[ROCKMAN]

Max - Actually many tens of millions have died since 2008. And I think it's a safe bet most of the rest of us will die in time.

[AirlinePilot]

Nobody gets held accountable in the media anymore for what they print. The headline is almost anyone ever reads anymore. folks barely just skim through the articles.

Folks I know...even the intelligent ones.....can never seem to figure out the difference between what crude oil and total liquids mean. Since the classifications changed years ago, at least in the reporting arena, it is the most important piece of information to understand. Its also the most abused and manipulated number by everyone.

I try to point out the difference, but because all I am is an airline pilot, and not a trained geologist, or oilfield engineer, I obviously have zero credibility, so I never get anywhere with the explanations and why articles like this are INTENTIONALLY misleading.

[Byron Walter]

Byron - "I became a 'peaker' back around 1999". You're a tad late but welcome to the party anyway. LOL. I was tutored on the harsh reality of PO in 1975 by my first mentor at Mobil Oil...

Since you do it for a job, you better be up to speed

I rarely discuss this topic with anyone in my circle as there is little interest in the subject. Few get the connection with our extravagant lifestyle and plentiful oil. Our present circumstances are all leveraged up via a cheap portable energy source. It's a primary key in high-return economic activity.

When someone complains about the cost of gas, I will occasionally annoy them with an explanation how much energy there is in a gallon of gas selling for a little less than four bucks and why it's such a deal. If there's maybe 34 kW hours in a gallon of gas, and maybe a fit adult can put out 50 watts per hour for eight hours (just a guesstimate but I used to do that for a living), then it would take around three months of muscle work to equal that gallon of gas. I'd eat up four bucks worth of food for dinner after my first shift.

Anyhow it's going to be interesting seeing how production in the EFS and Bakken holds up over the next few years. I might be a peaker but I'd rather see that peak come later than sooner.

Later, gator...

[ROCKMAN]

In a while, crocodile... LOL. I agree. The vast majority of folks don't realize the leverage fossil fuels have provided them. If you're old enough maybe you remember cutting the grass with a manual rotary mower. Perhaps if we banned gasoline powered mowers folks would better appreciate the gift of hydrocarbons. But in time many will begin to learn that lesson one way or the other. Some already have.

[Byron Walter]

In a while, crocodile... LOL. I agree. The vast majority of folks don't realize the leverage fossil fuels have provided them. If you're old enough maybe you remember cutting the grass with a manual rotary mower. Perhaps if we banned gasoline powered mowers folks would better appreciate the gift of hydrocarbons. But in time many will begin to learn that lesson one way or the other. Some already have.

I grew up on a sheep farm and was born just as the locals were switching from muscle power to the ICE. Everyone loved their tractors. We had a Ford N8, which was virtually indestructible. However I did a lot of manual labor with picks/shovels/axes and the like. I really hated it.

As for gas powered mowers, I think that if people had to shove a 'pusher' around, they'd discover the joys of ground cover. I kayak in local and not-so-local lakes and marvel at the power boats, knowing just how thirsty those boats are and that they are being used solely for play. These days it seems that I see more sailboats on the water and fewer power boats. I'd bet that that trend continues...

[ROCKMAN]

That's OK AP: being a petroleum geologist with 4 decades of experience doesn't give me much credibility with some either. As has been said many times: no one is more blind then he who REFUSES to see. And thus some readily latch on to any belief system that conforms with what they disparity hope is true.

As a general rule I'll provide as much insight as I can to those who seek understanding. But I will not suffer fools for very long.

[Sixstrings]

six - Before the shale boom you were paying 1/3 the cost to fill your gas tank up. So you're happier now producing the shales since doing so required you to pay 3X as much for oil? I'm pretty sure you and most here understand that if you weren't paying so much for gasoline we wouldn't be drilling the shales. Or dies someone believe the shale boom would continue with $35/bbl oil?

I don't have a chart handy, but haven't prices stayed stable a long time now? I don't know, I just fill the truck up, it's like fifty bucks. Seems to have been that way for a long time.

If prices are *stable* then seems to me it's because of the shale.

(but yes, I do remember $1 a gallon gas a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, I sure miss it!)

[Sixstrings]

PO argument: yes we are producing more oil- but look at the costs!
Counterargument: oil prices have been stable the last 3 years and are lower than $140 a barrel over 6 years ago- besides which, given what oil can do and how concentrated and energy source it is- it is still a killer bargain at this price. And BTW- inflation has raised the price of many things- why do you still expect oil to be $30 a barrel?

Yup, that's what I've observed in the peak oil discussion as the years go on.

First it was that shale and tar sands would never work out, and a long list of reasons why. Now they've clearly "worked out," but there's still the "but but but."

I've been on the forum long enough to remember folks said EV's would never work out. But, they did.

On and on like that. But just saying this is touching that third rail and sticking a finger in a hornet's nest, though peak oilers are nicer than climate change folks when you point things out -- it's more like that SNL episode with Shatner at the Star Trek convention telling them to all "get a life." People are just disappointed their bubble is popped.

I don't want to be a anti-doom troll, there's plenty of doom out there it's just not really from peak oil, not right now anyhow and I don't guess there will be any oil doom until 2030?

We need something else to talk about between then and now, no?

PO argument: But we are still going to run out someday so this news is worthless
Counterargument: yes we will run out, but "when" makes all the difference- with enough time we can transition to other energy sources smoothly- plus research is leading to more energy efficient living. More time changes everything

That'll be interesting to see how that goes -- on the one hand, I can't see the world's poor masses actually all using fusion power one day. Are there even enough rare earths for solar panels all over the planet?

What about infrastructure? Africa's been a mess for a long time, is it really going to be modern in a hundred years and full of fusion power plants? And South America, too? OTOH.. take a look at South America, and Brazil. They grow sugar, use it for a big chunk of their fuel needs as ethanol, and they do well with that. (sugar is really good for ethanol though, much better than corn)

Counterargument: this reveals Peak Oil as a faith based movement- not a science based one. There is simply no way to predict the pace and course of future scientific discoveries. The greatest flaw of PO is that is completely relies on the certainty that science is spent- yet no evidence to support this amazing conclusion is ever presented- it is simply accepted as a "Peak Oil Truth." It is in this dogmatic belief that the PO is revealed as more of a religious viewpoint than a rational one. A group so united by the desire to see collapse that objectivity is no longer welcome.

Right, right, and right. And now I'll stick my other finger in the other hornet's nest and say that I see the same thing from the climate change folks, too. They're a lot worse. They want denier / doubter jails! They get so nasty, I just stay out of it, and stay away from it. As do most people in general, and therefore, there's never any support for climate change mitigation.

PO argument: this will lead to global warming doom- so more oil condemns us
Counterargument: or it could lead to the time needed for scientific insights which help avert GW. Prosperous economies are more able to fund science research which increase the odds of game changing discoveries. I welcome the rising research in newly prosperous China for instance.

Exactly!

It should be noted that GW is not 100% understood- oceans contain over 90% of all the thermal mass and we have only begun recording deep ocean temperatures very recently- there is still much more to discover to understand what really drives what. The recent deflection of surface temperatures from CO2 levels were not predicted by "experts" 7 years ago- this should give any fair minded person a pause. I am not a denier but I also respect how complex this system is. A truly scientific attitude doesn't not lead to "belief" or "denial"- these are the realm of religion. I believe we should invest in renewables to be on the safe side.

You're right! I know when someone's right when I see it, and you're right.

[Sixstrings]

just remember PO is the peak of production , nothing more , nothing less, running out is something else
and you can speculate as much as you like with the rest of them - good luck

As C8 pointed out.. "peak oil" isn't necessarily "doom."

It's possible that efficiency could increase faster than oil depletion. But do any peak oil doomers ever admit that? No, it's always been a list of why everything won't ever work out.

