[C8]

Without taking sides on the issue being discussed, I will say John A. sounds more respectful and adult than many of his critics. I was reading over at TOD how many have looked at PO.com and been scared off by all the attacks and rhetoric being used rather than solid argumentation. and it mostly comes from a few people. One TOD poster described PO.com as a biker club.

This is really not in anyone's long term interests, eventually people will get tired of the abuse and exaggerations and move on to other sites and all that will be left is the same group of 10 people talking to each other rehashing the same old wounds- like the play the Bell Jar where no fresh air ever comes in. Eventually, the traffic will fall so low the site may close down. People are burning down their house to singe an enemy.

Please argue the points:

don't personally attack a poster here (its OK to attack a public figure- that comes with the territory of wanting to be a public figure)
don't bring up wild exaggerations and make extreme examples of someone's arguments- this is a sign of weakness not strength- its rhetoric and is the death of real learning
don't twist an opponents argument
don't engage in name calling or smear someone by association

do ask questions!
do support your positions with logic and facts
do ignore people when they irritate you sometimes- its not necessary to whack every mole

mods might also want to consider that banning or suspending someone aren't the only tools they have- redirection, mild reprimands in print, and praise make a huge difference in creating an interesting, civil site that will attract many- imagine a PO.com where there could be up to 100 new comments a day- how interesting that would be to look forward to. Otherwise, it will eventually be back to the Bell Jar.

[rockdoc123]

C8
I empathize with your concerns but I have to say having been on this site for awhile that in the end it all seems to work.
I suspect the reason is that rather than being the strictly gated community that the oil drum was (hey we are the experts and even though you might have more experience or knowledge in these areas...we are the experts so piss off) P.O. ends up being a bunch of folks...they come from all aspects of society and they all have opinions (some stonger than the other) but what is great is that the mods do not direct the discussion in a direction they might believe is correct. Yes you get lots of the mods berating those they think are wildly on the other side of their beliefs, but at the same time they do not restrict those folks from posting. To my mind this is important.
I suspect I have known about the issue of Peak Oil longer than anyone on this site (just a guess) and I base that on the notion that I was first exposed to it as an undergrad back when the summer of love was in full flight. At that time one of my Profs (who ended up being a thesis supervisor later on) told the story of how he had been in the room when King Hubbert had first put forward the idea of Peak Oil to the AAPG. And another of my thesis supervisors actually worked for Hubbert at the Shell research centre for a number of years. My only point here is I have watched the sense of this thing work through its machinations for a few decades. Even though I have this background I have to say that I do not believe I actually have any more answers than anyone else. And that is the beauty of this site. It seems that if you ignore the few idiots who actually just want to make a point that keeps them happy most of the people here are actually interested in learning a bit more. You do that through discussion and polite debate. Yes polite debate can sometimes get a bit testy but it should be a back and forth about facts and data rather than opinions.
In any event it seems to me it is working here. I'm not sure there is a need for huge adjustment, but again that's just my opinion.

[SeaGypsy]

..and all that will be left is the same group of 10 people talking to each other rehashing the same old wounds-...

...don't personally attack a poster here (its OK to attack a public figure- that comes with the territory of wanting to be a public figure)

If it's the same 10 people (more like 20) then we are in a fringe space between 'wanting to be a public figure' and wanting to have an anonymous voice- but a voice nonetheless. There is not a poster here who has not been contradicted more than once, including moderators.
Plenty goes on behind the scenes here with as little as possible interference in what is shown.

If you want an homogeneous theme type site, this ain't it. If you want to conflict a position, go for it and cop the flak that comes with doing so. If you attract more involvement through your involvement, you are helping keep the site alive. If you want to whine and have the rules changed to suit your emotional state, chances are you are on the wrong site and won't last.

[ralfy]

Price does not "kill" peak oil, which is why oil consumption for the rest of the world increased even as oil price tripled.

Ultimately, peak oil is never "killed" but simply postponed.

[ROCKMAN]

ralfy – Exactly. I’ll allow John some slack for misinterpreting my thoughts on the subject. I’m guess he’s referring to my comments about the relationship between price and development of new oil production. The Eagle Ford Shale is as good an example as any. The productivity of the EFS has been known for decades. As I’ve repeated said I frac’d my first EFS over 20 years ago. Horizontal drilling and frac’ng of fractured reservoirs has been common for more than two decades. The Austin Chalk (sitting just above the EFS) was as hot an hz frac’ng play in the 90’s as the EFS is today.

The uptick in Texas production is great but simply a manifestation of higher oil prices. Higher oil prices “killed” the decline of the oil production rate in Texas…it didn’t kill PO. The increased production from other trends have killed the decline in US oil production rates…it didn’t kill US PO. Let’s take a very unlikely scenario IMHO that higher oil prices cause US oil production to exceed our previous peak in the early 70’s. This wouldn’t “kill” US PO but simple move the date forward. Eventually the new plays would be fully developed and decline would drive rates down and identify the new PO moment.

The two extremes (there will never be a PO and there will never be an increase in oil production) are incorrect today and have never been correct. And that’s due to pricing. But even pricing has its limits. There is a finite amount of oil left in Mother Earth’s rocks. There is no more being created in a time frame meaningful to mankind. The shales have a lot of oil in them. The old fields have a lot of oil left in them. There’s a lot of oil left to develop in the Deep Water trends around the globe. But those are finite volumes. Higher oil prices are allowing them to be exploited. But eventually they’ll be depleted. There will come a day where it won’t matter how high oil prices reach: it won’t create oil reserves where they don’t exist.

When will that day happen? I don’t know and, more important, I don’t really care. Today the world is dealing with expensive oil. That is what I care about. OTOH it inhibits economies. OTOOH it drives my company’s business plan. In the future the US economy will have to deal with higher NG prices. Others will care but I won’t because I probably won’t be around to deal with it.

Do I really need to say it (POD) again? LOL

[Pops]

Does anyone else see the irony in this group saying PO is a myth but physical constraints will made oil so expensive as to kill demand and limit production?

I thought that is what PO was?

[SeaGypsy]

...

For any journal claiming scientific basis to include a sentence like the following:

A paper published last week in Eos, the newsletter of the American Geophysical Union, supports the assertion that a peak in oil production is "a myth" but argues that the rising cost of extraction could itself provide a limit, and may act as a brake on economic growth.

Which fails to even make sense, leads me to agree with the sad state of what passes for science writing in these times.

As I said on Saturday.

There will still be a peak even if oil suddenly became dirt cheap; or very expensive. The 'sweet spot' is about where we are now, for now.

[C8]

So what is a definition of PO?

it can't be: when oil demand outpaces supply because demand is a continuous curve based on price so there is no one "demand"

it can't be: when traditional wells declined before horizontal drilling and fracking started- technological gains in production have always been with us since Drake- fracking is just more of the same

it can't be: the decline of light crude or a particular type of oil or certain type of carbon molecule- because it seems that many of these hydrocarbons can be converted into what we need

it can't be: when oil production declines in a particular nation because there is a world market

it can't be: when demand peaks- because it can rise again

to me it can still only be when half of all the extractable oil in the ground has been removed- and I can't see how anybody can call this point when tech, demand, alt energy sources, etc. are always changing.

So what really matters? I would suggest EROEI only, not PO. EROEI applies to all forms of energy and is greatly affected by technology and depletion. It is hard and quantifiable, you can compare it and measure it. The idea of PO just seems to confuse thinking.

[SamInNebraska]

And this education disqualifies him how when mixing it up with other peak oil writers?

Well done on squeezing your hobby horse into yet another thread.

You have about 4 or 5 core post templates that you vary to make up about 80-90% of everything you post.

they say while making darn sure they don't address the point made.......

Get used to it. When someone can't contradict the point, in this case the qualifications of a journalist with a degree in geography being comparable to some peak oil sources lacking even that, change the topic, go off topic, and accuse those who notice of some nefarious thing or another. Well done dorlomin.

To answer your original point John, no, his education (or lack thereof) does not disqualify this particular journalist. If poly-sci majors can build a reputation as being a source of relevant information on the topic, a journalist, academic with no technical training or experience in the field, high school drop out or nearly anyone else can as well.

[SamInNebraska]

Price does not "kill" peak oil, which is why oil consumption for the rest of the world increased even as oil price tripled.

Ultimately, peak oil is never "killed" but simply postponed.

Excellent. And as the world postpones it time and time again, and the price drives people to manufacture their products out of other items, the oil component of it becomes less and less relevant. And this is good I believe.

[ralfy]

Excellent. And as the world postpones it time and time again, and the price drives people to manufacture their products out of other items, the oil component of it becomes less and less relevant. And this is good I believe.

Well, at least you're now agreeing with me. With that, the next thing you will have to deal with is meeting increasing demand.

With that, the problems are energy returns and decline curves:

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... dance.html

The threat of asset bubbles popping:

http://shalebubble.org/

Lag time:

http://www.businessinsider.com/131-year ... il-2010-11

And an energy trap:

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/201 ... ergy-trap/

Given that, will non-conventional help? According to the IEA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK730U0Q4NU

It will add 9 pct to energy produced from all oil and gas sources for the next two decades, but that assumes that conventional production doesn't drop. At the same time, consumption has to go up by around 2 pct a year to ensure economic growth:

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/07/18/ho ... dp-growth/

or the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. Of course, given lag time and an energy trap, more will be needed to transition from oil.

So much for "excellent." Reminds me of Foch: "My center is giving way, my right is retreating, situation excellent, I am attacking."

[ROCKMAN]

C8 - Actually the conventional definition of PO is rather simple: that point in time when a defined area produces the highest oil rate ever achieved. Of course, that can only be viewed in a rear view mirror. Consider PO USA which appears to have happened in the early 70’s. But now some folks (who I don’t agree with) speculate that the shales will allow us to exceed that former peak. The only way to know that answer is to jump in your time machine and go about 50 years into the future.

Thus the amount of oil still in the ground has nothing to do with PO. It’s about how fast can it be produced. PO has nothing to do with how much oil there may be in the Arctic. And even those huge Deep Water reserves off the coast of Brazil will likely have little effect on global PO given how long it will take to develop them.

And consider what you might worry about. You don’t really care how much oil OPEC will be selling or how much more Canadian oil is shipped to the US. What you and everyone else cares about is how the cost of energy affects your life. How much of our tax $’s are spent on military adventures in oil producing regions. And many folks care about the trade-off between the environment and economic prosperity. And then toss in one’s concerns over our political system and what philosophies dominate those trade-offs. All that is a tad more critical then if global PO happens on June 23, 20XX IMHO.

IOW whether global PO has occurred or not isn’t directly impactful IMHO. It’s what happens as we approach those limits, reach them and then pass beyond. But the effects are not static and constant. High oil prices produces an increase in US production. High prices hurt the economy and cause a decrease in imports. Increased consumption and strong economic growth by China impacts the rest of the world’s economies. Etc. etc.

Which is why I think the POD is a much more meaningful concept than PO. The interactive dynamics of energy control our lives…not a date in time.

[dorlomin]

they say while making darn sure they don't address the point made.......

Start your own thread and dont drag this one off topic.

[ROCKMAN]

dorlomin - Which is one aspect of this site I like compared to TOD. Sometimes an interesting side topic develops that deserves more attention but interferes with the original discussion. Be nice if more folks took advantage of this freedom here.

[SamInNebraska]

So what is a definition of PO?

Now THAT is the question. Once upon a time it was simple. And then simple stopped working, and suddenly PO has now become a buzzword for mad max beyond thunderdome, financial hooliganism, collapse (itself defined vaguely as...high unemployment), credit issues, you name it.

Because of this, the instant anyone asks "what is PO?" you must immediately reply, "what is your definition of PO?" Then you must ask what KIND of oil they are talking about, oil of this density or that, under this property or that, under ice or not, because peak is now a mix of only the combinations only the claimant is familiar with. If it has contaminants, oops, we don't count that oil, unless it sits under some other kind of property, in which case sure we'll count it.

Seems a bit weird but this has happened when peak oil was tortured into plateau oil, peak oil and decline became "fastest increasing oil production in countries history", and the last "peak plateau" (another new concept!) became yet another "peak plateau" in the past year or so, it is worse than confusing.

to me it can still only be when half of all the extractable oil in the ground has been removed- and I can't see how anybody can call this point when tech, demand, alt energy sources, etc. are always changing.

Tech, demand, alt energy sources, etc does not change the amount of oil available for human use. It only changes the amount which can be recovered from a uncertain, but finite, and absolute, amount.

So 50% extractable? The last recovery factors mentioned on a global scale by K. King of Exxon Mobil demonstrated at an Oslo conference a few years back showed about 25-30% recovery using IHS data. N. Saleri has indicated that each additional 10% of recovery change is worth 1 trillion barrels.

So call it 2 trillion more barrels of oil to recover from EXISTING fields, and it should be noted that this has nothing to do with the other items quantified by IEA of things which oil can be manufactured from, such as tar sands and whatnot.

That distinction matters because as the Canadians demonstrate to the tune of millions of barrels a day, manufacturing crude oil is becoming all the rage, and over time will continue to negate the distinctions without a difference among the "my oil is better than yours because it is light, or not as light, or sorta light" brigades.

[quote="C8"
So what really matters? I would suggest EROEI only, not PO. EROEI applies to all forms of energy and is greatly affected by technology and depletion. It is hard and quantifiable, you can compare it and measure it. The idea of PO just seems to confuse thinking.[/quote]

I think Rockman has been pretty definitive on the value to industry of EROEI.

[ROCKMAN]

Sam - You do a great job in fleshing out the POD. As you imply the simple definition of PO is almost worthless in the grand discussion. And, as you say, maybe worst then worthless at times due to varying interpretations different folks give it. All the complex dynamics you've described and more. The good news is that most folks here and at TOD have abandoned that simplistic metric for the most part and are picking away at all the various components of the POD. But the other 99.99% of the population hasn't. And given the MSM hype about the "death of PO" I doubt we have much chance to change the national conversation. Eventually crisis will get folks focused properly on the situation. But probably won't make much of a difference then.

[dorlomin]

So what is a definition of PO?

Now THAT is the question. Once upon a time it was simple. And then...

...cornucopians and ShortOnSense needed new definitions of oil to fudge the issue.

Obfuscation enters stage left: "That distinction matters because as the Canadians demonstrate to the tune of millions of barrels a day, manufacturing crude oil is becoming all the rage"

[Pops]

So what is a definition of PO?

It's just the date of the peak of world production, nothing fancy, no qualifiers, no formulas.

It's hard for me to tell if all the wrangling over various measurements, qualifiers, formulas and such is a effect of PO or a product of internet message boards. I do think we are probably as close as we'll know in real time. Unless we aren't.

Booms and busts come and go and lots of folks believe (hope) we are currently in just another cycle. Reading the business press nowadays I imagine the reaction of the drunks in the crowd when Jesus turned the water to wine. Modern society at large is a true believer in the church of money=energy and the blip in US horiz/frac is like a supply-side miracle sent down from the hand of the Gipper himself. It's bolstered the convictions of the money and technology worshipers alike.


The thing is, if the span of significant oil production is 200 or 300 years, putting a PO date on a particular year or decade even, is a rather moot point in the overall scheme of things; relevant mostly to history books and internet debate societies. We've only seen constricted supply so far and the painful effects are very real but no more so than the embargoes of the 70's. I think people living through any supply shock will naturally hope it is only temporary.

Up close even a small change can look large




The peak and decline will be affected by as many factors as the increase and the effects will likewise be numerous.

But if PO was only about a date we'd have never needed more than one thread here, lol.

.

[C8]

So PO is about production- not the amount underground. I can understand this, as flow is important. But it also occurs to me that if people move to mass transit or EV's, or for other reasons oil demand falls then the PO year really no longer becomes important at all- in fact PO itself loses any relevance in a demand destruction world.

it is clear that other forms of energy production (nukes, renewables, gas, etc.) are going to become a bigger and bigger piece of the total energy pie as the years go on and oil will becomes less important and more marginal. So then how do we talk about the issues of EROEI, supply constraints, etc.? PO seems to be an idea locked into "oil". How do we talk about all the various forms of energy that are growing in size? I guess what I am asking is this: is the idea of PO becoming obsolete due to its narrowness? What words or phrases do we come up with to quickly describe the new energy production, depletion, distribution, etc. issues? Will even using the word "PO" mean anything in 20 years if other energy sources take the center stage? What are the words of the future? Any catchy name for the energy issues facing the world in 2050 if oil is only 20% or less of the mix?

I am expecting a catchy name- don't let me down

[Pops]

Yeah, if the modern world didn't rely on fossil fuels for just about everything and if an easy replacement were handy, there wouldn't be a problem. lol

One of the oft repeated statements poo-pooing PO is "the stoneage didn't end for lack of stones." The problem is we aren't transitioning away from FFs for something better, as for example switching from stones to iron. If we had something better we would be doing it instead of trying to shoehorn our non-negotiable FF based lifestyle into a "renewable" slipper. But we aren't, because there isn't a better alternative, we are switching because we are running out of stones and that's the difference.

Most of the discussion here the last 9 year has been about transitioning away from FFs. The reason the date is important is if decline begins soon we won't have time to transition easily as a society. Everything runs on FFs and the strings are connected everywhere.

--
I had an acquaintance who pumped septic tanks, his business card read:
"It may be shit to you but it's my bread and butter"

I love that because it expresses exactly the problem of dislocation due to "Demand Destruction". Think about demand like this:
demand = desire x ability (to pay)

Blithely hoping demand for FFs will fall without repercussions assumes that removing "ability" also removes "desire" and that isn't the way it works. "Desire" is what builds cars and suburban houses, Ecuadorian tomatoes in January and all the jobs associated with modern consumptive lifestyle. It is a fact that we use the equivalent of more than one hundred energy slaves daily and there is no renewable source that can replace that surplus. Or to put it another way, removing the shit also removes someone's bread and butter.

You can try to wish it away but sooner or later it's gonna come around

.