[SumYunGai]

Despite the thread being derailed slightly as people resort to ad hominem responses, I largely appreciate the replies. Peak for me does not mean scarcity or depletion. It means what it means to most other thinking members of this forum.

Basically, my view (and perhaps the accepted wisdom) is that:

1. Conventional oil has peaked
2. Unconventional oil is bridging the gap in demand
3. Unconventional oil will continue to bridge the gap and meet future demand
4. Prices will eventually rise to reflect the increase in demand and will enable further production of unconventional oil
5. Climate change will lead to much greater investment in renewable energy development
6. RE replaces oil before unconventional oil becomes prohibitively expensive.

Point 6 is easily the most contentious, and perhaps too cornucopian for this forum. I note that this ignores coal and gas but this is an oil forum after all. In any case, peak oil's ramifications of collapse and wars and famine are dead to me because this issue will play out over decades and we will slowly adapt.

Perhaps this is too optimistic or wilfully ignorant...

Have you considered the possibility that it could be both?

Well, you'll have to work that bit out for yourself. In the meantime, as to your numbered contentions, above, here is how your so called "accepted wisdom" actually stacks up against reality:

1. True
2. Only temporarily true
3. False because this would require much higher oil prices (see #4)
4. False because oil use can no longer provide sufficient energy to the economy to support high oil prices (see Etp)
5. Impossible since the economy is about to collapse, and it would make no difference anyway
6. Impossible since unconventional oil is ALREADY prohibitively expensive, and renewable energy never really had the potential to replace oil in the first place

[regardingpo]

It's no wonder no-one on this site can stand you, you seem to only be interested in feuding with people.

Interesting characterization from the new guy.

Sock puppet alert? Is what's his name at it again?

That's really nice of you Adam, to try to start another feud after the first one was over. And yes, you are trying to start a feud because there's no other purpose to calling someone a sock puppet.

But I won't fall for your bait, I'll just say once for the record that this is the only user account that I've ever had.

As for how I'm familiar with ennui's ways and standing, that's easy - some users post so often, and it's always the same thing, that it doesn't take long to notice things about them. For example:
Planty - glut Obama Cheers!
ennui - involved in every argument

[regardingpo]

6. RE replaces oil before unconventional oil becomes prohibitively expensive.

Here's just one type of problems I see with this. This requires a lot of research and development. A lof of which is not even being attempted. Some tech developments may not even be possible, we don't know for sure, but that's a moot point if no-one's even trying to do it.

As far as I know, no-one is even trying to find a way to make plastics, steel, concrete, asphalt and a whole bunch of other things without fossil fuels.

Then let's take a look at modern transport vehicles. They can't be made without FF either, but let's forget that little detail. Even if you just focus on replacing the fuel in the tank with batteries, what can we do without FF right now? Power a car or a gimmick airplane which can carry two people. The list of things that can't run on batteries is much longer and includes far more important things: large airplanes, cargo ships, trucks, heavy machinery used in mining and agriculture etc.

All efforts to make a transition to alternative energy seem to be focused on replacing the electrical grid and passenger vehicles. And even those efforts are failing if you take the whole world into account.

I just don't see how this way of life can continue without FF. I've heard some people say things like "Yeah the world is screwed but my neck of the woods will be fine because we have wind/solar/whatever" and I'm thinking if that's the case then you'll also have millions of people rushing to your neck of the woods. They're not gonna sit at home and die. We see something like that happening right now with migrant crisis in the Middle East/Europe. If you can't help them somehow then prepare for violence and resource wars.

Resource wars in a world where everyone is armed to the teeth, and many sides have nuclear weapons (some are still in the process of obtaining them). That doesn't seem like something to look forward to.

[ennui2]

Well, you'll have to work that bit out for yourself. In the meantime, as to your numbered contentions, above, here is how your so called "accepted wisdom" actually stacks up against reality:

1. True
2. Only temporarily true
3. False because this would require much higher oil prices (see #4)
4. False because oil use can no longer provide sufficient energy to the economy to support high oil prices (see Etp)
5. Impossible since the economy is about to collapse, and it would make no difference anyway
6. Impossible since unconventional oil is ALREADY prohibitively expensive, and renewable energy never really had the potential to replace oil in the first place

This above is exactly why the resorting to ad homs happen.

To reply by saying something as arrogant and flippant as "here is how your so called "accepted wisdom" actually stacks up against reality". That tone is inherently inflammatory in the way it attempts to shut-down the discussion in favor of shoveling dogma.

This is your belief/prediction. It is not reality.

[ROCKMAN]

A bit unsure of the implications:

3. Unconventional oil will continue to bridge the gap and meet future demand

Is the "gap" being bridged the difference between domestic production and consumption? If so that gap was reduced somewhat by production from unconventional reservoirs but given we still import almost 3 BILLION BBLS of oil per year a huge gap remains.

4. Prices will eventually rise to reflect the increase in demand and will enable further production of unconventional oil

Depends on how the major oil exporters respond. It the last two years the response to lower oil prices was to significantly increase export volumes by bringing excess capacity on line. By doing so it did stabilize prices but not seeing a significant price increase resulting from demand increases. But that's just today. We'll see what the dynamics are in a few years.

5. Climate change will lead to much greater investment in renewable energy development

Seems like most of the alt energy developments in the last 10 years were motivated more by economics then environmental concerns. Again Texas wind power is a perfect example. And now with lower oil prices and continued low NG and coal prices some of the financial incentive has been lost.

6. RE replaces oil before unconventional oil becomes prohibitively expensive.

Seems like a chicken/egg predicament: unconventional reservoir development requires high oil prices. High oil prices encourage RE development. Low prices inhibit unconventional development but also reduces the financial incentive of much of the RE. Those low oil prices also has negative effects on conservation efforts as indicated by the increase in motor fuel consumption as well as the boom in truck sales.

Much of the expectations for RE seems to hinge on the majority of consumers "doing the right thing". Towards that end there has been a lot more verbal support then actual action. And, again, much of the actions actually taken appear more motivated by economics then morality.

[rockdoc123]

Much of the expectations for RE seems to hinge on the majority of consumers "doing the right thing". Towards that end there has been a lot more verbal support then actual action. And, again, much of the actions actually taken appear more motivated by economics then morality.

I have always been of the opinion that moving to more renewables will not be something that happens without some sort of intervention. I remember back that the research required to make heavy oil economic started a couple of decades before it actually came to fruition and the only way it happened was through incentives and favorable tax rules. To move to an integrated energy situation where oil is only a small part of the equation having been supplanted by natural gas, nuclear, hydro, solar and wind combinations requires a concerted effort to move that way. Governments need to first release that it is important to move in this direction but also that it takes time to get there. People will not move there of their own volition unless they have to . As a consequence the governments need to encourage that move.

[ROCKMAN]

Doc - "...the only way it happened was through incentives and favorable tax rules." Which is exactly why I keep bringing up the Texas world class wind power development. I can guarantee we wouldn't have one wind turbine in the entire state were it not for those incentives AND direct financial contributions by the tax payers. And we wouldn't be building the largest CO2 sequestration project in the ENTIRE WORLD if the feds et al weren't chipping in hundreds of $millions.

It might not sound nice but neither was ever going to happen here "for the sake of the children". Most other folks just don't have the guts to admit it. LOL. But at least we have politicians that recognized the value of both efforts and pushed them forward.

[ennui2]

It's really cultural/generational. The 20th century was a machine age as epitomized by the muscle-car. Only at the tail end did it enter into a consumer-electronics age, initially the province of geeks (and hence seen as a niche subculture). The 21st century is being branded as a gadget age, and all gadgets are seen as electronic, and mostly battery-powered, with people already used to daily charging rituals. Once people see all modern conveniences as being powered by electrons vs. fossil-fuels then the love-affair with fossil-fuels will fade. Won't change things like jet travel, but are still likely to reduce demand for oil.

[evilgenius]

There's a funny thing about debt, it locks the debtor into a certain valuation of the currency with which the debt has been incurred. When prices go down, those not indebted can simply adjust their cost structures by paying lower wages or deciding to delay projects or somesuch things. Countries like Venezuela, that have committed in the way they have to high prices, or frackers who have invested heavily in expensive extraction and owe for it, can go bankrupt or fight a seemingly losing struggle. If they are lucky they can refinance. Even that won't take away from the original principal owed, though. To do so, if they could, would also raise the risk that refinance has somewhat done, of deflation, which further threatens to skewer the debtors. Who knows, maybe the higher prices will come back? They could do, with a resurgent global economy or a dovetailing of energy supply. The point is that it isn't just oil prices that are important when considering whether things will change, currency values and indebtedness are very important too. These things are very hard to predict. Many have risked, and either made or lost, their reputations doing so.

[ROCKMAN]

pstarr - "so everything is consumption?" Yes: if you buy the oil and take it off the market it gets tagged as "consumption". Doesn't matter is you store it or refine it. Let me answer your question with a question: if you put 10 million bbls of oil into storage and then sold it 6 months later would you say the US just produced 10 million bbls? Given those 19 mikllion bbls were counted as production when thee cxcxame out the well heads wouldn't that be misleading? So yes: every bbl of oil purchased by everyone is " consumed" regardless of what they do with it. If one doesn't understand that the entire dynamic will be very confusing.

"Oil transiting the Alaska pipeline has already been sold to the refinery. Not in storage". Excellent point? You've learned well, grasshopper. LOL. Which is why one needs to look very closely at what's someone means when they say " oil storage". In many cases that will include oil in transit as well as oil sitting in tanks at a refinery today that will be cracked tomorrow. Often called "working volume" or "working storage" IOW it isn'tnlong term storage like the SPR. There is no such single metric as "oil storage"...there Are different categories of " oil storage". One needs to know exactly what category is being noted before one interprets its meaning.

"Where do THOSE consumers hide their oil?" Not hidden at all. Lots stored in the greatly expanded tank farm in Cushing, OK. for fun go online and find those companies that rent storage space there. Also note that a lot if storage at Cushing is owned by "blenders". Almost no oil in the US is refined exactly as it is when it comes out of tghe weell head. US refineries are optimized to crack a very narrow range: 32 to 34 API gravity oil.

So again another source of confusion: over a year a blender buys 59 million bbls, blends it and then sells it to a Chevron refinery. So that 50 million bbls is counted as "production" when it's sold to the blender, and while sitting in their tanks at Cushing are counted in someone's "storage oil" ledger, and then shipped via pipeline to Chevron during which time it might be counted as "storage oil" by someone. And then it ends up sitting in tanks at the Chevron refinery where it us again counted as "storage oil" by some regulatory agencies. IOW those 50 million bbls could be counted numerous times in different stats.

"You just described peak oil. The only oil sold is legacy at $15/bbl. No new oil." Most bean counters classify "new oil" as "legacy" production after the well has been producing only 6 months. IOW almost all the oil being produced today is legacy oil according to folks like the EIA.

Well, the oil storage dynamic should be as clear as mud now. LOL.

[Plantagenet]

Planty - glut Obama Cheers!

Dingy - climate change Hillary and Cheers to you!

[ennui2]

This is what final capitulation looks like.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/ ... ed-states/

If even Trump can capitulate, then there's hope for those still clinging to outmoded PO narratives.

[onlooker]

My two cents as others can speak more authoritatively on this subject is the following. First, oil depletion is a physical reality. Second, easy to access conventional Oil does seem to have reached a peak. What this means is both the US and world will be getting less bang for buck as more energy is being utilized to access energy. I do not foresee an adequate or comprehensive transition for our modern Industrial civilization to Renewable energy. Both because of time/energy/resource constrains and also because Renewable sources cannot provide enough energy. Finally, while civilization may hobble along for quite some time with progressively less energy , environmental concerns seem to be outpacing energy ones with regard to the threat they pose to the majority if not all humans on this planet.

[SumYunGai]

Finally, while civilization may hobble along for quite some time with progressively less energy...

You and I basically agree on almost everything except this very important point. What makes you think that civilization will continue to hobble along? What exactly does quite some time mean? Have you read the Korowicz paper?

http://www.feasta.org/wp-content/upload ... rowicz.pdf

The argument that a large-scale and globalized financial-banking-monetary crisis is likely arises from two sources. Firstly, from the outcome and management of credit over-expansion and global imbalances and the growing stresses in the Eurozone and global banking system. Secondly, from the manifest risk that we are at a peak in global oil production, and that affordable, real-time production will begin to decline in the next few years. In the latter case, the credit backing of fractional reserve banks, monetary systems and financial assets are fundamentally incompatible with energy constraints. It is argued that in the coming years there are multiple routes to a large-scale breakdown in the global financial system, comprising systemic banking collapses, monetary system failure, credit and financial asset vaporization. This breakdown, however and whenever it comes, is likely to be fast and disorderly and could overwhelm society’s ability to respond.

How can we possibly avoid the outcomes described in the Korowicz paper?

Why isn't a rapid collapse inevitable?

...environmental concerns seem to be outpacing energy ones with regard to the threat they pose to the majority if not all humans on this planet.

I agree that runaway global warming will most likely eventually lead to our extinction as a species. But in the meantime, we are going to have a massive die-off very soon.

[AdamB]

Despite the thread being derailed slightly as people resort to ad hominem responses, I largely appreciate the replies. Peak for me does not mean scarcity or depletion. It means what it means to most other thinking members of this forum.

Identifying those after 5 posts can't be easy.

Basically, my view (and perhaps the accepted wisdom) is that:

1. Conventional oil has peaked

Sure. In 1901. Because the definition of conventional oil changes with time, and the invention of the rotary table, and recently with drilling horizontal wells and blasting the rock apart as a normal, routine, run of the mill operation.

2. Unconventional oil is bridging the gap in demand

if you are a thinking member of the forum, you realize that the unconventional is no longer unconventional, any more than the rotary table is. Although I hear it is being replaced by hydraulics nowadays, so we have yet ANOTHER technology allowing us to reach ever more difficult oil.

3. Unconventional oil will continue to bridge the gap and meet future demand

And it isn't even unconventional any more. And oil is oil, what most folks who know nothing about the industry do is confuse the process by which the oil is extracted as a function of the oil itself. It isn't. Bakken oil is beautifully conventional oil, light sweet crude with of exceptional quality. But because folks are drilling it using a technique invented in 1927... OMG!!! IT MUST BE UNCONVENTIONAL!!!

So much for the value of conventional wisdom in a complex technical industry that most folks can't be bothered to learn about before pretending they understand it.

4. Prices will eventually rise to reflect the increase in demand and will enable further production of unconventional oil

Depends on whether or not demand increases. Peak demand is just as important in this conversation as peak supply. Now here is a REAL thinking actual expert, as compared to us website denizens.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015- ... n-excerpts

5. Climate change will lead to much greater investment in renewable energy development

We've already begun this transition, and it wasn't climate change that drove it, but higher fossil fuels prices. Hip Hip Horray for fossil fuels allowing windmills and utility scale solar to be built!! 3 Huzzahs for Rockman and RockDoc!!

6. RE replaces oil before unconventional oil becomes prohibitively expensive.

Already is. This isn't an either/or choice, my wife's car runs on windmills, solar panels and natural gas. Or, when she runs out of those fuels contained in the battery, she turns on a gasoline engine and uses run of the mill gasoline. She hates that though, her knowing that gasoline is a liquid fuel that needs conserved, she is SO much more a biologist than others around here who can't be bothered to transition their transport choices.

Perhaps this is too optimistic or wilfully ignorant (I certainly never used to be an optimist!) but I think RE will nullify the core problem that peak oil poses.

For those like my wife already EVing, they have already nullified the effect of fuel prices on their lives, and by extension anything that increases those prices, be it yet another peak oil, or just plain on increased demand, or lower supply as oil companies go bankrupt, or whatever.

[onlooker]

Sum thanks for the reply. I would explain my point. When I speak of Civilization, I use a general flexible definition and limited in scope for except for a few rich countries, the rest will experience as you said not just further economic impoverishment but severe die off from water and food shortages , disease, combined with an end to Globalization due to energy shortages. The rich countries of necessity will downsize and that includes our debt based economic system. Read about ideas coming from Europe for a resource/asset based Economy. Also, because I have no doubt we will be using coal/natural gas to maintain our modernity. Time scale well actually quite short maybe these few countries will hobble along for 20 years or so longer. After that the combination of Ecological devastation and Energy scarcity will doom any semblance of modernity and impulse further die off of humans

[killJOY]

Yes.

As a movement, a phenomenon, and a prediction, it is quite dead.

1. The predictions were not just wrong, they were exactly wrong. That means the assumptions upon which the predictions were based must be revisited and, perhaps, abandoned.

2. Peak oil's poster boy, the United States, has performed in a way that is the exact opposite of what every single peak oil advocate described. No one saw it coming, not one. If they were wrong about this, what else are they wrong about?

3. Everyone overlooked "shale oil," "tight light oil," whatever you want to call it. Look through the indices of every book about peak oil written before 2010 and you will not find a single reference to it. Therefore, in a sense the peak oilers didn't even know what "oil" meant. This is a scandalously incorrect premise. What is oil? Who the fuck knows. Maybe kerogen will be considered oil one day.

Everyone now wants to know what the future will bring, now that the ruins of the peak oil movement have been carted to the dump.

The answer is: No one knows. I suspect more of the same, though, with heightened horrors inflicted on us from climate instability.

[SumYunGai]

Sum thanks for the reply. I would explain my point. When I speak of Civilization, I use a general flexible definition and limited in scope for except for a few rich countries, the rest will experience as you said not just further economic impoverishment but severe die off from water and food shortages , disease, combined with an end to Globalization due to energy shortages.

Thanks onlooker. My point is that the financial system cannot withstand a net energy decline. When the financial system gives way, there won't be any rich countries anymore.

With a net energy decline, a financial-banking-monetary crisis is unavoidable. The resulting financial system/supply chain cross contagion will cause just in time delivery systems to fail world wide, including in rich countries. The Korowicz paper explains, in great detail, how all this will eventually play out. I don't see how the outcomes described can possibly be avoided. They are inevitable, and I believe they will happen quite soon. Can you please explain specifically how civilization can avoid this rapidly approaching scenario?

[onlooker]

To be honest I have not read that paper you cited. From your outline this makes compelling sense. I am not confident of my forecast, it may work out the way you say especially given that our Economy has integrated into globalization so much. Perhaps, my faith lies in the ability to transition quickly to a Command Economy as we sort of did during WWII. Also because unlike many places we in the US have a more favorable resource to population ratio. All quite tenuous but gotta keep some faith alive. I realize all this is assuming the ability to maintain social order, that is not a given