21. WHERE WE GET OUR ENERGY Source: ExxonMobile web site Transition training 2008
22. Why is oil so important? It is frightening how dependent we are on fossil fuels. We have only begun the move away from fossil fuel energy. Even if we were to double the amount of energy we get from renewables, and then double it, and then double again, which would be a heroic achievement, it would still only create 3% of energy requirements.
23.
24.
25. Why is oil so important? How many men does it take to push a car? Transition Training 2008
26.
27. What do we use oil for? Transition Training 2008 Transition Training 2007
28.
29. No country has yet decoupled economic growth from energy use Transition Training 2008
30.
31. The carbon cycle Transition Training 2007 1 Oceans 40,000 GtC Vegetation about 600 GtC Soils 1600 GtC The atmosphere holds about 750 GtC Fossil CO2 Dead Organisms
37. What are the main problems with out of control CC? Transition Training 2007 4
38.
39. CO2 levels over the past 60000 years Ron Oxburgh 381 ppm 2006 Transition Training 2007 5
40.
41. The need for an urgent response Transition Training 2007 6
42.
43.
44.
Editor's Notes
Additional points The oil is contained in porous rocks with the oil occupying the spaces within the rock. There is typically a trap or cap rock that is non porous that keeps the oil in a pocket containing the oil. The total recoverable oil from a field may be as low as 30% of the total oil in place.
Additional points: Britain’s Energy Crisis We are facing a crisis in energy ‘security of supply’, as we will be more less totally dependent on Russia for our gas by 2020, and oil from the Middle East. We are currently importing up to 20% of our gas from Norway, and by next year importing liquefied natural gas from Qatar. This over reliance on the middle East and Russia- which has shown its willingness to use its energy resources as a political weapon is very worrying- and our balance of payments is adversely effected.
This slide looks at the historical data and the likely projected supply demand and discovery. The key thing is rapid rise of demand coupled with decreasing supply, and ever lower discovery. Oil production has hit a plateau at around 85 million barrels per day for nearly two years with no signs of it increasing, despite the increased prices and more being spent on exploration.
64/98 post peak, 60 in terminal decline. Some odd ones out – like Russia and a couple of the OPEC members – but 60 countries are in outright decline. - UK peaked 1999 – dropped well over 30% - Seems to be a new one every year – Mexico and Denmark just gone... - analyse the world in bigger blocs – OECD has been in decline since 1997, and universally agreed that oil production in the entire world bar OPEC will peak in 2010-ish - not just peak oil forecasters believe this - also International Energy Agency, US govt, other oil companies, major international oil consultancies – all agree non-OPEC peak early in the next decade. Russia, USA, Iran, Mexico, Norway, Libya, Kuwait, United Kingdom, Indonesia, Oman, Egypt, Argentina, Columbia, Australia, Syria, Yemen, Denmark, Gabon, Ukraine, Turkmenistan, Romania, Trinidad & Tobago, Peru, Uzbekistan, Cameroon, Bahrain, Germany, Belarus, Israel, Papua New Guinea, Tunisia, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Albania, Croatia, Cuba, Austria, France, Pakistan, Hungary, Georgia, New Zealand, Spain, Chile, South Africa, Poland, Myanmar, Congo (Kinshasa), Greece, Serbia & Montenegro, Senegal, Japan, Bulgaria, Surinam, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Benin, Taiwan, Czech Republic, Ghana, Barbados, Slovakia, Morocco.
Another factor is also coming into play, and that is many of the major oil producers are dependent on very large oil fields for the majority of their production, and those fields were in most cases discovered many years ago, and are now beginning to decline. In the case of Mexico, their giant Canterell oil field, the second largest in the world, has entered rapid and production is collapsing. Mexico will go from being the USA’s second largest oil supplier to not exporting any oil at all, and then needing to import oil for its own needs with in the next 3 years.
Additional points We have extracted the highest quality oil first – because it is worth more and is easier to produce it gives the highest return on investment. Building oil infrastructure is very expensive. Producing from a large field is much more profitable than a small field. This is the economic factor behind the physical geological fact of declining production from declining discovery.
Source Exxon web site. Frightening how dependent we are on fossil fuels. One point many make is even is we were to double renewables, and then double and then double again, which would be a heroic achievement, it would still only represent 3% of energy requirements.
Additional points (If you imagine pushing a car 250 miles into a hurricane – at 70mph it would take a year for teams of 4 people to be constantly pushing the car to do the same work as one tank full) 95% of our transport is fuelled by oil. There is no replacement that is as convenient, high density, and safe.
In terms of devising mitigation actions, it’s important to look at Peak Oil and Climate Change together. If you look at them in isolation, you get one dimensional solutions. On the one hand, Peak Oil on its own might demand (as suggested by the Hirsch report for the US administration) all sorts of actions to maintain “business as usual” On the other hand, Climate Change can often prompt actions that address carbon emissions at a global scale (though nuclear power is questionable even if you focus purely on its carbon equation). So where does "peak oil" leave the Stern review? The intuitive answer is that running out of oil should at least be good for climate change, but the reverse could be true. A growing shortfall of global oil production is likely to send the crude price skywards, obliterating Stern’s grand bargain. The kind of long-term impacts attributed by Stern to climate change could arrive much sooner. With the economy reeling, it will be far harder to fund the expensive new energy infrastructure we need to combat climate change. And faced with the likely re-emergence of mass unemployment, the political priority may well shift from, say, maintaining a high price on carbon, to keeping the lights burning at lowest cost. True, recession would mean we would emit less CO2, but since we have to cut by at least 80+ percent by 2050 (or much sooner according the scientists looking at the effects of feedback mechanism), economic contraction is hardly the optimal way to achieve the target. He also seems to ignore limitations to the availability of uranium and the carbon costs of this “clean” fuel. He’s also working towards a CO2 concentration of 550ppm, whereas Hansen & the Tyndall Centre says we must keep it to 450ppm. However, when you bring them together, the imperative is to build local resilience, address the vulnerability of communities to disruptions in their supply lines and all aspects of national and international grids for energy, money, medicine and food, in particular. The Transition model focuses wholeheartedly on this middle ground. And to those who may think of this as a retrograde step – recovering a sense of neighbourhood is not a backward move.
![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Peak oil- What is it?]()