« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

What Peak Oilers Won’t Tell You About Peak Oil

M. King Hubbert is the father of Peak Oil theory. In a 1956, he paper correctly called the timing of the peak in U.S. crude oil production in the early 1970s.

Neo-Malthusians and Progressives make sure you know about Hubbert’s pessimistic outlook for conventional crude oil. They made Hubbert a household name, the only oil technologist whose name they use without adding “sellout” or “whore”.

But here’s what they never tell you about what Hubbert’s wrote…


1. The name of the paper is “Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels”

(.pdf link)

…Fig. 30 … covers the time span from 5,000 years ago — the dawn of recorded history — to 5,000 years in the future. On such a time scale the discovery, exploitation and exhaustion of the fossil fuels will be seen to be an ephemeral event in the span of recorded history. There is promise, however, provided mankind can solve its international problems and not destroy itself with nuclear weapons, and provided the world population (which is now expanding at such a rate as to double in less than a century) can somehow be brought under control, that we may at last have found an energy supply adequate for our needs for at least the next few centuries of the “foreseeable future.”

Hubbert arrived at this conclusion after cataloging the uranium potential in the United States. Much of that potential exists in widespread shale deposits in various parts of the nation.

Hubbert’s vision of the future may have become reality in France. He must have been disappointed to see what a bunch of hysterical twits the American environmentalist movement can be when they derailed American nuclear development after Three Mile Island/The China Syndrome.


2. Hubbert saw considerable potential in the oil shales.

The oil obtainable from oil shales in the United States has been taken to be 1,000 billion barrels. [Hubbert's high-end crude oil projection for the Lower 48 was 200 billion barrels. - Ed.] This is based upon a revised figure recently released by the United States Geological Survey of 900 billion barrels of oil for the shales of Colorado. A.C. Rubel has recently made a review from published literature of all the bituminous shales of the United States which are potential sources of oil, and has arrived at an estimate of a possible 2.5 trillion barrels of oil obtainable from shale.

(Oil shales are massive kerogen-rich formations which are found in the Mountain West, primarily western Colorado. Kerogen is a waxy, immature oil precursor, not to be confused with conventional oil in the Bakken shale of North Dakota and elsewhere.)

Ironically, Hubbert foresaw the potential energy locked up in the shales in the form kerogen and fissionable materials, but did not appreciate the potential of shale as a source of natural gas. Shales currently supply 40+% of our gas.

More on that topic in a future blog.

Cross-posted at stevemaley.com.


COMMENTS

  • nathanalbright

    A big problem of nuclear fuel is the whole nimby problem. The fact that it takes 15 years to go from plan to completion is also daunting. The fear of any kind of disaster also makes nuclear energy daunting. We all like electricity, but there is a great fear in this country of nuclear energy, something that environmentalists have used to their advantage. So we get more coal plants instead. That’s the way the cookie crumbles I suppose.

    • ryanbinaz

      You need to educate yourself and your friends on thorium, mainly salt solution reactors. No waste, no explosions, just cheap, cheap fuel!

      The only reason we use the potentially dangerous Uranium as fuel is for the weapons that we can make from the waste!

      Thorium is safe and won?t melt down, it?s self regulating. It?s old technology too.

      http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

      China and India are both building thorium reactors?

      • Bill S

        We get it. You like thorium. Don’t post it again.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

      • acat

        Wikipedia does a decent job on the contamination of West Chicago, IL with thorium (in the form of mine tailings) that were used as fill under several low spots in the outlying Chicago suburb.

        Press release from the City of West Chicago from last year on the status of the Superfund cleanup.

        So .. safe when properly handled, yes.

        Mew

        • ohiohistorian

          Don’t know if you know it, but U and Th are present in flowback water, sometimes at some pretty decent levels. So if you are afraid of mine tailings containing Th and U, my recommendation is that you also be against frac-ing to get natural gas from the Marcellus and use of coal if you are concerned about the spread of radiation through the spread of tailings. The problem is not the use, it is the uninformed spreading of the material. We can have the same argument about lead, mercury, PCBs (remember Times Beach, MO?) coal ash, coal scrubber solids, asbestos, silica fiber, etc etc etc. There are so many hazardous chemical on this Earth that we could go back to only breaking the surface of the earth to grow food. Education could help to break the NIMBY cycle.

          • acat

            My point was to highlight a past problem in handling thorium that has reinforced the stupid.

            If only we could harness stupid, we’d have a near-inexhaustible source of power…

            Mew

          • hit912

            and that’s just in D C

          • renl57

            Even if we all grew our own food, as long as we had basements in our homes and buildings we would still have the radon gas problem there.

            It is estimated that 16% of lung cancer cases are caused by radon gas seeping into the basements of unsuspecting homeowners. It’s the biggest single cause of lung cancer among nonsmokers.

    • ss396

      I’ve always heard the comparisons of the US vs. the European nations regarding nuclear energy generation, with the pack led by France. France gets 75% of its energy from nuclear generation; why doesn’t the US embrace it?

      Fact is, France’s 75% is some 60,000+ megawatts;
      whereas, USA’s 20% is some 100,000+ megawatts.

      We aren’t strangers to it, although I did not dig into to this to see how long we’ve been stuck at that 100,000 MW number. Probably for decades, as Mr. Maley has pointed out in the article, for the destruction of the industry development.

      Perhaps there is some life returning to the industry. Even President Obama offered loan guarantees toward it, so it is no longer completely off-limits. (Of course, the President and his minions do not realize that the industry is stalled because of an hostile regulatory regime, not for lack of funding. But that’s another story.)

      • ohiohistorian

        After U waste is “spent”, there is about 98% recoverable material (assuming that we don’t pursue the Pu reactor designs that were suggested in the 70′s). For my Th friend, U goes through Th, so the Th reactor is actually a possible secondary reactor to reduce the waste. However, all of this is moot, as the First Carter Administration took spent fuel reprocessing off from the table. For those that remember, the Second Carter (Obama) Administration took high-level waste disposal off the table with cancelling Yucca Flats.

        • Xasteius

          Carter authorized two studies for reprocessing: one US based, and one international. The US-based study concluded that reprocessing was too dangerous, and the international-based study concluded that reprocessing could be done given limited precautions for non-proliferation purposes.

          Granted, the whole material accountancy process (basically balancing your uranium and plutonium checkbook) in practice makes Enron Accounting look honest, but if the sheeple feel safe, that’s fine with me.

        • Xasteius

          The difference between the reactors we have today and the fast reactors is that the fast reactors use high-energy neutrons to fission uranium and the ‘radioactive waste’. If the reactor makes more fuel than it produces (i.e. uranium-238 converts to plutonium), this is called a breeder reactor since it makes its own fuel. Granted, this requires reprocessing, which is politically verboten, but the left has never let scientific fact stand in the way of utopianism.

    • juumanistra

      Because in their haste to prevent the release of radiation and/or radioactive materials into the environment, the opponents of nuclear energy have guaranteed the construction of additional coal-fired generating capacity, which will release tons of particulate uranium, thorium, and other naturally occurring radioactive isotopes trapped within its fuel. Natural gas-fired generating capacity suffers from the same problem, though to a markedly lesser extent.

      Emissions of radioactivity that, were they to come from an atomic pile, would guarantee the reactor would be shuttered and its operator vilified, if not prison-bound. Quite the regulatory apparatus we’ve built, isn’t it?

    • samfox

      Ukrainian & Russian scientists have discovered that oil is not from fossils & replenishes deep in the earth.

      Peak oil is a myth.

      http://www.gasresources.net/

      http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/peakoil1.html

      http://dont-tread-on.me/?p=8554

      http://tinyurl.com/3c5fk5f

      SamFox

  • earlgrey

    they may have in highly technical fields, they will believe whatever the liberals tell them too, and they will seek out information that back up the liberal orthodoxy to back it up.

    • ryanbinaz

      The only reason we use the potentially dangerous Uranium as fuel is for the weapons that we can make from the waste!

      Thorium is safe and won?t melt down, it?s self regulating. It?s old technology too.

      http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

      China and India are both building thorium reactors?

      • tankertodd

        Lyle Lanley: Well, sir, there’s nothing on earth
        Like a genuine,
        Bona fide,
        Electrified,
        Six-car
        Monorail!
        What’d I say?

        Ned Flanders: Monorail!

        Lyle Lanley: What’s it called?

        Patty+Selma: Monorail!

        Lyle Lanley: That’s right! Monorail!

        [crowd chants `Monorail' softly and rhythmically]

        Miss Hoover: I hear those things are awfully loud…

        Lyle Lanley: It glides as softly as a cloud.

        Apu: Is there a chance the track could bend?

        Lyle Lanley: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.

        Barney: What about us brain-dead slobs?

        Lyle Lanley: You’ll be given cushy jobs.

        Abe: Were you sent here by the devil?

        Lyle Lanley: No, good sir, I’m on the level.

        Wiggum: The ring came off my pudding can.

        Lyle Lanley: Take my pen knife, my good man.

        I swear it’s Springfield’s only choice…
        Throw up your hands and raise your voice!

        All: Monorail!

        Lyle Lanley: What’s it called?

        All: Monorail!

        Lyle Lanley: Once again…

        All: Monorail!

        Marge: But Main Street’s still all cracked and broken…

        Bart: Sorry, Mom, the mob has spoken!

        All: Monorail!
        Monorail!
        Monorail!

        [big finish]

        Monorail!

        Homer: Mono… D’oh!

        • texasref

          also see

          “Blame Canada! Blame Canada!”

      • dcacklam

        Is because it works with only minor enrichment, and when the whole nuke thing got started it was the easiest naturally occurring element to use (this is also why it is the entry-level bomb-making material of choice, a/o Plutonium, for example).

        The majority of US reactors produce nothing useful for nuclear weapons production.

  • tailfins1959

    I went to Wal-mart looking for Peak Oil and all they had was the anti-freeze.

  • ryanbinaz

    The only reason we use the potentially dangerous Uranium as fuel is for the weapons that we can make from the waste!

    Thorium is safe and won’t melt down, it’s self regulating. It’s old technology too.

    http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1

    China and India are both building thorium reactors…

    • Xasteius

      Thorium is not fissile (i.e. directly fissions using neutrons), but is fissionable (i.e. captures a neutron and decays into something that is fissile, in this case U-233), therefore you need something to start the chain reaction and keep it going.

      I am disgusted, however, that the US invents all these wonderful technologies and other countries actually develop them.

    • Xasteius

      Thorium is not fissile (i.e. directly fissions using neutrons), but is fissionable (i.e. captures a neutron and decays into something that is fissile, in this case U-233), therefore you need something to start the chain reaction and keep it going. Uranium-233 is actually more dangerous from a proliferation standpoint.

      I am disgusted, however, that the US invents all these wonderful technologies and other countries actually develop them.

      • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

        All ryan did was make himself look foolish.

        All this is on page 14 of the pdf if the idiot had bothered to look. Hubbert covered the uranium isotopes as well as plutonium & thorium.

        He even included a map of uranium and thorium ore sources in the U.S., which I have reproduced at the bottom of the OP.

  • renl57

    The Natural Resources Defense Council isn’t even waiting for commercial nuclear fusion to be developed.

    They’re already opposed to it. So is Greenpeace.

    And it’s interesting to see why. Their main argument against nuclear fusion is that the R&D for developing it could also be used for thermonuclear weapons (!!!).

    The movement against nuclear power (and now fusion power) began with the movement against nuclear weapons. And the same activists have been doing both, ever since.

    A whole lot of decent but uninformed citizens fear nuclear power for the same reasons they fear nuclear weapons: Fallout, “the military-industrial complex,” etc. They’re wrong, and advocates of nuclear power have done a poor job of making the distinction between civilian power and nuclear weapons clear to the general public. That enables the antinuclear activists to win by default.

    • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

      Dear scientists:
      1. Build working mass produced and fairly safe flying cars (Dukes of Hazzard style driving does not count)… I don’t care if I can’t afford it at first eventually I might…
      2. Figure out how to make personal backpack nuclear power generators that won’t kill the user (or the block they’re on).
      3. Get off the global warming bs and do something real and helpful for he species…

      Those my demands. I’ll be happy to see #3 if nothing else from the ones who are tax dollar sucking parasites who don’t do… you know – like useful stuff with the money they’ve been handed.

      /Back to other stuff…

  • ldmartin1959

    I recommend Petr Beckmann’s book “The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear” . The book was at one time published by a major publisher (I’d have to dig out my copy to be sure, but as I recall, it was either Ballentine or Bantam) then magically it disappeared over night from the book stores. Based on the publishing information giving in the Amazon listing, I’m guessing that it was republished privately by Beckmann before his death and that no publisher will touch it again. But it is definitely worth reading.

    One thing to keep in mind when reading the book is that Beckmann was not in the nuclear power industry and was not engaging in a form of self serving promotion. He was a scientist who undertook a study of the benefits and hazards of power generation in all it’s forms and concluded that nuclear power was by far the best choice for humanity.

  • citizenkh

    have long come out of shallow oil and gas wells. It is called NORM (naturally occurring radioactive material). ExxonMobil at one time had a lot of uranium mining near Corpus Christi, TX (more specifically George West, TX) from its oil/gas field there.

    Should a properly capitalized company be able to generate cheap and reliable electricity via Thorium, it would have been done already.

    Peak Oil – All you have to know about Peak Oil whackos is go to The Oil Drum. What a bunch of morons who follow that website. Sheesh.

    • acat

      is that a properly capitalized company would be building a “Nuclear Reactor”. (note scare quotes)

      The reactive NIMBY backlash, in the U.S. at least, would have made this difficult to impossible to pull off, and there’s been no reason to do so elsewhere in the world until recently….

      (I’ll just note here that China and India, both of whom are looking at thorium reactors, have national oil companies…. )

      Mew

    • juumanistra

      What do you mean by “properly capitalized”, precisely? One with sufficient fiscal wherewithal to endure a construction and permitting process on a new generating station that would see a child born yesterday getting a doctorate before a single kilowatt-hour of sellable power is produced? Because in the current regulatory environment, that is the time-scale of what someone wanting to build a conventional grid-level power station using a new fuel cycle would face. I suspect that, under such circumstances, no one is sufficiently well capitalized to build a thorium-burning reactor.

      Though while you will find no stauncher supporter of molten salt-fueled reactors than myself, I think a great many fans of thorium-burners tend to underestimate the technical problems facing commercialization, given the daunting materials science challenges posed by the higher outlet temperature MSFR variants and the truly formidable industrial chemistry necessitated by reprocessing.

  • johnt

    to be discovered, Israel being the latest to do so. And then there’s coal, and natural gas, and the Obama administration. Better stop there.

    • purplehelmetedwarrior

      The rate of discovery of provable reserves is in decline (especially for large, easy to reach oil fields). Meanwhile, as the economies of India and China continue to ramp up, the rate of consumption is on the rise.

      • tedpomeroy

        The fact is that the great land masses of Asia have never been fully explored for oil.

        do you think that the old Soviet Union did a good job of exploration with no profit motive? No.

        China? Fuggedabout it!

        I am willing to bet that Saudi Arabia has not done the job right because who has a profit motive? The royal family.

        Only US and British oil personnel have the right motivation!

  • tomatin

    Libtards are the worse on energy issues. With nuclear and fossil fuels we solve the energy crisis. You can even make gasoline from coal.

    It’s the biggest lie of our time.

    • http://stevemaley.com Steve Maley

      Stay tuned for a rundown on natural gas.

    • renl57

      There would be absolutely no reason for liberals to oppose natural gas.

      It’s a clean burning fuel.
      We’ve got it in abundance.
      It’s a proven technology, so they wouldn’t have to fund a Solyndra-type fly-by-night natural gas company.

      Except for one thing.

      Liberals are convinced that to fight global warming, ALL use of combustion fuels has to end. That’s an even bigger fantasy than socialism–what do we power our airplanes with–but you can’t talk liberals out of it, they’re impervious to reason on it.

      • trevorb

        opposing the pipeline, which can reduce our dependence on the Middle East. I’d much rather drill for it here, but if that’s not an option, I’d much rather buy oil from countries that are (relatively) friendly to us than ones who despise us.

        No, we have to go green! What do you mean, it isn’t economic? Pour more money into it!

  • mathias

    The hardcore peak oil conspiracy theorists believe that billions will die in the collapse of the oil economy. It is an odd, especially since they don’t support any existing alternative to oil. It is always some pie-in-the sky futurist alternative. I think it just flat out makes them feel good to express an apocalyptic vision of the world, one that they ascribe to the failure of capitalism and corporate leadership.

  • goodolboy

    The first prediction of running out of oil was in 1904. It was supposed to happen then. It didn’t.
    Did you ever think how many dinosaurs and plant material would have had to become oil to fill up one oil tanker and multiply that the number of tankers and amout of oil flowing thru pi;e lines? I doubt of there has been that amount or number that could have met the ideal criteria to decompose and become oil.
    Why is it that oil is found well below (thousands and thousands of feet) the earth’s strata where no fossils, plant matter, or any other organic material is found?
    There is a theory first advanced by a Russian and later adopted by some US scientists that the supply of oil is not finite and that it is being continually produced by reactions of the heat and reactions in the earth’s core which eventually push it toward the earth’s surface.
    Just some things to think about when folks talk about “running out of ‘fossil’ fuels”.

