Hello Doomers (Shift of Hubbert's Peak)

[Moto]

I'm new here, but I'm here to stir the pot a little because I think things are a little too one sided when you are always among like-minded people. I have gone full circle on this topic, and now I'm not exactly sure what I think. I sort of think we will see a shift in Hubbert's Peak based on new drilling technology. Anyone feel like changing my mind?

[kpeavey]

A reduced EROEI needs to be included in your 'shift'.
See: The Net Hubbert Curve
Happy drilling.

[Fishman]

Moto, at 20 million barrels a day that 20 billion lasts a few years. We go almost unimaginable amounts of oil. Also that oil will be MUCH harder to extract. Energy "independence" at $10 a gallon for gas is still a b*%#h

[Moto]

kpeavey that just happens to be the last post on the blog which was posted a few days ago. (you weren't the first person to bring it up) just look at the root energy site.

theoildrum post is mostly based on old data. I don't totally disagree with it, and EROI is not what it was in the 1930s but we are a lot better at moving energy than were were then.

Please ask specific questions and I will do my best to find real world data. I know that efficiency of fracking is increasing, but it isn't the easiest thing to find data for.

[Keith_McClary]

I sort of think we will see a shift in Hubbert's Peak based on new drilling technology. Anyone feel like changing my mind?

The first graph in that article is at about 4 in 2008, the second graph starts out at 7.5 in Jan 2009. Did production almost double during 2008?

[Moto]

Good catch I hadn't noticed that. The discrepancy is that the second graph considers all liquid fuel production while the top one is only oil. Regardless the I was only trying to show the trend.

[ian807]

I'm new here, but I'm here to stir the pot a little because I think things are a little too one sided when you are always among like-minded people. I have gone full circle on this topic, and now I'm not exactly sure what I think. I sort of think we will see a shift in Hubbert's Peak based on new drilling technology. Anyone feel like changing my mind?

I think a look at the numbers will do that. I suggest that you purchase the book referenced on this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil. Rather than just looking at quantities of oil, the issue is translated to energy and how much oil contributes to the world.

[Moto]

The whole point of my post is unconventional resources which seem to be ignored in the book and are game changers. I will probably get the book though it is fairly short, and looks like it has some good information.

This video will probably cover a lot of what is in the book.
http://www.knowledgestream.org/kstream/ ... em_id=9679

[pstarr]

Great just what we need. Another shale gas, oil shale, bakken, THAI, SAGH, NG promotion. Call oily.

[Moto]

I'm not promoting anything. I just want people to think about it. If there is a future for this world it is going to require developing all our resources responsibly.

[ian807]

I'm not promoting anything. I just want people to think about it. If there is a future for this world it is going to require developing all our resources responsibly.

I don't doubt there's a future for the world, just not one like the one we know now where 7 billion people can eat every day because there's enough oil (or other energy input) to do so.

Ditto on the fact that there's lots of oil in the ground, just not enough that's economically or energetically profitable enough to extract for much longer than the next 40 years, tops, regardless of which technology you use, and possibly not enough to sustain the world's supply-chains of goods and services for even that long. It's not just about oil. It's about total energy, interlocking systems complexity, technological biases, politics (e.g. resource nationalism, terrorism, etc.).

It's not the end of the world. It's a transition. Pleasant? Probably not. Survivable by humans? Almost certainly, if few enough nuclear events occur.

[Moto]

I basically agree with that. I'm banking on people figuring out that they need to move to other sources. I worry that a government with no energy plan is going to attempt to move too quickly to renewable sources. I'm ok with regulation pushing alternatives, but if they push too hard and ignore resources that we already have they will just create more problems. My goal is just to make people think about what we have.

[kublikhan]

It's not all doomers here, we have several cornys here as well. oilfinder2 in particular likes to point out all of unconventional oil we have and increases in oil production. He has been posting about it for years. Unconventional oil sources are discussed frequently on this board.

[pstarr]

I basically agree with that. I'm banking on people figuring out that they need to move to other sources. I worry that a government with no energy plan is going to attempt to move too quickly to renewable sources. I'm ok with regulation pushing alternatives, but if they push too hard and ignore resources that we already have they will just create more problems. My goal is just to make people think about what we have.

I am not as kind as others here, I have run out of patience, and so I won't belabor niceties; all evidence suggest you are merely another industry troll. We have lots. Say goodbye.

[Bruce_S]

I basically agree with that. I'm banking on people figuring out that they need to move to other sources.

They already are. Otherwise Oilfinder wouldn't be so irritating because he wouldn't have so much evidence to refute the common peak oil meme of scarcity. Otherwise we would have had the Natural Gas Cliff in the US in 2005, instead of a glut. Otherwise the slow but steady march of increased reserve volumes from places like Canada and Venezuela would not have happened, and the BP Annual Review would only show dropping reserves with consumption, instead of increasing ones.

The evidence is already here. You certainly don't need anything more than recent history to prove it, and certainly Hubbert doesn't need to get involved in the least.

[pstarr]

I basically agree with that. I'm banking on people figuring out that they need to move to other sources.

They already are. Otherwise Oilfinder wouldn't be so irritating because he wouldn't have so much evidence to refute the common peak oil meme of scarcity. Otherwise we would have had the Natural Gas Cliff in the US in 2005, instead of a glut. Otherwise the slow but steady march of increased reserve volumes from places like Canada and Venezuela would not have happened, and the BP Annual Review would only show dropping reserves with consumption, instead of increasing ones.

The evidence is already here. You certainly don't need anything more than recent history to prove it, and certainly Hubbert doesn't need to get involved in the least.

You must be referring to tight shale gas, shale oil, oil shale and necessary and very expensive production systems such as THAI, SAGH, and shale horizontal fracturing? Correct?

It appears from our previous conversations you are unfamiliar with net energy analysis of low-eroei production systems? It's quite obvious to other long term members here, folks not enmeshed in psychological denial or various investor scams, that this highly entropic industrial/financial/retail/consumer infrastructure requires inexpensive free-flowing liquids/gases from appropriate source rocks. Those with high permeabiity and porosity?

Hum? Makes me wonder who you are? You kind of sound familiar? Hum? Shorty>?

[kublikhan]

Renewable energy is ideal, but is not realistic in the near future. I have crunched the numbers and it just is not going to happen any time soon.

I plan to cover other energy sources. I just didn’t have time find the numbers. I am less familiar with natural gas and coal in terms of energy production and life span.

I have the levelized costs of natural gas, coal, wind, etc:
Estimated levelized cost of new generation resources brought online in 2016

Levelized cost is a nice way to capture many of the varibles that are involved in building and running a power plant. it includes things like capital cost, fuel cost, fixed and variable O&M cost, financing costs, utilization rate, etc. For example, in the link above wind only has a capacity factor of 34% because of variability in available wind. Anyway, I don't see why you say renewables are unrealistic. The levelized cost of wind is cheaper than nuclear and comparable to coal. Hydro is cheaper than all 3. Seems pretty realistic to me. Natural gas is the cheapest of all, but that of course depends on the current price of natural gas. Right now prices are very low because of high supply and low demand. But if you cause a spike in demand, say by shifting a significant amount of our energy needs from oil or coal onto natural gas, you are also going to cause a spike in the price of natural gas, which will cause a spike in the levelized price of natural gas.

Most environmental groups are full of crap, are typically uninformed, and get in the way of progress for everyone. It is hard to fix problems when someone puts the breaks on before you even get started. It is important to make mistakes that are worth making. I liken most environmental groups to ambulance chasing lawyers and they typically cause more damage than good.

Ouch. That seems like a rather extreme position to take. I would gather from that statement that you work in the energy industry and your company has tangled with environmental groups in the past? I for one have real concerns that the water I drink and the air I breath are clean. But I want to give you a fair shake, and you did ask for specific questions, so can you point out something specific about how the environmental groups are full of crap?

[Pops]

Probably right P so just don't respond.

As far as shifting the peak, if you are talking strictly about volume maybe, but we aren't even keeping up with past increases so far.

But Hubbert didn't pay attention much to economics. The way I look at it is in my sig line. Long term the real price for conventional oil was about $24 (I think) and this year it's about $110 (brent) and it doesn't look to be dropping very fast.

So really, I think you can figure that we've already past the hubert peak of $24 oil and are into the replacement phase now. So far we're burning food and spending a lot of money trying to keep the buzz going with tar and technology.

[Moto]

I have worked with several environmental groups on campus, attended a few National Sierra Club meetings and worked with clubs to clean up campus. Overall I have never been impressed with any of them. There ideas are not always bad, but the extremism makes sure that nothing ever gets done (kind of like our current government). I have worked in manufacturing windmill blades for 3MW wind towers, and indirectly I work in an energy related field.

Josh fox is a good example of someone who claims to be an environmentalist, and is full of crap. About half of his so so called documentary is an outright lie. Regardless he managed to grow a huge following of people by showing them some videos of flaming faucets. It was hard to search for facts on fracking before his video was released, but now it is even more difficult for the average individual. His video will probably have a long term positive effect on industry, but I don't like how he panders to people who have no understanding of the subsurface.

That quoted statement was largely pointed at National Sierra Club.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=md0Fdy0dlq8
http://youtu.be/rrzv8jt0bLI
Gimmicky and do not offer working solutions.
(The oil industry does the exact same thing and I hate it)

It is going to take me awhile to check out your numbers. Looks kind of good though.

[Moto]

strictly about volume maybe, but we aren't even keeping up with past increases so far.

I agree with you completely the Hubbert's Peak portion is largely to get the article read. I'm mostly using to get hits from people who don't understand that hubbert's theory. I agree that hubbers peak happened several years ago. I do think we will have a second named peak based on new drilling technologies.