[Ludi]

" When installed, natural gas is more than sufficient to maintain installed natural gas. Plus some oil, hydropower, solar, wind, coal and nuclear thrown in for good measure."

Fantastic! Let us know when it gets installed, ok?

[copious.abundance]

Another silly doomer in denial. It already is installed.

[Ludi]

Another silly doomer in denial. It already is installed.

Oh, I thought you were talking about some new find. My mistake.

[Frank]

This is great news! Even more CO2 in the atmosphere! That'll show them climate-change doomers that we can outsmart 'em!

[shortonsense]

Once again you've published a story based on nothing more than wishing and hoping. Its a science project, and will be for a very long time.

Todays science project, tomorrows energy source.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oi ... _Feb08.pdf

20 years of production from hydrates? Wow...not even a science project then...

http://www.spe.org/atce/2008/technical/ ... 114375.pdf

And now they teach courses on how to handle it and what to do with it...doesn't sound very science projecty anymore...

http://outreach.mines.edu/cont_ed/hydrates.html

[Ludi]

What exactly are you accusing AP of saying? Which of the above statements are AP's. and which are your responses to his assumed hypocrisies?

Just askin?

Apparently it is hypocritical to point out something may have happened in the past - "Peak oil could have been in 2005" if you are also pointing out someone is suggesting something may happen in the future - "the field could be commercially producible"

Apparently it is hypocritical to use the conditional if you point out someone else is using the conditional.

As far as I can tell....

[AirlinePilot]

What Ive been driving at for some time with these jibes is this...

Facts are things which have been proven. They are rarely disputed and have several credible sources accepted by the Industry.Things like flow rates, actual production amounts, oil delivered to refineries, gasoline product consumed, oil in storage, inventory etc.

When you post something to support a certain argument it's hollow if there is no concrete evidence of something happening, specifically if it refers to future events. There is a giant gulf between that and pointing to a credible historic chart of world oil production and inferring from FACTS that we are on a plateau. That is completely and utterly different from energy journalists and companies speculating on future events. I fail to see the hypocrisy in pointing that out and I will continue to do it.

Many of the posts which OF copies are questionable at best. To many of us they appear to be more about marketing/stock pumping than they do reality. I'm not saying its all of them, just many.

[copious.abundance]

Facts are things which have been proven . . .

Which is exactly why you are hypocritical for attacking me for posting articles using hypotheticals and estimates. The entire PO hype you and others here promote is based on estimates of future production which you have no real clue whether they will be true or not; based on future discovery rates which you have no real clue whether they will be true or not; based on future economic and investment conditions which you have no real clue whether they will be true or not; and so on and so forth, ad nauseum. So, when I post an article saying a new oil discovery in Mexico is "estimated" to produce 250,000 bpd starting around 2015, that is no different than you or other POers "estimating" Mexican or Saudi or whoever's oil production is going to decline by X barrels by some future date. So your attacks on me for posting things using future estimates is pure hypocricy, pure and simple.

When you post something to support a certain argument it's hollow if there is no concrete evidence of something happening, specifically if it refers to future events.

A lack of new oil production records is a future event. That is, when you or someone else say "2008 will be the peak year for oil production," or even, "oil production will peak somewhere around 2015," you are predicting a future event. Thus, when you attack me for posting an article saying, "gas hydrates in the GOM will be an important future energy source" simply because it's a prediction of a future event, you are a pure hypocrite for accusing me of doing exactly that which you yourself do.

There is a giant gulf between that and pointing to a credible historic chart of world oil production and inferring from FACTS that we are on a plateau.

You do not KNOW that plateau will last long - oil production could start shooting up again in a couple years. And even if it did plateau for a long time, you do now KNOW the cause of that is because of "geologic limits" or lack of access to readily producable fields, it could be nothing more than flat demand. What you do is ASSUME some sort of "geologic limits" are being reached and production is flat because they are incapable of pumping out more. You do not know that assumption is true. Thus, you are making as many assumptions not just about future conditions, but also about present conditions, as anyone else is.

[Ludi]

I'm probably a little confused, Oilfinder. Are you saying oil production will NEVER peak? That is, we will always produce more oil than we produced before?

The theory of peak oil states that at some point oil production will peak, after which oil will become less abundant and more expensive. Are you saying this theory is false?

Please clarify. Thanks.

[copious.abundance]

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about: Back in March, here on the Oil Drum we have ace boldly proclaiming, "World Oil Production Peaked in 2008."

Oh really? Where is this crystal ball he has access to that no one else does?

He goes through several long paragraphs of mental masturbations making all sorts of assumptions and estimates about production of future projects, discoveries, decline rates, and blah blah blah, when in reality he has no real clue. He produces a nice, fancy chart with the obligatory drop-off in production after the announced peak date.

I could just as easily forecast they will discover several hundred billions of barrels off the coast of South America and Africa, and that the Saudis really do have 700-900 billion barrels of recoverable oil, and that Iraq has about the same, and that large discoveries will be made elsewhere, and that the high price of oil will encourage large investments, and that therefore oil production will not peak for a long time. But if I did that, I would be attacked for making assumption about future events - even though that is exactly what peakers do ALL THE TIME.

[copious.abundance]

I'm probably a little confused, Oilfinder. Are you saying oil production will NEVER peak? That is, we will always produce more oil than we produced before?

The theory of peak oil states that at some point oil production will peak, after which oil will become less abundant and more expensive. Are you saying this theory is false?

Please clarify. Thanks.

My position is that there is far more oil than peakers believe, that the technology and resources to produce this oil exists or will soon exist, and therefore, that production of oil will peak when demand for oil peaks. When that demand-peak will occur, I don't know. It could have been last year, or it might not be for decades. Or we might plateau for decades. Nobody knows.

[shortonsense]

The theory of peak oil states that at some point oil production will peak, after which oil will become less abundant and more expensive. Are you saying this theory is false?

Please clarify. Thanks.

Oh my Oilfinder, you just GOTTA let'im have it on this one!!

Start off with, "well, to which peak are you referring", and go from there!

[copious.abundance]

My position is that there is far more oil than peakers believe, that the technology and resources to produce this oil exists or will soon exist, and therefore, that production of oil will peak when demand for oil peaks. When that demand-peak will occur, I don't know. It could have been last year, or it might not be for decades. Or we might plateau for decades. Nobody knows.

BTW, you might want to take mental note of the implication of my position: If my position is correct (and of course I believe it is), the price of oil will fall once production and demand begins to fall, rather than the price rise as production falls. It might steadily rise for a while, which will encourage new production, and this new production might even be from increasingly expensive sources. But that steady rise in price will encourage people to gradually reduce their consumption and switch to other energy sources (hint: this discussion is in a thread about gas hydrates *ahem*). Once the switch-over to other sources really starts to gather steam, oil consumption will decline, and so will production, and oil producers will reduce their prices in a desperate attempt to attract customers, but by now they're pumping much of their oil from the deep waters off the coast of Labrador, so they'll be losing money. Then they'll shut down their more expensive production, but it won't matter because there's no demand for it anyway. Near the end of the Age of Petroleum you'll still have the Saudis and Iraqis pumping out most of the world's oil, but that's only because they're the only ones who can still do it for $15/barrel.

[AirlinePilot]

We know what your position is OF, we also think your wrong. This website is all about opinion and debate. if you cannot handle that fact than maybe you need to take your toys and go home. I'm perfectly willing to entertain your ideas and have. I see your not willing or able to see the difference between what is happening based on fact and what you think or wish will happen in the future.

There have been many debates here on PO. com about reserves, reserve growth, and technology. Most of us have participated in many of them and have come to the conclusion that while that will happen, it will not happen on the scale required to do anything more than put a dent in that peak. It has nothing to do with how much oil is left. It's about how much we can produce, at what costs, and at what efficiency level.

Most of us older types here who have lived within the business world, the military, and the manufacturing and engineering aspect of our global economies know that reality is a harsh mistress. Little that is predicted ever turns out to be quite the same down the road.

[AirlinePilot]

My position is that there is far more oil than peakers believe, that the technology and resources to produce this oil exists or will soon exist, and therefore, that production of oil will peak when demand for oil peaks. When that demand-peak will occur, I don't know. It could have been last year, or it might not be for decades. Or we might plateau for decades. Nobody knows.

BTW, you might want to take mental note of the implication of my position: If my position is correct (and of course I believe it is), the price of oil will fall once production and demand begins to fall, rather than the price rise as production falls. It might steadily rise for a while, which will encourage new production, and this new production might even be from increasingly expensive sources. But that steady rise in price will encourage people to gradually reduce their consumption and switch to other energy sources (hint: this discussion is in a thread about gas hydrates *ahem*). Once the switch-over to other sources really starts to gather steam, oil consumption will decline, and so will production, and oil producers will reduce their prices in a desperate attempt to attract customers, but by now they're pumping much of their oil from the deep waters off the coast of Labrador, so they'll be losing money. Then they'll shut down their more expensive production, but it won't matter because there's no demand for it anyway. Near the end of the Age of Petroleum you'll still have the Saudis and Iraqis pumping out most of the world's oil, but that's only because they're the only ones who can still do it for $15/barrel.

I want some of that dope your smoking Oily, it must be really good stuff.

This is the cornucopian bible folks. We somehow transition to an as yet unknown resource which can replace what oil has done for us over the last 100 years. Only problem is you better find it soon my friend, very soon. Good luck with that.

As Montequest pointed out so well for so many years here, we are just out of time. The realist in me does not share this optimism. This is what the debate always devolves to. You've got your take and i've got mine. As time moves forward decline doesnt slow. Time will grow shorter and no amount of tech does anything more than buy us a bit moref time. My take is that as humans we fight kick and scream to avoid real change. This time will be no different but if your thinking we have some longer term in which to make that happen, you havent been really paying attention. That or your cornucopian glasses are really obscuring your vision.

While I'll embrace your mantra with open arms gladly if and when it occurs, I cannot share your opinion at this time.

[AirlinePilot]

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about: Back in March, here on the Oil Drum we have ace boldly proclaiming, "World Oil Production Peaked in 2008."

Oh really? Where is this crystal ball he has access to that no one else does?.

You my call his calculations using MATH and his thought process using LOGIC and KNOWLEDGE OF THE INDUSTRY mental masturbation, but the rest of us here can see the trends. He says this may be a peak for a list of reasons and he backs his conclusions up with a very good stab at scientific method. Thats far more convincing and credible than proclaiming he has a Crystal ball or being childish and stating:

"YOU DONT KNOW"

I completely and utterly beg to differ.

The only debate to the good minds over at TOD is to find some extremely large source of new oil, PRONTO, or some new miracle energy device which can quickly, cheaply, and EASILY supplant oil throughout our society. You obviously have to believe that is possible to argue with those boys. I see that as blind optimism and its far from any reality the rest of us share.

[copious.abundance]

We know what your position is OF, we also think your wrong. This website is all about opinion and debate.

You are right, this website is all about opinion and debate. Which makes me wonder - why, if I post an article saying "gas hydrates in the GOM could be a promising future energy source," or, "A new discovery in Mexican waters will produce 250K bpd by 2015," I am attacked as if I were Satan incarnate. The only reasonable conclusion is that the discovery of new sources of energy bothers you and others here. It either threatens your fantasies of apocalyptic doomsday, or dashes your hopes or a Powerdown to a more eco-friendly civilization.

This is the cornucopian bible folks. We somehow transition to an as yet unknown resource which can replace what oil has done for us over the last 100 years. Only problem is you better find it soon my friend, very soon. Good luck with that.

Another silly doomer wish. There is nothing new or unproven about natural gas. Or electricity.

As Montequest pointed out so well for so many years here, we are just out of time. The realist in me does not share this optimism. This is what the debate always devolves to. You've got your take and i've got mine. As time moves forward decline doesnt slow. Time will grow shorter and no amount of tech does anything more than buy us a bit moref time. My take is that as humans we fight kick and scream to avoid real change . . .

A classic, blatant example of hypocracy. You had just been accusing me of stating projections about the future, and now you yourself are doing exactly the same. Spare me your b.s., thank you.

[copious.abundance]

Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about: Back in March, here on the Oil Drum we have ace boldly proclaiming, "World Oil Production Peaked in 2008."

Oh really? Where is this crystal ball he has access to that no one else does?.

You my call his calculations using MATH and his thought process using LOGIC and KNOWLEDGE OF THE INDUSTRY mental masturbation, but the rest of us here can see the trends. He says this may be a peak for a list of reasons and he backs his conclusions up with a very good stab at scientific method. Thats far more convincing and credible than proclaiming he has a Crystal ball or being childish and stating:

Math? Whoop-tee-doo. I can show you MATH done by CERA and all kinds of other people with KNOWLEDGE OF THE INDUSTRY who come up with vastly different scenarios than ace's doomsday predictions. So yes, his MATH is little more than mental masturbation.

"YOU DONT KNOW"

I completely and utterly beg to differ.

The only debate to the good minds over at TOD is to find some extremely large source of new oil, PRONTO, or some new miracle energy device which can quickly, cheaply, and EASILY supplant oil throughout our society. You obviously have to believe that is possible to argue with those boys. I see that as blind optimism and its far from any reality the rest of us share.

Every time myself or someone has posted information about just such a development, it is greeted with ridicule and scoffing. Or, whenever we claim that there are ample existing suplies of oil (such as 700-900 billion barrels in SA) and there is no urgent need to find some "extremely large" new source of oil PRONTO, this information is greeted with ridicule and scoffing. So once again, your statement above is full of baloney. Even when the conditions you stated above are met, you refuse to believe it.