Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil

[WebHubbleTelescope]

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.

Species extinction is more of an economic effect than a biological effect, and without any decent economists around to explain biogenesis, it will be difficult to build a good argument. Wha .... ?

Belief systems GONE WILD!

Indeed, economics is closer to religio-politico trial-and-error than it is to science. Not to say that trial-and-error is not used by scientists, just that the experimental subjects in science are not masses of humans and entire countries.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

While the late-70's and early 80's were hardly a tea party, it most certainly was an economy.

What if we had not increased production with the North Sea and Prudhoe?

Then we wouldn't have had to suffer through the "silly Americuns converting to SUV's" craze which reversed the conservation efforts of the 80's.

Economics, economics, it all ends up being economics. Unfortunately. I enjoy the technical issues more.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

To think we could ever ramp up unconventionals to do what conventionals could not is wishful thinking.

I don't assume we need growth in unconventionals past what the conventionals couldn't do, only stabilized flowrates at more current levels. Helps out for the economics.

Gibberish.

You mean like "connect the dots" as an answer to anything?

Particularly considering we don't agree on where we ARE, let alone where we are GOING?

Is the replacement of natural gas flowrates in the US from conventional sources with unconventional ones so difficult a concept to grasp, or do you not like the obvious and high probability event of this same event/process taking place planetwide?

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

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

What unconventional natural gas deposits are we talking about, here? And do you think they can withstand a wholesale change to that fuel, as you suggest?

Barnett Shale for starters. Currently residing at the #2 spot in field natural gas production in the US. I'm not certain, but the CBM in the San Juan Basin ranks right up there, might even be #1 nowadays, although I don't have the figures right in front of me to check right now. I just heard the Barnett go by as #2 the other day.

Just go check out the graph Seahorse referenced in the Gorge thread, and check out the two peaks of natural gas in the US, and then ask yourself, is it geology, or did Jimmy Carter change that graph all by his littl' ol' self?

The beginning of the unconventional barrage started around then, when Jimmy was saying the same things people are saying now.

Still, oil is different than gas. Unconventionals in oil are a tougher game, but the Orinoco has moved from "tough" to "reserves" inside of 15 years, I imagine there are others but I'm not going to sweat them quite yet.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Indeed, economics is closer to religio-politico trial-and-error than it is to science. Not to say that trial-and-error is not used by scientists, just that the experimental subjects in science are not masses of humans and entire countries.

I like to refer to economics as "The Science of Greed and Incompetence" myself. And I agree that calling it a science is giving it way too much credit.

But some of the basic tenants aren't all bad, they just need more probabilistic methods involved to help us amateurs sort out our own uncertainty.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

Do those dots connect okay?

A)No, FERC still has plans and prosposals for 67. We cannot scale up to do what you dream of.
B)Where are the natural gas vehicle plants?
C)Filling stations?
D)Infrastructure?
E)The market will provide in time?

A) FERC is a relic of the ol' Idiot Jimmy days, and thank God hasn't interfered near as much over the last 20 years as they used to, and I don't care about a proposal count, I care about what the latest industry estimates I found are. Free market knows more than FERC most any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
B) You mean like Honda Civics? I suppose you think there is a huge difference between a ICE that uses NG and one which uses gasoline? Ahhh....nope.
C)My garage?
D)You missed the natural gas pipeline structures already in place? Or aren't aware of peak and off peak issues just like electricity, mostly more seasonally than daily of course. Do you think maybe you need MORE than the 67 FERC spots you referenced? Not that I think we need that much considering the size of what a single LNG train can do.
E) Its already started. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to point out NG powered Honda Civics and their garage compressors, existing LNG points, pipelines criss crossing the country, NG storage fields, or any of the other goodies already built and ready to go.

NG is really a decent alternative for awhile, and as its fungibility approaches that of oil it will only become more obvious.

All quite reasonable dots to follow I might add.

[pstarr]

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.

Species extinction is more of an economic effect than a biological effect, and without any decent economists around to explain biogenesis, it will be difficult to build a good argument. Wha .... ?

Belief systems GONE WILD!

Indeed, economics is closer to religio-politico trial-and-error than it is to science. Not to say that trial-and-error is not used by scientists, just that the experimental subjects in science are not masses of humans and entire countries.

this same disconnect explains RGD's misunderstanding of eroei.

As eroei declines more energy, labor, biosphere, infrastructure etc. is devoted to oil production. That means less attention to other social and economic segments. Finally half the world's population is involved in stripping the land for tar, shale, and potatos for what? transportation fuel. when we could have just borrowed burro in the first place.

[NEOPO]

all I know is not to follow Mike Lynchs oil price predictions

Check isnt in the mail Mike!!

[pstarr]

The Barnett Shale is known as a "tight gas" reservoir, indicating that the gas is not easily extracted. The shale is very hard, and was virtually impossible to produce gas in commercial quantities from this formation until recent improvements were made in hydrofracture technology (and recent price increases in natural gas prices made the technology economically feasible).

I know it pisses you off that I don't have your fancy degree and that I get my information free from the internet. But for sake of debate, just explain how the extra work (energy) to hydrofract the shale is not lost to the productive economy.

regarding orinoco. Chavez calls it reserve. I call it asphalt. turning tar into something useful requires what? work. energy. petroleum

[davep]

This topic seems popular. Is it worth trawling through or can somebody give me a brief synopsis?

[pstarr]

I like to refer to economics as "The Science of Greed and Incompetence" myself. And I agree that calling it a science is giving it way too much credit.

Can't have it both ways RGD. Either the market creates more petroleum. Or declining petroleum destroys the market. Which is it? Get off the fence. Commit. Are you a doomer or a dreamer?

But some of the basic tenants aren't all bad, they just need more probabilistic methods involved to help us amateurs sort out our own uncertainty.

When you can't dazzle em with brilliance, baffle em with bullsh%t.

[pstarr]

A) FERC is a relic of the ol' Idiot Jimmy days, and thank God hasn't interfered near as much over the last 20 years as they used to, and I don't care about a proposal count, I care about what the latest industry estimates I found are. Free market knows more than FERC most any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

this is getting easier and easier, as your modus operandi becomes more apparent.

By no means is Jimmy Carter an idiot--you moron. And FERC is still reputable. Unlike FEMA destroyed by your neocons heros.

B) You mean like Honda Civics? I suppose you think there is a huge difference between a ICE that uses NG and one which uses gasoline? Ahhh....nope.

Ahhh....yep. Natural gas tanks, lines, carborators etc. are completely different and require different mounts, hoses, etc. This requires retooling.

C)My garage?

there you go again with that doomer nonsence. I don't think your neighbors would appreciate your Thunderdome Methane Pig herd in the garage. You might blow up the block.

D)You missed the natural gas pipeline structures already in place? Or aren't aware of peak and off peak issues just like electricity, mostly more seasonally than daily of course. Do you think maybe you need MORE than the 67 FERC spots you referenced? Not that I think we need that much considering the size of what a single LNG train can do.

Do not confuse the tiny little residential and retail natural gas distribution system with one needed for autofueling. Different scale that is impossible to install given the density of the current infrastructure. Are you willing to have your house ripped up for the pipes.

E) Its already started. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to point out NG powered Honda Civics and their garage compressors, existing LNG points, pipelines criss crossing the country, NG storage fields, or any of the other goodies already built and ready to go.

sure. just like the much vaunted hydrogen fuel economy. What do you call an infrastructure that only exists in your over-active imagination RGD? How about virtualstructure or happyworld or playworld. Any others anyone?

NG is really a decent alternative for awhile, and as its fungibility approaches that of oil it will only become more obvious.

All quite reasonable dots to follow I might add.

Only for awhile? What next? Fusion? Blacklight? Tesla coils? Venus gas?

[NEOPO]

Dave - yeah read every page - like punishment.... since you are on my shit list today

You see according to most economists with a mind for energy the price of SLC should be around $40 a barrel right about now........

[davep]

Dave - yeah read every page - like punishment.... since you are on my shit list today

You see according to most economists with a mind for energy the price of SLC should be around $40 a barrel right about now........

'nuff said!

[pstarr]

This topic seems popular. Is it worth trawling through or can somebody give me a brief synopsis?

ReserveGrowthDroolz's mentor Lynch (or is is Yergin?) cut and ran after being called out and dressed down by the Wiki crowd. So RGD is single-handedly carrying the banner for paper barrels and abiotic reserve growth against a doomer horde.

[TonyPrep]

NG is really a decent alternative for awhile

This is one of the main points where you seem to rely on the magic of the market. We can use this for a while, that for a while, always increasing the energy use (aside from occasional efficiency efforts). It is an enormous energy and financial drain to build new/additional infrastructure for each solution that you propose but you seem to think the market will provide the resources ad infinitum. OK, you don't believe in infinity but provided it isn't a problem in your lifetime, you don't see it as an issue. I kind of agree with this last point (though I'd have to include my kids' lifetimes and their kids' lifetimes) but most of your position relies on faith, particularly faith in the markets.

Tony

[pstarr]

NG is really a decent alternative for awhile

This is one of the main points where you seem to rely on the magic of the market. We can use this for a while, that for a while, always increasing the energy use (aside from occasional efficiency efforts). It is an enormous energy and financial drain to build new/additional infrastructure for each solution that you propose but you seem to think the market will provide the resources ad infinitum. OK, you don't believe in infinity but provided it isn't a problem in your lifetime, you don't see it as an issue. I kind of agree with this last point (though I'd have to include my kids' lifetimes and their kids' lifetimes) but most of your position relies on faith, particularly faith in the markets.

Tony

RGD is either an academic or is very young. He/she does not seem to understand the very very hard work that goes into actually making things. You can not snap your fingers and turn shitty reserves into light crude. Just as you can't instantly make a NG world. RGD does not understand scope or scale

Visit a gas station that needs to uncover and replace an old leaking underground gas tank. $20,000, $50,000,$100,000 for the upgrade. Multiply that by the number of gas stations in the USA. Cost? $300 billion.

You don't just convert to NG, or fusion, or this, or that, willy nilly.

[MonteQuest]

What if we had not increased production with the North Sea and Prudhoe?

Then we wouldn't have had to suffer through the "silly Americuns converting to SUV's" craze which reversed the conservation efforts of the 80's.

Actually, gasoline consumption continued to increase during the "energy crisis" of the 70's-80's. It was at the commercial and industrial sectors where the conservation and efficiency gains were found.

[WebHubbleTelescope]

This topic seems popular. Is it worth trawling through or can somebody give me a brief synopsis?

One side says reserves of oil exist in every field beyond what was originally predicted after discovery, effectively delaying peak oil for years and years.

The other side says that early estimates of reserve are accurate enough to predict an imminent peak.

The side of truth lies in the realm of time. Only the passage of time will decide the ultimate outcome.

Knock yourself out and read as much as you want.

[MonteQuest]

You mean like "connect the dots" as an answer to anything?

No, that what you wrote is gibberish.

Particularly considering we don't agree on where we ARE, let alone where we are GOING?

You disagree that production will decline while demand and population will rise? Which of these dots do you disagree with?

Is the replacement of natural gas flowrates in the US from conventional sources with unconventional ones so difficult a concept to grasp, or do you not like the obvious and high probability event of this same event/process taking place planetwide?

Scalability, production rates, and EROEI dictate that it will not meet decline nor new demand. We are going to import LNG.