Airbuster From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 403 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7603 times:
As the global oil reserve is becoming less and less and nearing a critical state within the coming decade what are you views on the impact this will have on the future of aviation in a whole?
A rough calculation i made about the yearly fuel consumption by the entire commercial fleet of aircraft is as follows, and please correct me because i bet this can be done more accurate:
Average fuel consumption per day per aircraft would be around 30 to 40 tons of fuel if we take 30 tons and multiply that by the global airliner fleet (roughly 25.000 acft) that gives us 30x25.000=750.000 tons wich (at a fuel density of 0.8) gives us 600.000.000 liters A DAY!! that times 365 = 2,19e+11 liters a year.............
Again i invite you to come with the most accurate figures available but this is an alarming rate and adding to this all the other oil consumption in the world doesn't make the future look to bright.
What are the alternatives to Jet A powered aircraft? And wich steps are already being taken (if any) to prevent a collapse of the best globalised transportation system in existence?
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4214 posts, RR: 29 Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7564 times:
It's estimated that prior to the industrial revolution, the Earth contained the equivalent of 12 trillion barrels of oil. For the past 100 years, we've consumed about 1 trillion of that total. It's estimated that in the next 50 years we'll consume another 1 trillion. That leaves 10 trillion left to be extracted. I'm not worried about running out of Jet A.
What we might eventually run out of is the oil that is near the surface and cheap to extract and refine. But I view that as a good thing because once that happens, it will become more economical to extract oil in other locations and conditions. And we'll no longer be so dependent on the Middle East, which is where most of that cheap, easy to refine, oil is.
All this "the sky is falling" mantra rarely takes into consideration the fact that oil from the Middle East is too plentiful and too cheap to ignore. Once its price goes up because of supply pressures (either from physical or political restrictions), the price of other reserves will become competitive and their supply will increase, eventually bringing their price down.
So have no fear, we'll all be flying our favorite Airbus and Boeing airplanes for decades to come.
Sparklehorse12 From Australia, joined Feb 2007, 884 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7550 times:
I would have to agree. The oil price is reflective of market manipulation not the reality of oil reserves. The war in Iraq was the first excuse then blame China and India for thier 'appetite" for energy....it's a load of rubbish. Oil companies are getting rich and funding very elaborate if not deceiptful campaigns to make you think there is a shortage....they themselves are restricting supply.
LaminarFlow From Canada, joined Aug 2007, 72 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7539 times:
While I feel very much the same, I am worried that ours is a dangerous perspective to hold. The remaining oil, while plenitiful, is very costly and environmentally harmful to extract at present (eg. Alberta oil sands).
I believe that the forthcoming oil crisis will be a prime catalyst for the development of fantastic new technologies introduced to the aviation industry. Pressure fosters ingenuity.
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 24 Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7521 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 1): What we might eventually run out of is the oil that is near the surface and cheap to extract and refine.
Correct. It is not so much the amount of oil in the ground that is of concern, but rather our ability to extract and use what remains economically.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 1): Once its price goes up because of supply pressures (either from physical or political restrictions), the price of other reserves will become competitive and their supply will increase, eventually bringing their price down.
Not necessarily. You're assuming that the supply from those alternative sources will exceed demand, and that is not at all likely.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 1): So have no fear, we'll all be flying our favorite Airbus and Boeing airplanes for decades to come.
Maybe. The cost of fueling those aircraft will rise, so we may not all be able to afford the ticket prices in decades to come. Future air traffic growth will be constrained by fuel costs.
RedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4214 posts, RR: 29 Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7500 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 4): Not necessarily. You're assuming that the supply from those alternative sources will exceed demand, and that is not at all likely.
You're right. My assumption was that supply will eventually outstrip demand. And that may happen, but it could be decades away.
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 4): Maybe. The cost of fueling those aircraft will rise, so we may not all be able to afford the ticket prices in decades to come. Future air traffic growth will be constrained by fuel costs.
Ah, but I wasn't referring to current generation aircraft. I just meant as the market evolves, so will Airbus' and Boeing's products. But we'll still be able to fly our favorite Airbus and Boeing planes far into the future, even if they are pedal-powered by the passengers. (But what I really meant is that they will continue to become more efficient and possibly run on a mix of alternative fuels.)
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 24 Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7494 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 5): My assumption was that supply will eventually outstrip demand. And that may happen, but it could be decades away.
