration and secondary recovery are well addressed. Thomas Gold's abiotic hypothesis is very well debunked. Being academic in tone, it is neither optimistic or pessimistic.
Kenneth Deffeyes is also old enough that he is not likely to personally experience the worst ravages of the post peak oil world. In contrast, young lawyer and blogger Matt Savinar views his entire future prospects as defined by peak oil. Savinar's analysis of some non-petroleum energy issues is more intensely focused on survival and may be more accurate than Deffeyes'. For example, Deffeyes takes an almost cornucopian view of uranium resources by pointing out a vast quantity of very low grade ores exists. Savinar on the other hand, states that mining low grade uranium ores has a negative EROI. In other words, such mining activities might be useful for aspiring bomb makers, but do not constitute an energy resource. My gut feeling is that Savinar is right and Deffeyes simply neglected to consider the energy cost of uranium mining.
Deffeyes' new book is a worthwhile addition to one's library, but far from a complete review of post peak issues."
Last edited by EnviroEngr on Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:58 am; edited 1 time in total
I just finished the book, and I would say the most useful fact was that according to Deffeyes the peak is on Thanksgiving of this year. He even says he may be a month or so off, but Hubbert's technique points to this year. It's pretty convincing. It seems like recent events are telling as well. The Saudis just said they can't increase production anytime soon, so maybe this is it! Deffeyes is very entertaining, even though he loses me once in a while. I found it to be a very worthwhile read.
Joined: May 21, 2004 Posts: 198 Location: East Coast USA
Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 10:21 pm Post subject:
I like Deffeye's writing style and I read the book, but I have to wonder whether his Thanksgiving 2005 prediction is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The best evidence right now seems to point to a peak in 2007 or 2008. _________________ www.searchingforthetruth.com
The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy.
- Robert Louis Stevenson
I like Deffeye's writing style and I read the book, but I have to wonder whether his Thanksgiving 2005 prediction is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The best evidence right now seems to point to a peak in 2007 or 2008.
Last July, I thought that the 2008 Beijing Olympics would be the LAST HURRAY and then it's all downhill. I guess I was closer to the truth than I imagine.
I like Deffeye's writing style and I read the book, but I have to wonder whether his Thanksgiving 2005 prediction is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The best evidence right now seems to point to a peak in 2007 or 2008.
Last July, I thought that the 2008 Beijing Olympics would be the LAST HURRAY and then it's all downhill. I guess I was closer to the truth than I imagine.
Actually, your mention of the Beijing Olympics makes me wonder whether it'll actually be the first sign to the sheeple that the wheels are truly falling off.
While I agree with Deffeyes on a lot of things, I'm not sure I agree on the date of the peak. I do agree, however, that Thanksgiving may be the start of our troubles (not necessarily the peak), and I also agree to his assessment that it would be a good day to try and change the focus.
I managed to find this book in Borders on the Pitt St Mall (it's very hard to find books on Peak Oil over here in Australia, and found it a good read. Definitely worth the $39.95 AUD I had to fork over for it.
Joined: Jun 02, 2004 Posts: 1078 Location: Bristol, UK
Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:32 am Post subject:
peaker_2005 wrote:
While I agree with Deffeyes on a lot of things, I'm not sure I agree on the date of the peak. I do agree, however, that Thanksgiving may be the start of our troubles (not necessarily the peak), and I also agree to his assessment that it would be a good day to try and change the focus.
We have to be careful what people mean by peak. If I remember correctly Deffeyes doesn't include recovery from tar sands, oil shale or bitumen in his peak oil date which now account for quite a large volume of global extraction. _________________ "Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen." The Emperor (Return of the Jedi)
The Oil Drum: Europe
Posted: Wed Oct 12, 2005 10:50 am Post subject: Re: "Beyond Oil: ... Hubbert's Peak" Kenneth Deffe
What About Deffeyes’ Prediction That Oil Will Peak In 2005?
Middle East Economic Survey, VOL. XLVIII No 37, 12-September-2005
By Rafael Sandrea, Link here
Rafael Sandrea is President and CEO of ITS Servicios Tecnicos, a Caracas-based engineering company. He holds a PhD in petroleum engineering from Penn State University and has written more than 30 technical publications, including the book, Dynamics of Petroleum Reservoirs under Gas Injection, Gulf Publishing, 1974.
Quote:
The logistic decline model commonly known as the Hubbert model, has been shown to be a reliable tool for predicting reserves in individual and conglomerates of oil fields. The latter would represent the case of producing countries and oil regions. Decline curve models have served the oil industry well since the 1940s in the appraisal of oil wells and reservoirs. They do not derive from physical laws as such, but neither are they simple econometric models. Their success lies in the application of a good engineering/geologic analysis of the data to determine key issues such as the onset of steady state conditions, identification of outliers (output disruptions and the like) in the data points, and operational changes (discoveries and new fluid injection projects) that may affect the trend line. In the case of the logistic model the trend of interest is a simple straight line. This model utilizes exclusively production behavior to estimate reserves. These estimates are, therefore, by definition, proven reserves and do not include yet-to-find reserves. The latter have to be established by other techniques.
