[AAA]

Does it worry you that all it takes is a little new technology to destroy peakoil for another 100 years?

Think about it.

We all know there is a ton of oil left in the oilfields even after 100 years of production. The problem is we can only recover a percentage of oil that is in place due to several factors but mainly because the oil doesn't flow easily to the wellbore.

All it takes is some new technological advance that would allow the oil to flow better and allow the world to recover another 5% of the oil in place. The infrastructure is already there, the wells are already there, and the market is already there.

A great example is natural gas. Everyone thought we were running out of natural gas and in terminal decline. But then technology advanced and opened up shale reserves and now we are awash in natural gas. Production is up and will remain up for some time to come.

The same thing could happen to oil and probably will happen to oil.

[Caffeine]

While it would be nice if a new energy technology were to appear, I don't know that that new technology would fix the following:

depletion of NPK in topsoil
nuclear waste
the giant plastic sea in the Pacific
depletion of fisheries
etc., etc.

I guess we might go from talking about Peak Oil to Resource Depletion.

[TheDude]

Forget technology, I'm for removing the overburden and directly extracting the oil from the reservoirs. Barring that, we can heat up kerogen with nuclear weaponry. No mess, no fuss. This article also shows how we could remove that overburden, creating mile deep open pit mines. Or how's this: first, remove all the citizenry from a producing nation, then send in contractors with simple drilling rigs to exploit shallow depth marginal plays like we have in the states. Voila, gentle declines worldwide. Problem solved, omelette made.

[Grautr]

Peak oil is nessessary and the sooner the better. Imagine how badly we could screw up the world with our over population if some tech was developed for us to carry on our consumer culture for another 20 years?

[Ludi]

Peak oil is nessessary and the sooner the better. Imagine how badly we could screw up the world with our over population if some tech was developed for us to carry on our consumer culture for another 20 years?

Don't worry, we can fix the world with a little new technology.

[AAA]

You guys are a rough crowd.

Only TheDude was able to have a little fun with it.

[ian807]

we can heat up kerogen with nuclear weaponry. No mess, no fuss.

Um. Seriously. You think it would be that simple. Let's say you go that route, and explode a nuke 6000 feet down the borehole. Are you sure, absolutely sure, that the none of the oil reservoir will contact atmospheric oxygen during the course of this little exercise?

When oxygen and hydrocarbons mix on a small scale, you get Centralia, Pa. (Google it). The fire has been burning for years now. How long do you think it would take an oil reservoir to burn out? And what would be the pollution consequences? I think we just might put a little more CO2 in the air than desirable, eh?

But let's say it didn't catch fire. There are lots of minerals down there, the kind of minerals we used to wrap around nuclear weapons to increase their radiation yield. Cesium, cobalt, etc. Some of these won't decay for millions of years.

Oh, you wanted radiation-free gasoline? Tough look buddy.

And then there's just getting the stuff out. Assuming it hasn't ignited, it will be hot, very hot. Heat under the earth doesn't dissipate that fast. How long will we have to wait to actually get some of this stuff before it evaporates? Oh, and you think it's still oil? After the heat of a nuke, what you'll probably have is pool of heavy hydrocarbons at the bottom and light ones at the top. The first wells reservoirs will probably ooze enough light hydrocarbons like butane into the air to create some very lovely (at a distance), very large fireballs in the atmosphere.

So just at a guess? We're not going for this anytime soon.

Cheers!

[TheDude]

When oxygen and hydrocarbons mix on a small scale, you get Centralia, Pa. (Google it). The fire has been burning for years now. How long do you think it would take an oil reservoir to burn out? And what would be the pollution consequences? I think we just might put a little more CO2 in the air than desirable, eh?

No one lives in Centralia any more, ergo this isn't a problem. The removal of the citizenry will be good for the economy, housing values in nearby communities will increase, UHaul rentals will take off, and so forth. GDP can increase in manners some may find distasteful but nevertheless it is the system we have and you don't want to overhaul things too much in a recession, do you? As for CO2 even nations that have ratified Kyoto have failed to meet their targets, all of them have been eclipsed by the gains made by the BRIC nations; China in particular has drastically increased their output of GHGs and even have a 3000 mile long burning seam of coal, at no noticeable impedance to their GDP growth; indeed if anything growth in GHG emission and GDP looks to be positively correlated. I suspect this fixation on the negatives of global warming is primarily from those who lack an understanding of economic rudiments.

And then there's just getting the stuff out. Assuming it hasn't ignited, it will be hot, very hot. Heat under the earth doesn't dissipate that fast. How long will we have to wait to actually get some of this stuff before it evaporates?

Crude oil is extracted at temperatures in the hundreds of degrees. Pressure and heat increase with depth.

Oh, and you think it's still oil? After the heat of a nuke, what you'll probably have is pool of heavy hydrocarbons at the bottom and light ones at the top. The first wells reservoirs will probably ooze enough light hydrocarbons like butane into the air to create some very lovely (at a distance), very large fireballs in the atmosphere.

You obviously didn't open my link, this wasn't an observed side effect of Project Gasbuggy.

Oh, you wanted radiation-free gasoline? Tough look buddy.

"Tough look buddy"? Is that a Japanese all-girl pop band?

As for radiation you should be aware there are serious studies suggesting that it can be beneficial to one's health. Perhaps mild doses of radiation from gasoline could mitigate the detrimental effects brought on when driving, such as poor health due to lack of exercise, increased stress through road rage, etc. As is so often commented upon, we need to think out-of-the-box to solve the problems of peak oil.

So just at a guess? We're not going for this anytime soon.

I disagree, as does an esteemed colleague in the peak oil community.

[MD]

Forget technology, I'm for removing the overburden and directly extracting the oil from the reservoirs. Barring that, we can heat up kerogen with nuclear weaponry. No mess, no fuss. This article also shows how we could remove that overburden, creating mile deep open pit mines. Or how's this: first, remove all the citizenry from a producing nation, then send in contractors with simple drilling rigs to exploit shallow depth marginal plays like we have in the states. Voila, gentle declines worldwide. Problem solved, omelette made.

Much simpler and more likely solution:

Start mining the stuff with pick and shovel, just like the early days. Over the short-term we have plenty of idle human resource. Keep them fed just enough to keep them productive. Maybe do like they did when they built the Erie canal. Feed them a shot of whiskey every hour on the hour. Raw energy, and after a few weeks of that treatment the workers will be compliant and eager for their hourly re-up.

The overlords will continue to thrive, and it will take many many years to reduce the population through attrition.

[Ludi]

I suspect this fixation on the negatives of global warming is primarily from those who lack an understanding of economic rudiments.

+ 1000000!

[AirlinePilot]

I got an even better idea, why not attack the problem from a different angle?

Take one of those used up space shuttles, fly it up to the asteroid belt and pick out an appropriately sized chunk of rock. Tow it back towards earth and set it up to re-enter and hit China.

PO solved! And we would only have to endure a short period of winter like conditions.

[TheDude]

I suspect this fixation on the negatives of global warming is primarily from those who lack an understanding of economic rudiments.

+ 1000000!

Glad you're on board with the new paradigm, Ludi. Human ingenuity can solve any problem, or transcend the need in the first place, as this sage observation shows:

There will be a transition all right, from biological to artificial. AI gods will tear this planet to shreds for raw materials, so fretting about the fragile state of the ecology is in my opinion, a bit moot.

Good plan, AP. Much of China is largely empty in the first place, and an impact of that size would no doubt liberate many scarce metals in the process, possibly depositing them on nations with a more proven record of being more favorable to trade, such as Japan. Also the impact crater would quickly fill with runoff from the meltwaters of the Himalayas, concurrently solving the water scarcity issue for what Chinese remained alive. Their reduced numbers would pose far less of an imposition on global carrying capacity as well, and the particulates brought into the atmosphere would negate their nation's disastrous contribution to global warming as well - how many birds have we killed with that one big stone here?!?!

[bodigami]

While it would be nice if a new energy technology were to appear, I don't know that that new technology would fix the following:

depletion of NPK in topsoil
nuclear waste
the giant plastic sea in the Pacific
depletion of fisheries
etc., etc.

I guess we might go from talking about Peak Oil to Resource Depletion.

you forgot water...

[Jotapay]

Does it worry you that all it takes is a little new technology to destroy peakoil for another 100 years?

Think about it.

Won't happen. I spent 4 years and paid $45K thinking about it and other things below our feet.