ROCKMAN wrote:"The remaining oil in North America is basically worthless. Drilling of that stuff is not preventing collapse." And yet today the US refineries are paying about $140 BILLION PER YEAR for that worthless oil. I suppose we each have our own definition of "worthless". LOL
dissident wrote:The EIA graph is utter rubbish. It invokes a mythical, basically unlimited undiscovered category to produce such retarded projections.
Dissident wrote: There is no hint of a basis for expecting such vast replacement of depleting conventional reservoirs.
Dissident wrote:The EROEI debate is nonsense as well. At the present time non-conventional is still cheap to extract. In the near future it will be too expensive to extract 1 barrel of oil by burning 20 barrels and over.
Dissident wrote: People have been arguing that the oil price will never reach high levels because the global economy cannot handle it. That in itself kills off any chance of extraction of very low EROEI oil.
ennui2 wrote:So now peak oilers have had to scramble and come up with a far more complex model in which to explain the movement of the markets.
"...and that ENERGY comes from all sorts of places."
AdamB wrote:ennui2 wrote:So now peak oilers have had to scramble and come up with a far more complex model in which to explain the movement of the markets.
Done deal. And interestingly, not a single peaker is willing to match that equation to the US production profile and demonstrate how much better it fit what the US has done, compared to Hubbert's simplistic, single cycle model.
tita wrote:Maybe we will see a sine wave profile on top of a plateau for some years, but this won't change the global shape which is Hubbert's curve. And the plateau was expected to happen before a real decline.
StarvingLion wrote:"...and that ENERGY comes from all sorts of places."
It comes from ponzi fuel (which guts the real economy underlying it via everything must get cheaper and get rid of all the employees)...this character 'Petro' from Pattersons website said today:
ROCKMAN wrote:BTW a modern day Hubbert could do the same with our current shale plays: obviously they offer a new sine wave of US oil production. And as long as prices stay low they present a curve very similar to what Hubbert developed for the trends he used: a rapid build up followed by a much slower decline.
Supposing that ultimate total production from the Eagle Ford will be 50% higher than the ultimates reported in the two charts below, 2.7*1.5 = 4 billion barrels of oil and 12 Tcf*1.5 = 18 Tcf will be produced. Therefore, in total, the Eagle Ford shale might eliminate 1.5 years of U.S. crude oil imports, and satisfy 8 months of consumption of natural gas.
Also supposing that ultimate total production from the Bakken will be 50% higher than the ultimates reported in the two charts below, 2.6*1.5 = 3.9 billion barrels of oil and 3.3 Tcf*1.5 = 5 Tcf will be produced. Therefore, in total, the Bakken shale might eliminate 1.5 years of U.S. crude oil imports, and satisfy 2 months of consumption of natural gas.
Zarquon wrote:[
And maybe it's only my still confused amateur understanding, but as someone here put it a while ago, there's prices and there's geology that shape the dynamic. Prices are basically unpredictable, but they affect the short-term dynamics, the wells drilled within the next one or two years. Over a longer time span you'll see the 'sine-wave', as markets move up and down. But finally, if you look at the total lifespan of a field or trend, over fifteen or twenty years, then the sine-wave of stop-and-go development becomes simply an average. And all that's left then is geology. That's where ole King Hubby comes in.
Zarquon wrote:ROCKMAN wrote:BTW a modern day Hubbert could do the same with our current shale plays: obviously they offer a new sine wave of US oil production. And as long as prices stay low they present a curve very similar to what Hubbert developed for the trends he used: a rapid build up followed by a much slower decline.
This is from Ted Patzek's blog:
http://patzek-lifeitself.blogspot.de/20 ... ng_16.html
ennui2 wrote:Adam, when all is said and done there IS still a geological limit.
ennui2 wrote:It's just that there are phase-changes in what people drill for and how aggressively, which are based on market forces and how much stuff is left (i.e. going for the low-hanging-fruit first).
ennui2 wrote: The problem with doomers is that they simply take a snapshot of things as it is now and assume that these phase-changes will never happen. Drilling tapers off always means the oil's running out with no alternative explanation is ever considered. High cost of drilling means the cost to drill must always be high. X amount of oil used to drill means X amount of oil must ALWAYS be used to drill. Various above-ground disruptions will keep disrupting things or get worse, never better. Just this monochromatic pessimistic analysis. The reality is that, as I keep saying, BAU finds a way to hang on longer than doomers think it will. It will not hang on forever, just longer than doomers want.
AdamB wrote:Hanging on into tomorrow isn't good enough doom. It must happen now!! And when one trigger for their favorite doom scenario doesn't pan out, there are always others. Climate change being one of the current majority favorites I believe.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 107 guests