Deffeyes’ decline prediction of an ultimate recovery of the world’s conventional crude oil supplies to be 2,000bn barrels and peaking in the year 2005 appears to be on track. Peak production occurs at the half-life of the ultimate reserves or 1,000bn barrels. At current production rates, the world would reach this threshold about mid-2006. The world’s remaining reserves of roughly 1,000bn barrels of crude oil have a duration of 40 years at current production rates. The world is also known to have substantial unconventional extra-heavy crude oil and bitumen resources. Canada and Venezuela possess approximately 3,000bn barrels and Russia, 1,400bn barrels. Other significant heavy oil resources are also found in the US (200bn barrels), Kazakhstan (80bn barrels) and Madagascar (20bn barrels).
Finally, we have a fairly good grasp of the remaining oil inventories. Now is the time to focus not only on developing alternative sources of energy but also on making prudent use of the existing reserves.
We're in a situation where there is a growing consensus of geophysist opinion for a near term peak. In my presenations to the Massachusetts legislature, I prefer to use a 2010 +/- 5 year estimate, to account for the necessary uncertainty.
Joined: Aug 16, 2004 Posts: 14 Location: The First State, USA
Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:59 pm Post subject: Re: "Hubbert's Peak" K.Deffeyes
I recently heard Prof Deffeyes speak at Congressman's Bartlett's Sept Conference on Peak Oil. In addition, I have been listening to John McPhee audio books about the geology of the US. Deffeyes is one of the featured geologists. So this book was a great compliment. It's like I've done the grand Deffeyes Tour.
Although I was already well versed on peak oil, I found the book delightful and an easy read. It is a very good starter book about Peak Oil. Straight forward. Easy to understand. Explanations about all sorts of geological things and mineral extraction processes, including pros and cons of each process without much of the doom and gloom in other books.
The book has a fair dose of dry humor which really makes it a pleasure. Prof Deffeyes was the "warm up" act for Bartlett's conference and for good reason. He started the conference off with some statement like "There's a conservative congressman (Bartlett), an Ivy League professor (Deffeyes), an investment banker (Simmons), and social liberal professor from California (Heinburg) up here. And we are all have the same message, so you better believe it's the truth." Great opening line. Imagine taking a class with him.
[edit: Thanks to EnvironEng for moving this post. I had errandly put in under Deffeyes first book.]
After scanning these posts, I'd say way too much is made from Deffeyes Thanksgiving 2005 peak oil prediction. Of course, it was tongue-in-cheek, it clearly was at his talk. "Thanksgiving. Plus or minus six weeks." We all know the US peak wasn't confirmed until after the fact. I still read conflicts about wheter it was 1970 or 1971. My god, he's a geologist. They think is time frames that are uncomprehensable to us civilians. 10 million years is like yesterday to them. Nothing we look at on a daily basis was around only 0.25% of the age of the earth ago.
Moreover, of course, he wasn't counting tar sands and the like for Thanksgiving. Just conventional sources.
I did note also he didn't do much discussion of the future and solutions. He just sort of laid out the situation in terms of a how a seasoned extraction geologist sees things .... and it'll be on us to figure it out. He's in his 70's, it won't be his long-time worry, god bless him.
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:25 pm Post subject: Re: "Beyond Oil: ... Hubbert's Peak" K.Deffeyes
EnviroEngr wrote:
MicroHydro Joined: Apr 10, 2005
Posts: 20
... posted this review:
"I have purchased the book and just read it too. This is a work narrowly focused on energy geology with only minimal discussion of possible social, economic, and geopolitical consequences. This is not a criticism, it is a very good petroleum geology book for the lay reader with a nice historical perspective. Technical issues in exploration and secondary recovery are well addressed. "
I too just purchased and read this book. I found it one of those books, I could not put down until I finished it. The first 3 chapters are an outstanding summary of petroleum geology and and an understandable explanation of Hubbert's Peak math to anyone who understands the basics of high school algebra. Chapters 2 and 3 alone are worth the price of the book if you want a simple, easy understanding of Hubbert's Peak. The math point to a peak date of "late 2005 or the first months of 2006" Picking Thanksgiving is clearly symbolic. Don't dismiss his date until you do the math too.
However it goes far beyond just petroleum, which is why I am adding this post. The subtitle is "The view from Hubbert's Peak". It is a book about "fuels from the earth". The objective is to discuss many of the so called "solutions" to a declining supply of conventional oil by using other sources,
Chapt 4- Mostly Gas
Chapt 5 Consider Coal
Chap 6 Tar Sands, Heavy oil
Chap 7 Oil Shale
Chap 8 Uranium
Chap 9 Hydrogen
Chap 10 The Big picture.
