[AdamB]

Real agencies with real political agendas, like the IEA and EIA, have drawn implausible conclusions based on its flawed data?

Flawed data? Have you read the USGS?
It is one of the most well researched pieces of material that is out there ... it is the only agency that provides an estimate (call it confidence interval, Highest Posterior Density Region ) to go with all the numbers they provide.

Which is exactly why Monte discounts it perhaps? I mean, when the real earth science folks get involved, how can an honest working ecologist ever fight back? They can't. So they just ignore the information?

Just because a couple of morons within the IEA used the data in a particular and wrong way does not mean that the USGS produces flawed data. Additionally USGS data does not allow any conclusion to be made regarding oil decline, maximum production, peak date etc. It is only an assessment of what lies under the ground that is accompanied by a quantitative assessment of the precision of the first statement.

Well, it is my argument that we need more economists involved in the economic component of peak oil evaluation, just as we need industry professionals like Mr Doyle and My reservegrowth, and CERTAINLY we need geoscientists of the caliber and proven abilities of the USGS. Sure, the IEA makes a mess of things, but economics is messy, rarely probabilistic, but considering that peak oil turned out as they expected, generally speaking, and the industry folks expected (both of them using economic concepts), they cannot be discounted too heavily.

[AdamB]

If the USGS recoverable reserves numbers are higher than those used by others predicting the peak by 2010, does that not extrapolate to a USGS peak after 2010?

You guys are missing the question I answered.

There you go again Mr Monte. The USGS doesn't do recoverable reserves either. Terminology matters here, perhaps this is why some of these arguments from back when peak was new are so sideways, and you are on the receiving end of having gotten it wrong?

An understanding of reserves, resources, in-place estimates, and all the probabilistic measures used when handling them is quite important.

The downside to getting all of this type of information correct is that now we must draw in the petroleum engineers who do various types of reserves, integrate their information with the technically recoverable but not necessarily economic RESOURCES of group like the USGS, and get them all mashed together in some economic context of future production, something that about only the EIA and IEA do.

Obviously they know something about these definitions, and even though some aren't fond of their answers, until they can come up with an integrated one of their own ( as opposed to the now discredited idea of fitting time series oil data with all decline, all the time nonsense curves), they really don't have a leg to stand on.

Which is why I once had such high hopes for ASPO, charging into the lions den back in 2012...and then...bubcuss. No model results, no commentary on cost functions, NOTHING. I find it hard to believe that the EIA is so good that the combined weight of ASPO USA and the accompanying TOD editors couldn't come up with anything they had done poorly...but that is the history of it. It is telling that shortly afterwards ASPO imploded, TOD imploded, could it be linked to their inability to find anything wrong with the EIA methods?

[AdamB]

Most people don't want to actually read the USGS work, it becomes obvious real quick the difference between quality transparent work and the back of the envelope, make it up as you go along approach which appears more popular on the other side of the aisle.

Oh Mr reserve, this is an interesting statement. In this thread, and this thread alone, I would have to agree that the kind of poor logic, bad math and cherry picking of data is prominently on display, and you have every right to note how poorly those without the right type of science training might lead to such a conclusion, but you can't make this statement about everyone. Sure, the peak oilers don't have resource cost curves, they don't have the best geologic science used in their bell shaped curve fitting, sure they might stretch a point here and there and have obviously screwed the pooch when it comes to their prognostications on going forward from this time in the past, but that doesn't mean their ideas have no validity. There must be a maximum rate of a finite item produced, and fascination with predicting when is an okay hobby, even if the economic theory behind it says that it might not matter in the least

[AdamB]

Recoverable, in the ground, and UNDISCOVERED. Not production

If they estimate recoverable but that amount isn't produced, it's fairly useless information, isn't it?

It is not. It is actually the cornerstone of Hubbert's idea, and few tackle it with the quality and consistency that the USGS does. Still does I believe.

It is therefore amazing that someone would admit discounting this information, from the consummate professionals and Hubbert's own descendants in this regard. Quite the faux pas from anyone who wants to be taken seriously when it comes to global endowment type topics.

[AdamB]

RGR,

I'm not sure how you think uranium will make up for the shortfall in energy caused by the decline of oil.

Because at the end of the day, the entire span of this debate isn't about oil, oil is but some small, needed mostly by soccer moms energy source which is convienent and can be replaced.

When push comes to shove, its about energy, and electricity is where its at. With electricity, all else will follow. Electric cars and pluggable hybrids blow such a hole in crude demand that it won't matter in the long run. In the end, its all about the grid.

He shoots! He scores!

An industry guy who sees the EV transport revolution coming before the first Volt rolls off the assembly line? Mr Reserve, who the hell are you! An industry guy knowing that the EVs are the answer, and within a few years, as they roll off assembly lines, the things you mentioned are EXACTLY the issue?!

Well, they were, but then your industry pals turned drill baby drill into a flood of new supply, and again you noted it was from the unconventionals, and if I may be so bold, what do you really do for a living? Someone who knew what was unfolding a decade before it did, across multiple specialties, and incorporating coherent economic angles as well, are you just screwing around and have your hand on a crystal ball, or do you do something in industry related more to analysis or whatnot rather than real oil work?

[ennui2]

Just to refocus attention on breaking news.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... get-better

Prices will stay low for up to a decade as Chinese economic growth slows and the U.S. shale industry acts as a cap on any rally, according to Ian Taylor, chief executive officer of Vitol Group, the world’s largest independent oil trader. Even refiners, whose profits have held up better than expected, are seeing a worsening outlook.

Even if this analysis is overly corny, wouldn't it be fair to think that cheap oil might last at least for the next few years?

I mean, this kind of reportage really couldn't get more corny:

BP Plc boss Bob Dudley described himself as “very bearish” and joked that the surplus is so extreme that people will soon be filling swimming pools with crude.

I don't think we've had this much of a glut since the late 90s period.

It's probably the absolutely worst environment to try to successfully convince anyone that geologic oil depletion is a clear and present danger.

[AdamB]

Even if this analysis is overly corny, wouldn't it be fair to think that cheap oil might last at least for the next few years?

I don't think "overly corny" is the way to describe it, it lends credence to the entire fear meme of scarcity related to oil. Some people have a better understanding of the way the world, and oil, work, and some have less better of an understanding, or worse yet some belief that forces them to just always think that doom is around the corner. The evidence just in this one thread of how poorly some of the folks during the time "got it", versus the industry related folks (but perhaps more importantly, those who took Econ 101 sometime during their academic careers) got it.

I don't think we've had this much of a glut since the late 90s period.

It's probably the absolutely worst environment to try to successfully convince anyone that geologic oil depletion is a clear and present danger.

There are multiple periods of oil glut, going backwards in time. There was a blip in 2008, another blip towards the end of the 1990's with the Asian flu, the near complete wipeout of industry with the 1986 crash, the same kind of running out/peak meme during the 1970's after the US passed its 1970's peak (as opposed to the one being created now by the shale revolution, or "unconventionals" as Mr reserve called them), and the really BAD time of plenty? Post WWII all the way through about 1970.

That was a quarter century of industry just solidly doing their jobs, keeping the price low and stable. The 1970's became a boom period, and then the 1986 crash and accompanying low prices didn't even last 15 years. The fear here for industry isn't that this is 2008, it isn't, or it would be over all ready. The fear here on not just industries part but peakers in general is that this is 1945. The revolution being just that, and it taking a quarter century to work through the new level in the resource pyramid.

Combine that with expert economic opinion that newer generations just won't use as much as the boomers that mostly wrecked the US with their unleashing consumerism upon the world, and Chinese folks not all deciding to use a car because if they do, they won't be able to breath? Amy might be right, and a quarter century of supply combined with less demand might mean half a century of some sort of stability in prices.

Wouldn't that be a hoot? It might be 2 generations before the next Colin Campbell comes along and proclaims the end, creates ASPO V2, recycles a bunch of century old ideas and starts all this up all over again!

The shales have peaked! he will cry. Grown men and women will quiver in fear! There will be calls at the footsteps of the Forrestal building demanding that the Sec. of Energy listen to their pleas!

[AdamB]

Well, since we are not in a post-peak world yet

Don't let Pstarr read that...

Why? We are sure seeing the economic effects of peak oil.

People said the same thing back when this thread started as well, and said peak oil had already happened. Which was supposed to be worse!

And now we have the economic effects of peak oil? I paid $1.47 for regular unleaded today.

I'll take those effects of peak oil, from now till the day I die.

Why are you bothered by this?

I have maintained that we would see the effects years before the actual peak.

Not in the US. You said we had peak oil. Did you mean the 1970 one, or the newer one, activated by the POD concept of industry folks like Rockman, or the huge delivery of unconventionals, as Mr reserve knew, way back when?

We still don't know the decline rate post peak.
The URR's
Or how the monkeys and the markets will react.

We know that the last time you posed this same angle, peak oil turned out to be $1.47/gal gasoline, now, today. And the USGS, those who as I've mentioned earlier you should never have written off your source list, and this was known even back a decade ago, certainly is putting out more information. Hopefully your past bad conclusions have been reformed in light of new information from those who, as it turned out, knew far more than some in this thread about such things as URRs. The monkeys and the market, we know what they are saying.

[AdamB]

Gee, at this rate of Adam backing you away from your position,

I'm not backing away from anything. He is finding fault with a future that hasn't happened yet.

No, I found fault with poor assumptions and bad conclusions from some folks who avoided the best objective sources available whom, as it turns out, knew alot more about rock than professionally trained ecologists do.

[AdamB]

In short, we managed to save ourselves from a global economic crash due to peak oil through a global economic crash due to increased debt and financial speculation.

As "the economists that were right" knew all along. Good condensed statement of reality.

Embarrassment based on your poor conclusions is understood. We can't all be right, right? Do the math, the industry folks who spoke econo-speak certainly did a good job covering what was going to happen.

While you were blathering on about what COULDN'T happen, they talked about what could.

The difference? What they said turned out to be what did.

[AdamB]

Seems like you are on a MonteQuest ad hom bashing spree, cherry-picking quotes out of context from ten years ago to try and assert I made predictions I never made. Anyone who reads this thread from the start will clearly see we were discussing decline rates and possible supply post-peak. Which hasn't happened yet.

According to you, it HAD happened in the US. Terminal decline and all.

Do you understand what that phrase means, terminal decline, and how the unconventionals (spotted in advance by Mr reserve) powered the US to highest growth rates of oil increase in the history of the country?

[AdamB]

It isn't new production that has put PO in the media dust bin, it's a drop in demand.

Please reference where Hubbert produced a bell shaped demand curve. Any demand curve really.

Anybody think we could have produced 110mbpd of oil today? How about 115 mbpd in 4 years?

As we have learned from the industry folks in this very thread, that is certainly possible...but what PRICE is required to make it happen? Do you have a price path that someone can match to a supply curve, or are you still confused about Hubbert's demand curve that he never made because...well...he was always talking about oil supply?

[AdamB]

Pstarr – Once again I’m put into the uncomfortable position of supporting planty. LOL. I understand what Monte is staying: Demand hasn’t increased at much as the EIA and others had PREDICTED. But not hitting those consumption levels that were PREDICTED is not a decrease in demand, is it?

Sure it is.

Sigh.

I really suggest you listen to what Rockman and I are trying to tell you, Monte. Getting this kind of simple math wrong turns your posts into gibberish.

He is giving the profession of ecologists a bad name in the math department isn't he? Memory department as well, he had forgotten he had called peak in the US...terminal decline and everything!

[AdamB]

There is no drop in global oil consumption.

Really? OECD isn't part of global oil consumption?

Planty said world. Your graph ain't that. Stop cherry picking and avoiding the obvious, which is that world consumption is higher than ever before, supply is higher than ever before, and those who were screaming the loudest about all the horrors of peak oil a decade ago, in your case all about nascar or planes or whatever was about to end...didn't. Those using even basic economic principles and familiar with the industry seemed to have a far better handle on what was about to happen.

[AdamB]

Well, score another one for the industry dude. 2008 happened about 2 years after this guy wrote this, and he got it about right, something 1970's -ish recession, which was about how 2008 could be characterized.

So, financial collapse is your answer to peak oil? Got it. That's also peak oil's game plan.

Market cycles are not financial collapse. Hyperbole didn't work for you a decade ago, what makes you think it will work now?

[AdamB]

(Incidentally it's also about hypothetical reserve growth promoted by Adam. Reservergrowthdroolz used to pump that wacky notion back in the early oughts.

He appeared to be discussing economics more than he did other stuff. But his knowledge about upcoming unconventionals was spot on. Did you see them coming as well?

[AdamB]

I recall Peak Prophet posting a similar graphic in the Political Forum. Also, I encountered similar points raised by Dead Meat at Hubbert's Arms, RGR at the new LATOC forum, etc.

Are you saying you predicted things before they happened as I mentioned earlier in my credibility challenge, using other usernames?

The problem with forecasts of high prices is that they did not consider the possibility that the global economy would crash before prices increase further, thus causing prices to crash as well, with "recovery" consisting of prices rising once more to cover increasing production costs and debt repayments. That's exactly what happened.

And you mentioned this in ADVANCE of it happening? Or is this just the rationalization you use for having gotten it wrong a decade ago?

Otherwise, your entire point is that the world made old claims of peak oil go away using Econ101, price goes up, there comes supply. Don't like the price? I recommend scooters, walking, bicycles, even an EV. Not something you could have said back when you thought peak oil was going to be Mad Max scenarios, rather than consumer savings and happiness on road trips to grandma's, right>

Other views insisted that peak oil would take place, which is why shale, natural gas, etc., will have to be used, but a "revolution" would save the day. What happened instead was a very expensive blip.

Not to the consumer this afternoon. I paid $1.48/gal. Do you live in a country where this is very expensive, because I can assure you, this ain't expensive where I live!

[AdamB]

There's no realignment in the sense of using other energy sources with higher returns. Instead, we're seeing diminishing returns.

Considering what shale's accomplished basically single handedly, in ONE COUNTRY, there is no need for confidence in other energy sources with higher returns, when lower returns can crank out $30/oil. Heck, can crank out $50/oil, particularly with increased CAFE standards, right?

[AdamB]

The meaning of peak oil remains the same. What we're looking at are the effects of it.

Monte says it hasn't happened yet. And if $1.48/gal are the effects of it happening, say now, then there can only be one response from the consumer, at least in America.

[AdamB]

Needs high prices?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/busin ... .html?_r=0

You mean, like those first million barrels a day when oil was like $10?

You do understand that $10/bbl oil isn't a HIGH price, right?