[AdamB]

A jump in oil prices will cause an economic crises; a fall in oil prices will cause production to go off line; but this is so simple that it shouldn't have to be said. On a well run website trolls are deleted. This website obviously has some problems.

Oil prices have "jumped" (whatever the hell that means in a quantitative sense) before, and the economy didn't fall into crisis, and oil prices have fallen before...while production increased.

How about adding some understanding history to that list you claim to be familiar with, but to date have invalidated with your statements?

[AdamB]

So when is this tremendous oil shortage supposed to get off the ground?

Again. This is what, maybe the 3rd or 4th upcoming oil shortage claimed for just this century?

[AdamB]

Since 2008 the downward momentum in oil price has apparently been occurring in waves and we are due for another wave down. Which wave will take us out. Wild guess 2022. Maybe we will see the first signs of oil shortages with the next wave down in oil price.

And your theory on why we didn't see these oil shortages when the price crashed in 2008, and 2014?

[AdamB]

So when is this tremendous oil shortage supposed to get off the ground?

When is peak oil supposed to happen?

Answer that, then you will have some idea when the production cliff occurs.

It was supposed to happen in 1990. And then some claimed it in 2000, some in 2004, some in 2005, some in 2006, and some in 2008, and then some did it again recently for 2015.

So people have already answered that question....and we didn't get shortages from any of them.

But global peak oil DID happen in 1979...for 15 years or so anyway, and then the same thing happened as happened in the US...decline became growth and presto...one more peak oil dispatched by copious abundance, or another way of thinking about it is that another cycle of economically challenged folks were discredited. Again.

Assuming a 10 year error in the notional peak, it would estimate the production crash to happen before 2030 but likely not in the next 10 years. So you cornies are all safe and secure, for now.

The EIA was castigated for claiming a peak of 2037, back in 2004. Looks like reality, at least in your estimation, is putting their analysts back at the head of the pack for knowing these things far better than the amateurs.

[AdamB]

Oil production follows the economy; it does not lead.

Not according to an actual economist, but more importantly, pstarr himself. His name is Hamilton, I'm sure with your economic knowledge you know of him. You dispute his conclusions on what basis?

[asg70]

I know this is off-topic but I came back in this thread after less than 24 hours and two new pages of back and forth sniping has been added.

The prediction that I'm most interested in (albeit petty, I know) is what the endgame of all this ETP vs. anti-ETP chatter on peakoil.com will be.

The ETP stuff is sort of a squatter phenomenon which is attempting to overtake the site by filibustering tactics. Apparently this has been going on for years already and it's becoming sort of the ideological equivalent of the Palestine/Israeli crisis in the sense that it has no resolution.

If the mods do not make the hard choice to eject ETPers then this kind of chatter will continue to infect and dominate the day to day discussion, despite the fact there are really no new insights and it's simply a matter of running over the same ground again and again.

[asg70]

If this an attempted coup d'etat, you had better be certain you have associates and friends in high places. Because I do.

No, I am saying that the ETPers are the patients taking over the asylum, as it were.

I also think how threatened you feel by the prospect of being perma-banned is a sign of how unhealthy your obsession with this site is. It's just a forum, dude. It was your choice to invest so many man-hours of your life into somehow proving that you're right and everyone else is wrong. If you get banned for being an irredeemable dick you have nobody to blame but yourself.

IMHO, picking a battle with a mod and decrying that you can't put him in your ignore filter was probably the right time to eject you. It was the lowest of the low. With friends like Tanada in high places, who needs enemies? You seem to have a really warped idea of who constitutes your allies here. You are merely...tolerated...by the mods for unknown reasons.

IMHO, I think if you were ejected and the other ETP adovcates remained that at least the debate between ETP vs. anti-ETP would settle into something more civilized. You are really the one responsible for dragging things into the gutter. So it's not really about censoring ETP thought as much as how ETP zealotry has become synonymous for ad homming--thanks to you.

You just threatened the mods.

Hardly. It's a suggestion similar to all of the times I flagged you and wrote suggestions in the notes.

[asg70]

I just flagged you for the first time.

What do you expect to gain by flagging someone back who flagged you for ad homming?

Calling you to task for ad homming is not in and of itself an ad hom. It's like a bully feeling insulted for being called a bully.

You don't want to get flagged? Then stop behaving in a way suitable for flagging. Plain and simple. Since the mods won't ban you then the only thing you have to deal with from flagging is a bruised ego anyway.

[ROCKMAN]

creed - "The waves that I see are since 2008." Feel free to cherry pick any time frame you like...everyone does. LOL.

So you like looking at a shorter period then the 20 year span I pointed out. OK by me. So since the beginning of 2016 there has been up and down waves but the net effect has been increasing prices from less then $30/bbl to around $50/bbl...a 50%+ increase.

Or if you prefer we can look at just the last 6 months: an increase from $46.50/bbl to $49.50/bbl. Or we can go back 35 years to when the IA price decreased from $90/bbl to the current price. Or 45 years when the price more the doubled to the current price.

So I can play this stupid f*cking game all day...how about you? LOL. Needless to say one cannot predict future oil prices by projecting any historical price curve forward regardless of how one cherry picks the time frame. Time obviously is not a controlling factor over the price of oil. Look at most on the conversations here: they tend to focus on all the other factors that impact the price of oil. And how prices changed over the last 6 months, 6 years or 60 years has no bearing on those factors that do impact the dynamic.

But there's still one fact that can't be ignored: adjusted for inflation the current oil price is significantly higher then the vast majority of time since the oil age began. And that didn't require any cherry picking. LOL.

[Observerbrb]

I know this is off-topic but I came back in this thread after less than 24 hours and two new pages of back and forth sniping has been added.

The prediction that I'm most interested in (albeit petty, I know) is what the endgame of all this ETP vs. anti-ETP chatter on peakoil.com will be.

The ETP stuff is sort of a squatter phenomenon which is attempting to overtake the site by filibustering tactics. Apparently this has been going on for years already and it's becoming sort of the ideological equivalent of the Palestine/Israeli crisis in the sense that it has no resolution.

If the mods do not make the hard choice to eject ETPers then this kind of chatter will continue to infect and dominate the day to day discussion, despite the fact there are really no new insights and it's simply a matter of running over the same ground again and again.

The ETP chatter will fade away if the model is proven wrong by reality. Until that moment comes, forum users will resort to disprove it by other means (some using factual data and good arguments which I really appreciate- see kublikhan, Rockman ,etc-, others resorting to whining and complaining like you do)

[creedoninmo]

To Rockman: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH ... US_DPG&f=W
2005 was the peak of crude production. 2008 was the peak of price. Since the 2008 price collapse everything has been effected by money printing. The wave pattern since 2008 is a little irregular.

[ROCKMAN]

Observer - I didn't misinterpret anything because I didn't interpret anything. I just responded to vt's post. If he has misrepresented the model then you should bust his balls. LOL.

So now let's focus your misinterpretation of what has controlled the development of oil product since Col Drake poked that first well and will continue to control the dynamic into the future. And it IS NOT the amount of energy used to produce the amount of energy delivered. It is the cost of the energy input compared to the value of the energy produced. IOW economic analysis determines what gets drilled, what gets produced, what gets refined and what gets sold to the consumers. At any point along this path from wellhead to your car's fuel tank if the profit incentive disappears then the dynamic grinds to a halt. And that would be true if twice the amount of Btu's are produced that it took to create those Btu's.

And the opposite can be just as true: one can utilize more Btu's then are produced and still do so profitably. And do so if the COST of the Btu's used is less then the price the produced Btu's. The refinery process is a great example. As the EIA documents the vast majority of energy used to refine a bbl of oil does not come from the oil but from NG. In April 1 million Btu of NG cost $3.10. And roughly 0.2 bbls of oil contains 1 mm Btu...worth about $10 at the current oil price. But, as I pointed out, no oil is consumed in the oil refining process so that comparison means nothing. What is critical is how many Btu's does it take to refine a bbl of oil compared to the total Btu's contained in the products made from that bbl of oil.

Wow! That sounds like a big complex calculation. First, we have to figure out how many of those Btu's in a bbl of oil are destroyed during the refining process. Can you guess? Here's a hint: the refining process is essentially a distillation system that separates and concentrates the various hydrocarbon chains. And once separated how much of the Btu content of each component of a bbl oil (gasoline, diesel, etc) is destroyed?

No Btu's are destroyed because the individual components in a bbl of oil have the same Btu's whether they are still floating around in the oil or separated out...no Btu's get destroyed.

The EIA estimates that a refinery powered primarily by NG uses 1 mm Btu to separate out those various fractions contained in a bbl of oil. And as noted above a bbl of oil typically contains about 5 mm Btu. So just on a Btu basis the net gain is about 4 mm Btu. But as explained that doesn't automatically make the refining process profitable. That will depend on the cost of those NG Btu's compared to the value of the refined products.

But why bother calculating those numbers: if it cost a refinery more to produce products then it can sell them for will they do it? If someone thinks the industry would I'll let them try to explain why.

We can also look at the others steps from a potential drilling prospect to paying for a fill up at the gas station...which in Houston today runs about $130/bbl. BTW the EIA estimates the average gasoline yield from a bbl of oil is 19 gallons. And 19 gallons of gasoline has a retail value in Houston of $60/bbl. Of course the refineries also sell the rest of the distilled products.

So same question as above: at any one phase of the process what company would participate if they knew they would lose money doing so? Of course some do lose the asses while others make a sh*t load of money. Obviously those that consistently lose money don't stay in the game very long.

Now anyone can cook all the different component numbers however they want as well as where they think they are going. But I'm not going to get drawn into that debate because I see no point. The world is consuming more products from refined oil then for the vast majority of the petroleum age. That wouldn't be happening if it wasn't netting a positive cash flow from every phase of the dynamic. Yes, many oil producers won't see a profit from their drilling efforts. But everyone one of them is generating a positive cash flow: no company is going to lose money month after month if it has reached its "economic limit". At that point we shut the well in. And if it doesn't eventually return to positive cash flow we plug and abandon it.

So what happens by 2020? 2025? 2030? I don't know. But right now the system is preforming OK IMHO.

BTW do you understand that due the the oil price bust reservoirs being developed to day have a significantly higher EROEI then an identical well drilled 3 years ago? It's that $-in vs. the $-out dynamic I mentioned earlier. For the same well to generate the same rate of return it has to produce more oil because of the lower price. That's one of the reasons we are seeing more individually productive well being drilled then a few years ago: because of lower oil prices the poorer quality prospects are not being drilled. This has been a very difficult FACT to accept for those who claimed that the EROEI of oil development would be constantly decreasing over time.

[ROCKMAN]

creed - "2005 was the peak of crude production". You do understand that the link you posted was for US gasoline production and not oil production, right?

As far as "liquid fuels production and consumption" according to the EIA it peaked in 2016:

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/global_oil.cfm

Which should not come as a big surprise since oil production peaked that same year.

I apologise but I'm having a problem following the point you're trying to make. Can you toss me a bottom line summary? Thanks in advance.

[asg70]

Thanks for reminding folks that crude oil (which peaked in 2005) is actually crude

Who cares? Seriously, who cares?

Dating the peak of conventional oil only would have mattered if the consequences of being post-peak had lived up to the End of Suburbia/Mad Max/World Made By Hand dystopian ideal. It did not. Unconventional has allowed us to kick the can down the road. Hirsch-report-like adaptation that is poised to happen also is likely to kick the can of consequences down the road. So only insecure peakers like you are clutching at semantics like the definition of crude oil for some semblance of validation as everyone else continues to happily motor along.

[onlooker]

us_primary_energy_production_by_major_source-2015-large.jpg

Hirsch-report-like adaptation that is poised to happen also is likely to kick the can of consequences down the road
I see no signs of poised

[onlooker]

RollingNov2015.PNG