PDA

View Full Version : Oil and the future


Kapitan
03-13-22, 10:37 AM
Oil has been traded for millennia, the ancient Mediterranean civilisations traded olive oil in amphora for goods and service , but it has only been recently that the black gold of today has become the life blood of our society and vital for our transport networks.
Crude oil is non-renewable, like coal it can be highly polluting, it also requires cautious handling and meticulous processing in order to be refined into a substance we can use in our every day lives.

Crude oil comes in many forms and to many in the General public they have a limited understanding of the substance and even what types of products oil is in.
Indeed you will find many people who question why we have to ship millions of tons of the black stuff half way around the world when nations have reserves in their own country.

The general public often uses the General term oil to denote a wide range type of oil, But oil itself is not a single entity, depending on the region it is found will depend on the type and quality of oil.
Oils from different regions have their own unique properties and they do vary dramatically from one to another which means they have to be refined in different ways to produce what we need.
Crude oil comes in different colours, viscosity, volatility and toxicity the definitions are as follows:

Colours: The various colours go from very light brown to extremely dark black
Viscosity: How resistant to flow the oil is usually measured at room temperature
Volatility: How quickly the oil evaporates into the air determines how volatile the product is
Toxicity: Defines how dangerous to life and environment

The four main classes of crude oil

There are many types of Oil out there in fact over 150, many who trade on the stock market will know that there’s the generic term oil is based on the West Texas Index (WTI) which sets the international traded price per barrel.
Then there’s individual types of oil that can be traded, the types of oil depend on the region it was formed, for example the best quality oil can be found in the Persian Gulf region and this oil can be refined into many products Whereas, the Canadian oil sands is a much heavier product and can only be refined into certain heavy fuel oils, tar and bitumen substances.

Class A light and volatile Oils and distillates

Light sweet crude is a type of oil that has a low sulphur content it can be found in many regions predominantly the middle east, Africa, Asia and Arabia but also North America, North Sea and Russia.
It is the most sought-after oil as it is the easiest to refine and produces high quality Kerosene, Petroleum, Diesel products among others.

Light crude such as Brent crude have a higher sulphur content than light sweet crude but it still flows freely at room temperature, and like light sweet crude can be refined into high quality fuels like petroleum, kerosene and diesel.

Class B Light oils and distillates or Non sticky oils

Typically the most common oil found, it does have a higher sulphur content, they have lower volatility than the other types, its slightly harder to refine and has a higher viscosity.
While this type of crude can be refined to make Petroleum products you will mainly find this type in plastics, paraffin and also being used in marine fuel.

Class C Medium and Heavy fuel oils also known as Sticky oils / distillates

Less toxic than class B oils this type of oil is can come from residual oil refinement, but it can also be taken out of the ground.
In Alberta Canada this oil is in abundance in the Oil sands region, but unlike the other types of oil it is mined not pumped.
Class C oils go into making plastics and heavy fuel oils as well as tar and bitumen products, it can also be refined again to create a class D oil.

Class D Non Fluid Oils

These are generally what’s left over after being refined, these are often solids and come from the heavier crude oil refinement process.
A class D oil is dense and often a solid until heated, Paraffin is a good example of a class D oil.
Peak oil production

Back in the 1950s Marion Hubbert described what peak oil was, he showed that the United States would eventually reach peak production in the 1970’s and he was correct in this assumption.
Peak oil is the term used to describe maximum out put then a decline in production, and just as Hubbert predicted in the 1950’s the USA would reach this point in the 1970s and indeed it did.

Production maxed out at 10 million barrels per day and slowly declined, however the hypothesis was proved incorrect as Hubbert had not taken into account several key factors such as offshore oil and new discoveries, in 2017 the USA once again hit 10 million barrels a day and as of 2021 the USA produced 16.5 million barrels per day.

But that’s not to say the hypothesis is wrong just premature, indeed eventually global peak oil production will happen.
With a growing global population and also more demand on energy and resources to create products from raw materials the process will likely speed up, many now predict that peak oil will take place sometime between 2030-2040.


What does this mean for the transport and supply chain industry

All our transport in one form or another runs predominantly off oil products, trucks, trains, ships and planes all use oil products in one form or another.
With almost the entire transport network operating off oil products and peak oil now predicted in 2030-2040 is it not time to start looking at alternatives?

There are many alternative fuels out there yet each have their own problems, some require more energy to produce than they actually give out, some are highly volatile, and other impractical or not sustainable.

Natural gas has been ear marked as a substitute but like the fuel oils used it is a polluter, it is also not renewable and highly volatile, with all that in mind is it worth constructing infrastructure to support the use of this fuel which will likely only be a short-term fix.
Hydrogen is another fuel option, but again can be highly volatile, its use in fuel cells however provide a decent energy source and is not a polluter.

Ethanol is produced from grains it is also used as a fuel for vehicles Brazil is currently one of the world leaders in using this fuel but, to roll out this fuel it would require substantial quantities of crops being diverted from feed and the food chain to create which in turn would put a lot of strain on the agricultural industry as well as the food supply network.

With the prospect of Oil running out in the mid term future these three fuels offer some limited alternative, they also require massive investments in new infrastructure to support the distribution of the fuels.

This leaves us in the Transport and supply chain industry with a big dilemma, with Oil predicted to reach peak production in 2030-40 what viable, sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives are there?

I am sure we all have our opinions and views on this subject and id argue that now is the time we start to formulate an answer to the following question:

With Oil production predicted to peak in 2030-40 what long term sustainable, viable and eco friendly options are there in order to keep the transport and supply chain network functioning beyond 2100?

Skybird
03-13-22, 11:01 AM
Nothing wrong in going electircal, I only strongly queston the strategy run by now to get maintain "electromobility", which imo is probaly the stupidiest way in which it could be done. I also question the strong trend for planned economy, and centralised command economy that comes dressed as "ecology friendly" and "electricty-supportive" policy.


We also should be honest, electromobility is not free of ecological costs either. Mining some of the base ressources needed for producing batteries and electric sysstem and cars and engines, is amongst the dirtiest businesses we run. The calculations the advertsising shows to convince sceptics of how much better it is, ecologoically, than gas-driven cars, are very questionable imo, and to say they do not convince me would be an understatement.



You want to reduce mankind's ecological footprint it leaves on the planet? Start with realising that there are too man consumers of thigns and stuff.


WE ARE TOO MANY (tm).



A global population not bigger than 1 to 1.5 billion, maximum. Not before then does it make sense to talk about real longterm strategies. 8 Billion? 12? 14 billion? Forget it.

Kapitan
03-13-22, 11:05 AM
Nothing wrong in going electircal, I only strongly queston the strategy run by now to get maintain "electromobility", which imo is probaly the stupidiest way in which it could be done. I also question the strong trend for planned economy, and centralised command economy that comes dressed as "ecology friendly" and "electricty-supportive" policy.


We also should be honest, electromobility is not free of ecological costs either. Mining some of the base ressources needed for producing batteries and electric sysstem and cars and engines, is amongst the dirtiest businesses we run. The calculations the advertsising shows to convince sceptics of how much better it is, ecologoically, than gas-driven cars, are very questionable imo, and to say they do not convince me would be an understatement.



You want to reduce mankind's ecological footprint it leaves on the planet? Start with realising that there are too man consumers of thigns and stuff.


WE ARE TOO MANY (tm).



A global population not bigger than 1 to 1.5 billion, maximum. Not before then does it make sense to talk about real longterm strategies. 8 Billion? 12? 14 billion? Forget it.

Indeed you raise some good points here with electro mobility, Id also point out how would the increased demand for electricity be met with the current network and infrastructure.

Also with many grids operating close to 100% at peak times could the current network sustain the extra capacity?

What fuels would the generation plant use to create this extra power? seems to me that wind solar and hydro would be sufficient so would we in this case go nuclear?

Platapus
03-13-22, 11:09 AM
I think that strategically, fossil fuels should only be used for power plants that move, such as automobiles and aircraft. The energy to mass of fossil fuels makes this attractive.


For those power plants that don't move, alternate fuel such as natural gas. geothermal, nuclear thermal, hydro, and the like. The energy to mass of these fuel sources makes them better suited for non mobile power plants.



As for oil supplies, when there is a resource with such a strong strategic value, there is wisdom in using other country's sources first and to conserve your own. Relatively soon, the middle east will start to run out of oil and therefore will become less relevant.


It may be more expensive in the short term, but the long term effects may justify the expense.



You do not want to be the first country to run out of oil, but the last country to.



In the mean time, efforts should be focused on either finding new energy sources or in how to use existing fuel resources better.

Skybird
03-13-22, 11:51 AM
The house community where I live has six appartments of which I own one. Us owners must replace he oil heating 2025 at the latest, its ogligatory by law then (age) although the oven still has exceptionally good numbers on emissions durign every year's checkup: its insane to replace it right now, the alternatives so far are only an economic desaster: either gas (no comment), or heat pump for which the substance of the house in no way is suited for and whiuch is making us even more dpeending on elöectircity with its soaring costs in germany (Germany has the highest tax load and the highest electricity costs worldwide) . Worse, the floor of the roof deck has been isolated, but the govenrment now wants to make it mandatory that 55 or 65 percent of the heating system installed must be photovoltaic. The roof is simple tiles, non-isolated, we have installed he floor instead (lewss costs, way more heat saving efficiency), which brings a thosuand times more effect for the buck. Now we would need to install the roof isolation as well so that we can (=must) install solar panels on it, the bill for all that would be over 300 thousand coins if also counting the new heater and the needed new pipes, wall isolation (that we do not want due to the rotting bad climate these cause). For two owners the costs are ruinous, they say they cannot play them, and they are old, they do not get credit from a bank anymore. The subsidies by the state are such that even after 20+ years the costs would not have been amortized. And this financial planning all bases on the current status and does not reflect growing inflation and subsidies schemes getting slashed, and the exploding costs for components and transportation. The ciosts in 2025 could be severla tens of percent higher again. Its a nightmare,ma dn no matter how you caölculate it, it just doe snot calculate reaosnable and well.

The best joke: we have had two, and then a third "energy advisor" who claimed all that expert that they are (the title in not protected by law in Germany) they can assess the energetic status of the house and what it brings us if we invest this and that. Well, the span between the best and the worst status assessment spanned out by more than 100% variation!! Three "experts", and they come to three totally different results that would cause us differences in investment costs worth high tens of thousands...!?!?!

Sometimes I have homicidal thoughts on mind. Germany is all one big unified mental asylum for the absolutely hopeless cases.

In all costs for the heating renovation I am engaged with 16%. I (still) can afford it, but I am angry, enraged, furious, and totally and unforgivably hostile to this system and the malicious actors in it. We get betrayed, and ripped of, and get led into slavery, that simple it is.

If you people, think I am extreme in my furious rants against the political leaders and their green agendas, you should listen in when the yearly house owner assembly takes place and the plans and budgets get discussed and events of the past year gets reportred. Compared to some of the others I am TAME and LAME in my aggressiveness, others see that the plans are a vital threat to their very economic and financial existence, they cannot bring up these amounts of money anymore, the whole sh!t is ruinous for them, and it is on their mind all year long.

The whole political caste is completely disconnected from the reality the ordinary households and normal people have to deal with every day and year.

Oh all those clever supersmart brilliant planners and do-gooders. Not builders and creators but destroyers they are. Nothing else than this.

Wir deutschen Deppen werden uns noch wundern während die Welt uns auslacht. :yeah: :haha:

August
03-15-22, 12:33 AM
You do not want to be the first country to run out of oil, but the last country to


Assuming all the nations that realize they will run out first don't band together and take it from you first!

Rockstar
03-15-22, 11:31 AM
Indeed you raise some good points here with electro mobility, Id also point out how would the increased demand for electricity be met with the current network and infrastructure.

Also with many grids operating close to 100% at peak times could the current network sustain the extra capacity?

What fuels would the generation plant use to create this extra power? seems to me that wind solar and hydro would be sufficient so would we in this case go nuclear?

It’s possible the concern for increased demand for electricity will be met with advances in new tech. For instance Toyota is investing quite heavily in hydrogen fuel cells. If perfected the future of the electric car could face the same fate as the Betamax cassette.

mapuc
03-15-22, 05:53 PM
This was in our news today

With a new initiative, the government will boost the production and consumption of green fuels, which can be used for ship engines, trucks, aircraft and in industry, and not least for export. Denmark has particularly good conditions for producing green fuel, and is now entering the race for sustainable substitutes for coal and oil. Denmark will aim to build 4 to 6 GW PtX capacity in 2030.

https://ens-dk.translate.goog/presse/regeringen-vil-kickstarte-udvikling-af-groenne-braendstoffer-med-milliardstoette?_x_tr_sl=da&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=da&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Markus