After the first 3 oil chapters he applies the same introductions to all these other energy sources too. I ended knowing a lot more about their geological origins and the difficulties we face in using any of them to replace oil. These are not new energy sources, and Deffeyes gives many examples of the numerous commercial attempts to exploit these sources, with numerous commercial failures.
Deffeyes points out in Chap 7 that there may be 1,500 billion barrels of oil in the US Green River oil shale vs. remaining reserves of 400 billion barrels of oil in all the Mid East. But then he explains why the amount of this oil that is "commercial" is zero. It is a rebuttal to all those who use these oil shale reserves to debunk Hubbert. Knowing the facts Deffeyes provides will help debunk oil shale enthusiasts.
Deffeyes starts off with a provocative question with reference to the oil companies that are loaded with cash, but are not investing in new drilling, new refineries, new oil tankers saying "What is going on, Why don't higher prices and increasing demand encourage investment?" He answers, " If as I claim, world oil production is about to decline,there is no point in adding refineries, or increasing the size of the tanker fleet".
An outstanding read, written by an expert who spent is lifetime working in the industry!
Joined: Oct 12, 2005 Posts: 281 Location: Washington State, USA
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 1:31 pm Post subject: Re: "Beyond Oil: ... Hubbert's Peak" K.Deffeyes
Anonymous wrote:
EnviroEngr wrote:
MicroHydro Joined: Apr 10, 2005
Posts: 20
... posted this review:
"I have purchased the book and just read it too. This is a work narrowly focused on energy geology with only minimal discussion of possible social, economic, and geopolitical consequences. This is not a criticism, it is a very good petroleum geology book for the lay reader with a nice historical perspective. Technical issues in exploration and secondary recovery are well addressed. "
I too just purchased and read this book. I found it one of those books, I could not put down until I finished it. The first 3 chapters are an outstanding summary of petroleum geology and and an understandable explanation of Hubbert's Peak math to anyone who understands the basics of high school algebra. Chapters 2 and 3 alone are worth the price of the book if you want a simple, easy understanding of Hubbert's Peak. The math point to a peak date of "late 2005 or the first months of 2006" Picking Thanksgiving is clearly symbolic. Don't dismiss his date until you do the math too.
However it goes far beyond just petroleum, which is why I am adding this post. The subtitle is "The view from Hubbert's Peak". It is a book about "fuels from the earth". The objective is to discuss many of the so called "solutions" to a declining supply of conventional oil by using other sources,
Chapt 4- Mostly Gas
Chapt 5 Consider Coal
Chap 6 Tar Sands, Heavy oil
Chap 7 Oil Shale
Chap 8 Uranium
Chap 9 Hydrogen
Chap 10 The Big picture.
After the first 3 oil chapters he applies the same introductions to all these other energy sources too. I ended knowing a lot more about their geological origins and the difficulties we face in using any of them to replace oil. These are not new energy sources, and Deffeyes gives many examples of the numerous commercial attempts to exploit these sources, with numerous commercial failures.
Deffeyes points out in Chap 7 that there may be 1,500 billion barrels of oil in the US Green River oil shale vs. remaining reserves of 400 billion barrels of oil in all the Mid East. But then he explains why the amount of this oil that is "commercial" is zero. It is a rebuttal to all those who use these oil shale reserves to debunk Hubbert. Knowing the facts Deffeyes provides will help debunk oil shale enthusiasts.
Deffeyes starts off with a provocative question with reference to the oil companies that are loaded with cash, but are not investing in new drilling, new refineries, new oil tankers saying "What is going on, Why don't higher prices and increasing demand encourage investment?" He answers, " If as I claim, world oil production is about to decline,there is no point in adding refineries, or increasing the size of the tanker fleet".
An outstanding read, written by an expert who spent is lifetime working in the industry!
Sorry, I forgot to login, so I wanted to "author" this post _________________ An expert is someone who has made every mistake possible in their field and learned how to prevent them.
Posted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:45 am Post subject: Re: "Beyond Oil: ... Hubbert's Peak" K.Deffeyes
I just purchased this book and found it a great introduction to the art and science of petroleum discovery and production. Although math is not my strong suit, after a second reading of chapter 3 which deals with how Hubbert's Theory is derived, I too could recognise the elegance behind the methodology. Overall I’d give it 4 stars out of 5 just for the information contained in this chapter alone. Some of the rest of the book is a bit puzzling though, especially Deffeyes' views on uranium reserves which I think are highly optimistic to say the least, and also parts of the final chapter (ch.10 The Big Picture) where he discusses some possible mitigation strategies for peak oil, but from a U.S. perspective. Arguing that the U.S. should be continue to be a be a leader in the research, development, and marketing of weapons systems, to offset the cost of oil imports in future, is hardly the best advice for maintaining world stability during the forthcoming "energy famine" now is it? Or perhaps Ken feels that it should be America’s century after all! Ha, ha!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