I've seen it said about tar sands, I saw it said about shale, I saw it said about EV's, I saw it said about solar. That none of them would work out.

I hate to espouse these views, by the way, I actually like the peak oil folks on this forum and don't want on their bad side. But it's true, if folks are *emotionally invested* in "doom" then that's not being rational. It shouldn't be a religion.

[Sixstrings]

If you're old enough maybe you remember cutting the grass with a manual rotary mower. Perhaps if we banned gasoline powered mowers folks would better appreciate the gift of hydrocarbons.

But Rock, things change. Tech always advances. Energy efficiency always increases. Energy output always increases. Is this not historical fact?

You mention push mowers. I saw an ad on TV the other day for a robot that will not only sweep and vacuum your floors and carpets, but it will clean the pool too, and -- mow the yard, all one robot.

I don't know if it's gas powered or electric. I can't find a link for it, but here's a robot that just mows the lawn:



Who could have ever predicted such a thing?

Or, things like 3d printers -- who could ever have thought that up, years ago. And next is 3d food printing. It's practically the Jetsons lately, just missing the flying cars and fusion power.

P.S. I do respect you though Rock, and your qualifications on the topic.

Btw, can you explain to me how the articles all say US is top "oil" producer? Everyone else says that's counting total energy, including natgas, but that doesn't make sense to me. Natgas isn't "oil." The article I posted, and all the mainstream stuff on it, says we're surpassing Saudi Arabia between our crude and the shale combined. Is that wrong?

[farmlad]

I became a 'peaker' back around 1999 after reading two opposing articles. One was the Economist article about the world being awash in oil and suggesting that the price could even drop to five bucks a barrel. The other was the Sci America article about global production peaking in the near future. Both articles proved incorrect but I believed that the Sci American article was on to something that I had never considered.

in my short life I've witnessed vast areas of South American jungle cut and burned and turned into vast ag fields. For example; Where I could have counted thousands of birds on any given day, of many species; today its eerily quiet. I used to work in the Trailer housing industry in northern Indiana and today very few of those factories are still in opperation.
When I came across a video that pointed out that the big oilfield " according to wikipedia the largest discovery in the americas in the last 30 years" discovered of the coast of Brasil would only supply the USA for 5 months to 4 years at the most hyped up estimate. I just had to check it out a bit and all it took was a wikipedia search and a couple pokes on my calculator to verify that this video was not just off on a limb and was only pointing something out that was being said by the mainstream. that was when I found this website and others with a similar understanding of the scarcity and cost of crude. And so it all started to come together of why the jungle to monoculture, shrinking rural population, demise of trailer housing and then later the fuel prices and housing collapse,rising machinery, fuel, and maintenance costs, and the current economic realities, the devaluation of the $ vs some other currencies, and the crazy ag land, and commodities prices .

I owe a big thanks to Peak Oil News and those of you that tirelessly post on here especially Rockman, Shortonoil, Pops, and others for giving me info that helps me make financial decisions for the meantime and gave me time to prepare mentally and also to gain more survival knowledge.

[Sixstrings]

Folks I know...even the intelligent ones.....can never seem to figure out the difference between what crude oil and total liquids mean. Since the classifications changed years ago, at least in the reporting arena, it is the most important piece of information to understand. Its also the most abused and manipulated number by everyone.

Well, somebody's got to know.

I'm foggy on all this, far as I know you've got: liquid crude out of the ground, tar sands that need the oil cooked out of it, then shale oil. <-- All of those are OIL far as I'm concerned.

But liquid natural gas is NOT oil.

So I'm wondering, is the US #1 in the world with the shale and crude oil? I don't see how natgas is lumped into that, gas is not "oil."

[JV153]

Yes, the US also has the majority of the drilling rigs in the world. A large amount of fuel is used to provide the energy used for tight oil production , i.,e, drilling, road construction to wells, delivery of well casing materials and fracking material ( 1 million gallons per well?) to construct wells and remove produced oil. Roughly about 4-5000 heavy truck sorties per well over a wells lifetime, as per Statoil.

http://www.statoil.com/annualreport2012 ... htoil.aspx


As tight oil well drilling increases just to maintain production at current rates, the amount of external diesel fuel use just to do this will increase.
Walking rigs at least decrease the amount of fuel use sine assembly disassembly is reduced.

[dashster]

All the comments in response to this news really hammer home that Peak Oilers
are not characterized mainly by the belief that we will run out of oil-
but the desire that we run out of oil.

That is an incorrect attempt at symmetry. Cornucopians have a great desire that we won't peak, and a belief that we won't peak - anytime soon. But you can't flip both parts of that and say that Peak Oilers have a great desire that we will peak and a belief that we will peak. What you could say is that someone optimistic about oil tends to look at things optimistically, and someone pessimistic about oil tends to look at things pessimistically. But then you would still be left with analyzing the data to see what the answer is. Looking for and then characterizing a common personality trait of a group, and then attacking their personality is just a logical fallacy and won't win the argument about when oil peaks.

[forbin]

Max , thats still WIP

[dashster]

Who could have ever predicted such a thing?

Or, things like 3d printers -- who could ever have thought that up, years ago. And next is 3d food printing. It's practically the Jetsons lately, just missing the flying cars and fusion power.

Techno-optimists like to point to a particular invention and use that as proof that we will invent our way out of fossil fuel depletion. But they aren't the same - one is a solution to a huge problem that MUST happen, and the other is often not even a solution to a problem, let alone a huge one. Certainly the world can live without a vacuum cleaner that drives around by itself. It cannot live as we are accustomed to without a replacement for 76 million barrels a day of oil.

And hope that something will come along should never be equated to something coming along.

[Longtimber]

From the Bloomberg link the image is " Oil pumps stand at the Chevron Corp. Kern River oil field in Bakersfield, California." Can't they find a LTO production image? 3800+ plus comments.

[ROCKMAN]

Six - And that brings us back to chicken vs egg dynamic: are oil prices stable thanks to shale production or is shale production stable thanks to high oil prices? So I'll ask the same simple question: if oil prices were to fall significantly for an extended period time would we still have as many rigs drilling the Bakken and EFS? I've yet to hear from a single person who believes the rig count wouldn't also drop significant. Which would guarantee, thanks to the high decline rates of fractured reservoirs, a significant drop in US oil production. Now take the opposite position: if the shale plays tap out because they reach their geologic limit would oil prices increase significantly? The first instinct would be to say yes. And this could lead to the assumption that those higher prices would make new unconventional sources more viable. But we've seen what much higher oil prices do to the US/global economies: recession which creates significant demand destruction just as it did in the 80's. And that decreases the price of oil which destroys much of the financial incentive to drill.

[AirlinePilot]

Six,

Il try to make this simple for you...Oil is Oil. You cant use a bunch of that "other stuff", meaning the part of what they call total liquids that ISNT OIL, for the big issue, which is transportation. Thats both commercial and private.

IT MATTERS significantly. It matters to economies and it matters to the oil producers/extractors/refiners. It means COSTS will keep going up for all of that as we move OFF the CRUDE PLATEAU.We may or may not be the largest total liquids producer but it doesnt really matter other than to soften the blow of the plateau and coming decline in Crude production.

The increases in "Not Oil" wont go on forever and right now they are MASKING the POD or the real effects of peaking/plateauing crude production. Its when we cant make up the difference in crude declines with all that "other stuff" that this will really get interesting.

When it comes to cost, I dont know about you..but Im seeing steadily ratcheting prices over the last 10 years, and while it seems we have leveled off the trend continues.

You are a boiling frog and you dont even know it Six!

[ROCKMAN]

Longtimber - Here's an excellent one: http://www.oilandgaslawyerblog.com/Frac ... 20Well.jpg. Better than a pump jack: shows all the pump trucks lined up to frac an EFS well. Maybe it's a copyright issue for them.