Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Oil Drum Thread pt. 2

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

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby John_A » Sat 24 Aug 2013, 14:51:06

pstarr wrote:. Our trolls were banned as trolls on TOD, but allowed to distract and play in this their personal sandboxes at PO.com forever.


Rockman is not a troll, and you can't use his ban from TOD as proof of it. If the professionals have noticed the suspect quality of TOD work and are noting it in public, maybe TOD was just cheesed that Rockman had noticed the same problems in their thinking? Rockman just told them one too many times what a crock this entire "fracking pollutes groundwater" angle is, or how EROEI isn't something industry cares about in the least. Maybe his idea of POD wasn't acceptable because it made so much sense, and those who had already called peak oil in 2008 were overly sensitive to the issues?[/quote]
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby John_A » Sat 24 Aug 2013, 15:08:11

pstarr wrote:
John_A wrote:
Lore wrote:You mean there are actually people who have built their foundation on the Drudge Report? :?


or on TOD? :?
John, If you were in front of me right now, I would demand you remove that snarky emoticon from your forehead. Then if you didn't comply, I'd knock it off.


sure......whenever you aren't busy...got it....


Image
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby davep » Sat 24 Aug 2013, 16:12:41

That's enough ad homs. I'm getting tired of it from all sides here.
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4578
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Sun 25 Aug 2013, 01:09:27

John_A wrote:
Yes, the horrifying consequences of peak oil have undoubtedly driven such a lack of interest in the topic that TOD is going belly up, with ASPO-USA to follow. Makes perfect sense.


Actually, there's no "lack of interest in the topic," as mainstream media has been referring to unconventional oil resources, which very much supports the argument of peak oil. Otherwise, companies can simply ramp up crude oil production readily.

And then there are high oil prices.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Sun 25 Aug 2013, 01:18:27

John_A wrote:
Rockman is not a troll, and you can't use his ban from TOD as proof of it. If the professionals have noticed the suspect quality of TOD work and are noting it in public, maybe TOD was just cheesed that Rockman had noticed the same problems in their thinking? Rockman just told them one too many times what a crock this entire "fracking pollutes groundwater" angle is, or how EROEI isn't something industry cares about in the least. Maybe his idea of POD wasn't acceptable because it made so much sense, and those who had already called peak oil in 2008 were overly sensitive to the issues?


But the industry doesn't care about EROEI because it only looks at profits, which means there is even less assurance of continued production. This was explained to you in another thread using arguments from a study by Aleklett that even he considered, but you did not respond to that.

And I remember that he stated that "his idea of POD" was open to different interpretations. I and others employed similar process when we debunked many of your assertions in this forum. You also did not respond to any of those counterpoints.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby John_A » Sun 25 Aug 2013, 10:38:54

ralfy wrote:Actually, there's no "lack of interest in the topic," as mainstream media has been referring to unconventional oil resources, which very much supports the argument of peak oil.


I have seen this claimed quite a bit. Could you reference some reasonable well known or knowledgeable peak PRIOR to peak oil happening (we'll choose 2005 or 2006 as the peak date according to Simmons or Fatih) who said that the onslaught of unconventional resources, shale gas, tight oil, would be one of the signs of peak oil?

While many people claim things after the fact is quite common, I can't say I've ever seen someone claiming this in advance of the event. Anyone (with TOD specializing in it) can see it after it happens, but I would assign more credibility to anyone or any organization which said in advance that development of a particular resource deeper in the resource pyramid could completely reverse Hubbert type countrywide decline, or that this reversal of decline from a particular type of tight oil or shale gas resource was itself a peak oil knock on effect.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby John_A » Sun 25 Aug 2013, 10:48:48

ralfy wrote:But the industry doesn't care about EROEI because it only looks at profits, which means there is even less assurance of continued production. This was explained to you in another thread using arguments from a study by Aleklett that even he considered, but you did not respond to that.


You claiming something A) isn't an explanation nor necessarily B) true and C) if Aleklett had any industry experience he wouldn't be contradicting Rockman when it comes to the value of EROEI to industry.

ralfy wrote:And I remember that he stated that "his idea of POD" was open to different interpretations. I and others employed similar process when we debunked many of your assertions in this forum. You also did not respond to any of those counterpoints.


You claiming is also not A) debunking and B) you still haven't come up with a competing cost/supply curve, so why should I waste time with youtube videos and convoluted arguments when all you need to make your point is a single graph? And you can't find it. And you won't ask why. But I'll tell you why....anyone who makes one has to quantify the amount of resource available to be make into gasoline and diesel. And how much it will cost. And the fact you can't round one up from ASPO? Is more than telling. Obviously you don't even understand why.

The FIRST thing ASPO or TOD or Heinberg should put out if they, and by extension YOU, want to be taken seriously is their own cost/supply curve. Without it? You are stuck with intellectual meanderings, the point of which is to try and hide your lack of rigor on the topic of resource depletion.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby SamInNebraska » Sun 25 Aug 2013, 13:02:53

John_A wrote:The FIRST thing ASPO or TOD or Heinberg should put out if they, and by extension YOU, want to be taken seriously is their own cost/supply curve. Without it? You are stuck with intellectual meanderings, the point of which is to try and hide your lack of rigor on the topic of resource depletion.


JohnA, I don't know what the exact debating term for it is, but you are assembling a specific set of conditions that you know cannot be met, and then challenging the other side to meet them.

It is not possible (short of feigned ignorance) to deny the large amount of resources available for human use. The etimates range from 6 trillion barrels or more of in-place resource in just conventional oil fields through perhaps 14 trillions barrels once the kerogen deposits of Colorado, the tar sands of Canada, and various other items are brought into play.

Any cost/supply curve can either recognize this reality, or be refuted in about 10 seconds of googling. Therefore your challenge is nothing more than an attempt to force others to recognize or repeat a point which appears to refute peak oil, that there is way more stuff left than we have used to date.

The only alternative to this is for someone to argue about other aspects of peak oil, such as production rate, or price. Which is the tack Ralfy appears to have taken.

You two are talking past each other, I'm betting because you use different definitions of "peak oil", and you are just naturally argumentative.

Hubbert's concept was not economic in nature. You are trying to force economic ideas into the equation, and a much more inclusive definition of useable resource. Peak oil in the more Hubbertian sense relates to flowrates and currently known estimates of size, there is a reason most of his estimates have actually been wrong, and they relate tochanges in technology, and things economists were right about.

Coming up with a cost/supply curve isn't the answer, because both size, technology and flowrates are all equally important. You are placing too much emphasis on only the part of this debate that you like. Or are trying to win. Or something.
SamInNebraska
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun 14 Oct 2012, 23:05:58

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 25 Aug 2013, 13:48:02

Rockman a troll? Actually I'm more comfortable being tagged a Big Oil shill...pays better than trolling, ya know. LOL.

Actually I seldom received any criticism of my posts at TOD. If fact there were times when I was elevated to the level of a minor god like Janis. Besides the god of beginnings and endings (fitting these PO days) he also caused a volcanic hot spring to erupt. The closest any geologist has gotten to god status.

Actually the explanation for my ban was redundancy. But unlike po.com TOD got a fairly steady stream of newbies. I felt they deserved their questions answered regardless of how many times I had already offered them. Actually I felt there were more personal reasons involved. And to be fair I was unbanned shorty afterwards. But I don't suffer insults well and rejected the invitation. In fact I'm still holding on to some grudges over 40 years old. The lesson: don't piss off an Irishman. LOL
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby John_A » Sun 25 Aug 2013, 16:42:57

SamInNebraska wrote:You two are talking past each other, I'm betting because you use different definitions of "peak oil", and you are just naturally argumentative.


Methinks you speaketh with forked tongue.

In case you did not notice, or haven't been around long enough to notice, economists and their ideas are often taken out behind the woodpile for a good beating by peak oil theorists.

My overall point is that general economic theory is more appropriate, and accurate, in predicting peak oil type consequences than those ideas based either on A) Hubbert's original peak oil ideas or B) some half baked financial hysteria claimed to be based on Hubbert's original ideas.

The instant people attach even a smidgeon of $$ or finance to a Hubbert idea, it isn't Hbbert's idea anymore, it is just economics. So without any real economist to lead us through the basics of how that science works, the best shot we have at seeing how real economists work through peak oil issues is to examine the work of the IEA and EIA. They are chock-a-block full of economists, and should be able to afford some real resource experts, pops mentioned one awhile back but didn't name the guy, so we should really take an interest in what they say, over blogs like TOD or Kobb or Cassandra's whatever or some of these others who specialize not in the knowing of a thing, but just the writing about it. Quite a difference between those two worlds.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 26 Aug 2013, 00:08:22

John_A wrote:
I have seen this claimed quite a bit.



The claim is painfully obvious. In fact, you can see it in your own posts.


Could you reference some reasonable well known or knowledgeable peak PRIOR to peak oil happening (we'll choose 2005 or 2006 as the peak date according to Simmons or Fatih)...



This has nothing to do with your previous sentence. And it's not Simmons or Fatih that made such a claim but the IEA.


who said that the onslaught of unconventional resources, shale gas, tight oil, would be one of the signs of peak oil?



That's painfully obvious. What other reason is there for using unconventional oil? For fun?

Onslaught? The IEA shows only a 9-pct increase in oil and gas production worldwide only if crude oil production can sustained. Aleklett shows that this requires maximum depletion rates. In addition, world oil demand has to be cut from a 2-pct increase per annum to only 0.7 pct a year and governments will have to coordinate with each other to do so. None of these have taken place the past decade.

FWIW, these points have been explained to you three times in various threads.


While many people claim things after the fact is quite common, I can't say I've ever seen someone claiming this in advance of the event.



You should read your own messages.


Anyone (with TOD specializing in it) can see it after it happens, but I would assign more credibility to anyone or any organization which said in advance that development of a particular resource deeper in the resource pyramid could completely reverse Hubbert type countrywide decline, or that this reversal of decline from a particular type of tight oil or shale gas resource was itself a peak oil knock on effect.


Well, the "John A" organization already assures us of this reversal.

Perhaps at this point you should probably explain in detail how something "deeper" will reverse a "decline."
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 26 Aug 2013, 00:20:22

John_A wrote:
You claiming something A) isn't an explanation nor necessarily B) true and C) if Aleklett had any industry experience he wouldn't be contradicting Rockman when it comes to the value of EROEI to industry.



But he wasn't contradicting Rockman. See for yourself by going to the thread where we discussed that and respond.


You claiming is also not A) debunking and B) you still haven't come up with a competing cost/supply curve, so why should I waste time with youtube videos and convoluted arguments when all you need to make your point is a single graph? And you can't find it. And you won't ask why. But I'll tell you why....anyone who makes one has to quantify the amount of resource available to be make into gasoline and diesel. And how much it will cost. And the fact you can't round one up from ASPO? Is more than telling. Obviously you don't even understand why.



You don't need a "competing cost/supply curve" because the IEA didn't use it in its 2010 report. See for yourself by reading the 2010 report, then go to the thread where we discussed this and respond.

I didn't present a "youtube video." What I did was share Birol's assessment of what the IEA said in its 2010. Again, see for yourself and respond to his point in the other thread.

I gave no "convoluted arguments." I explain things carefully and Rockman even concurred with regards to the Aleklett study. You didn't respond to any of the points.

Finally, your reference to "the amount of resources available to make into gasoline and diesel" proves my point! Now, you understand why the IEA shows only a 9-pct increase in energy produced from oil and gas sources following conditions that need to be met.


The FIRST thing ASPO or TOD or Heinberg should put out if they, and by extension YOU, want to be taken seriously is their own cost/supply curve. Without it? You are stuck with intellectual meanderings, the point of which is to try and hide your lack of rigor on the topic of resource depletion.


Again, you're wasting your time. The IEA already shows that with its cost/supply curve we will see only a 9-pct increase in oil and gas produced, and only if various conditions are met. Again, see for yourself by reading the Outlook 2010 report.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 26 Aug 2013, 00:25:23

SamInNebraska wrote:
JohnA, I don't know what the exact debating term for it is, but you are assembling a specific set of conditions that you know cannot be met, and then challenging the other side to meet them.

It is not possible (short of feigned ignorance) to deny the large amount of resources available for human use. The etimates range from 6 trillion barrels or more of in-place resource in just conventional oil fields through perhaps 14 trillions barrels once the kerogen deposits of Colorado, the tar sands of Canada, and various other items are brought into play.

Any cost/supply curve can either recognize this reality, or be refuted in about 10 seconds of googling. Therefore your challenge is nothing more than an attempt to force others to recognize or repeat a point which appears to refute peak oil, that there is way more stuff left than we have used to date.

The only alternative to this is for someone to argue about other aspects of peak oil, such as production rate, or price. Which is the tack Ralfy appears to have taken.

You two are talking past each other, I'm betting because you use different definitions of "peak oil", and you are just naturally argumentative.

Hubbert's concept was not economic in nature. You are trying to force economic ideas into the equation, and a much more inclusive definition of useable resource. Peak oil in the more Hubbertian sense relates to flowrates and currently known estimates of size, there is a reason most of his estimates have actually been wrong, and they relate tochanges in technology, and things economists were right about.

Coming up with a cost/supply curve isn't the answer, because both size, technology and flowrates are all equally important. You are placing too much emphasis on only the part of this debate that you like. Or are trying to win. Or something.


I think he is referring to data from the IEA 2008 report. The IEA uses that and other sets of data to come up with the 2010 report, which confirms "Hubbert's concept." This was explained to him in another thread, but he didn't respond.

In short, there's no need to come up with a "competing" cost/supply curve because the IEA already shows, following their own curve and an assessment of resources, that oil and gas production will increase by only 9 pct during the next two decades, and only if various conditions are met. I explained this several times in this thread and in two others.

Aleklett questioned part of the production level, i.e., crude oil production on fields yet to be found, etc., and argues that this part of production, which essentially leads to the 9-pct increase, may be based on maximum depletion rates. A study was shared in another thread, and John didn't respond to that, either.

Thus, even the best-case scenario for the IEA is based on conditions that will be difficult to meet. Read the 2010 report for more details and my comments in this forum on the matter.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 26 Aug 2013, 00:28:07

John_A wrote:
Methinks you speaketh with forked tongue.

In case you did not notice, or haven't been around long enough to notice, economists and their ideas are often taken out behind the woodpile for a good beating by peak oil theorists.

My overall point is that general economic theory is more appropriate, and accurate, in predicting peak oil type consequences than those ideas based either on A) Hubbert's original peak oil ideas or B) some half baked financial hysteria claimed to be based on Hubbert's original ideas.

The instant people attach even a smidgeon of $$ or finance to a Hubbert idea, it isn't Hbbert's idea anymore, it is just economics. So without any real economist to lead us through the basics of how that science works, the best shot we have at seeing how real economists work through peak oil issues is to examine the work of the IEA and EIA. They are chock-a-block full of economists, and should be able to afford some real resource experts, pops mentioned one awhile back but didn't name the guy, so we should really take an interest in what they say, over blogs like TOD or Kobb or Cassandra's whatever or some of these others who specialize not in the knowing of a thing, but just the writing about it. Quite a difference between those two worlds.


There is no "general economic theory" that explains this, as shown in various threads where I and others countered your views regarding the matter. Why bring up this mistaken notion again in this thread?
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 26 Aug 2013, 08:57:22

"who said that the onslaught of unconventional resources, shale gas, tight oil, would be one of the signs of peak oil?" I'm more than happy to take some credit for that brilliant observation. The unconventional boom has been driven by high prices. Anyone that denies that obvious fact is a lost cause IMHO. So that leaves the question of the source of those high prices. It is not the occurrence of global PO nor the work of those evil speculators IMHO.

The source of high prices and thus the unconventional boom is the POD...Peak Oil Dynamic. It's all those aspects of resource development, distribution, consumption, economic growth, politics, etc. As pointed out the critical aspect of the POD is the complex economic relationships that are constantly evolving. Our lives are impacted by those complex feedback loops that develop in the POD. And one of the more obvious feedbacks is the unconventional boom created by the high prices. And not all the feedbacks are negative. US motor fuel consumption is down. Texas collected $300 million in oil/NG severance tax during the first 6 months of 2013. And there are all the negative impacts we're all familiar with.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby John_A » Mon 26 Aug 2013, 10:58:32

ROCKMAN wrote:"who said that the onslaught of unconventional resources, shale gas, tight oil, would be one of the signs of peak oil?" I'm more than happy to take some credit for that brilliant observation. The unconventional boom has been driven by high prices. Anyone that denies that obvious fact is a lost cause IMHO. So that leaves the question of the source of those high prices. It is not the occurrence of global PO nor the work of those evil speculators IMHO.


Can you point us to a place where you mentioned this PRIOR to peak oil in 2005? Everyone, including the reporting agencies, have been lavishing praise on the unconventionals AFTER they happened, I am looking for the person who mentioned it BEFORE it happened.

And you as well as anyone know that the unconventionals, including the Bakken, including the Barnett, including the Antrim, including the New Albany, including the Devonian in Ohio and West Virginia, including the Devonian in Kentucky, were all producing before peak oil in 2005 happened.

So the evidence was there, the production was already happening, I am just looking for the peak oil pundit who claimed that they would be the savior in some configuration or another.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby John_A » Mon 26 Aug 2013, 11:02:40

ralfy wrote:Perhaps at this point you should probably explain in detail how something "deeper" will reverse a "decline."


I recommend we start with the basic terminology. Here is a Hubbertian decline. Reversed. We can ask Westexas why he didn't see this inflection point coming, Texas production decline based on a Hubbert concept being one of his babies.


Image

It is my supposition that because TOD missed the boat on the inflection points using a top down analysis, they are now subject to a level of derision which Sam claims is noticeable at professional gatherings. Feel free to dispute, and discuss.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby John_A » Mon 26 Aug 2013, 11:12:24

ralfy wrote:You don't need a "competing cost/supply curve" because the IEA didn't use it in its 2010 report. See for yourself by reading the 2010 report, then go to the thread where we discussed this and respond.


Not until you learn to read. I've already explained who was referencing the 2010 report, and who was not. Let us not try and confuse them.

ralfy wrote:Finally, your reference to "the amount of resources available to make into gasoline and diesel" proves my point! Now, you understand why the IEA shows only a 9-pct increase in energy produced from oil and gas sources following conditions that need to be met.


No, I don't understand why you don't provide a supply/cost curve in rebuttal to that provided by the IEA. I assume, for better or worse, that you simply can't find one, and therefore can't provide anything to refute their earlier cost/supply curve, regardless of whether or not they used it after that point.

I would be willing to bet they will publish one again sometime in the future, regardless of what they then utilize from the resource base to populate their future supply scenarios.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby John_A » Mon 26 Aug 2013, 11:14:48

ralfy wrote:There is no "general economic theory" that explains this, as shown in various threads where I and others countered your views regarding the matter. Why bring up this mistaken notion again in this thread?


We have also discussed the quality of what you bring up. And yes, the EIA and IEA are exactly using general economic principles to show how future price and supply works. Ask them, I dare you.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests