What Would Happen If the World Ran Out of Crude Oil?

[D Coyne + 305]

On ‎4‎/‎24‎/‎2019 at 1:21 PM, ceo_energemsier said:

It will also depend on the demand for it not just for fuel but as a rich petchem feedstock.

The ultra deep water and sub seabed drilling tech is there and being improved, the production, recovery, processing and bringing it top side will be fixed too.  How about I give you an update on a small scale production output in say about 14 months which might equate to about 7,500boepd? is that a good start for a commercial volume? 🍾 Cheers!!

Let me know the cost to produce that as well.  Thanks.  

It will always be the energy of the future, just like fusion.

[D Coyne + 305]

18 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Methane hydrates can become more economical because harvesting them also can generate semi-desalinated water which should have increasing value in the future - especially if combined with a membrane desalination plant that runs off gas.

When salty water and methane freeze together into a hydrate some of the salt is excluded - therefore when you melt the hydrate you generate methane gas and semi-fresh (low density) water.  If you run a long tube down to the hydrate source and warm it, the fresh water and gas mixture rises in the pipe (due to the bubbles and the lower density fresher water).  As it rises in the pipe at some point the outside ocean water is colder and can re-freeze some of the fresh water in the pipe (because salt water freezes colder) which creates even lower density and fresher ice crystals which rise faster (ice is less dense than liquid water) which further desalinates the water. This process repeats essentially an infinitesimal number of times (calculus).  At the surface you can get pretty clean gas and fairly fresh water.

"Many people have lived without love, nobody has lived without water."

Sounds nice.  When it is commercially operating, let me know the cost.  Pretty sure there will be cheaper alternatives, so not likely to ever be a significant source of energy in my opinion.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

4 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Sounds nice.  When it is commercially operating, let me know the cost.  Pretty sure there will be cheaper alternatives, so not likely to ever be a significant source of energy in my opinion.

 

4 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Let me know the cost to produce that as well.  Thanks.  

It will always be the energy of the future, just like fusion.

You want to bet $100,000,000.00$ that the cost will come in @ under 45$/bbl for production volumes of over 100,000bpoed?🤑

[D Coyne + 305]

16 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

 

You want to bet $100,000,000.00$ that the cost will come in @ under 45$/bbl for production volumes of over 100,000bpoed?🤑

Nope. 100 kboepd is a drop in the bucket, doesn't really move the needle.  Also a bet like that would require a date by which it would occur.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

4 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Nope. 100 kboepd is a drop in the bucket, doesn't really move the needle.  Also a bet like that would require a date by which it would occur.

🤣, wow, 100kbpoed is a drop in the bucket from zero commercial production!!! 2024!!!

[D Coyne + 305]

6 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

🤣, wow, 100kbpoed is a drop in the bucket from zero commercial production!!! 2024!!!

World Consumption of natural gas in 2017 was about 63,000 kboepd on average.  So 100 kboepd is about 0.15% of 2017 consumption, consumption of natural gas has been growing at about 2.3% (2006-2016) so it will be a slightly lower percentage of 2024 consumption (about 0.135% if the growth rate from 2017 to 2024 averages 2.3% per year).

So yeah, not really anything to write home about, I doubt it will be able to compete with shale gas or conventional gas on a cost basis.  Do you expect an early peak in Natural Gas, seems to me 2035 to 2050 is a good guess for the peak of conventional and shale Gas Worldwide.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

6 hours ago, D Coyne said:

World Consumption of natural gas in 2017 was about 63,000 kboepd on average.  So 100 kboepd is about 0.15% of 2017 consumption, consumption of natural gas has been growing at about 2.3% (2006-2016) so it will be a slightly lower percentage of 2024 consumption (about 0.135% if the growth rate from 2017 to 2024 averages 2.3% per year).

So yeah, not really anything to write home about, I doubt it will be able to compete with shale gas or conventional gas on a cost basis.  Do you expect an early peak in Natural Gas, seems to me 2035 to 2050 is a good guess for the peak of conventional and shale Gas Worldwide.

When you are able to produce 100,000boepd of hydrates from zero barrels then , it will be your choice not to write home about it.

I didnt say one single company was going to be able to solve the global hydrates production problem!

One company at a time. One prospect turning into a commercially viable project at a time.... Now $45/bbl is not competitive for methane hydrates?

Got $100,000,000.00 to bet?

[D Coyne + 305]

14 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

When you are able to produce 100,000boepd of hydrates from zero barrels then , it will be your choice not to write home about it.

I didnt say one single company was going to be able to solve the global hydrates production problem!

One company at a time. One prospect turning into a commercially viable project at a time.... Now $45/bbl is not competitive for methane hydrates?

Got $100,000,000.00 to bet?

In 2017 the World price for natural gas was about $39/boe, 100 kboepd might be possible at $45/b, but there will be cheaper alternatives from other sources of energy so it is not likely to be profitable to produce, much like fusion.

Feel free to bet 100 million on methane hydrates, I am not a gambler, I would say the odds of success are long indeed, better odds on the lottery. 

Edited April 27, 2019 by D Coyne

[Rachel + 6]

On 4/9/2019 at 9:48 PM, Enthalpic said:

Both a coal miner and a physician have a vote, doesn't mean we should necessarily listen to them equally.

A physician is a doctor ("a person qualified to practice medicine"). Someone who works in physics is called a physicist. Oh, the irony. (common mistake though, no judgement) Also, I am inclined to disagree with your opinion there. We should definitely listen to a physicist more than just about anyone on matters concerning physics, no question about that.They're also probably more reliable about other fields of science and math as well. However, implying that all coal miners are uneducated conspiracy theorists is a stereotype, and not necessarily true. If you mean that their votes on this kind of issue should count differently, then I think that would be unfair.

[Rachel + 6]

Most reliable sources seem to agree we have around 53 years before crude oil reserves are exhausted. While this is evidently a controversial topic with a lot of variables and nuance, the fact remains that oil is a finite resource. There is a reason fossil fuels are classified as a non-renewable resource; while it is technically true that there is always more being created, the process takes millions, if not billions of years, so we're extracting it much faster than it can be created (not counting artificially created fossil fuels, which I don't know much about). For example, Canada has the world's third largest crude oil reserves (behind Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, look it up if that surprises you), totaling around 170 billion barrels, 94% of which can be extracted with current technology. However, not all of that is cot-effective to extract, especially with the drop in oil prices (around 2014). There is also the factor of environmental effects, which will probably contribute to the eventual drop in oil demand.

Long story short, what I'm trying to say here is that, while oil is crucial for a lot of economies, it will not always be there (either literally or figuratively), and those who think that oil is never going away are being blind. Those of the younger generation might live to see oil reserves exhausted, and will probably live to see the demand drop considerably.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

24 minutes ago, Rachel said:

A physician is a doctor ("a person qualified to practice medicine"). Someone who works in physics is called a physicist. Oh, the irony. (common mistake though, no judgement) Also, I am inclined to disagree with your opinion there. We should definitely listen to a physicist more than just about anyone on matters concerning physics, no question about that.They're also probably more reliable about other fields of science and math as well. However, implying that all coal miners are uneducated conspiracy theorists is a stereotype, and not necessarily true. If you mean that their votes on this kind of issue should count differently, then I think that would be unfair.

I was referring to doctors. 

Edited April 29, 2019 by Enthalpic

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 4/24/2019 at 11:57 AM, D Coyne said:

Bill,

In a sense you are correct, basically methane hydrates from the ocean floor will be very expensive to extract responsibly.  It is doubtful at $100/boe (in 2019 US$) that might be the price needed to make the extraction of this resource profitable, that there would be much demand.

It will not be able to complete with wind and solar at that price (and that price estimate may be far too low).

see also

https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MITEI-The-Future-of-Natural-Gas-Supplementary-Paper-2.4-Methane-Hydrates-and-the-Future-of-Natural-Gas.pdf

An excellent and in depth article. I really don't think we can begin to project any price at this time though. I do agree that solar, wind and other technologies could obviate the need for methane hydrates. The need is well over a hundred years from now IMHO. 

Thanks for finding the article. I have posted.it to  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_QZTgxCECgIj7EItX9P6Q2J4BjsSt_nPyrDG1zAl4b0/edit

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 4/28/2019 at 7:40 PM, Rachel said:

Most reliable sources seem to agree we have around 53 years before crude oil reserves are exhausted. While this is evidently a controversial topic with a lot of variables and nuance, the fact remains that oil is a finite resource. There is a reason fossil fuels are classified as a non-renewable resource; while it is technically true that there is always more being created, the process takes millions, if not billions of years, so we're extracting it much faster than it can be created (not counting artificially created fossil fuels, which I don't know much about). For example, Canada has the world's third largest crude oil reserves (behind Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, look it up if that surprises you), totaling around 170 billion barrels, 94% of which can be extracted with current technology. However, not all of that is cot-effective to extract, especially with the drop in oil prices (around 2014). There is also the factor of environmental effects, which will probably contribute to the eventual drop in oil demand.

Long story short, what I'm trying to say here is that, while oil is crucial for a lot of economies, it will not always be there (either literally or figuratively), and those who think that oil is never going away are being blind. Those of the younger generation might live to see oil reserves exhausted, and will probably live to see the demand drop considerably.

Natural gas can fuel any engine that gasoline or diesel can. It is also far more abundant, cleaner, and less expensive. This fact is amazingly little known or reported by those in the industry. Natural gas is a great threat to oil profits. Oil is more profitable. So called environmentalists do not realize that it is also the best way to do away with coal use and is less expensive 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 4/10/2019 at 8:57 PM, ceo_energemsier said:

I was trying to refrain from being too descriptive and ruin the first time experience of new visitors to the land of aromas , that maybe on this forum and come across the post LOL

Every mile you drive through the country, city etc , you get a whiff of a different flavor!!! You literally see the schitt floating on the sides of the streets and yes people and animals urinate and defecate right on the streets. Yes dogs, cows, goats, sheep, water buffaloes, camels, oxen, elephants (wow what a load that is, imagine being in traffic and you hear this loud thump and you see there is a heap of steaming elephant processed meal on your hood) I have seen people literally relaxing on the side of the highway and relieving themselves. You will see groups of people one after the other lined up along the highway doing the same .

Food borne and water borne diseases are rampant. Air pollution is so bad that if you are outside for even an hour and you have a white shirt on its covered with soot and dust and dirt.

Imagine if all that excrement was captured and converted to biogas. What a good thing that would be The solid waste can be used for fertilizer. 

See Biogas https://docs.google.com/document/d/1N-TLMeHsKYBCirxS0vbqMGHpU2SmyLuCc7bqp8eYXVM/edit

[DC_Zee + 6]

I like the book "The Long Emergency" by james howard kunstler. It is a good read and offers a stark answer to this post's question. 

I think we are squandering an amazing resource. What has taken millions of years to produce is being burned up in a matter of a few hundred years. There are necessary uses for oil that, if managed properly, will last this planet a long long time. There are better uses for oil than simply inefficiently burning it up in autos. We are smarter than that, at least I hope we are.

[D Coyne + 305]

On ‎4‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 8:40 PM, Rachel said:

Most reliable sources seem to agree we have around 53 years before crude oil reserves are exhausted. While this is evidently a controversial topic with a lot of variables and nuance, the fact remains that oil is a finite resource. There is a reason fossil fuels are classified as a non-renewable resource; while it is technically true that there is always more being created, the process takes millions, if not billions of years, so we're extracting it much faster than it can be created (not counting artificially created fossil fuels, which I don't know much about). For example, Canada has the world's third largest crude oil reserves (behind Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, look it up if that surprises you), totaling around 170 billion barrels, 94% of which can be extracted with current technology. However, not all of that is cot-effective to extract, especially with the drop in oil prices (around 2014). There is also the factor of environmental effects, which will probably contribute to the eventual drop in oil demand.

Long story short, what I'm trying to say here is that, while oil is crucial for a lot of economies, it will not always be there (either literally or figuratively), and those who think that oil is never going away are being blind. Those of the younger generation might live to see oil reserves exhausted, and will probably live to see the demand drop considerably.

Rachel,

Note that typically peak output is reached between 40% and 60% of ultimately recovered resource (URR), your estimate suggests about 3000 Gb for C+C URR and we have already produced about 1350 Gb, if we make the guess of 1500+/-300 Gb for cumulative production at the peak then the peak would occur at cumulative production between 1350 Gb (so far the most recent 12 months is the peak) and 1800 Gb.  If we assume output continues to increase by 0.3 Gb each year until peak, then the peak would be 2032 at the latest (60% of URR), if the peak occurs at 50% of URR then it would be in 5 years around 2023.  Output then gradually declines (at 1 to 2% per year) so oil "runs out" much later than 53 years as the rate of production will gradually fall.

Chart below has an oil shock model I developed based on the work of Paul Pukite

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781119434351

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 4/28/2019 at 7:27 PM, Rachel said:

A physician is a doctor ("a person qualified to practice medicine"). Someone who works in physics is called a physicist. Oh, the irony. (common mistake though, no judgement) Also, I am inclined to disagree with your opinion there. We should definitely listen to a physicist more than just about anyone on matters concerning physics, no question about that.They're also probably more reliable about other fields of science and math as well. However, implying that all coal miners are uneducated conspiracy theorists is a stereotype, and not necessarily true. If you mean that their votes on this kind of issue should count differently, then I think that would be unfair. 

On that note, the problem with well-educated specialists is that they have little time to develop other skills.  Outside their area of expertise, we should probably listen to them less.

This is particularly true of academia, which is trained to analyze precisely but rarely spends enough time at the source to know what, exactly, they should be analyzing.  This results in elegant tomes of the highest quality built on assumptions any 6-year-old knows to be nonsense. 

Edited May 11, 2019 by BenFranklin'sSpectacles
Typo. Minor phrasing edit. No change to meaning.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

On 4/26/2019 at 10:14 AM, D Coyne said:

Nope. 100 kboepd is a drop in the bucket, doesn't really move the needle.  Also a bet like that would require a date by which it would occur.

A stratigraphic test operated by BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.

at Prudhoe Bay has confirmed two gas hydrate reservoirs for further testing in a three-well joint program of the US Geological Survey, US Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, and Japan Oil, Gas, and Metals National Corp.

 

USGS said the test confirmed “highly saturated gas hydrate-bearing reservoirs” designated Unit B and Unit D.

Drilling by the Parker 272 rig encountered Unit B at 2,770 ft below surface. The hydrate was interpreted to fill 65% to more than 85% of porosity in the upper 40 ft of the unit, composed of well-sorted, very fine-grained sand to coarse silts.

Unit D, occurring at about 2,300 ft, has similar saturation ranges. The shallower unit also has a water-bearing section at its base.

Cores were cut in the units and maintained at reservoir pressure and temperature for analysis in the US and Japan.

USGS said the three-well program is designed to test response of the gas-hydrate reservoirs to controlled depressurization.

It’s part of a 35-year cooperative research program evaluating potential of gas hydrate in Alaska. In 2008, USGS estimated the technically recoverable gas hydrate resource on the Alaskan North Slope at 85 tcf of natural gas.

USGS also has participated in drilling to investigate gas hydrate potential offshore India and in the Gulf of Mexico and is conducting other research.

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

More than 620,000 miles of new oil and gas wells will be drilled over the next five years, according Rystad Energy’s latest forecasts. That’s enough to get to the moon and back with distance to spare.

The energy research company predicts that the number of onshore and offshore oil and gas wells drilled globally will increase to around 65,000 this year. Activity levels are then forecasted to remain around this level through 2023.

“North America will be in a league of its own thanks to the shale boom. Nearly six in ten new wells on the continent will be drilled in shale basins,” Erik Reiso, head of consulting at Rystad Energy, said in a company statement.

“These wells are typically longer than other supply segment wells. This helps explain why shale wells represent around 80 percent of the distance drilled in North America by 2023,” he added.

Reiso also revealed that the top four offshore operators will add a quarter of new offshore wells going forward, whereas the top ten in the onshore market represent around one-third of new wells from 2019 to 2023.

“[This implies] a much more diversified player landscape,” Reiso said.

Earlier this month, Rystad Energy revealed that free cash flow for public exploration and production companies “skyrocketed” last year to almost $300 billion.

“For these players, 2019 could turn out to be another blockbuster year,” Rystad Energy said in a company statement at the time.

Rystad Energy is an independent energy research and business intelligence company providing data, tools, analytics and consultancy services to clients exposed to the energy industry across the globe. The company is headquartered in Norway.

[sdhanson + 5]

On 4/8/2019 at 11:25 AM, D Coyne said:

The oil does not "run out", we simply reach a point where maximum output occurs and then oil prices rise, this likely will be around 2025 in my opinion, by 2030 oil demand may start to fall faster than oil supply and oil prices may start to decrease to balance supply and demand for oil so that supply falls at the same rate as demand. 

D. Coyne;

Back in the 90's I was a manager with a nat gas utility. I received a weekly news letter that included  info on the US proved nat gas reserves. In the late 90's the reserves were over 170 years. With the advent of fracking in the Permian and Bakken I suspect that the real proved nat gas is now north of infinity. I apologize for not taking the time to dig out hard data to back me up, but we have hundreds of years of economically recoverable oil and gas in the US without even considering drilling advancements similar to fracking. You should visit the Bakken. Nat gas is so plentiful that it is just flared at the well. It is not worth the expense of connecting pipelines. Have you seen nighttime satellite photos of North Dakota:

[Michael Sanches + 187]

If crude oil disappeared, it would cause a lot of change. For each barrel of oil:

1. 32.7% is used to make gasoline

2. 9.7% is used to make home heating oil and diesel fuel

3. 3.7% is used to make jet fuel

4. 54% is used to make medicine, cleaning products, rubber, cosmetics, lubricants, asphalt, plastic, tape, petroleum jelly, bandages, toothpaste, insect repellent, nylon, contact lenses, computers, paint, fertilizer, etc.

So, jet fuel, itself, uses 10% the oil as all gas engines combined. I think lawmakers believe less drilling should result in less #1 and no decrease in #3, which they use.

No drilling for oil means a whole lot fewer of #4 above, a stunning decrease in our quality of life. Less drilling means higher prices for all products in #4, which, apparently, does not concern lawmakers.

Due to #2 above, the result would mean a huge increase in pollution from wood burning, as well as massive deforestation.

 

[D Coyne + 305]

2 hours ago, sdhanson said:

D. Coyne;

Back in the 90's I was a manager with a nat gas utility. I received a weekly news letter that included  info on the US proved nat gas reserves. In the late 90's the reserves were over 170 years. With the advent of fracking in the Permian and Bakken I suspect that the real proved nat gas is now north of infinity. I apologize for not taking the time to dig out hard data to back me up, but we have hundreds of years of economically recoverable oil and gas in the US without even considering drilling advancements similar to fracking. You should visit the Bakken. Nat gas is so plentiful that it is just flared at the well. It is not worth the expense of connecting pipelines. Have you seen nighttime satellite photos of North Dakota:

I am talking about crude plus condensate output, NGL is not very useful as a transport fuel which is the major use for C+C on land, water, and air.  Excluding tight oil, US output peaked in Nov 1970.  Chart from EIA crude and tight oil data below.  Data for tight oil only available from Jan 2000-Feb 2019, I assumed prior to Jan 2000 tight oil output increased by 1% each month (a guess).  Also have included a US tight oil scenario based on oil prices following EIA's AEO 2018 reference oil price scenario and assuming TRR follows the USGS mean estimate, URR is determined by applying a discounted cash flow analysis with nominal annual discount rate of 10% and standard economic assumptions and well profile data gathered from shale profile.com

Edited May 1, 2019 by D Coyne

[D Coyne + 305]

2 hours ago, Michael Sanches said:

If crude oil disappeared, it would cause a lot of change. For each barrel of oil:

1. 32.7% is used to make gasoline

2. 9.7% is used to make home heating oil and diesel fuel

3. 3.7% is used to make jet fuel

4. 54% is used to make medicine, cleaning products, rubber, cosmetics, lubricants, asphalt, plastic, tape, petroleum jelly, bandages, toothpaste, insect repellent, nylon, contact lenses, computers, paint, fertilizer, etc.

So, jet fuel, itself, uses 10% the oil as all gas engines combined. I think lawmakers believe less drilling should result in less #1 and no decrease in #3, which they use.

No drilling for oil means a whole lot fewer of #4 above, a stunning decrease in our quality of life. Less drilling means higher prices for all products in #4, which, apparently, does not concern lawmakers.

Due to #2 above, the result would mean a huge increase in pollution from wood burning, as well as massive deforestation.

 

Michael,

If we only consider crude plus condensate and ignore, NGPL (mostly bottled gas) and biofuels, in 2016 we had 82.8 Mb/d of C+C production for the World.  

Gasoline- 26 Mb/d
Distillate Fuel-27.8 Mb/d
Jet Fuel and Kerosene-7.2 Mb/d
Residual Fuel-7.2 Mb/d
Total Liquid petroleum fuel-68.3 Mb/d or 82.4%
Other products from C+C=14.6 Mb/d or 17.6%

See

https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/data/browser/#/?pa=0000001001vg0000000000000000000000vg0000000000g&c=00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001&tl_id=5-A&vs=INTL.5-2-WORL-TBPD.A&ord=CR&cy=2016&vo=0&v=T&end=2018

In your calculations you use NGL, biofuels, etc.  It is World C+C output that will be constrained in the near term, natural gas will peak (and NGL output with it) between 2030 and 2050, if we assume as I do that methane hydrate is unlikely to contribute much to commercial output (I ignore negligible quantities less than 1% of today's level of output) before 2070.

Wood prices will rise and wise people will seal and insulate their homes and buy an air source or ground source heat pump, it will be far cheaper and more convenient in most places, also people can use natural gas in cities and propane in rural areas as these depend less on C+C output.

Edited May 1, 2019 by D Coyne

[Robert Gourdie + 2]

I'm have a technical question

Can anyone tell me why the recent trends on MONTHLY U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil is downward (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M) while those reported for WEEKLY U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil on an upward trend (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRFPUS2&f=W) ?

Tx

[D Coyne + 305]

21 hours ago, Robert Gourdie said:

I'm have a technical question

Can anyone tell me why the recent trends on MONTHLY U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil is downward (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS2&f=M) while those reported for WEEKLY U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil on an upward trend (https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCRFPUS2&f=W) ?

Tx

For reasons that have never been clear to me the weekly estimates are just not very good.  Sometimes they are correct and sometimes they are far from the mark.  Unlike the monthly estimates the weekly estimates are never revised.  Just take the weekly estimates with a pound of salt, only a grain is needed for monthly estimates for the most recent few months, if you go back 4 months or so the monthly estimates are spot on (though even then there are annual revisions each September which sometimes result in revisions.

The EIA surveys the largest oil producers which collectively produce about 90% of the oil in the US to do there monthly estimates, the other 10% is more of a guess based on state level data and past trends and this is where the revisions come from after 12 to 24 months the estimates are within 99.5% of the "true" number.  Any piece of data is always an estimate, keep that in mind.