Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Article refuting the imminent end of oil

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re:

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 27 Jul 2017, 20:40:32

savethehumans wrote:Thanks, MonteQuest! You've said what I'd have said, and a lot of others, too, I suspect.

I, too, wish I could believe the optimists. But I can't. Too much fact in the way!


And look at this guy! Too many facts!! Now if THAT isn't one of the more hysterical sentences out of a peak oilers mouth, considering what happened next!

Savethehumans! Where are you now! Roving around in an Escalade appreciating real gasoline prices resembling the early 70's?

savethehumans wrote:And the wishers, gullible, and people with a stake in believing the skeptics (like corporate & government sorts), will keep insisting that all is well--or at least not as bad as all that--right through the crash, the die-off, etc.


Amazing!! Yes! Right on through the glut, oversupply, full storage, and record car sales. Again!

savethehumans wrote:I've followed the battle for truth on Global Warming and Climate Change, too. The skeptics there make me see the skeptics here as deja vu all over again.... :roll:


Except...the skeptics around here....were right...and you my Dear SaveTheHumans, are a fine example of a true believer.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re:

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 27 Jul 2017, 20:51:02

0mar wrote:Unless theres a giant 500-600 billion barrel of oil just laying around, I doubt we will find anymore significant findings. As Campbell has said "There is only a finite amount of oil and the industry has found about 90% of it."


Probably a true statement, even from a perpetual peak oil claimer going back to the late 1980's. But the REAL problem is that Colin doesn't count all the resource endowment anyway, one of the reasons he was always proclaiming peak and getting it wrong.

"Choose your prophets wisely!!!!" strikes me as the lesson here.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re:

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 29 Jul 2017, 20:50:26

johnmarkos wrote:I can tell the difference between solid analysis and political pronouncements.

One contrast I find particularly convincing is that the folks who claim that oil is about to peak (Deffeyes, ASPO) provide detailed figures, analysis, and point out places where their numbers could be wrong. Those who deny peak oil tend to be rather fuzzy about where the extra oil is coming from.


So John, as it turns out you were misled. At least in part because you weren't aware of the history of peak oil, because then you would have factored the "boy who cried wolf...many time before", issue into your thorough and well trained BS detector.

The problem with your references were obvious at the time, Deffeyes was relying on nothing but a regression equation similar to the one that Shorty around here knows is in no way predictive, and ASPO's founder had been predicting peak oil since 1989-90 or so. And just kept doing it for all of the 90's, so my guess is you didn't do your research. At the time you wrote your post, real live experts at the USGS had already published their analysis of existing yet to find resources (which should have brought your BS detector to full stop, because we are talking about real geoscientists here, not hard rock specialists of the Basin and Range in Nevada playing at petroleum geology), and the EIA had also done a basic analysis and used real live petroleum engineers and whatnot.

So you were misled by cherry licking sources, and fundamentally not understanding the resource pyramid. This is okay, because most peakers were, and honest ones learned from their mistakes, and moved on to other cult like opinions, in their desperate need to square the circle on their malthusian wet dreams.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Article refuting the imminent end of oil

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 16 Oct 2017, 11:07:14

ABSTRACT wrote:Scientists believe significant climate change is unavoidable without a drastic reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels. However, few countries have implemented comprehensive policies that price this externality or devote serious resources to developing low-carbon energy sources. In many respects, the world is betting that we will greatly reduce the use of fossil fuels because we will run out of inexpensive fossil fuels (there will be decreases in supply) and/or technological advances will lead to the discovery of less-expensive low-carbon technologies (there will be decreases in demand). The historical record indicates that the supply of fossil fuels has consistently increased over time and that their relative price advantage over low-carbon energy sources has not declined substantially over time. Without robust efforts to correct the market failures around greenhouse gases, relying on supply and/or demand forces to limit greenhouse gas emissions is relying heavily on hope.


PDF Report
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17050
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Article refuting the imminent end of oil

Unread postby tita » Wed 18 Oct 2017, 16:42:15

Not too hard to comprehend if one does the EROEI work. That and the ability to meet or even match coventional oil production is woefully short, not to mention the enviromental costs and the huge requirements of water and existing energy required to extract it. It is not that we are running out of energy resources, it is that we are reaching our limit in the ability to meet demand no matter what we do or try to develop


And still... I do think that he was someway right. 50% of ALL drillings rigs (gas and oil) are deployed in the US. Even more with Canada. Between 2007 and 2014 the rig count was over 60% for Canada and US. Do they produce or are gonna produce more than 60% of global oil and gas supply ? No. They supply around 18% of oil, and 25% of gas globally (BP 2017, stastistics for 2016). And this after 10 years of great effort to drill more than the rest of the world.

Shale needs more ressources to be developped. The return rate is much worser than "conventional" oil. What it means is that the ability to increase supply at low prices, necessary to fuel a growth, is gone. Oh, sure, price may get low for some time... But won't stay there for long as they did before.
User avatar
tita
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Article refuting the imminent end of oil

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 18 Oct 2017, 23:52:07

JD wrote:http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41613

Comments?

The reserve figures here don't match those of many postings on this site.

JD


Excellent article. To think that this was all so obvious in the hayday of peak oil, and was ignored by nearly everyone who just wanted to...BELIEVE.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Article refuting the imminent end of oil

Unread postby Revi » Thu 19 Oct 2017, 08:14:16

Whatever. We made it through about a decade with fracking and other tricks. We are going to continue borrowing from the future until we can't any more. That day comes when they quit paying for it. We live in a car culture in a country that borrows a trillion a year to keep it all going.

We'll see.

Way to bump this thread from 2004!
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine

Re: Article refuting the imminent end of oil

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 19 Oct 2017, 23:17:07

Revi wrote:Whatever. We made it through about a decade with fracking and other tricks.


We've been doing hydraulic fracturing for 60+ years, it wasn't a trick around the time you were born and it didn't become one later after a couple of peak oils. You want to tell a love story about peak oil revi and you do need to understand the history of the industry involved, to not get caught out in such obvious missteps.

Revi wrote: We are going to continue borrowing from the future until we can't any more. That day comes when they quit paying for it. We live in a car culture in a country that borrows a trillion a year to keep it all going.

We'll see.


We were also seeing back when peak oil happened....and we're still seeing....and prices are lower by 2/3's since peak oil, there are more than a few hundred million American consumers out there that don't mind the consequences!!

revi wrote:
Way to bump this thread from 2004!


JD was near pre-cognitive, wasn't he?
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9292
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Article refuting the imminent end of oil

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 20 Oct 2017, 02:46:16

tita - "Between 2007 and 2014 the rig count was over 60% for Canada and US. Do they produce or are gonna produce more than 60% of global oil and gas supply ? No. They supply around 18% of oil, and 25% of gas globally...". You need to rethink your logic. Drilling rigs don't produce oil/NG...wells do. And the majority of global production is coming from wells drilled many years ago. And that number has no relationship to how many rigs are drilling today or 10 years ago. IOW the amount of oil being produced from Ghawar Field doesn't have a f*cking thing to do with how many rigs are drilling today in Saudi Arabia. Or 10 years ago. Or 20 years ago.

There are 931 international rigs drilling this week not counting the US and Canada. They are responsible for very little of the

But you're on the right track: add up how much NEW oil/NG production has been brought on by recent drilling activity. But getting that data would be difficult. But just a guess I can't prove: in the last 10 years that relatively small number of rig drilling the Marcellus Shale (60 to 120 on a given days) has increased NG production more the all the rest of the rigs in the world during that time period. For instance name one country that has brought on as much NEW NG production as just that one US trend. And maybe name one country that has brought on as much NEW oil production in the last 10 years as the Bakken+ Eagle Ford+ Canadian oil sands.

And then you can compare the numbers of rigs that took to how much NEW production was added.

The 112 rigs running is Saudi Arabia this week are not "producing" 10.4 million bopd.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Article refuting the imminent end of oil

Unread postby tita » Fri 20 Oct 2017, 12:32:15

@Rockman: Thank you for showing me something obvious! I wrote a more complete answer, but some numbers don't work... have to check them.
User avatar
tita
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Article refuting the imminent end of oil

Unread postby tita » Mon 23 Oct 2017, 14:34:40

@Rockman: Right... It's wells that produces oil and gas. But there is no new production if you don't drill new wells. To be correct, I would have to compare new production from wells that started from a date, and discard all legacy production from older wells. Such exercise is quite impossible with data difficult to find. Also, new production doesn't equal to net increase production as legacy wells may be in depletion (which happens fast with shale). My point was to look at the effort (rig count) that takes to increase production, which represent the investment costs. (of course, an offshore rig costs much more than an onshore one)

But you propose a rough idea... so, let's see it:

"in the last 10 years that relatively small number of rig drilling the Marcellus Shale (60 to 120 on a given days) has increased NG production more the all the rest of the rigs in the world during that time period."

Between 2007 and 2016, Marcellus increased its production by 186 billions cubic meter per year (eia). This is huge (almost all of US increase), no other country alone could rival Marcellus... Norway (+26), Iran (+78), Qatar (+118), KSA (+35), Australia (+50), China (+61). (BP statistics... like the rest of my numbers)

Between 2007 and 2016, US gas production increased by 200 billions cubic meter per day. The rest of the world increased anyway the production by 400 billions m³/d. So, your statement is wrong, although Marcellus represent a bit less than a third of global gas production increase. Yes, Marcellus play is truly remarkable for a shale source... due to a much lower depletion rate than Haynesville. (in my research, I realized that the Haynesville, Marcellus and Utica plays represent together 65% of the gas rig count currently, while it was 35% in 2011...)

So... at least for gas, the rest of the world does better with less rigs. What about oil?

Between 2007 and 2016, US oil production increased by 5'500 MMbbls/d (NGL included). The rest of the world increased by 4'315 MMbbls/d.

So, US made better than the rest of the world... Surprising? Not really... As you said, I was not talking about wells from fresh drillings, but also older producing wells. And we know that a lot of them are in depletion. Alone, middle east increased production by 6'500 MMbbls/d. Of course, some is from geopolitical reasons... But anyway, World outside US and middle east depleted by 2.2 MMbbls/d.

Which tell us a rather interesting fact... The rest of the world puts as much effort globally to increase production rates as US does, with about the same results (or even less). This is of course not straightforward. US rig count has always been the same or higher than the rest of the world, without much result before shale developpment. Between 1976 and 2007, US production decreased by 3 MMbbls/d, while the rest of the world increased by 25 MMbbls/d... A trend that changed completely in the last decade.

Shale made sense because of a major change in the oil supply globally, which growth has slowed. The rest is just market behaviour, price increase to fuel one of the only available trend to answer a sustained growth in oil consumption (about 1MMbbls/d increase each year), in the only place in the world where investment in E&P were always high compared to the rest of the world.

IMHO, our ability to follow the consumption trend will require investements similar or greater than what we have seen between 2007 and 2014... Of course, there are a lot of places where it makes sense to drill a well (even for LTO) at current prices... It's just there isn't enough. We have to drill much less profitable places... Which of course become profitable at some level of price. And it's not only for the US, but also globally.
User avatar
tita
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Article refuting the imminent end of oil

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 24 Oct 2017, 15:50:57

tita - "So, your statement is wrong" I'm not surprised...just shooting from the hip because I was too lazy to research it. One reason I like our happy family here: some always ready to prove someone else is full of sh*t. LOL.

I suspect much of the global increase was due to long known stranded NG that became producible with new pipelines and especially LNG facilities. The US went thru such a phase in the 70's when NG prices increased many, many times. A lot of old timers knew where there were thousands of NG reservoirs that were abandoned untested because the economics weren't right.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Previous

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests