Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

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

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby americandream » Tue 08 Mar 2016, 18:53:35

pstarr wrote:
ROCKMAN wrote:It might surprise some but I'll have to go along with Adam on this one, And also commend him for using "resources" instead of "reserves". I would go as far to say he's even a bit short on his estimate: my guess is that we've only produced 30% to 40% at best of the hydrocarbons contained in the earth. But there is that huge and unavoidable "IF". Which is "IF" they can be recovered economically. And a good bit could be recovered at $40/bbl. And more at $80/bbl. And even more at $120/bbl. And even still a lot more at $145/bbl.
Right on Rock. Why stop at upgrading bitumen and tar sands? We are so done with $150/bbl subsidized moonshine.

At $500/bbl we could convert all the remaining crappy coal and space methane into liquid fuels. (That would be called fischer tropf).

And then at $1,000/bbl an endless stream of thermodepolymerized turkey shit and feed-lot manure would pour into Adams' Lexus tank forever and even fill the passenger compartment.

For $1 million/bbl, hot air can transport ennui to uranus lol


Your anger at the irrational in this world is commendable. It if anything, injects an urgency into my efforts to put what I know across in a user friendly and ultimately convincing way. I am working on it...I literally only sleep 4 or 5 hours at a time....hang in there.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 10 Mar 2016, 00:28:01

pstarr wrote:
ROCKMAN wrote:It might surprise some but I'll have to go along with Adam on this one, And also commend him for using "resources" instead of "reserves". I would go as far to say he's even a bit short on his estimate: my guess is that we've only produced 30% to 40% at best of the hydrocarbons contained in the earth. But there is that huge and unavoidable "IF". Which is "IF" they can be recovered economically. And a good bit could be recovered at $40/bbl. And more at $80/bbl. And even more at $120/bbl. And even still a lot more at $145/bbl.
Right on Rock. Why stop at upgrading bitumen and tar sands? We are so done with $150/bbl subsidized moonshine.

At $500/bbl we could convert all the remaining crappy coal and space methane into liquid fuels. (That would be called fischer tropf).

And then at $1,000/bbl an endless stream of thermodepolymerized turkey shit and feed-lot manure would pour into Adams' Lexus tank forever and even fill the passenger compartment.

For $1 million/bbl, hot air can transport ennui to uranus lol


If you have any interest in how this works from the theory end, the EIA has a pretty good grasp on it and I recently relayed this reference to Rock as well.

Resources are those volumes above economically recoverable, and equal to or below in place. For a given set of technology and price assumptions. So Pstarr, you hit the nail right on the head. The only thing that ultimately matters is price, because there is a price at which any and all known hydrocarbons can be mined.

https://www.eia.gov/workingpapers/pdf/trr.pdf
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: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby tita » Thu 10 Mar 2016, 09:46:08

AdamB wrote:The only thing that ultimately matters is price, because there is a price at which any and all known hydrocarbons can be mined.

No. All known HC can be mined if it's economically recoverable. Which means that the price you get when you sell it is higher than the price you pay to get it. This is a dynamic system. There is no simple shortcut between economically recoverable and price of the stuff.
User avatar
tita
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 10 Mar 2016, 10:16:41

tita wrote:
AdamB wrote:The only thing that ultimately matters is price, because there is a price at which any and all known hydrocarbons can be mined.

No. All known HC can be mined if it's economically recoverable. Which means that the price you get when you sell it is higher than the price you pay to get it. This is a dynamic system. There is no simple shortcut between economically recoverable and price of the stuff.

And that in turn means that at a certain price both to obtain HC and also in regards to what the consumer pays it will be counterproductive to obtain HC and it will drag the economy/consumers down. So in essence it will be a burden rather than a benefit to society and the economy
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby ennui2 » Thu 10 Mar 2016, 10:20:09

EROEI still matters up to a point. For instance, diamonds have no EROEI. However, for whatever reason, the market rewards you a lot more money for a finished diamond than the cost of the energy used to mine it. As long as enough surplus energy powers the economy enough to pay that premium price for diamonds, diamonds will continue to be mined.

Since the earth is a closed system, energy elsewhere needs to subsidize the "loss" of the diamond mining.

Likewise, if the market value of oil is greater than, let's say, coal, then converting coal to oil at a huge loss (EROEI negative) will still be done rather than using the coal directly. Those who are hung up on thermodynamics might shudder in horror at the waste, but that's how the world works.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 10 Mar 2016, 10:30:41

Yes it works that way because as you aptly stated Ennui of excess or surplus energy and the willingness of society to subsidize and bear that burden to attain that lesser benefit. In a future bereft of excess energy that manner of activity will simply not be possible or at best not worthwhile.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby tita » Thu 10 Mar 2016, 11:17:11

ennui2 wrote:Likewise, if the market value of oil is greater than, let's say, coal, then converting coal to oil at a huge loss (EROEI negative) will still be done rather than using the coal directly. Those who are hung up on thermodynamics might shudder in horror at the waste, but that's how the world works.

That is true. But maybe the dynamic of an electricity transport system fueled with coal is cheaper than the dynamic of a gasoline transport system from coal converted to gasoline. The market will in the end choose the most efficient (higher EROEI) because it will be the cheapest. And in some conditions it could be the second one.
User avatar
tita
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 10 Mar 2016, 16:41:40

tita - True to a point. But "cheaper" is a complicated metric to determine. Even with low oil prices it might still be cheaper to run an EV then an ICE today. But the vast majority of us don't own an EV so until gasoline cost reach a sufficiently high AND long term cost folks will hang onto to their ICE's that are already paid for. Which is why GTL or coal to liquid may still win out over EV's: the fuel from GTL/CTL might cost a good bit more then e- but folks don't need to spend $25k+ to take advantage of that difference.

BTW in another post a new acronym came to me: DRODI as compared to EROEI. Dollar Returned On Dollar Invested. At the other extreme lets say someone develops a great new energy conversion system called Shazam! where EROEI is 20. But if the DRODI isn't sufficient for companies to invest it won't happen. Unless, of course, the federal govt decides to get into the Shazam! business. LOL.

But as the Rockman has pointed out many times: it not possible for any drilling venture to get much below an EROEI of 5 or 6. At that level the DRODI will represent a loss. IOW folks greatly overestimate the amount and cost of energy used in drilling/completing a well compared to the other cost items. In general the fuel cost is one of the lowest factors often representing less then 10% of the total well cost.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby PhebaAndThePilgrim » Wed 16 Mar 2016, 10:51:36

Everything I need to know about life i learned from Sesame Street.
When my daughter was little this song played every day, every day!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ABxl46Ovv8

It is ingrained in my brain. The very first time I saw Hubbert's Curve, and I saw the descent as a rocky plateau, this song popped into my brain. (also Bette Midler's "From A Distance"). Beyond all of the arguing over whether Peak Oil is real and happening is the reality of viewing the downside of Hubbert's Curve from different perspectives.

we tend to be an impatient species, not seeing far into the future.
From what I have witnessed, Peak Oil is real, is happening, just not today.
It is like the old saying: 'Someday I will die, but on every other day I will not". It is my opinion that Hubbert's Curve is not a smooth descent. viewed from a distance, the curve looks smooth, viewed up close, one can see the hills and valleys of a slow ratcheting down. This ratcheting down taking place over many years, maybe even decades.

I think fracking, economic downturns, oil gluts, are a normal part of the downside of the curve, just seem from a different time perspective.
Pheba.
PhebaAndThePilgrim
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri 29 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Show-Me State

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby americandream » Wed 16 Mar 2016, 14:35:59

AdamB wrote:The only thing that ultimately matters is price, because there is a price at which any and all known hydrocarbons can be mined.

https://www.eia.gov/workingpapers/pdf/trr.pdf


This.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 16 Mar 2016, 17:49:03

tita wrote: This is a dynamic system. There is no simple shortcut between economically recoverable and price of the stuff.


Have you ever seen the EIA models? There is nothing simple about what they do, so you are correct. And this is probably part of the reason why they never fell for the peak oil stuff in the first place, because they don't do simple short cuts like fitting time series data with decline equations and declaring the end.
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: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 16 Mar 2016, 17:54:46

PhebaAndThePilgrim wrote: I think fracking, economic downturns, oil gluts, are a normal part of the downside of the curve, just seem from a different time perspective.
Pheba.


I believe all of this things occurred on the upside as well. Be it the great gasoline scare (of 1916), the great depression, the oil price crash in 1930 that needed the TRCC to save the industry, or the scarcity and terrifically hgih real prices of gasoline and crude in the 70's, the fracking before Hubbert ever even wrote his 1956 paper, every one of them happened on the way up...so if they happen on the way down, it is just another BAU, doing what BAU does.
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: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby americandream » Wed 16 Mar 2016, 18:05:01

AdamB wrote:
PhebaAndThePilgrim wrote: I think fracking, economic downturns, oil gluts, are a normal part of the downside of the curve, just seem from a different time perspective.
Pheba.


I believe all of this things occurred on the upside as well. Be it the great gasoline scare (of 1916), the great depression, the oil price crash in 1930 that needed the TRCC to save the industry, or the scarcity and terrifically hgih real prices of gasoline and crude in the 70's, the fracking before Hubbert ever even wrote his 1956 paper, every one of them happened on the way up...so if they happen on the way down, it is just another BAU, doing what BAU does.


This
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 16 Mar 2016, 21:09:52

One important point to consider is the population that feeds on the oil:

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/201 ... k-oil.html
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5569
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 17 Mar 2016, 09:24:40

Phe - You've seen Hubbert's curves but perhaps never read his full report. He makes it very clear that he's projecting the peak of the developlenty of the EXISTING KNOWN TRENDS both inthe US and globally. He also specifically says his model DOES NOT INCLUDE future trends yet to be developed...such as the offshore and shales. And more important: the huge ME fields were almost completely unknown. If you look at the population he was actually projecting he was amazingly accurate.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby ennui2 » Thu 17 Mar 2016, 09:31:46

What Hubbert said is one thing. How his work was held up as a way to explain and predict the current energy landscape is another. Peakers did not allow for this uncertainty in their models. Hubbert's curve was presented as a simple and easy-to-follow narrative of "riding the slide".

Maybe if Hubbert were alive to see how his work was used he would have attempted to provide more of a check against peakers who were issuing such arrogant predictions. He was a smart guy and didn't seem to have much of an ideological axe to grind (other than his desire to see a technocracy).
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby tita » Thu 17 Mar 2016, 10:26:15

AdamB wrote:
tita wrote: This is a dynamic system. There is no simple shortcut between economically recoverable and price of the stuff.


Have you ever seen the EIA models? There is nothing simple about what they do, so you are correct. And this is probably part of the reason why they never fell for the peak oil stuff in the first place, because they don't do simple short cuts like fitting time series data with decline equations and declaring the end.


I just read parts of an old annual energy outlook frome EIA (2006). They were full of CTL and GTL and biofuels. Shale oil was an uncertain new trend not expected to emerge before high oil prices (60$ - 2015), and at a limited rate (400kb/d in 2030). They expected US oil prod increasing a little bit at 6mb/d in 2015 before gradual decrease after.

The Peak Oil Dynamic struck harder than they expected. Instead of a gradual increase in oil prices, it's just swinging up and down out of control with an unusual high price period of 4-5 years. This led to a unexpected shale oil production explosion deflecting the natural depletion of conventional oil and various outages from geopolitical reasons.

EIA does an incredible job, and I respect them for that. But like anybody else, they just can't tell now what the oil market will be in 2026 like they were not able to tell it in 2006 for 2016. It's only guesses from trends observed over the years, put into various models. They won't predict disruptions related to depletion effects. They just predict conservative views, which fits gradual changes.
User avatar
tita
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby ennui2 » Thu 17 Mar 2016, 10:54:50

"Peak Oil Dynamic" is a buzzword intended to somehow salvage the term from the junkheap. I know it's picking up steam from the remaining peak oil faithful but it just screams "retcon".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroactive_continuity
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: The Peak Oil Story revised: You was robbed instead

Unread postby tita » Thu 17 Mar 2016, 12:06:20

ennui- I agree. I prefer the term "Roller Coaster Oil Dynamic". Much more realistic to the view I have from the market of this ressource actually.

Also, I never really put a date in the calendar and waited for it. I just follow what is happening, that's all. I'm impressed by the actual production levels (96 mb/d!), and just wait to see how events will take place from now.

I agree, IMHO, I think this is not going to be like a quiet river of oil flowing.
User avatar
tita
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 418
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests