Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

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

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 14:40:45

I stand corrected. I had no idea so many large oil fields had been discovered in the last 20 years. But it still doesn't change my larger point. Not even a tiny bit.

Lets do some math to better understand this issue.


well actually in the post I quoted from you had no "larger point". But irrespective of that looking at new discoveries (especially as of late where there has been very little in the way of exploration) alone in comparison to production is extremely misleading. There is a considerable amount of 2P and 3P reserves still not ranked as Proven and there are Resources which also will get upgraded to reserves and eventually 1P through increasing commodity price and improved technologies that can lower costs. As I said up thread IEA is suggesting about 3.9 trillion bbls remaining which gives close to 120 years of production at current consumption. But any projections made into the future require a number of other variables to be addressed at the same time including improved recovery factors in existing fields (as an example the last 20 or so years has seen the assumed average recovery factor from fields in Saudi Arabia double; and there is a lot of room for increasing recovery factor for unconventionals), replacement of oil as a fuel with EVs, natural gas and other renewables and the projected decrease in consumption in the latter part of the 20th century.

The rest, reserves (or reservoirs) that have not been produced are either considered worthless at any cost (for instance Green River shale} or not found. That latter hardly exist, as the planet has been explored mapped and extracted to the nth degree. Only a few more secret places are apt to be found. This is why we know about pre-salt in the Atlantic. It is under 20,000 feet of dense salt, rock and ocean. Yet we found it. There is little or nothing left. Kaiser, you can trust me


Where do you come up with this crap?

There are a lot of discovered fields that have yet to be commissioned and a lot of fields that are at the very early part of their production history. Cases in point:

Libra Field just came on stream in November of last year and there is 8 -12 billion bbls there according to various estimates. Lots of oil to be produced and lots of wells to drill

Johan Castberg Project offshore Norway is under construction with first oil expected in 2022, reserves estimated at 450 – 650 MMB

Clair Ridge, UK North Sea. Will be commissioned in 2018 and produce up to 120,000 bopd.

Hebron off East Coast Canada started production in November of last year and will peak somewhere at 100,000 bopd

Liza – offshore Guyana in the development stage. Production startup is scheduled for 2020 with rates in excess of 200,000 bopd from a 2 billion bbl estimated reserve
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5950
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 14:47:14

Pete, behind the Redwood Curtain is also a haven. Too bad there is not 30 miles of open ocean seperating you from Oregon, though.

Seriously, what all of you who think the constant refrain of DOOM are forgetting is that nature is not fair, and those that have more money have more security.

Life will get more difficult. But for Americans, perhaps not actually impossible for as long as another century. By that time, there will be a number of solutions in place. Perhaps the largest: technology will have produced another three generations of energy-efficient devices. I told you, we have the tech today to run the USA with our precious lifestyles more or less intact on 1/6the the energy we use today. We have an infrastructure problem today, with residences and workplaces and a transport system that are all relics of the age of cheap FF energy. We'll get over that in a few decades, and then do the same thing again before truly energy-efficient tech is the rule not the exception.

Americans will be among the survivors.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5090
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 15:11:27

rockdoc123 wrote:
The rest, reserves (or reservoirs) that have not been produced are either considered worthless at any cost (for instance Green River shale} or not found. That latter hardly exist, as the planet has been explored mapped and extracted to the nth degree. Only a few more secret places are apt to be found. This is why we know about pre-salt in the Atlantic. It is under 20,000 feet of dense salt, rock and ocean. Yet we found it. There is little or nothing left. Kaiser, you can trust me


Where do you come up with this crap?

There are a lot of discovered fields that have yet to be commissioned and a lot of fields that are at the very early part of their production history. Cases in point:

Libra Field just came on stream in November of last year and there is 8 -12 billion bbls there according to various estimates. Lots of oil to be produced and lots of wells to drill

Johan Castberg Project offshore Norway is under construction with first oil expected in 2022, reserves estimated at 450 – 650 MMB

Clair Ridge, UK North Sea. Will be commissioned in 2018 and produce up to 120,000 bopd.

Hebron off East Coast Canada started production in November of last year and will peak somewhere at 100,000 bopd

Liza – offshore Guyana in the development stage. Production startup is scheduled for 2020 with rates in excess of 200,000 bopd from a 2 billion bbl estimated reserve

Your post conflates daily production with estimated reserves. There is no way to aggregate the data into a meaningful idea and response. But given as I am up to the job;

The total maximum estimated reserves of 14.65 billion barrels accounts for less than 6 months global consumption. Given that new oil extraction is a decade long event, I hardly see how these estimated reserves (almost always downgraded) will make a hill of beans. The daily production figures are also inconsequencial as they too are estimated and amount to a fraction of the daily production that is lost to the global post-peak field declines

Anything else?
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27176
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 15:34:15

KaiserJeep wrote:Pete, behind the Redwood Curtain is also a haven. Too bad there is not 30 miles of open ocean seperating you from Oregon, though.

Portland is 405 miles north of Humboldt Bay. San Francisco is 276 miles south. Between the two is 30,000 square miles of temperate rainforests, prime industrial redwood and fir timberlands. And another 30,000 or so square miles of year-round agriculture, grazing and pasture. Three roads in and out of Humboldt Bay. Routes 101, 299 and 36 are mostly 2 lane, over the crumbly shale steep and treacherous Coastal Mountain range. I have little to worry about.

You merely need to convince Trump to wrap Nantucket in a sea-fence. To keep all the rabble from Cape Kawd from rowing over.
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27176
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 15:38:23

Your post conflates daily production with estimated reserves. There is no way to aggregate the data into a meaningful idea and response. But given as I am up to the job;


My post wasn’t meant to give individual values for reserves yet to be produced from fields or the rates (which I could do but is not needed here)….it was merely meant to demonstrate that your comment “The rest, reserves (or reservoirs) that have not been produced are either considered worthless at any cost (for instance Green River shale} or not found” merely demonstrates you have no idea of what fields are still sitting out there that will be produced in the very near future. You pull your ideas out of the air with zero support.

The total maximum estimated reserves of 14.65 billion barrels accounts for less than 6 months global consumption. Given that new oil extraction is a decade long event, I hardly see how these estimated reserves (almost always downgraded) will make a hill of beans. The daily production figures are also inconsequencial as they too are estimated and amount to a fraction of the daily production that is lost to the global post-peak field declines


Once again you haven’t a clue, no idea what 14.65 billion bbls you are talking about. Libra just came on stream, Johan Castberg on stream in 2022, Clair Ridge this year, Liza in two years time. And that ignores discoveries made in Mexico and offshore Guyana recently which will be producing well before a decades time. This is new production which demonstrates fields which have been discovered and not yet produced are not “worthless at any cost” as you suggest. Far from it.

As to the production being inconsequential, I haven’t outlined all of what is coming on stream. The very fact that global production has increased steadily year on year since 1998 illustrates there is less of a problem with decline rates and replacement of Proved Producing reserves than you suggest.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5950
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 15:48:40

rockdoc123 wrote:
Your post conflates daily production with estimated reserves. There is no way to aggregate the data into a meaningful idea and response. But given as I am up to the job;


My post wasn’t meant to give individual values for reserves yet to be produced from fields or the rates (which I could do but is not needed here)….it was merely meant to demonstrate that your comment “The rest, reserves (or reservoirs) that have not been produced are either considered worthless at any cost (for instance Green River shale} or not found” merely demonstrates you have no idea of what fields are still sitting out there that will be produced in the very near future. You pull your ideas out of the air with zero support.

Excuse me. Rystad: Conventional oil discoveries plummet to 70-year low

rockdoc123 wrote:
The total maximum estimated reserves of 14.65 billion barrels accounts for less than 6 months global consumption. Given that new oil extraction is a decade long event, I hardly see how these estimated reserves (almost always downgraded) will make a hill of beans. The daily production figures are also inconsequencial as they too are estimated and amount to a fraction of the daily production that is lost to the global post-peak field declines


Once again you haven’t a clue, no idea what 14.65 billion bbls you are talking about

Huh? Your numbers, 12 billion barrels plus 2 billion barrels plus 650 million barrels. You add them up with a calculator.

You must remember posting them, what, twenty-five minutes ago
Last edited by pstarr on Tue 03 Jul 2018, 15:51:10, edited 1 time in total.
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27176
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 15:51:10

you had no "larger point".


Of course I do. You just don't understand it. Here, let me explain it to you again.

The larger point is that we aren't discovering enough new oil to replace the oil we're using. Thats why I added up all the discoveries you listed and then compared them to the rate the planet is using oil, and demonstrated that all the discoveries you listed for the last 20 years don't cover even 1.5 years of current oil consumption.

I explained all that quite clearly to you in my post. I even did the math for you. Do you get it now?

looking at new discoveries .... in comparison to production is extremely misleading.


Not when the discussion is about a comparison of the rate of new discoveries vs. the rate of oil consumption. Try to understand what is being discussed here and then you'll get the point of what is being discussed here.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21253
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 15:52:51

Plantagenet wrote:
you had no "larger point".


Of course I do. You just don't understand it. Here, let me explain it to you again.

The larger point is that we aren't discovering enough new oil to replace the oil we're using. Thats why I added up all the discoveries you listed and then compared them to the rate the planet is using oil, and demonstrated that all the discoveries you listed for the last 20 years don't cover even 1.5 years of current oil consumption.

I explained all that quite clearly to you in my post. I even did the math for you. Do you get it now?

looking at new discoveries .... in comparison to production is extremely misleading.


Not when the discussion is about a comparison of the rate of new discoveries vs. the rate of oil consumption. Try to understand what is being discussed here and then you'll get the point of what is being discussed here.

Cheers!

We seem to be having the same problem with rockdoc. He needs to repeat his remedial math classes. Than he can teach Frosh Geology.

edit: an addendum; rockdoc likes to refer to a concept his industry used to bandy about, "reserve growth" the point of several of his long, drawn-out posts above. It's the notion that more and better technology applied to older fields allows the possibility of reserves and thus production, to grow over time. The concept was novel and useful 30 years ago and explains how Saudi's Ghawar and other legacy fields were kept alive for so long. However . . .

. . . those very same technologies (maximum reservoir contact, extended reach and horizontal drilling, multi-well pads, “steerable” downhole motors and sensors. That kind of thing) is what accounts for the subsequent precipitous decline of the world's fields. Yibal was the first. The many are the rest. It explains %6.7 field declines today.
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27176
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 17:34:07

Of course I do. You just don't understand it. Here, let me explain it to you again. 


Go back to the post I quoted from and show me exactly where that “larger point” was made. It wasn’t, you introduced it in your response or it came from another post but it certainly wasn’t in the one I commented on. So once again argument by changing the subject, something you seem to gravitate to. Be specific in your arguments or don't bother.

Not when the discussion is about a comparison of the rate of new discoveries vs. the rate of oil consumption. Try to understand what is being discussed here and then you'll get the point of what is being discussed here. 


Horseshit. You can’t look at two variables in an equation that has many more variables and then make the prediction that “we are in trouble” without qualifying that statement (i.e other factors not being considered). This is precisely what outcastsearcher was telling you upthread.

edit: an addendum; rockdoc likes to refer to a concept his industry used to bandy about, "reserve growth" the point of several of his long, drawn-out posts above. It's the notion that more and better technology applied to older fields allows the possibility of reserves and thus production, to grow over time. The concept was novel and useful 30 years ago and explains how Saudi's Ghawar and other legacy fields were kept alive for so long. However . . . 

. . . those very same technologies (maximum reservoir contact, extended reach and horizontal drilling, multi-well pads, “steerable” downhole motors and sensors. That kind of thing) is what accounts for the subsequent precipitous decline of the world's fields. Yibal was the first. The many are the rest. It explains %6.7 field declines today.


God, you just won’t stop showing your lack of understanding. Reserve growth is an on-going process and has been well documented in a number of publications for various reasons. Your ignorance shines through when you mix up reserve re-classification (movement of Probable and Possible reserves into Proven reserves) with what reserve growth is really about and that is the original assessed total reserves (3P plus resource) end up being larger due to underestimates of various parameters when the reserves/resource were first assessed. This can be due to improvements in technology but also can be due to the amount of information available during the original assessment and the potential for that field to be connected to other areas that were not originally assessed (something that has happened numerous times in the Gulf of Suez and Indonesia). Reserve growth is well documented in the literature, it is accepted by everyone working in the industry as being both real and relevant. The USGS now includes it in their World Petroleum Assessment as they were able to document it both onshore and offshore US. The BERR in the UK established that there was a mean increase of 150% of originally estimated reserves over a 30 year period of production form major fields in the North Sea (including Fulmar, Magnus, Ninian, Brent, Piper, Claymore, Forties). Lots of publications on the subject:

eg: Sorrell, S., et al, 2012. Shaping the global oil peak: a review of the evidence on field sizes, reserve growth, decline rates and depletion rates. Energy, 37, pp 709-724

It is this process of reserve growth, rather than new discoveries that account for the majority of reserve additions in most regions of the world. Most analysts expect this pattern to continue.


And Yibal has nothing whatsoever to do with anything argued here. It was an extremely tight reservoir with disconnected porosity. When subjected to high take-off rates it declined precipitously. Its behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with non-analogous fields in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with “explaining 6.7% field declines”. Perhaps you should stick to a subject you know something about....although I'm not sure what that would be it certainly is nothing whatsoever to do with oil and gas exploration, development or production.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5950
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 18:02:04

Of course reserve growth can't explain why and 12 of the OPEC 14 nations are in serious production decline, their reserves obviously tapped out as well. And please do not tell me it about low oil prices. Please do not attempt such nonsense. Brent is approaching $80 and yet . . . they can not turn on the taps.
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27176
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 18:56:23

You can’t look at two variables in an equation that has many more variables and then make the prediction that “we are in trouble”


You are the one who offered a list of oil discoveries in the last 20 years as evidence that "we aren't in trouble."

So I quoted the relevant passage from your post and then responded to your post. I did the math for you and showed you that if you added up all the oil in all the the oil discoveries that you listed, it amounted to just a tiny a fraction of the oil the planet has consumed over the last 20 years.

I did the math for you---all you have to do is look at the numbers.....my point that the world is consuming far far more oil then it is discovering is clearly true. I even found a graphic that showed this same thing visually, to reinforce this point for you.

Do you get it now?

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21253
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 19:34:43

You are both correct, and you are both wrong.

The size of the numbers involved deceives you. Those few digits represent thousands of wells, hundreds of companies, dozens of countries, and BILLIONS of oil consumers. Just because you can tot up a neat sum does not make what we are talking about simple to understand or at all predictable using numbers. Those billions of people are going to screw up your calculations every time.

The first thing that happens is as time passes, prices will increase. Consumption will ebb and wane. People will die by the millions and billions. The oil supply will not last forever, but almost certainly it will last longer than any of us having this conversation.

As comforting as it is to think that one can jot down a few calculations and divine the future, it's a complete fantasy. Nobody can tell anything useful when the future involves the illogical, unexpected, and effectively random events resulting from the actions of other humans.

Frankly, I'd be real surprised if anybody could predict the decade in which we are going to run out of oil, because I believe you can't even predict the century with all the variables we have. I am however, pretty sure we'll run out either this century or in the first half of the next.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5090
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 19:50:41

KaiserJeep wrote:As comforting as it is to think that one can jot down a few calculations and divine the future, it's a complete fantasy. Nobody can tell anything useful when the future involves the illogical, unexpected, and effectively random events resulting from the actions of other humans.


True enough, but its still useful to look at the numbers. Going through the empirical data at least provides a starting point for speculating about the future that is based in reality. It certainly beats just making things up.

KaiserJeep wrote:Frankly, I'd be real surprised if anybody could predict the decade in which we are going to run out of oil, because I believe you can't even predict the century with all the variables we have. I am however, pretty sure we'll run out either this century or in the first half of the next.


Predicting when the world will run totally out of oil is an extremely difficult problem. Fortunately when discussing peak oil we just have to determine when global oil production will peak. My guess is sometime in the 2020s, based on the extremely slow growth in conventional production we've seen since 2009 and the failure of large scale production from unconventional TOS outside of the USA.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21253
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 20:11:35

Plant, he will constantly ignore the lack of new discoveries by claiming current reserves will always grow to meet demand. That his his essential argument as far as I can tell. To defend it, he has cited several examples of reserve growth among a few regions, including the North Sea. Which is now in precipitous decline. I only mention Yibal because it underwent such improvements (like many other legacy ME fields) but then, after a surge of production increase, continued on its relentless decline.