And it might be the result of demand suppressed by high energy costs and consequent depression in economic activity. Mankind has enjoyed cheap and easy energy in the petroleum age - much will change in the future. I say that as a pragmatist, not a pessimist. We will adapt.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 5): But what I really meant is that they will continue to become more efficient and possibly run on a mix of alternative fuels.)
Agreed on both counts. Blended-Wing designs will provide a step-change in efficiency. Alternative fuels will likely play a huge role, but they will not be cheap.
Mike89406 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1335 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7463 times:
I suggest that people watch the show "Crude Awakening" which was shown on the Sundance Channel, and form you're own opinions. It did bring up some alarming things about oil and the industry and was thought provoking but is it all factual? Or does it lean towards Treehugger values? Thats my only concern.
I have to say whether or not you believe in this stuff global Warming etc. or you don't belive this show will open you're eyes to possible major pitfalls to the future of petroleum. Of course i watched it with an objective mind but learned some imprtant history as well.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11923 posts, RR: 100 Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7427 times:
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 1):
All this "the sky is falling" mantra rarely takes into consideration the fact that oil from the Middle East is too plentiful and too cheap to ignore. Once its price goes up because of supply pressures (either from physical or political restrictions), the price of other reserves will become competitive and their supply will increase, eventually bringing their price down.
I agree. Make fuel pricey enough, there is plenty out there to find. e.g., the fight for arctic drilling rights going on right now.
We also have the ability to "make" our own fuel. Theoretically, you can get oil from algea and certain bacteria. If someone figures out a way to "farm" oil... $$$$$.
Also, as far as diesel and Jet-A are concerned, do not forget that the US military has an active program to make JP-8 from coal. While less than ideal... it will supply fuel.
The pressure to improve fuel burn is immense. When oil was stuck at $25-$35/bbl, it was uneconomical to retire an aircraft before the maintenance expenses drove its "end of life." Now you are seeing the life of planes reduced due to the economics of their fuel burn.
There is so much that can be done to drop fuel burn. None of it easy engineering. So hire more Aerospace R&D engineers!
Yes. Guess right and there is huge money to be made.
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 6): Blended-Wing designs will provide a step-change in efficiency. Alternative fuels will likely play a huge role, but they will not be cheap.
I'm a huge fan of BWBs! Like biplanes, the current "cigar with wings" will be replaced. I believe by the BWB. It could be with a "lifting body." Not to mention engines. One day I believe fuel cells in the cargo hold will power electric motors out on the wings. The theoretical efficiency advantage is huge! Bummer that's a bit in the future... So get the Ph.D's working on it!
A society builds wealth on transportation. If you hunger down and hide from the world... there are billions that couldn't be fed without fossil fuels. People have been predicting the end of the world due to running out of resources forever.
Guess what, we've run out of those resources before! What? Wood. We cannot feed ourselves anymore cooking on wood and build our ships, bridges, and other things out of wood like we used to. Oh wait... we now farm fast growing pine... (vs. slow growing European woods). Nevermind...
Same with coal (read what London used to be like... yuck!).
This too shall pass. We'll figure out some alternative and laugh at how worried we were.
Travellin'man From United States of America, joined May 2001, 530 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7393 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 4): checkmark Correct. It is not so much the amount of oil in the ground that is of concern, but rather our ability to extract and use what remains economically.
Just to add to this, a concern is the balance of energy used to extract and refine the energy created. Currently that is in favor of the energy generated, but, without having seem economic models, I would venture that it could tip the other way, which will in turn greatly affect the economics. Societies that expend more energy than what they create end up collapsing generally.
There is a strong political concern that, when you consider that a lot of US foreign policy is directed towards the stewardship of our access to oil, what sort of indirect "tax" are Americans paying for this access to oil in the Middle East?
The other great concern are the indirect costs of putting carbon in the atmosphere. While not directly attributable to your plane ticket in terms of its cost, the impact of carbon emissions and the consequent rapid warming of our atmosphere (just to be pre-emptive here, this is about as close to a hard fact as one can get, with the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community in agreement that, any natural cycling of the planet's temperature aside, mankind's carbon emissions are radically heating the atmosphere and altering the climate) has costs that we all end up paying for in other ways. One of the challenges facing society as a whole, be it individuals in their consumption patterns, governments in their creation of policy, businesses in their assessments of best practices, scientists in their capacity to analyze and innovate, is how to incorporate this indirect cost into our thinking as a way to help spur innovation and ultimately an evolution towards cleaner technologies that are not only not damaging to the environment, but -egads!- perhaps even beneficial to us as a species, and to our surrounding planet. Of course these costs are harder to assess for being indirect.
It is not enough to be rude; one must also be incorrect.
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 24 Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7336 times:
Quoting Travellin'man (Reply 9): Just to add to this, a concern is the balance of energy used to extract and refine the energy created.
Good point. The vast amounts of oil potential in the Canadian oil sands, the US oil shales and Venezuela's Orinoco-belt heavy crude all fall into the category of huge volumes with diluted value in terms of cost and net energy extracted. The difficulty of the extraction also tends to limit the rate of production, regardless of demand. Production from the Canadian oil sands are limited by the amount of water available, for example.
Quoting Travellin'man (Reply 9): what sort of indirect "tax" are Americans paying for this access to oil in the Middle East?
Not to brag, but I've made good money with energy-related investments. Not even necessary to guess right, just diversify and the winners will be there in your portfolio.
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 8): I'm a huge fan of BWBs! Like biplanes, the current "cigar with wings" will be replaced.
I'm a fan too! One point I've tried to make in other threads is the necessity to change our thinking. Most of the objections to the BWB will ultimately be dismissed as the choice becomes "accept this or don't fly". We will collectively accept not having a window, taking an extra g acceleration during banking, and even the possibilty that we won't be able to get out of the thing in the event of a crash. Better to accept the trade-offs than not to fly at all. As I said, we'll adapt.
MMEPHX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7303 times:
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 4): Correct. It is not so much the amount of oil in the ground that is of concern, but rather our ability to extract and use what remains economically
keyword there is economically. Can we keep extracting oil cheaply enough to make it feasible and can we do it with less energy than is available in the extracted oil? At some point in the future it is likely one or more of the following occurs:
1) too expensive to extract oil and that the market won't pay. $250/barrel anyone?
2) It will take more energy to extract than the energy contained in the extracted oil
3) We'll actually run out completely (has to eventually but that could be hundreds or thousands of years away)
1 & 2 are probably more likely and that, plus global warming is probably what will drive the push for alternate fuels for aviation. These could be scenarios that happen within the next 20 years or so.
Hmmmm... From Canada, joined May 1999, 2095 posts, RR: 5 Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7284 times:
There is plenty of oil to last another 50 years, maybe 100. Recovering oil under the sea will become just as cost effective as recovering oil from the middle east when technology makes it feasible. Technology requires money. Money comes from the initial high cost of the oil. Everything is relative. When oil was first discovered over a hundred years ago, it was not cheap or easy to get it out of the ground then either. But we got better at it, and the price became affordable. That dynamic will always repeat itself. The oil companies have had no need to invest in that technology up til now.
And remember, the price you pay at the pump is about twice what it would be if the oil didn't come from a politically unstable part of the world. There is a security premium build into the price of gas that has nothing to do with the cost of drilling it out of the ground. Speculators decide the price you pay. Oil that is pumped from the sea, and not from the arab nations, will be a stable supply, eliminating the speculator's security premium. Oil from the sea could end up being cheaper to supply to the gas stations if the oil companies wanted to be fair. Of course, they don't, they will pocket that dividend, but at least the price will be stable.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
InnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 15 Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 7185 times:
This thread is based on a false premise, therefore there is no need to answer.
However, as a note: 90% of the available oil is held by state-run companies (e.g. Venezuela, Mexico, Saudi Arabia). Often, as is the case with Mexico, the capacity is barely being touched because of gross inefficiencies with the state-run bureaucracy. If they were to get out of the way and privatize that exploration and production, you would see supplies leap and prices go down.
Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5727 posts, RR: 35 Reply 15, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7145 times:
Oil supplies will not be a factor in out lifetime. However, carbon emissions already are an increasing factor and that is going to have an impact on the industry going forward.
Quoting Airbuster (Thread starter): Again i invite you to come with the most accurate figures available but this is an alarming rate and adding to this all the other oil consumption in the world doesn't make the future look to bright.
The consumption rate will almost certainly decrease by the end of the next decade for a number of reasons. More fuel effcient aircraft such as the 787 will replace older aircraft. If you look at a global fleet breakdown there are still a lot of older aircraft that will be retired within the next 10 years (except NWA DC-9s ).
Furthermore, fuel saving practices such as SRB's "tug to the "starting grid" will be implemented, etc. As well, as elements of the FAA's NextGen ATM system comes online (with an expected completion of before 2025), airline fuel savings will really become very significant.
