[Keith_McClary]

The concept of PO can be used as an example for all finite resources

But that is a perversion of the term. Sure, doomers think of things beyond LTG, but peak-oil is peak-oil, period.

Yah, we'll just convert from diesel to batteries charged by wind/solar.

[M_B_S]

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gener ... ng-On.html
The inevitable will occur. Supply and demand will cross.


Peak Oil

The Storm is coming!

M_B_S

[AdamB]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/arthurberman/2015/12/27/the-crude-oil-export-ban-what-me-worry-about-peak-oil/

Conventional oil production peaked in January 2011 at 86.2 mmbpd unconventional oil 2015?

=>
oil-barrel-pyramid-model-by-m-b-s-peak-2011-t33970.html#p550313
PEAK OIL!
q.e.d.

M_B_S

No. It was in 2006.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... y-outlook/

Or maybe 2008?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5177

Wait! Correction! It was 2005!

https://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/curre ... 06-02.html

Wait! No! It was more likely 2000!

Question #2, Page 13, 2nd paragraph from the bottom. Classic!

http://www.wermac.org/pdf/oilage4.pdf


Calling peak oil has been a losing proposition. This is obvious because people are now saying, with a straight face, that a peak oil consequence is higher production and low prices. I mean, how many people are going to take that seriously when the OLD consequences were so much cooler?

[ennui2]

Wait! Correction! It was 2005!

https://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/curre ... 06-02.html

This one is a real time-capsule.

Join us as we watch the crisis unfolding
...
By 2025, we're going to be back in the Stone Age.

At less than 10 years from now, that's going to have to be quite a shark-fin crash. (I guess if Cid's methane bomb goes off it could happen, but I doubt peak-oil alone could do it that rapidly from where we are at present.)

Note how there isn't even a token attempt at humility with these predictions. They are presented with case-closed certainty. That's what makes them so cringe-inducing in retrospect.

http://www.wermac.org/pdf/oilage4.pdf

These are now digital artefacts as people like Matt Savinar who wrote this paper have gone kind of left the doomer scene (in his case, he's an astrologer, a profession that requires much less scientifically rigorous predictions).

how many people are going to take that seriously when the OLD consequences were so much cooler?

The only audience for peak-oil doomerism right now is...other peak-oil doomers. So they can construct whatever rationalizations that allow them to hold onto their doomerism without fear of ridicule because they're preaching to the converted.

I really wish JD were here because he'd have a field day. His whole schtick wasn't that peak-oil wouldn't happen, but that peak-oil consequences would be milder than predicted. A soft enough crash that wouldn't feel much like a crash, basically. I don't subscribe to that, but I do think the risk has subsided to the extent that I think AGW consequences are more urgent.

[ralfy]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/arthurberman/2015/12/27/the-crude-oil-export-ban-what-me-worry-about-peak-oil/

Conventional oil production peaked in January 2011 at 86.2 mmbpd unconventional oil 2015?

=>
oil-barrel-pyramid-model-by-m-b-s-peak-2011-t33970.html#p550313
PEAK OIL!
q.e.d.

M_B_S

No. It was in 2006.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... y-outlook/

Or maybe 2008?

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5177

Wait! Correction! It was 2005!

https://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/curre ... 06-02.html

Wait! No! It was more likely 2000!

Question #2, Page 13, 2nd paragraph from the bottom. Classic!

http://www.wermac.org/pdf/oilage4.pdf


Calling peak oil has been a losing proposition. This is obvious because people are now saying, with a straight face, that a peak oil consequence is higher production and low prices. I mean, how many people are going to take that seriously when the OLD consequences were so much cooler?

Peak oil leads to higher production cost. That's why increasing production involved the oil industry taking on more debt to get more oil:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... to-survive

As for the peak, one can probably consider oil production per capita, which looks more logical given the point that the oil is consumed by a growing population:

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... k-oil.html

[Tanada]

If I understand Ralfy correctly I have to agree with his point in this and other threads. Back in 2005 I was sure we would adopt a technofix approach by building lots of industrial plants where we would convert coal and natural gas and turkey guts into synthetic petroleum products to feed the system. I believe if we had followed that approach we would have stabilized the oil supply. We might have overshot production just like we did with tight shale due to excessive credit malinvestment, however we would have significantly advanced the technology for converting solids and gasses into liquid fuels in the process.

Instead all the money that could have gone into building that plant equipment and developing the know how to get the biggest conversion ratio's possible went into tight shale development even being poured into area's that never had a positive cash flow. Based on the current shale formation drilling rate it looks like 50 to 60 percent of the shale formation wells drilled in 2013 & 2014 never made economic sense, and even worse a bunch of the other projects like deep water GOM and subsalt Brazil are now economic losers as well.

In today's dollars you can still convert coal or natural gas into liquid fuel for less cost than drilling a tight shale well. The question is, once the investors get burned badly on tight oil will they be willing to build the big conversion plants that will take our fracked natural gas, which turned out to be cheap, and convert it into liquid fuels? There has been some advance in technology made in research labs, but with the current glut talk all over the place nobody much is investing in it.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/52 ... tural-gas/

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15071

Most of the new development and groundwork was done during the 2011-2013 period when oil prices were stable at around $90/bbl. That means hopefully that if prices get back into that range the in the next few years the technology will be right there on the shelf to be deployed. The question then arises, will anyone have the cash and risk tolerance to deploy the technology?

[Ulenspiegel]

The concept of PO can be used as an example for all finite resources

But that is a perversion of the term. Sure, doomers think of things beyond LTG, but peak-oil is peak-oil, period.

Yah, we'll just convert from diesel to batteries charged by wind/solar.

Check really large mining equipment, not theese toys. Then you would find it is electric.
Or check some agricultural machinery around 1900, you could provide the same as electric version.

Only because YOU have no clue does not mean it could not be done.

[ennui2]

Speaking of trucks...

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/elon-musk-talk ... ne-1540566

[Tanada]

Tanada, how can you be so sure that at today's dollars (or at any previous price point) one could convert coal or natural gas into liquid fuel for less cost than drilling a tight shale well?

Pretty simple actually, they were building these things all over the world even when Shale Fracking was at its peak. When the oil price recovers, and only those dedicated to the deflation concept think that will never happen, all those projects will still be there proving just what the economics are. At the same time many of those who invested in shale fracking will still be feeling the burn from the brief two year period we are experiencing where oil was cheap and their investments imploded. The companies with a track record of positive cash flow from fracking are few and far between compared to the number who were not able to make money even with $100/bbl oil prices. All these GTL and CTL plants planned or in a dozen cases actually built were all able to function at $100/bbl prices with positive cash flow. I just posted over on the GTL thread this morning a press release from Chevron about their facility in Nigeria that was in full production as of mid 2015.

I suggest everyone do their own web search and read statements from the actual companies doing this type of business instead of trusting some anon voice on the internet. With a little skull sweat you can actually learn facts instead of just reading opinions.

[dolanbaker]

No Ulenspiegel, those machines are diesel driven. See the radiator?

I think that his point is that there are machines of similar size that ARE electrically driven and it is easily possible to operate cabled equipment if needed.

[ralfy]

One can also look at higher production cost in terms of lower energy returns, i.e., oil that is deeper or that requires more processing. In contrast to that is a global economy that needs continuous growth, which in turn means continuous production increase, coupled with increasing demand per capita due to competition, which in turn requires increasing energy returns and thus decreasing marginal costs, until at least prosperity leads to birth rates that are so low that the population starts aging.

Unfortunately, the biocapacity of the planet is not sufficient to allow for that. As it is, it can barely provide the equivalent of one global hectare per capita given the current population.

[AdamB]

I really wish JD were here because he'd have a field day.

I could swear I saw him post on this site, recently, saying hello to some folks. Wasn't he the guy that got kicked off the site and ended up making his own? And worse yet, as it turns out, he was right in both his criticism, and what the kinds of solutions would be...EVs for example, or conservation and efficiency, MORE production (a real killer when it comes to peak oil), new discoveries, and when the Oil Drum went belly up (hardly the first to collapse in the face of non-peak oil) it listed all the reasons, and I'll bet all of them had been previously discussed by JD.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10093

His whole schtick wasn't that peak-oil wouldn't happen, but that peak-oil consequences would be milder than predicted. A soft enough crash that wouldn't feel much like a crash, basically. I don't subscribe to that, but I do think the risk has subsided to the extent that I think AGW consequences are more urgent.

The EIA, Yergin, Lynch, the USGS, none of those who turned out knowing quite a bit more than expected, have ever said peak oil won't happen. Only that it wasn't happening back when everyone else was claiming it had happened, or was about to.

Which is a good thing, because it is nice in our "everyone on the internet is an expert" world, to see that REAL experts didn't fall for it, but recognize that just as Hubbert said, it is axiomatic, just not happening when others were saying it would. But hey, sometime in this half of the century? Could be....

[ennui2]

I could swear I saw him post on this site

His last truly substantive post is from 2012.

Now we have the new wrinkles of Monte's debt-bomb theory and shortonoil's ETP model. I'd like to hear JD debate those two.