  • carolynr

    in the White House that understand energy, this country will be paying into a slush fund for Europeans under the name of carbon credits. Human production of carbon will not significantly affect anything. One volcano…does about a million years damage…and we haven’t died yet. Before I get on the energy kick. Think about this…they are not stopping many sources of energy throughout the world…they are trading carbon credits…meanwhile allowing the “supposed” perpetrator to go on burning “whatever”, i.e., slush fund.

    Concerning energy. (1) I do not believe that oil has peaked. (2) natural gas is abundant, cheap and clean. We use NG in commerical vehicles. What we need is a stabilizer in NG fuel for automobiles. (3) We have plenty of shale oil (Bakken Field). Canada came up with a process and it’s in TX right now, wherein they use gelled propane in lieu of water, wherein a bigger proportion of NG and oil shale is recovered along with ALL the propane that returns in a gaseous state. Some fracking companies are using water…too much environmental mess with that. (4) Nuclear is cheap, it can be disposed of and we should be using it. During WWII we built battleships and aircraft carriers…what’s the matter with building nuclear plans…JOBS?

    And…As usual…what candidate is best versed in this? Governor Perry.

    • onemovoter

      That I was going to make. What scientists are finding out about oil is that it’s not a “fossil fuel” as previously thought. It is actually made by the earth’s crust when several gases are crushed and heated together to fuse into oil. From there it seeps up through cracks in the crust to fill caverns underground.

      There have been reports of old oil wells that had been thought to be tapped out suddenly full again. They are trying to document the rate of some locations in how fast they are replenished.

      There is also other technology coming down the pike that use biological scrubbing type molecules that grab on to the remaining oil in tapped wells. This they figure could produce another trillion barrels of oil in just the US alone.

      Overall the energy policy that the US should adopt is one where no energy industry should get money from the Federal government. They should all have the same tax burden and a level playing field so that the government isn’t picking winners and losers. Of all the GOP candidates, only one so far has put out this kind of policy on energy. That happens to be Gov. Perry.

  • mrcoldwaterofrealityman

    Those wild liberals, the US military, have a slightly different take on this: http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA518100. See page 24.

    You can’t understand oil depletion without knowing the numbers. These are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil. I suggest you buy the book referenced in the site. Here are the short answers to the obvious questions:

    1) When do we run out of oil?

    Short answer: Never

    Long answer: We run out of affordable oil with a positive energy return in about 40 years, maximum. There’ll still be plenty in the ground. It will just no longer be worth getting.

    2) What’s the likelihood for a disruption-free transition to another energy source that can replace the energy output we currently enjoy from oil?

    Short Answer: Slim to none.

    Longer Answer: World supply chains for goods and services are dependent on money, energy (particularly oil) and each other. Cheap transportation for physical goods, worldwide is critically dependent on ONE power source (i.e. cheap oil). Even continued oil production depends on cheap oil. When oil gets too expensive or too scarce or returns too little energy, these supply chains will break. This break may be “permanent” from the point of view of anyone living today.

    3) Is this solvable?

    Short Answer: Yes

    Longer Answer: It won’t be solved by purely capitalist societies. Purely capitalist entities like corporations act a lot like bacteria colonies. They respond to the immediate monetary environment (which you need) but often don’t think ahead very far, or very well (Lehmans, AIG, Enron). That’s what governments are for. China, for all it’s horrendous flaws and faults is in a better position to address this because they can override short-term economic needs for long term gain. A system of purely electric trains that run on hydropower might not make economic sense *right now,* but will serve admirably in a situation in which petroleum is no longer viable as an *affordable* fuel source.

    4) Will it be solved?

    Short Answer: Yes

    Longer Answer: It will be “solved” by our using much less energy as a culture and individuals. We have about 20-40 years left of economically viable oil, depending on how enthusiastic we are in warfare and how much “technically” recoverable oil is actually recoverable with a positive energy return. There are lots of different energy technologies around, but none that scale with positive energy return (Algae, for example, is simply an inefficient solar collector with a direct chemical output as are solar hydrogen generators). We’ll use algae, biofuel, and anything else we can, of course, but all of it, taken together won’t run a civilization like the one we have now.

    Cheers!