To make an good argument, he needs to document and defend not just reserve growth among several reservoirs but a model that proves that all reservoirs will continually display increased production going foward, not just after one or several technologic additions. He has not done that. Here is a link to a critique of his Sorrell paper. Could Peak Oil Pose a Near-Term Risk?
Not convincing, does not refute what is obvious to you and.

A summary of the Sorrel paper
If I had to sum up Sorrell’s key messages, they would be these:

Consensus reserve estimates of oil reserves may be accurate (thus falsifying the claims of high profile Peak Oil exponents such as Colin Campbell), however this makes only a relatively small difference to the timing of a peak in production.
The critical issue is how easily (and cheaply) we can access resources rather than their ultimate size.
There is a significant risk that oil production will peak before 2020.
The assumption of a peak beyond 2030 appears at best optimistic and at worst implausible.

Last edited by pstarr on Tue 03 Jul 2018, 20:27:42, edited 1 time in total.
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27176
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 20:25:20

You are the one who offered a list of oil discoveries in the last 20 years as evidence that "we aren't in trouble."


didn't say that did I? Show a quote where I did.
What I said was you were completely wrong about there only being 1 or 2 giant discoveries in the last twenty years when there were actually 40 and many of those were actually Supergiants by definition.

So I quoted the relevant passage from your post and then responded to your post. I did the math for you and showed you that if you added up all the oil in all the the oil discoveries that you listed, it amounted to just a tiny a fraction of the oil the planet has consumed over the last 20 years.


Here is what you said

I stand corrected. I had no idea so many large oil fields had been discovered in the last 20 years. But it still doesn't change my larger point. Not even a tiny bit.


you had not made a "larger point" in the post I referenced. A Red Herring in the context of my post, I'm afraid. Bringing it up as something else and new to the argument to consider....OK but not as a means of recovering from your original post.

True enough, but its still useful to look at the numbers. Going through the empirical data at least provides a starting point for speculating about the future that is based in reality. It certainly beats just making things up.


Its only useful if you are considering the whole gamut of variables which can, of course, include geopolitical ones. "Reality" is not controlled by current production rate and discovery rate, it is much more complex as I've pointed out.

Plant, he will constantly ignore the lack of new discoveries by claiming current reserves will always grow to meet demand.

Didn't say that did I? What I've said is that proven reserves (which BP reports each year) have continued to increase which means that there is a lot of 2P, 3P and contingent resources that can move up categories. As I tried to get through you very thick skull, reserve classification readjustment is not what constitutes the reserve growth which has been documented over the past 50 years globally. IEA suggests 3.9 trillion bbls of technically recoverable reserves currently...that's ~ 120 years of reserve life at current production rates assuming nothing intercedes to lower oil demand.

I only mention Yibal because it underwent such improvements (like many other legacy ME fields) but then, after a surge of production increase, continued on its relentless decline.


You mentioned Yibal because you know nothing about it. It was drilled with short radius horizontals and not exposed to any of the technology that the MRC or typical horizontals are now exposed to. It's like comparing apples to baby buggies.

To make an good argument, he needs to document and defend not just reserve growth among several reservoirs but a model that proves that all reservoirs will continually display increased production going foward, not just after one or several technologic additions. He has not done that.
f

Maybe you should read the reference I posted, or perhaps the scores of other references that deal with the subject. As I said the USGS now employs a correction to their own resource analysis that accounts for the observed fact that the vast majority of reserves around the world have undergone growth through time. Do I really have to list all the references here that talk to the subject? :roll: This isn't something new and it isn't something that is even debated anymore in the industry.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5950
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 20:28:21

see my edited post above. Refers to the Sorrell paper. Please defend
If I had to sum up Sorrell’s key messages, they would be these:

Consensus reserve estimates of oil reserves may be accurate (thus falsifying the claims of high profile Peak Oil exponents such as Colin Campbell), however this makes only a relatively small difference to the timing of a peak in production.
The critical issue is how easily (and cheaply) we can access resources rather than their ultimate size.
There is a significant risk that oil production will peak before 2020.
The assumption of a peak beyond 2030 appears at best optimistic and at worst implausible.

there you go.
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27176
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 20:50:11

He has not done that. Here is a link to a critique of his Sorrell paper. Could Peak Oil Pose a Near-Term Risk?
Not convincing, does not refute what is obvious to you and.


that critique says nothing whatsoever about the concept of reserve growth being incorrect. Which is precisely what you were arguing.
So like Plant you have just used the old Red Herring argument.


Peak Oil and reserve growth are only marginally related because Peak is the maximum production rate and that has more to do with the timing of production, demand, price and geopolitics than it does how much is in the hopper. But you were not arguing about Peak Oil what you were arguing was the reserve growth was a false assumption, which the Sorrell paper states clearly is not the case. You didn't read it of course, so how would you know? :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5950
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby pstarr » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 20:55:09

What nonsense, rockteacherofthefrosh. Your continual point is that failing discoveries mean little, because all past reserve estimates were short . . . so we don't really need new oil. But the paper you quote to defend that position says that peak will occur before 2020. That paper almost a decade old. Today is 2018 1/2.

Guess what?

Oh . . . and Sorrel is one paper. Not consensus.
November 2016
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 27176
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 21:49:25

You are the one who offered a list of oil discoveries in the last 20 years as evidence that "we aren't in trouble."


didn't say that did I? Show a quote where I did.


You really are a thickie, aren't you?

Its amazing how you miss the point of these posts, and instead divert the conversation into discussions about some little detail in the writing that you want to pick a nit with. And then you even get that wrong!!! :lol: :-D :razz:

But OK. I see there's no point in discussing numbers or rates of oil depletion with you. You only want to argue about quotes. OK, lets talk quotes. Now pay attention....I only want to explain this to you once this time.

Look at the post you are so wee-wee'd up about. In my post I'm quoting YOUR post--do you see that? And I quote you incorrectly saying that I said "we are in trouble." But I didn't say that.

So right underneath your phony quote, I put quotes around the words "we are not in trouble" to respond to your phony quote "we are in trouble."

Its right underneath your phony quote. Its a response to your phony quote. Thats why I used your exact same words. How did you miss that? THE WORDS ARE THE SAME BECAUSE I'M RESPONDING TO YOU. DO YOU GET IT NOW?

Wow. How do you miss absolutely everything? Its truly amazing.

OK. As you requested I've explained it to you now. I'm amazed you couldn't see the same words in your phony quote and in my response, but I know some people are slow and don't understand what they read. So I'm happy to explain it you at greater length. I hope you get it now, and I hope you won't rant on about this for three days again like you you did the last time I chatted about something with you--that was absolutely insane behavior, you know.

---------------------

PS: Its not just my posts that you aren't getting. Pstarr is making a lot of valid points in his posts as well that you're not getting. You might want to think a bit about the points that Pstarr is making in his posts, rather then just ranting and raving and attacking and spewing ad homs in your posts. Try THINKING about what other people say to you instead of looking for things to get angry about.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 21253
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: THE ENERGY CLIFF APPROACHES

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 03 Jul 2018, 23:31:51

Look at the post you are so wee-wee'd up about. In my post I'm quoting YOUR post--do you see that? And I quote you incorrectly saying that I said "we are in trouble." But I didn't say that.


Is English a second language for you.....here is what you said

You are the one who offered a list of oil discoveries in the last 20 years as evidence that "we aren't in trouble."


you claimed I offered a list as evidence that we aren't in trouble, which of course I did not. What I said was the list proved you were completely incorrect in your assessment that there were only 1 to 2 giant discoveries in the last 20 years when in fact there were 40. I made no comment as to what the fallout from those discoveries would be or the implications, simply that you had no idea what you were talking about. It is that simple.

I did the math for you---all you have to do is look at the numbers.....my point that the world is consuming far far more oil then it is discovering is clearly true. I even found a graphic that showed this same thing visually, to reinforce this point for you.


which had zero to do with the comments in my original post. You are out there arguing with yourself about something I did not comment on in my original post....as I said previously Red Herring.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5950
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests