Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Did I claim year over year production declines? .

You did not. Do I need to explain the basics of the Peak oil arguement to you, or do you know them? If decline rates didn't matter, people wouldn't make a fuss. If growth rates didn't matter, people wouldn't make a fuss.

I want to know why, more than a year into the post peak world, we aren't seeing the effects of these two fundamental components of the Peak oil theory?

I might venture that the answer has nothing to do with vested infrastructure cost.

You won't win a logical argument by claiming my amateur status. I am proud of that.
.

Good for you. A man should know his limitations.

I learned everything on my own from books and smart people here at PO and the Oildrum. Unlike you, I do not regulary press my imaginary career in people's noses at every opportunity.
.

Well then you should kick back, secure in the knowledge that us professionals are in charge of actually fixing the problem and all its little components rather than the amateurs.

And say. Why is such a high-powered engineer like yourself not out there manning those rigs? The country needs you RGD. Start pumping.

I spent many moons offshore GOM, onshore GOM, and in Canada drilling horizontal and deviated wells. The money was good, the lifestyle was poor.

Research is a much more family friendly career path.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

As inflation acts as the destroyer of money-returned-on-money-invested (MROMI), so is manual labor (ala PStarr's digging through sand) and ecological destruction the destroyer of EROEI.

Valid point on Orinoco but I hate to visualize what kind of wasteland this portends.

Orinoco, unlike Alberta, doesn't appear to be heading towards a state sized strip mining operation. Which is good.

I am not sure I understand your point on manual labor and the rest of it.

[Revi]

We're not feeling the effects of peak oil here in the US, because the poor countries are being cut off so that we can keep the party going here. Ghana is going without lamp oil so that some teenager in Illinois can screech his tires to impress his girlfriend. I'm not moralizing, just stating the reality of the situation.

This is one of the most interesting threads on Peak Oil Forums. RGR has given me something to think about. Maybe unconventionals could keep a baseline amount of oil flowing, so that other things like electric cars and low energy lifestyles can catch up. It may even provide a bridge to a solar/wind/renewable economy. That would be a great thing. Why not? It beats the pure doomer scenario. It could keep this leaking ship afloat until we can get some renewable bailers going.

[MonteQuest]

But the beauty of this is that all that bad EROEI oil amounts to TRILLIONS of barrels. Hell, it took a century to figure out the EASY stuff, we'll be diddling with these multiple TRILLIONS of unconventional barrels for at least as long. So the problem isn't a "we're all gonna die because we can't transition today" debate, its a "gee we're going to have oil around for another century in varying amounts, how to we most efficiently use it as we transition to solar/nuke/eletrically driven world".

Yeah, while the tar sands are ramped up to 3 mbpd, the world will need another 20 mbpd in the meantime. Those "varying amounts" are not going to be enough to offset decline and provide for economic growth to build anything, much less an "energy intensive" renewable infrastructure that will take decades to produce any "net" energy.

For example, I don't assume that business as usual requires Americans burning as much gasoline as they can get their wasteful hands on. Considering the size of this single issue, it strikes me as a good place to start, with global effects, and all it requires is stopping Americans from being as wasteful as they are. Talk about a huge inefficiency built into the global system. The size of this single issue dwarfs most everything else, and could negate last years Peak for years to come, economically speaking.

And bring on the mother of all recessions, "economically speaking."

1 out of every six jobs are tied to the auto industry. Connect the dots.

Energy cares not what it gets used for. All wasteful consumption is just as vital to the economy as non-wasteful. GDP does not measure only non-wasteful consumption.

I'm not defending waste, just stating how it works.

Increase the efficiency and you will increase the use, as the price drops with the increase in available supply. Economics 101.

Conserve and you have a self-imposed recession as economic activity declines.

[pstarr]

As inflation acts as the destroyer of money-returned-on-money-invested (MROMI), so is manual labor (ala PStarr's digging through sand) and ecological destruction the destroyer of EROEI.

Valid point on Orinoco but I hate to visualize what kind of wasteland this portends.

Orinoco, unlike Alberta, doesn't appear to be heading towards a state sized strip mining operation. Which is good.

I am not sure I understand your point on manual labor and the rest of it.

there are many factors that impact eroei, but what I do in my sandbox is not one of them. That was a metaphor.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Here you go again...

The market will transition us away from what is easy and cheap to something less easy and less cheap.

There is no energy source currently available to transition to, less easy, cheap, or otherwise that can fill the shoes of oil.

See, and I do not assume that a requirement in this debate is to "fill the shoes" of oil.

That is my point. The market will not provide. The signals are decades too late. The call went out on April 18, 1977. It was ignored.

It was not ignored. It was acted apon...and then went out the window when oil went cheap, and it turns out McKelvey was right rather than Jimmy Carter.

We are repeating history, except this time people want to include a non artificial limitation to oil supplies as a precursor to Doom, a scenario which I don't object to in the least because I believe its a REQUIREMENT to force change to a more "energy aware" environment.

I have never used strawman arguments in any debate here.

I stand by my original analysis of your comments, and I note that

A) We both type in servicable American English.
B) It has been explained to me, by you at some point, what a strawman is.
C) I have no objection to their use as it is dependant on the person you are pointing it at to notice.
D) Whether or not you did is not relevant to the general conversation.


but I also note

A) you aren't refuting the specifics.
B) saying you didn't do it won't make it so.
C) When I do a boo-boo and am required to stand up and take a hit for being wrong, I do so with my eyes wide open and accept the consequences.

[MonteQuest]

I realize that reserves aren't directly comparable to production rates, which is another arguement, but the FACT wrapped up in this observation is that oil will continue to be produced in reasonable amounts for DECADES, if not CENTURIES. Such is the size of the Orinoco. Simply mind boggling. What this guarentee's is a floor of oil production spanning generations, while the rest of us buy EV's and such, build more nukes, solar panels everywhere we can stick them, solar towers, etc etc.

A floor? "Reasonable amounts" of oil will not offset conventional decline, hoarding, nor provide for growth to clothe, house and feed the coming 3 billion newcomers.

Where will the energy come from to build these energy intensive nukes, solar towers, while clothing, housing, and feeding 3 billion more new people and clothing, housing, and feeding the 2 billion plus Chindians, who are well on their way to middle class American consumption?

[MonteQuest]

I stand by my original analysis of your comments,

Which was a false position (strawman) attributed to me. An ad hominem, if you will. Attacking me rather than debating the merits.

I, on the other hand, did not attribute any position to you.

I just "commented" that the market cannot create energy.

[MonteQuest]

See, and I do not assume that a requirement in this debate is to "fill the shoes" of oil.

Oil drives the world economy. Filling the shoes of oil is the crux of the debate.

What can fill the shoes?

Nothing we can currently see on the horizon.

Economic growth stops if we don't fill those shoes.

Population growth and energy demand don't.

Connect the dots.

[Revi]

I realize that reserves aren't directly comparable to production rates, which is another arguement, but the FACT wrapped up in this observation is that oil will continue to be produced in reasonable amounts for DECADES, if not CENTURIES. Such is the size of the Orinoco. Simply mind boggling. What this guarentee's is a floor of oil production spanning generations, while the rest of us buy EV's and such, build more nukes, solar panels everywhere we can stick them, solar towers, etc etc.

A floor? "Reasonable amounts" of oil will not offset conventional decline, hoarding, nor provide for growth to clothe, house and feed the coming 3 billion newcomers.

Where will the energy come from to build these energy intensive nukes, solar towers, while clothing, housing, and feeding 3 billion more new people and clothing, housing, and feeding the 2 billion plus Chindians, who are well on their way to middle class American consumption?

We are in a very unstable, leaking ship right now. We keep adding people to it, but if we can keep it afloat with unconventionals we may just be able to make the leap into a renewable economy. Otherwise it's chaos. Obviously we can't save everybody. It's like the Titanic. They are locking the lower classes under the decks now. (the poor countries) The rich are all going to take off on the lifeboats. (Bush, Cheney, et al.) Us middle class passengers will be stuck on the tilting deck, listening to the music. I intend on tieing as many chairs together as possible to make a raft. This renewable economy seems to me to be the best bet to keep some semblance of a civilized life going. If it doesn't work, OK. At least we're not going down with the ship.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

I realize that reserves aren't directly comparable to production rates, which is another arguement, but the FACT wrapped up in this observation is that oil will continue to be produced in reasonable amounts for DECADES, if not CENTURIES. Such is the size of the Orinoco. Simply mind boggling. What this guarentee's is a floor of oil production spanning generations, while the rest of us buy EV's and such, build more nukes, solar panels everywhere we can stick them, solar towers, etc etc.

A floor? "Reasonable amounts" of oil will not offset conventional decline, hoarding, nor provide for growth to clothe, house and feed the coming 3 billion newcomers.
.

In the US, unconventional resources are already offsetting conventional declines in natural gas. So we have an example of how it can be done, and we pioneered it right here.

The worlds uses some 400 Quads of energy in all forms, to ramp up to another 3 Billion people would make that number 600 Quads.

Doesn't strike me as a wildly unrealistic number.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

See, and I do not assume that a requirement in this debate is to "fill the shoes" of oil.

Oil drives the world economy. Filling the shoes of oil is the crux of the debate.

Sure....filling it....or substituting something for it. And since oil is primarily a transport fuel, I say we start with random transportion using something else, as soon as possible. Making it a natural gas world economy wouldn't hurt for the next 20 years just for starters.

Connect the dots.

Well, that alone implies we are starting from the same place, with the same set of assumptions. Apparently, we aren't.

[TonyPrep]

It is, to some extent, a riot that Hubberts original peak oil paper would be used to predict Doom, while those same people completely ignore what a majority of the paper advocated, explained, calculated and concluded.

I don't think I mentioned Hubbert. You were trivialising the problem with the exaggerated "everyone's gonna die" phrase. I was merely pointing out that this is an exaggeration and not the general peak oil theory.

And again, I think this density arguement is amusing, but when you can replace an inefficient ICE with a much more efficient EV, that particular piece goes right out the window.

Not at all. The energy has to come from somewhere. If the energy density is low more is needed to produce enough energy to support business as usual. And it will take a long time to switch to EVs, if it is even possible for the whole fleet (it will eventually be needed for the whole fleet). As energy starts to decline, it will be even more difficult to switch.

I see that you discard every aspect of peak oil theory, except the bit where oil production will start to decline one day. However, I also note that you are doing many of the things that a lot of peak oilers would want to do to prepare. I wonder if you gainsay every single aspect of peak oil theory and every single utterance from almost every commentator who ventures into the doom camp just to wind people up. You do a pretty good job of that, if it's your intention. Apart from that, your deeds would put you in the doomer camp.

I'm always seeking to better understand when peak will occur and what its effects will be. Some of your posts have been educational but, in general, your arguments have been unconvincing.

Tony

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

I'm always seeking to better understand when peak will occur and what its effects will be. Some of your posts have been educational but, in general, your arguments have been unconvincing.

Tony

Arguements must occasionally be taken for a spin to see how they stand up to opposition.

Because I believe that Peak is more of an economic effect rather than an oil production effect, and without any decent economists around to explain how the ideas which get bandied about by us amateurs work or don't work, and under which circumstances, it is difficult to build a complete arguement. Individually.

It really would be nice if Mike would come back and be willing to mix it up.

[TonyPrep]

Yes, its obvious that EROEI is less for unconventionals than conventionals, and my response is "big deal", its still a net positive, an engineer with any experience isn't going to STOP converting those reserves to production if there is money to be made. Simple fact.

This is not the point, at all, about EROEI. Of course, if there is money to be made in doing something, someone will do it. The point about EROEI is purely energy and that is what people here have been referring to. You are referring to economic return on investment, a different matter. Low EROEIs result in low production rates, compared with the EROEIs we used to get, and still get for the most part, for conventional oil.

but the FACT wrapped up in this observation is that oil will continue to be produced in reasonable amounts for DECADES, if not CENTURIES.

That's not a fact, it's a belief. It's a subjective view. If the world could only produce from oil sands and oil shale, how many barrels per day do you think would be possible and, compared to 85 mbpd, would that be "reasonable"? If we could produce at 85 mbpd for as long as we wanted, reported conventional proven reserves would be gone in a few decades. Completely gone. Clearly we can't produce at such a high rate until the last drop is sucked out. So production of conventional oil will start to decline soon and by a lot. Then it is down to unconventionals. I think 4 trillion barrels are estimated for all oil. That would last only 120 years at current rates of consumption, if it could be produced at the current rate. As it can't be produced at the current rate for that long, it will start to decline well before then. Would today's 85 mbpd be considered reasonable for 9 billion people aspiring to western standards of living? How about a decline from that? I think saying reasonable quantities of oil will be produced for centuries is stating a belief, with no substance. I thought you once said that anything not based on science is bunkum. Please outline the science for your view that reasonable quantities of oil could be produced for centuries.

Tony

[MonteQuest]

Sure....filling it....or substituting something for it. And since oil is primarily a transport fuel, I say we start with random transportion using something else, as soon as possible.

Something else? Like what?

Read my Solutions in Isolation thread.

Making it a natural gas world economy wouldn't hurt for the next 20 years just for starters.

Sure, easy as pie.

Imported LNG was 3% of US use last year. By 2025, it is projected to be 21%. So much for "energy independence."

The US has only 5 LNG ports to import natural gas. FERC has plans for 67 proposed & potential LNG Ports.

Only eight shipyards in the world currently build LNG tankers: three in Japan; three in Korea; and two in Europe.

Connect the dots.

Connect the dots.

Well, that alone implies we are starting from the same place, with the same set of assumptions. Apparently, we aren't.

Oh? Economic growth doesn't require energy?

Demand for energy and population growth are not going to rise?

What assumptions I stated don't you agree with?

[MonteQuest]

It really would be nice if Mike would come back and be willing to mix it up.

Maybe he reads your troll-tactics and begs not to?

I wonder if you gainsay every single aspect of peak oil theory and every single utterance from almost every commentator who ventures into the doom camp just to wind people up.

[TonyPrep]

Making it a natural gas world economy wouldn't hurt for the next 20 years just for starters.

Wow! Ramping up natural gas use will just bring on that particular peak even more quickly. I doubt you'd get 20 years.

Tony

[MonteQuest]

The worlds uses some 400 Quads of energy in all forms, to ramp up to another 3 Billion people would make that number 600 Quads.

Doesn't strike me as a wildly unrealistic number.

No?

Arguements must occasionally be taken for a spin to see how they stand up to opposition.

Let's do that, then.

Annual world energy consumption is 14.5 Terawatts (85% fossil fuels)

Terawatt = 1 trillion watts or 15 MBOE
Solar Flux = 174,000 terawatts/day.

However, 1 Gigawatt (1 billion watts) of electric power from solar would require:

12 square miles of solar cells
125 square miles of windmills

By 2050 when we have that additional 3 billion, it is projected we will consume 30 terrawatts. Over a 100% increase. That equates to over 800 quads, not 600, using your math.

We have megawatt solutions for a terawatt world.

"Wildly unrealistic numbers."

“Within a period of time which is very short compared with the total span of human history, supplies of fossil fuels will almost certainly be exhausted. This loss will make man completely dependent upon waterpower, atomic energy, and solar energy for driving his machines.

There are no fundamental physical laws which prevent such a transition, and it is quite possible that society will be able to make the change smoothly.

But it is a transition that will happen only once during the lifetime of the human species...if machine civilization should, because of some catastrophe, stop functioning, it will probably never again come into existence.” Harrison Brown -1954

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Making it a natural gas world economy wouldn't hurt for the next 20 years just for starters.

Wow! Ramping up natural gas use will just bring on that particular peak even more quickly. I doubt you'd get 20 years.

Tony

Unconventionals...unconventionals....lest we not forget the unconventionals......lower production rates...LONG well lives.....same issue, different hydrocarbon.