peak oil

[philsy]

Does anyone know if a study has been performed that looks specifically at the effect peak oil will have on the aviation industry?
I have a read a little bit on this subject and it seems to me that regardless of whether peak oil is reached in the next 5-10 years the future of aviation looks bleak.

:ugh:

I hope some of you can tell me I'm wrong but the more I read on this subject the more I start to wonder if a career as a pilot will serve me well over the next 30 years.
You only have to look at recent events to see the US and UK governments are concerned.

[swashnob]

You won't get much response to the subject on this forum, possibly an 'economist's' forum would have more to say.

Nevertheless, it is a very disturbing subject that if true, will effect our industry sooner than we all think. Most people would probably think of it in the same way as most people think on the greenhouse effect, ie, it's all a long way off to worry.

For those that haven't heard of "peak oil", try

http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

[hobie]

as Spike Milligan would probably have said ......

I don't worry about "Peak Oil" ........

I just don't want to be around when it happens !!!!

[Pax Vobiscum]

I wouldn't get too worried about this. 'Experts' have been predicting for centuries (starting with Malthus) that the world's about to run out of this or that commodity. When you look back at the figures over a suitably long period, it almost always turns out that the real price of the commodity has dropped.

In the case of oil, there's more of it sitting in Canada (to name but one country) than has been extracted in the history of the world to date. Trouble is, it's in the form of oil shale and right now the cost of extraction exceeds the market value of the product. At some point in the future either the cost of oil will rise or the technological cost of extraction will reduce and - hey presto - the world has another century's worth of oil production available.

Thought for the day: "the stone age did not come to an end for lack of stone".

[moosp]

High oil prices are not a problem.

I have just been involved in negotiating a price for the supply of small quantities of JET A1 and around the best price I can get is US$5.83 per US gallon.

If we can run productive companies with these prices then the USA and other low price countries are just going to have to learn how. You've had it easy for too long.

FWIW

[North Shore]

Pax V, the problem isn't so much the amount of oil left in the ground, as it is the rate at which it can be extracted. We've already burned through much of the easily available oil supplies. There's tons of oil left in the oil sands, but it is difficult and energy intensive to extract it, and the production rate (I believe about 500K barrels/day at present) is very slow compared to the consumption rate.

Alternate technologies do exist, however. Aeroplanes are very suitable candidates for Hydrogen fuel, as they essentially fly from gas station to gas station. I have heard that either Airbus or Boeing had a design for a H2 fuelled plane, but can't find a web page about it. I suspect, due to the difficulties in fuel storage, and energy density of the fuel, that a plane would look somewhat like the one Airbus uses to ferry around their fuslage sections, in order to cope with the gas volume needed. Turbines are already in use with natural gas as a fuel, so some small tweaks there, and we're off to the races. The other fuel possibility, I would guess, would be BioDiesel. Already in use in cars, no storage problems, and we can use the current fuel infrastructure. I haven't found any information yet as to whether it would work in a turbine engine - but I'm sure that the manufacturers have/are looking into it.

I rather despair for research into all of this, however, while people who are beholden to the oil industry are in power in the largest energy-user in the world.

[revisit]

Hello All.

I am not a regular poster on these forums but may have something useful to add on this occasion. I have done a little browsing on this topic from the point of view of a layman pilot concerned about the future of the industry. I managed to stumble across a paper published by a research unit at Imperial College. The paper explores energy options available for aviation and seems to conclude that most biofuels will be too expensive, while hydrogen powered aircraft will require major airframe modifications to accomodate cryogenic storage tanks. They do mention a process - Fischer Tropsch conversion - which is used by Sasol in South Africa to produce hydrocarbon fuels from coal. It seems possible that this process can also be used to convert biomass (some woods, energy rich grasses etc) into kerosene at prices that may be viable if further development reduces the production costs. The fuel produced would also be carbon neutral. Most of the paper is way over my head, and I may have completely misinterpreted it, but those with bigger brains than mine may enjoy reading it.

I found it at - http://www.iccept.ic.ac.uk/a5-1.html - entitled "The Potential for Renewable Energy Sources in Aviation"

With luck, I may be able to frighten the travelling public for years to come.

Cheers

Revisit

[Puritan]

Albeit somewhat as an aside - see here for some background on South Africa's SASOL (http://www.sasol.co.za/sasol_internet/frontend/navigation.jsp?navid=700006&rootid=2).

Their refining of fuel oil(s), etc, from low grade coal is described in 'technologies & processes (http://www.sasol.co.za/sasol_internet/frontend/navigation.jsp?navid=1600033&rootid=2)’ and ‘sasol advanced synthol process (http://www.sasol.co.za/sasol_internet/frontend/navigation.jsp?navid=2100002&rootid=2)’

Clever stuff.

[angels]

PVs comments about shale oil are spot on.

One of the biggest undeveloped oilfields in the world is in Russia. There's stacks of it there, trouble is it will cost about 60 bucks a barrel to remove it from the shale (I believe the process essentially steams the stuff out).

When crude hits, say, 80 bucks a barrel, it'll be commercially viable. June Brent is currently at $37.68 on the IPE.....

[North Shore]

Angels: again, it's not a matter of how much is left - it's how fast can we extract it? Currently, Syncrude produces about 13% of Canada's domestic oil. Other companies produce more - but not nearly enough to supply world demand.

[Pax Vobiscum]

I've no specialist knowledge of the oil industry, but I assume that the rate of production could be increased if the economic justification were there (and a lot more R&D would be put into improving the process). Similarly, the other suggestions for replacement fuels will become increasingly attractive as oil prices increase.

Of course, the aviation industry would still have to cope with the increased fuel costs while this transition was happening, but it would be on a level playing field with alternative forms of transport, whose costs would also be increasing.

[411A]

Last figures I noticed (about 3 years ago) indicated that the Rab al Khali (empty quarter) of Saudi Arabia contained 8 times as much oil as has presently (to date) been extracted from the Hasa Plain area (where the original discovery was made in 1938.
Yes, the pumps will need to be further down hole, but the area apparently has good reservior pressure, which can be enhanced with gas injection, as is presently being done in the operating fields.
Seismic/log studies were concluded many years ago.

It ain't gonna run out soon folks...all that needs to be done is ensure political stability for the area.

A possibility...maybe.:uhoh:

Dubya has the troops in the right area...more or less.:ooh:

[High Wing Drifter]

Followed the link for http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net and read the bit about the US needing 50 million barrels/day. Went to www.salaam.co.uk (more specifically, follow this link http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/september02_index.php?l=4) and that showed the US as using 19633 bpd. It seems utterly unreasonable to think that they are going to more than double their consumption at some point in the future!

Anyway, the data on that site makes interesting reading. Iraq does not seem to have massive reserves, so the whole Iraq war for oil theory doesn't seem to hold. Kuwait's data is missing too??

I did a quick calculation and it seems, according to the data on that site that we have 51yrs worth of reserves!!! Not long chaps. Not quite as bad as http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net but we need to start thinking about our futures now. I may as well pack in the ATPL.

[K2SkyRider]

It seems utterly unreasonable to think that they are going to more than double their consumption at some point in the future!
Any chance of a justification, HWD ?

Cheers,

K2 :ok:

[OE-LBA]

Just prevent our American friends from driving cars that burn 6 gal/100km and problems are solved... :ok:

[Ignition Override]

OE-LBA-nice idea. We feel vulnerable because of the much larger SUVs and Hummers on both sides of my Toyota sedan (woops- I did not mean to boast), while they talking on a handy/cell, but are too arrogant to use their turn signals.....:uhoh:

However, that would require a very heavy-handed government. Our ancestors (Vorfahren?) wanted a fairly weak central govt. and free enterprise. I guess it is like many complaints about 'zoning' in Bozeman, Montana. Many people around there resent almost any form of government, but look at what can happen with fairly uncontrolled housing development.:oh::confused:

[charterguy]

Want to conserve oil ?

Given that the US speed limit is only 50mph, perhaps their industry should be forced to produce vehicles that achieve a consumption of 30mpg or better. The days, when cars were built to guzzle fuel so as to bolster US oil sales, are over.

As for aviation, perhaps it is time to introduce an oil depletion surcharge on all lo-cost seats. There are too many cheap and/or empty seats being flown around the skies, subsidised by desperate 'secondary' airports and their local govenments.

Loco's are creating an artificial demand for air travel, which shouldn't be there.

CG

[vaneyck]

charterguy--

The 55 (not 50) mph limit was dropped some years ago. Most states have a 65 limit.

Congress has demanded that manufacturer's 'fleets' meet a minimum limit, currently 27.5 mpg. That sounds pretty good, till you realise that light trucks are left out of the calculations, and the manufacturers' lobbyists managed to get SUV's called light trucks for the purpose. The actual fleet averages are a little under 21 mpg, a pretty sorry figure.

Last I heard, there was some hope the SUV's would finally be listed as cars, but the lobbyists (and their campaign money) are sure to have their say.

[Wino]

Also the ever tightening polution controll requirements are a very heavy drag on the MPG that a car achieves.

Cheers
Wino

[superpilut]

And all this to give some sharreholders a bigger return.
Must admit, we are a sorry bunch of idiots.
How do I explain this to my son when he's grown up?

- Next thing I do: get in my car to fly an aircraft with a loadfactor of 50%... Hypocrisy is a bad, bad thing-

[B.L.G Bob]

Bascially it would take a re-run of 1973 to wake everyone up the reality of how fragile the dependance on hydrocarbon fuels is. If the price at the pump in US remained high following such a crisis then our American neighbours would have to economise. A wee one litre engine can cruise happy at 70 mph as much a 4.7 litre V8 giving 16 mpg. Thereafter there probably be a big push for investment into research into improvement of renewable and alternate fuels.

I agree that economics of exploration and developement of untapped resources are going to be a factor before the reserves run out, as in the coal industry in the U.K. This also includes the development costs of new technology to get at it. Funny thing is it appears that it is the big oil companys who may have the resouces and investment to such research

We need to be scared sh:mad:tless and realise that everything currently taken for granted, can or could be lost very quickly.

Just as quickly over the 20 century technology developed and advanced, we may see it just as quickly decline.

Hopefully not because I would still like to fly!

[High Wing Drifter]

Any chance of a justification, HWD ?
Simply that I can't see why consumption would double. If that were the case, then not only would we have to assume no advances in technology, but also the size of the economy would double (at least). Not very likely in twenty years!! If anything, consumption will reduce as pressure mounts and fuel cell/hydrogen/hybrid cars/trucks hit the market and at worst remain static. Necessity is the mother of invention after all.

But the future does indeed look grim in that respect. Mind you they said there would only 50 years supply 30 years ago...but it has to run out at some point. It just depends which false alarm is real.

Just heard on the radio, that in order to limit carbon consumption to reasonable levels that would ensure plenty of supply for the world population a per person ration would have to institued. This amount is for a single lifetime is aparently one third of the amount of fuel consumed by a round trip UK-US-UK flight. What is a the consumption for a 747? 6000kg/hr? 6000*16hrs/200(people)/0.82 = 585 ltrs of fuel. So per person a lifetime's ration would be 195 litres (585/3). In my Fiat Cinquecento (a Sporting of course) that would be 1,625 miles!!

[K2SkyRider]

Simply that I can't see why consumption would double.

HWD , if you read any recent studies compiled by leading scientists and engineers, then maybe you will see why. They have done extensive research and have predicted a future trend, which is an ever-increasing energy demand. Hence at some point in the next 20-50 years a doubling of our current demand.

Cheers,

K2 :ok:

[High Wing Drifter]

Hi K2SkyRider,

I agree that studies may say different, but shouldn't car usage now be 10 times what it was ten years ago? In fact it has remained fairly static...in the UK at least.

My point is I do not know of one single trend that was successfully or remotely accurately predicted a decade or two in advance. Personally, I just don't see anything to suggest a doubling of consumption. A doubling in twenty years would suggest that it is an exponential increase. If that is the case, then it would double again in 30 years and again in 35 years! Doesn't hold water IMHO!

Using empirical data alone and not trying to make fancy predictions (like wot these experts do) the figures I have seen are an annual increase of 2%. for the US The current rate of consuption by the US is 19 million barrels a day. So:

Using the compound interest formula from memory which I think is correct and looks right: 19 * ( 2/100+1) ^ 20 = 28 million bpd in 20 years. That assumes that consuption continues to increase. Granted a hefty increase but no where near doubling.

This seems to back-up my calculation: http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill/charts/chart8.pdf

However, I worry that we are too late in moving away from fossil fuels. Even acting now will require major personal cutbacks in our use of energy.

[OE-LBA]

I don't know, but when I look over here (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_con), I clearly can see who would have the task to reduce his consumption and push forward research...
(And please don't come up with the argument that the USA are such a big country and have a lot of habitants who are consuming. Just divide it by the number of people and they are still the top-consumer...)

Quite another issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if America hasn't left Iraq at the 30th of june - not before they have pressed out the last barrel of oil... :(

[ockham hold]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply that I can't see why consumption would double.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



HWD, Here is a fact: Last year new car sales in India rose by 30% and economists expect similar growth in the next few years as India's economy is booming. The Chinese economy also has a high growth rate, in fact the government is actively trying to cool it down.

Within another generation the Indians and Chinese will expect to drive their kids to school in a 4WD SUV. They have just as much a right to do this as we do. The effect on oil reserves and the environment of hundreds of millions more cars does not bear thinking about.

We all need to start thinking about this very seriously. We might need to see if we can live our lives using less energy.

When the second world war broke out and private use of petrol was severley restricted, my grandfather locked the family car in the garage and for six years it stayed there. After an awkward few days the family managed to find ways around the loss. Giving a little thought to planning journeys in advance and sharing resources with neighbours helped a lot.

Changing our present lifestyle would not be the end of the world. It might be if we don't.

[Pax Vobiscum]

I agree with ockham hold about where the increase in usage will be coming from. I'm not so sure about the ease with which we can adjust our lifestyle, though.

In the 40s we didn't have out of town shopping centres and commuting distances were much less. I often travel to Exeter from my home (between London and Oxford), about 180 miles each way and I usually take the train, because it's much less hassle than the M4/M5. But I still have to drive 15 miles to get to the nearest station. On public transport that would add a couple of hours to the journey time ...

There's a lot that could be done to reduce unnecessary journeys. I'd start by making it illegal to park within a mile of every school :p

[High Wing Drifter]

HWD, Here is a fact: Last year new car sales in India rose by 30% and economists expect similar growth in the next few years as India's economy is booming. The Chinese economy also has a high growth rate, in fact the government is actively trying to cool it down.
Well the case I was grappling with was specifically why US consumption won't double. However, you are spot on. As the Asian middle class expands at an exponential rate then their consumption could equal or exceed ours.

The middle class in India and China is still tiny compared to the working class as a whole. There is a long way to go and 30% of not much is even less. It is China I think that is on the road to more economic stability and will have the biggest impact on the world soonest.

However, considering the probable amount of time that it will take for that expansion to gather pace, it will inevitably be stymied by the increasing drain on oil. A plus point is that hydrogen/fuel cell cars are just around the corner (some are available now in hybrid form). Hopefully, by that time the only new cars are fuel cell powered. Looks like the Airship is due a comeback too!

[dudduddud]

I'm hearin' ya Pax Vobiscum! I live 300m from a school!

First of all, i reckon it's not in OPEC's interest to let on exactly how long we've got, lest they lose dollars to alternative fuel in their last few years.

We need a definitive value on how long we have and we need to start planning.

eg: Whats the point in building a second airport when oil prices force 1/3 of the carriers out of the market on the way to oil total exhaustion?

The United Nations' most important role ever?

In not a fascist or anything but govt (at least western govt.) seem to 'fiddle and tweak'. My only fear is they wont be able to 'fiddle and tweak' fast enough to keep up with the oil exhaustion process


We have so many different commissions and reports that say different things, we need to have a definitive road to follow or else we'll wake up one morning and the power's off.
What are you gonna do when they shut the supermarkets and turn the traffic lights off?

Just a thought... cos it's my generations that's gonna have to deal with this after all.

[steamchicken]

Sheikh Yamani, of course, said that the Stone Age came to an end but it wasn't for lack of stones, and the same would happen to the Oil Age.