March 14 News: Why Twenty-First Century Oil Will Break the Bank — and the Planet

[Jonno]

Why Twenty-First Century Oil Will Break the Bank — and the Planet (Michael Klare)
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/14/443928/oil-will-break-the-bank/?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed&&mobile=nc
14 March 2012

Oil prices are now higher than they have ever been — except for a few frenzied moments before the global economic meltdown of 2008. Many immediate factors are contributing to this surge, including Iran's threats to block oil shipping in the Persian Gulf, fears of a new Middle Eastern war, and turmoil in energy-rich Nigeria. Some of these pressures could ease in the months ahead, providing temporary relief at the gas pump.  But the principal cause of higher prices — a fundamental shift in the structure of the oil industry — cannot be reversed, and so oil prices are destined to remain high for a long time to come.

In energy terms, we are now entering a world whose grim nature has yet to be fully grasped.  This pivotal shift has been brought about by the disappearance of relatively accessible and inexpensive petroleum — "easy oil," in the parlance of industry analysts; in other words, the kind of oil that powered a staggering expansion of global wealth over the past 65 years and the creation of endless car-oriented suburban communities. This oil is now nearly gone.

The world still harbors large reserves of petroleum, but these are of the hard-to-reach, hard-to-refine, "tough oil" variety. From now on, every barrel we consume will be more costly to extract, more costly to refine — and so more expensive at the gas pump.

Those who claim that the world remains "awash" in oil are technically correct: the planet still harbors vast reserves of petroleum. But propagandists for the oil industry usually fail to emphasize that not all oil reservoirs are alike: some are located close to the surface or near to shore, and are contained in soft, porous rock; others are located deep underground, far offshore, or trapped in unyielding rock formations. The former sites are relatively easy to exploit and yield a liquid fuel that can readily be refined into usable liquids; the latter can only be exploited through costly, environmentally hazardous techniques, and often result in a product which must be heavily processed before refining can even begin.

The simple truth of the matter is this: most of the world's easy reserves have already been depleted — except for those in war-torn countries like Iraq.  Virtually all of the oil that's left is contained in harder-to-reach, tougher reserves. These include deep-offshore oil, Arctic oil, and shale oil, along with Canadian "oil sands" — which are not composed of oil at all, but of mud, sand, and tar-like bitumen. So-called unconventional reserves of these types can be exploited, but often at a staggering price, not just in dollars but also in damage to the environment.


... Further evidence for this shift was provided by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in a 2010 review of world oil prospects. In preparation for its report, the agency examined historic yields at the world's largest producing fields — the "easy oil" on which the world still relies for the overwhelming bulk of its energy. The results were astonishing: those fields were expected to lose three-quarters of their productive capacity over the next 25 years, eliminating 52 million barrels per day from the world's oil supplies, or about 75 percent of current world crude oil output. The implications were staggering: either find new oil to replace those 52 million barrels or the Age of Petroleum will soon draw to a close and the world economy would collapse.

Of course, as the IEA made clear back in 2010, there will be new oil, but only of the tough variety that will exact a price from us all — and from the planet, too.  To grasp the implications of our growing reliance on tough oil, it's worth taking a whirlwind tour of some of the more hair-raising and easily damaged spots on Earth.  So fasten your seatbelts: first we're heading out to sea — way, way out — to survey the "promising" new world of twenty-first-century oil....

And don't forget the final cost: If all these barrels of oil and oil-like substances are truly produced from the least inviting of places on this planet, then for decades to come we will continue to massively burn fossil fuels, creating ever more greenhouse gases as if there were no tomorrow.  And here's the sad truth: if we proceed down the tough-oil path instead of investing as massively in alternative energies, we may foreclose any hope of averting the most catastrophic consequences of a hotter and more turbulent planet.

So yes, there is oil out there. But no, it won't get cheaper, no matter how much there is. And yes, the oil companies can get it, but looked at realistically, who would want it?

[somebody]

Must agree about coal vs nuclear in Australia.  And it is hard to see how we have enough energy demand to justify nuclear which only pays in very large installations, like 1.6GW in Finland.

[somebody]

At Gladstone each unit is 280MW, there's just 6 of them.  Unless you are telling me there is a single boiler.

I mean 1.6GW (electric) in a single boiler.  The two other units in its power plant are 860MW each, link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant

When nuclear goes off line, that's a big chunk of your generating capacity in Australia.

[somebody]

If you're interested in nuclear, this page is interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance

Shows the average size increasing until 2011.  Surprisingly, there are still a few projects going ahead in the 500MW range.  I expect these aren't in the western world.

[somebody]

In nuclear, a lot of the cost is per-reactor.  Hence the trend to very large reactors.  I imagine this is true for coal to some extent, just much less.

Finland would be able to sell base load power to its neighbours so the fact that it has a relatively small population doesn't matter as much.

Parts of Germany were regretting it's no nuclear stance AIUI.  That has reduced since Fukushima, and it seems they are back to wanting to be nuclear free.

[Fares_Fair]

In nuclear, a lot of the cost is per-reactor.  Hence the trend to very large reactors.  I imagine this is true for coal to some extent, just much less.

Finland would be able to sell base load power to its neighbours so the fact that it has a relatively small population doesn't matter as much.

Parts of Germany were regretting it's no nuclear stance AIUI.  That has reduced since Fukushima, and it seems they are back to wanting to be nuclear free.

Nuclear energy is phenomenal, as are the associated risks seen in incidents throughout the planet from Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, US to Chernobyl, former Soviet Union to Fukushima, Japan.
It can power a US Aircraft Carrier, with 5000 personnel on board, for 20 years without refuelling (by replacing spent fuel rods).

The down side, the waste will last tens of thousands of years.

[O_128]

In nuclear, a lot of the cost is per-reactor.  Hence the trend to very large reactors.  I imagine this is true for coal to some extent, just much less.

Finland would be able to sell base load power to its neighbours so the fact that it has a relatively small population doesn't matter as much.

Parts of Germany were regretting it's no nuclear stance AIUI.  That has reduced since Fukushima, and it seems they are back to wanting to be nuclear free.

Nuclear energy is phenomenal, as are the associated risks seen in incidents throughout the planet from Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, US to Chernobyl, former Soviet Union to Fukushima, Japan.
It can power a US Aircraft Carrier, with 5000 personnel on board, for 20 years without refuelling (by replacing spent fuel rods).

The down side, the waste will last tens of thousands of years.

Coal and oil have waste, it's just pumped into the atmosphere so that is becomes someone else's problem,  nucleus is the future, best solution is to fire the waste into space

[somebody]

Fukushima was a little unexpected as far as I am aware.  Suffice to say, backups below the water line (IIRC) on the coast might not have been the best idea.

The RBMK design in Chernobyl was criticised strongly in the west and even in the Soviet Union.

TMI had some criticisms as well, from the "Union of Concerned Scientists" before the accident, in which no one was killed.  Unlike a number of coal mining accidents.

EDIT: In fact, wiki states that a number of people did in fact warn about the design flaws of Fukushima before the tsunami. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

[Fares_Fair]

In nuclear, a lot of the cost is per-reactor.  Hence the trend to very large reactors.  I imagine this is true for coal to some extent, just much less.

Finland would be able to sell base load power to its neighbours so the fact that it has a relatively small population doesn't matter as much.

Parts of Germany were regretting it's no nuclear stance AIUI.  That has reduced since Fukushima, and it seems they are back to wanting to be nuclear free.

Nuclear energy is phenomenal, as are the associated risks seen in incidents throughout the planet from Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, US to Chernobyl, former Soviet Union to Fukushima, Japan.
It can power a US Aircraft Carrier, with 5000 personnel on board, for 20 years without refuelling (by replacing spent fuel rods).

The down side, the waste will last tens of thousands of years.

Coal and oil have waste, it's just pumped into the atmosphere so that is becomes someone else's problem,  nucleus is the future, best solution is to fire the waste into space

Never thought of that O-128.
Would you recommend we remove any finger prints before doing so .. ah that's right they use gloves anyway   

[O_128]

In nuclear, a lot of the cost is per-reactor.  Hence the trend to very large reactors.  I imagine this is true for coal to some extent, just much less.

Finland would be able to sell base load power to its neighbours so the fact that it has a relatively small population doesn't matter as much.

Parts of Germany were regretting it's no nuclear stance AIUI.  That has reduced since Fukushima, and it seems they are back to wanting to be nuclear free.

Nuclear energy is phenomenal, as are the associated risks seen in incidents throughout the planet from Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, US to Chernobyl, former Soviet Union to Fukushima, Japan.
It can power a US Aircraft Carrier, with 5000 personnel on board, for 20 years without refuelling (by replacing spent fuel rods).

The down side, the waste will last tens of thousands of years.

Coal and oil have waste, it's just pumped into the atmosphere so that is becomes someone else's problem,  nucleus is the future, best solution is to fire the waste into space

Never thought of that O-128.
Would you recommend we remove any finger prints before doing so .. ah that's right they use gloves anyway   

Aim it at sun, then it's no ones problem.

[Fares_Fair]

In nuclear, a lot of the cost is per-reactor.  Hence the trend to very large reactors.  I imagine this is true for coal to some extent, just much less.

Finland would be able to sell base load power to its neighbours so the fact that it has a relatively small population doesn't matter as much.

Parts of Germany were regretting it's no nuclear stance AIUI.  That has reduced since Fukushima, and it seems they are back to wanting to be nuclear free.

Nuclear energy is phenomenal, as are the associated risks seen in incidents throughout the planet from Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania, US to Chernobyl, former Soviet Union to Fukushima, Japan.
It can power a US Aircraft Carrier, with 5000 personnel on board, for 20 years without refuelling (by replacing spent fuel rods).

The down side, the waste will last tens of thousands of years.

Coal and oil have waste, it's just pumped into the atmosphere so that is becomes someone else's problem,  nucleus is the future, best solution is to fire the waste into space

Never thought of that O-128.
Would you recommend we remove any finger prints before doing so .. ah that's right they use gloves anyway  

Aim it at sun, then it's no ones problem.

Can I borrow your ute this weekend, need to take stuff to the airfield? 

[colinw]

Personally I would be relaxed & comfortable with a nuclear power industry in this country.

Modern nuclear reactors are far removed from the designs of Chernobyl, Three Mile Island or even Fukushima.  They have multiple failsafe modes, many of which are passive in nature. Many rely on designs which will not sustain fission either if the core is flooded (neutrons retarded too much) or completely drained (neutrons escape without sufficient interaction to sustain chain reaction) - they actually require a mix of boiling water that retards the neutrons just the right amount to sustain the reaction.

Australia is perfectly placed to exploit nuclear power - a good local supply of uranium, geologically very stable, and relatively low population density allowing reactors to be sited away from major population centres.

I'd rather have a nuke up the road from me than a coal fired plant.

[O_128]

Wasn't the fukushima plan just about to be retired anyway?

[somebody]

Wasn't the fukushima plan just about to be retired anyway?

Not that I'm aware of.  Only being 40 years old it would be a fairly young retirement.