Finally, there will be consolidation globally in the industry during the next 2 decades that will contribute to the reduction of fuel use.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Cobra27 From Slovenia, joined May 2001, 1001 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7123 times:
I am sure that all modes of transportation in the future will use electric motors, maybe linear classic rotor to turn the fan. they are highly efficient and the most reliable and cheap to produce,quiet, can rev up quickly... the trick is only to store enough electricity. In the distant future we will have even better stuff
A jet engine will run on pretty much anything that burns. You can get Jet-A-like substances from coal, biodiesel, crude, etc. If you have a good supply of cheap electricity, you can fabricate it from scratch...the isn't very energy efficient, but it's not like we can't make hydrocarbons if we need them.
Quoting Airbuster (Thread starter): And wich steps are already being taken (if any) to prevent a collapse of the best globalised transportation system in existence?
This is exactly what's driving the big jump in efficiency of the next generation of jet liners. Several manufacturers are also looking at biofuels, coal-derived fuels, and fuel cells.
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 1): the Earth contained the equivalent of 12 trillion barrels of oil. For the past 100 years, we've consumed about 1 trillion of that total. It's estimated that in the next 50 years we'll consume another 1 trillion. That leaves 10 trillion left to be extracted.
Not really...current technology can, at best, get about 25% of the oil out of any particular resevoir. Obviously, that will go up with technology, but it's an asymptotic problem so we'll never be able to extract all of the oil that's in the ground.
EXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7085 times:
Quoting Airbuster (Thread starter): As the global oil reserve is becoming less and less and nearing a critical state within the coming decade what are you views on the impact this will have on the future of aviation in a whole?
I disagree with the premise..there is plenty of oil, we should get off oil for political and environmental reasons
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11923 posts, RR: 100 Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7062 times:
Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 12): So you are predicting we will return to prop flight? Not likely.
Props? No. Shrouded fans, yes. Big difference. But fuel cells have a theoretical fuel efficiency far above gas turbines. Same flight mach number. For all a hi-bypass gas turbine engine is a big shrouded fan.
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 10): We will collectively accept not having a window, taking an extra g acceleration during banking, and even the possibilty that we won't be able to get out of the thing in the event of a crash. Better to accept the trade-offs than not to fly at all. As I said, we'll adapt.
We will adapt.
As to evacuation, I see no reason why it cannot be fixed. (e.g., tunnels to overwing exits.)
No windows? I'd rather have a IFE tied to half dozen cameras to choose from!
As to the banking G's... no real issue. Too much fuel to be saved. Don't like it? Pay extra for a centerline seat.
Note: That centerline seat on a BWB will be cheaper than any seat on a "cigar with wings."
That's a bold assertion. We cannot know that the cost of future oil extraction will come down at all, much less that it will ever be so cheap as to be comparable to our past experience. I think it's pretty clear that petroleum will be more expensive in the future, and the only debatable point is how much more expensive.
Quoting Hmmmm... (Reply 13): Oil that is pumped from the sea, and not from the arab nations, will be a stable supply, eliminating the speculator's security premium.
Exactly what "oil from the sea" are you thinking of? There are offshore reserves, certainly, but where on Earth are there reserves that rival the Middle East?
Quoting InnocuousFox (Reply 14): Often, as is the case with Mexico, the capacity is barely being touched because of gross inefficiencies with the state-run bureaucracy.
This assumes that, with investment, sufficient oil reserves would be located in order to increase production. In actual fact Mexico's largest field (the Cantarell) is in undeniable decline - they would need massive investment in exploration just to sustain production, much less increase it. Link: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/mx/ (note: that is a "peak oil" website, but the article includes many supporting links for reference). Bottom line is that there is no reasonable expectation that any reserve as large as Cantarell could be located, and lacking that Mexican oil production will continue to decline. This is pretty much the case in every developed oil region. We still find new fields in the US, but overall production has steadily declined.
You cannot pump more oil out the ground just by throwing money at it. At some point, there is a maximum sustainable rate of production from any oil field, and that production inevitably reaches a point of decline. Advancing technology has mostly helped to increase the ultimate total oil extracted, but not so much to increase the rate of production.
Consider the case where oil production doesn't decline, but just stays roughly where it is today. That alone stifles the doubling or tripling of air traffic that Airbus and Boeing predict. All growth will be enabled by fuel efficiency rather than with new supplies. Fuel efficient aircraft such as the A350 and B787 will thrive, while regional jets will disappear. I predict a new generation of small turboprops in the future, and sooner than we think.
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 15): Oil supplies will not be a factor in out lifetime. However, carbon emissions already are an increasing factor and that is going to have an impact on the industry going forward.
While I disagree that oil supplies are not a concern, your point is well taken. It doesn't much matter if we don't have enough oil vs. not able/willing to burn it. The economic effects are essentially the same, except that in the latter case we have control over events. If "peak oil" is real, events will control us.
Quoting Tdscanuck (Reply 17): It's not particularly alarming when you consider that aviation is only a small chunk of the overall oil-consumption pie. Other industries will be hit harder, faster.
You're thinking of fuel supply alone. If the cost of energy continues to rise, the cumulative effect on the worldwide economy will certainly affect aviation. The airlines will be able to obtain fuel, at a cost, but fewer passengers will be willing/able to pay the price of the ticket.
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 19): No windows? I'd rather have a IFE tied to half dozen cameras to choose from!
Heartily agree. I'd add some processing to merge the images from those cameras and create a virtual sphere of vision. You would have freedom to scroll your IFE video in any direction at all....almost like being the bird itself!
Tan Flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1881 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6966 times:
Quoting Sparklehorse12 (Reply 2): I would have to agree. The oil price is reflective of market manipulation not the reality of oil reserves. The war in Iraq was the first excuse then blame China and India for thier 'appetite" for energy....it's a load of rubbish. Oil companies are getting rich and funding very elaborate if not deceiptful campaigns to make you think there is a shortage....they themselves are restricting supply.
Oil is a commodity that is traded, with supplies coming from a myriad of sources. However, as 1 poster above noted, a sizable chunk come from either unstable areas (politically) or state run oil companies whose only mission is to enrich the coffers of their respective owners. Add these 2 to the inept ones (pemex) and you have a problem in this area.
Now if you look at the free market, even in North America you have several projects at increasing either supply of crude or refined products or both. As noted above, huge investments in canadian tar sands..so much production will be coming that Canadian oil producers are looking for places to refine this goo..thus Husky Energy's perchase of the Lima, OH refinery from Valero and plans to INVEST up to 2 billion to upgrade it to crack Canadian crudes. Same with En Cana and Conoco-Phillips..big project at Woods River ,IL same objective. I recall reading that BP is looking at ways to take Canadian crude into its' Whiting, In refinery and marathon is doing the same for its plants at Robinson, Il and St.Paul, MN
marathon is alo adding 180,000 BPD capacity to the plant at Garyville, LA, and EXXOn is looking at 3 billion to upgrade the plant at Baton Rouge, LA. There are others. (Irving oil , Canada is considering bulding a 300,000 BPD refinery in halifax to supply gasoline to the NE US as there is no way a US company could ever build a new plant of that size. So our Canadian buddies get those jobs.
There are 3 items to look at, RELIABLE supplies, Affordable prices (world market), and refining capacity. We must look at short term (5-20 yrs) projects to increase supplies for a continually growing economy and world population thirsty for petroleum products and a longer term to get a better mix of synthetics, ethanol, etc to mix to maintain a global economy that we can afford.
Planemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 5727 posts, RR: 35 Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6945 times:
Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 19): As to the banking G's... no real issue. Too much fuel to be saved. Don't like it? Pay extra for a centerline seat.
I agree, no real issue... but it won't be just because there is too much fuel to be saved.. There just won't be any need to generate banking G's that exceed today's accepted values!
Quoting TeamAmerica (Reply 20): While I disagree that oil supplies are not a concern, your point is well taken.
I've always enjoyed discussing this topic with you! We'll just have to continue to respectfully agree to disagree!
But even if oil supplies were a concern, all it would do is spur political action on the one hand and development of alternatives on the other hand that much quicker!
I am optimistic that we'll get it right... eventually. Though at times progress is painlfully slow, there really seems to be a coalescing of disparate groups that will make the required changes happen (James Woolsley's "unholy alliance").
But as for peak oil... we've passed so many dates that predicted it that it is now a risk to even guess when it might happen during that next 30 years. A blog that I read had this to say about peak oil...
I know a lot of people believe the peak is on top of us. Some are suggesting that it occurred in the 4th quarter of last year. At one time I had compiled a dozen different peak predictions based on rigorous studies. Nine of the twelve predicted a peak between now and 2016. Another (Shell, I believe) predicted a peak around 2025. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicted a peak around 2037, and one study essentially predicted we will never peak.
You might enjoy it... the blogger is very respected and also writes for the Oil Drum.
Quoting Tan Flyr (Reply 21): There are 3 items to look at, RELIABLE supplies, Affordable prices (world market), and refining capacity. We must look at short term (5-20 yrs) projects to increase supplies for a continually growing economy and world population thirsty for petroleum products and a longer term to get a better mix of synthetics, ethanol, etc to mix to maintain a global economy that we can afford.
4th item to look at... that is cheaper and easier than all other 3 items you listed... conservation!! We could cut consumption down by 10% overnight just by adapting a few measures!
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
TeamAmerica From United States of America, joined Sep 2006, 1761 posts, RR: 24 Reply 23, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6924 times:
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 22): There just won't be any need to generate banking G's that exceed today's accepted values!
True! All that is needed is to provide flight control programming that holds the G's within limits during normal flight. There would only be a handful of noise abatement flight paths and such that would be problematic. The Potomac approach to DCA would be interesting in a BWB.
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 22): But as for peak oil... we've passed so many dates that predicted it that it is now a risk to even guess when it might happen during that next 30 years
Also true. I don't share the doomsday pessimism of some peak oil commentators, but my observation is that at best oil production is not keeping pace with demand. We don't need to be on a downslope to produce most of the effects posters have mentioned. Demand for more fuel efficient aircraft and alternative fuels will be driven by economics...no doomsday required.
Quoting Planemaker (Reply 22): You might enjoy it... the blogger is very respected and also writes for the Oil Drum.
Khobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (6 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 6924 times:
If the price of oil reaches a critical state, alternative forms of energy will take over. We saw evidence of this recently when the price of oil was talked about hitting $80, $100, $120 a barrel. When the price climbed just a bit too much there was all kinds of talk about alternative energy - hell, the environmentalists are even talking favourably about nuclear power now - OPEC reversed itself and suddenly the price dropped by a substantial amount just to keep people happy. Suddenly China and India aren't so much the problem.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - when the price of oil goes up substantially because some joker in Iran stubbed his toe, something is seriously wrong. Yet no one seems to care. Perhaps because, oddly enough, the oil companies and environmentalists find themselves on the same side - the oil companies want high prices because of the profits, and environmentalists want high prices because it tends to lead to conservation and a general changing of ones way of life.
25 Planemaker: Ahhhh... but another benefit of BWB is that it is a "silent" aircraft and won't have noise abatement issues... The 'Silent' Aircraft Initiative has a
26 Hmmmm...: Just one example. There is as much oil under the Arctic ocean as there is in all of the Middle East. The Middle East is actually becoming dry after 6
27 Ikramerica: I was born in the 70s, and the same exact thing was being said 30 years ago. We wouldn't make it out of the next decade. Then, 10 years later, we exp
28 Lightsaber: Awww... you're no fun! Very quiet. Although, I disagree about feeding an engine from the aircraft boundary layer! But slower landing speeds remarkabl
29 Jdevora: Some of the prototypes for the next gen planes are "open rotor", not sure if this is a type of "prop" or if it is considered something different Some
30 TeamAmerica: Inventories are falling - the drawdown of stocks is masking possible shortfalls. As for prices, it is interesting that oil at $70/bbl is no longer co
31 Planemaker: I know... I can be such a killjoy at times! Ah... trade-offs, trade-offs... they looked at podded as well... The impact of inlet loss on engine perfo
32 N231YE: Supposedly, we have already hit peak oil, according to a report not-too-long ago. The future is with bio-fuels, but as stated, those will be expensive
33 Mike89406: I realized when I posted my response I would get the aforementioned response on my reply #7 Having said all of that I also mainly stressed having an
34 TeamAmerica: Correct, but the resilience of the economy today vs. the "stagflation" of the 1970's is remarkable. Oil was above the long-term inflation-adjusted av
35 Simps747: I'm not too worried. As has been stated previously, the two factors that are really going to dictate oil prices and supply are availability to access,
36 Travellin'man: The issue is not how close peak oil is or isn't. The issue is that our dependence on carbon based fuels is screwing up the environment in an ever incr
37 Hmmmm...: This is how economies function. Look at the huge increase in gas prices the last 7 years. Yet at the same time, the economy has been going from stren
38 Lightsaber: Interesting. It looks to be an interesting design... For that configuration there could be some remarkable benefits. However, before that complicated
39 RedFlyer: You're absolutely right and I did not mean to infer that we'll have acess to all of the Earth's oil. Even with the best of technologies, we'll be abl
40 Lightsaber: Just a nitpick, they stick to theoretical. A bounda ry layer ingestion has far worse performance than a normal inlet (say compared to the L1011 which
41 Planemaker: Here is an interesting graph... Here is a good look at the problem...
42 Tdscanuck: There's another trick...weight. Electric motors are ferociously heavy with today's technology. Superconductors will help, but we're a long way from a
43 Joni: I think we can define the point where we've run out of oil as the point where it takes more than one barrel to extract one barrel from the ground. Or
44 Sebolino: This a big mistake. Oil is extracted only when the pressure is high enough. It's why the vast majority of the oil conatined in the earth will never b
45 JFK787NYC: Go invest in OIL Stocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
46 TeamAmerica: As Planemaker has pointed out, when you adjust for inflation oil/gasoline prices are not even at an all-time high. My observation is that people (in
47 EA772LR: so true. this also is very true. I think while oil may be much more abundant in some hard-to-reach areas geographically, I think just as we're being
48 Planemaker: I agree. Most people look at the numbers out of context and don't understand the underlying facts. As we have both pointed out, real oil prices are n
49 Hmmmm...: People are not cringing. They complain but they consume anyway, which is the psychology of the market, as I said. For people to stop buying gas guzzl
50 TeamAmerica: In regards to buying gasoline that is true - people complain more than they conserve. There is a consequence, though, and people are buying less of s
51 Planemaker: Interesting that you both use different terms - air travel and air traffic, with different meanings, though you may have been referring to the same i
52 Gbfra: Perhaps the future of aviation will look like this: http://www.postershop.co.uk/Cote-Jea...Paris-Bordeaux-Airbus-1233648.html
53 Gsosbee: From 30 years in the oil exploration and refining business: * Crude is a commodity which means by default it is subject to human manipulation. We are
54 Planemaker: Yes, mainly by vertically integrated oil companies.
55 Ncelhr: I earlier this year, I have spent 4 months studying Peak Oil & the possibility of oil running out, as part of a strategic study group for an organisat
56 Gsosbee: An incorrect statement. Crude oil prices are set by the commody markets. Non-government owned vertically integrated oil companies buy and sell crude
57 Ps76: I also think that oil should be the last option people choose because of environmental effects. As pilots/aviation enthusiasts it's easy to see how th
58 Flanker: We wont run out any time soon. Dont fall victim to the drive by media and the libs. Theres plenty of oil to go around.
59 Wingnut767: Enough of the global warming tripe (hype). The thread is not about Al Bore's man made global warming charade. The post is about the future of oil res
60 TeamAmerica: I'm thinking of seatmiles flown. How that breaks down in terms of size of aircraft, length of segments flown and the overall motivation for travel is
61 Ncelhr: We don't disagree with each other. I think I might have not made myself completely clear. You are 100% corect with regards to the diamond market. Whe
62 Ps76: Then please enlighten us with some thoughts on the subject. Or do you just post insults. P.
63 TeamAmerica: Agreed. Air travel is relatively expensive; for most of the world's population it is and will remain a rarity. Projections for future growth in aviat
64 TeamAmerica: Yikes! All that and "Peace through superior firepower" as your signature. Argument over - you win!
65 Lehpron: From a fuel efficiency standpoint, automobiles waste more fuel than an airplane ever would. The average airplane carries 200pax, travels at least 5000
66 Wingnut767: Temperature Record of the Week Temperature Record of the Week is from Dixon, IL. During the period of most significant greenhouse gas buildup over th
67 Wingnut767: I was not insulting you. Just Al Gore I happen to agree with your above statements.. Particulary the Bio fuels. Ethanol is energy negative and puts t
68 Planemaker: " target=_blank>http://www.friendsofscience.org/inde...ide=4 You do know, don't you, that the "real" scientists in the above links have been funded by
69 Wingnut767: Do you have links to back that up? Do you have any real studies that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that man made CO2 is causing the temps to rise.
70 TeamAmerica: This thread is not about global warming (nor politics) so jeers were in order for that alone. Beyond that, your open disregard for actual science eff
71 Wingnut767: Yes Sir . Right away. And I did not hijack it. I just pointed out the posts that had to dump global warming onto the conversation on global oil reser
72 Prebennorholm: All aviation in the world consumes roughly 3% of the total oil consumption. "All aviation" = cargo and passenger airliners, military and private aviat
73 NorthStarDC4M: ok since no one else dropped this fact: Gas Turbines (aka Jet Engines) will burn almost anything with some design changes. Before the fall of the USSR
74 Planemaker: Yes, there are quite a few links and sources of information out there in fact... and the people & organizations behind the links you posted are a com
75 Isitsafenow: There is lots of oil still down there. Problem is getting it up here. Michigan as extracted only 30 percent since the 1920's from the ground. The rest
76 Baron95: This is not the issure it seems to be. It won't be an impediment to continuing to extract oil economically. Let me give you an example. Lets say we d
77 Baroque: There seems to be a problem on this thread with what is being quoted as reserves. Unfortunately, this is not entirely simple. In general 1P is what y
78 Baron95: I think that will never happen. First China and India have recently experienced a very fast groth rate (though the official 10%+ rates are grossly ex
79 Tdscanuck: Sorry, I should have been clearer on that. I was talking total oil-in-place, not 1P reserves. I was thinking of Thunder Horse (BP), Atlantis (BP), Sh
80 Baroque: Quick reply is, I thought that was probably the case. Longer reply is I will see if I can dig out the current 1P or whatever they are admitting to!!
81 Tdscanuck: That's the theory, although Thunder Horse took a severe beating during Katrina (which it should have been fine for) that nearly flipped it over (ball
82 Iwok: Factually, this statement is incorrect, but the thread is still a good idea. I believe that bio diesel when made from bio waste is a good idea to rep
83 Flitemax: I know this might be considered off-topic: It's very conceivable that the single largest threat to commercial aviation in the next 100 years won't be
84 NorthStarDC4M: Coal Gas/Liquified Coal Products are yet another technology that is coming into economic pricing. And they have a nice advantage... coal gas burns CL
85 TeamAmerica: You assume that people who disagree with you are robots and then decry stifling conversation? Interesting. As for your "science", Planemaker already
86 Khobar: Tahiti is said to be good for between 3 and 15 BBO. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...601087&sid=a2PzS4ei4n84&refer=home Thunder Horse is said t
87 Lumberton: Not Tahiti alone. This is from the bloomberg article: It goes on to say: Who names these things?
88 TeamAmerica: Increasing recovery from existing reservoirs equates to producing from a given field longer. That doesn't directly address the problem of production
89 Planemaker: Just out of interest, where did you get this "fact"? And, you do realize that, if only 10% of Chinese and Indians VFR... that number is still over 25
90 Ncelhr: Thanks to all participants for coming up with a really interesting read. Thanks for Airbuster to come up with the thread! Alas, there seems to be not
91 Khobar: Thanks for the correction. Except production is not falling short of demand. Production of some types of oil are falling short of demand, but this ha
92 TeamAmerica: Not falling behind, yet. That's the root of my concern - not that oil will run out, but rather that production will not meet future demand. Even disr
93 Mrocktor: Oil is not running out. Use of oil is not responsible for any significant environmental effect on the global scale. The cost of oil is increasing beca
94 TeamAmerica: "Absolutely no risk"? What in this world is as certain as that? Actual fact: if new oil reservoirs are not discovered, we will certainly run out of e
95 Tdscanuck: Depends on the company. It's normal to give a meaningless name to exploratory wells because the oil companies want to keep the physical location of t
96 Isitsafenow: No it isn't. He is as factual as can be in his post. We have oil...we are awash in it and there is lots more where that came from but its deep and it
97 Baron95: I never claimed it as a "fact". But from my personal observation (from traveling 150-250K miles annually overseas) and my reading of multiple english
98 Planemaker: Sorry, but that is just not true. Without legislation we would be drowing in pollution... think London in the 50s and 60s and LA in the 70s and 80s f
99 TeamAmerica: If we require that every post be overly exacting the whole of A.Net will become unreadable. Demand for oil is relatively inflexible (e.g. there is no
100 Baron95: Thanks for this sentence. In one paragraph you were able to sinthesize what I couldn't do it in a full page. Again, thank you. exactly right. Just le
101 TeamAmerica: There is no practical difference between "no oil" and "no oil that you can afford". In terms of this thread (oil usable as aviation fuel) you are mak
102 Prebennorholm: Huh, the day when the US of A runs out of lawyers, that will be the days the oceans have run out of water.
103 Planemaker: Thank you for that "vast, vast, vast, vast" personal observation. But It hasn't proved meaningful or factual since... if "the vast, vast, vast, vast
104 ER757: Add in to the above the amount of energy required to extract energy from oil shale and oil sands. It quickly becomes a zero sum game. I could be wron
105 Baron95: That is one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is the oil exporters are dependent on the US to buy 60% of their exports. I tend to think
106 Baroque: No, no no!! There I was loaded up with a para from that article into clipboard when the ever alert Lumberton does it for me!! That is another of the
107 Planemaker: I am very surprised at such a sophomoric reply... you really do know very little about economics and geopolitics. Another piece of data???? Just like