[zoidberg]

"Just another voice chiming in with his humble opinion." Or another cog in the wheel who has absolutely no overview of his life and times. I don't mean that as an insult, but rather an explanation of our predicament.

He's come and gone and seemed to be a pretty thick skinned Texan so I doubt he would take your comment as an insult. I found it interesting, this is a guy no longer in the industry, he has checked out so to speak. Has no skin in the game and when we were talking about some other subjects I came to the conclusion that he was not just a narrowly focused engineer but rather open minded on issues.

I do of course agree with Rockman's analysis about shale plays and respect his opinions. I am just playing the part of a reporter here in passing on the comments of our guest.

Remember I posed my question not 5 or 10 years but the whole 21st century and he still did not take the bait in seeing any impacts of depletion. Interesting.

I have a suspicion that just as peak oil effects really begin to bite new energy tech will rolled out. I'm thinking around early 2030s once the geopolitical order has been thoroughly reordered the owner of the new techs satisfaction, I was holding my tounge to the question at hand, but ill take the bait.

[ralfy]

I have a suspicion that just as peak oil effects really begin to bite new energy tech will rolled out. I'm thinking around early 2030s once the geopolitical order has been thoroughly reordered the owner of the new techs satisfaction, I was holding my tounge to the question at hand, but ill take the bait.

That new tech will have to meet this:

"The rise of the global middle class"

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

which will require the equivalent of at least one additional earth, plus deal with the effects of environmental damage, global warming, a larger population, and similar issues for other material resources.

[tita]

Yeah, and if USA decline rates are 510,000/bbl/d in four months then that entire 1.5 MMbbl/d OPEC increase that came on starting in January will be compensated for by April 2016, all other things being equal. That might let Iran sanctions be lifted and an additional 1 MMbbl/d of OPEC oil to show up on the market or everything could stall for months as the left hand and the right hand get into a slap fest instead of making a solid decision. If Iran gets out from under sanctions and they do come fully back by April that would extend the 'glut' out until the end of 2016, again all other things being equal. I am sure the Democrat candidate would appreciate that, low oil prices and a healthy economy would just about guarantee a big D sweep in the fall 2016 elections, but lets not drag off into politics on this thread. Plenty of room for that stuff over in the America's Forum.

If the demand stays the same, yes. But it should be higher in 2016... at least 1 MMbbl/d. Iran additions will find its way quite easily on the markets.

[zoidberg]

I have a suspicion that just as peak oil effects really begin to bite new energy tech will rolled out. I'm thinking around early 2030s once the geopolitical order has been thoroughly reordered the owner of the new techs satisfaction, I was holding my tounge to the question at hand, but ill take the bait.

That new tech will have to meet this:

"The rise of the global middle class"

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

which will require the equivalent of at least one additional earth, plus deal with the effects of environmental damage, global warming, a larger population, and similar issues for other material resources.

I'm not taking that bait.

[GoghGoner]

Eight years ago, the focus was on Iraq and Brazil has the two biggest sources of additional supply. Iraq did grow but Brazil wasn't able to grow significantly and has doubled its oil imports since then. There was quite a bit of talk about US, Canada, and Venezuela at that time. Two of those three were successful with Venezuela exports falling over that time.

So, consensus opinion (the mixing of the Yergins and the Peakers) was too optimistic on deep water and unconventional from South America and too pessimistic on unconventional from North America.

With the focus being on Iran's supply right now, we have reduced the number of possible sources of new supply into one country.

I voted for peak in 2015. Not that I know but I still like to make my guesses.

[Pops]

Just saw these charts from Berman, here...

[Pops]

I thought this was interesting, Pete

Peak oil production was accelerated by a confluence of factors. Zero interest rates in the U.S. and Middle East supply interruptions before 2014 caused high oil prices. Easy money caused over-investment in the oil business. Over-production and weakened demand resulted in the collapse in world oil prices. OPEC’s reaction and decision to produce at maximum rates have created the “perfect storm” for peak oil production several years before it would have occurred otherwise.

I described this somewhere as "pulling forward" expensive production that would have otherwise occurred somewhere down the curve. Making the peak higher but the drop faster.
The tide going out just before the sharkfinado comes in, lol

[Cog]

Ten years from now we are still going to be discussing peak and why it hasn't happened yet. That is, if the nursing home has Wi-Fi.

[Tanada]

Ten years from now we are still going to be discussing peak and why it hasn't happened yet. That is, if the nursing home has Wi-Fi.

Speak for yourself, you can dodder around the nursing home if you wish but I would rather be accidentally run over by a truck as I toddle across the street on my cane or walker than live in one of those establishments.

[dissident]

Just saw these charts from Berman, here...

Declaring peak in 2015 is not justified by the variance. We need a solid two years of decline (it does not have to be monotonic month to month) to be able to make such an inference in a context of prices high enough to enable non-conventional production. Most of the current decline in non-conventional is due to the low oil price (driven by a global recession, MSM happy thoughts drivel notwithstanding) and not due to an actual reservoir depletion.

[Pops]

Given the high price, decline in conventional since early '12 is more "interesting" to me than unconventional alone or all liquids. Even if unconventionals started growing again before the year is over, the lack of growth in conventionals after 10 years of trying seems to me the big dot.

Unconventionals are separated from conventionals by $50-60-70 per bbl in lifecycle costs, they are effectively a different product. They look sorta the same at the pump because the cost difference is masked by running them through the same hose but they are no replacement for good old bubblin' crude.

[ROCKMAN]

pstarr - Just a little picky point about terminology that we use. I have trouble at times understanding how folks view "declining" production vs "decreasing" production. All producing wells are typically in a constant state of decline. But not all trends are decreasing in production even if individuals wells, like new shale completions, are declining significantly: new wells more then offset decline of existing wells. Likewise if a hot trend, such as the shale plays, when the rig count collapses PRODUCTION can decrease much faster then the DECLINE of the existing wells.'

IOW two different and seperate dynamics. Lower oil prices will have no significant effect on the decline rates of the unconventional reservoirs but could a significant negative effect on the production rate in those trends.

[KaiserJeep]

My personal estimate is that we can run our society in the USA on 1/4th the energy we use today, with no especial hardships. It does require an all-out effort to re-boot our infrastructure and rebuild our housing and mass transit systems.

Which if it happened, would enable a comfortable population of about a Billion in the USA before the slow crash killed most of them, unless we could transition off FF's. It's a lose-lose situation in the long run, and things get really serious in the late 21st Century.

[vtsnowedin]

My personal estimate is that we can run our society in the USA on 1/4th the energy we use today, with no especial hardships. It does require an all-out effort to re-boot our infrastructure and rebuild our housing and mass transit systems.

Which if it happened, would enable a comfortable population of about a Billion in the USA before the slow crash killed most of them, unless we could transition off FF's. It's a lose-lose situation in the long run, and things get really serious in the late 21st Century.

I can see rebuilding our mass transit system but I think we have plenty of houses and if you go by a bathrooms per capita measure would have to agree with your one billion estimate. Why you think we would then die off I don't know. If we are comfortable what do you expect to change?

[KaiserJeep]

I expect that even Americans can no longer afford any petroleum products by them, and the whole continent will be dingy from coal soot and many people dying from respiratory disease. I hate coal myself.

[ralfy]

Production per capita might also be helpful, as oil is needed for a growing population:

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... k-oil.html

[Keith_McClary]

My personal estimate is that we can run our society in the USA on 1/4th the energy we use today, with no especial hardships. It does require an all-out effort to re-boot our infrastructure and rebuild our housing and mass transit systems.

Yah, the gubmint should use its legislative and taxation powers to change our behaviour.