[ralfy]

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.

You can come up with all the reasons you want to dampen the party but it just seems like Peak Oilers WANT doom.

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?

It's probably not a "killer bargain" for those who earn only a few dollars a day, i.e., the majority of the world's population. That point is also important for the current middle class because it relies on a growing market of consumers to be able to pay for its own conveniences.

There's also the problem of rising capital expenditures, which I think doubled compared to the past in return for only a marginal increase in oil production.

Thus, we have increasing costs vs. prices that the global economy can barely afford.

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

According to one study, it will take several decades to make a full transition. Meanwhile, the global middle class will continue growing while military powers might engage in activities which might destabilize oil-producing countries.

PO argument: this changes nothing- we are headed for collapse because alternatives will fail- its just a matter of time
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.

Unfortunately, failure to predict such discoveries works both ways. Given that, it becomes more logical to assume a worst-case scenario.

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.

Again, predictions of "scientific insights" works both ways. In which case, it is logical to assume that they won't be made.

Prosperity will also have to be assumed given combinations of these predicaments.

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.

Unfortunately, the same problem appears: because GW cannot be completely understood, then it is logical to assume that things will grow worst. At the very least, that is now being seen through multiple positive feedbacks, not to mention increasing ocean heat content which, for obvious reasons, is not desirable.

The more you socialize with people based on a knee jerk optimism or pessimism about everything- the more you lose your own independent ability to think clearly. You become a follower- a mental slave. I think things can go either way- that's the only rational conclusion. But for the short term-- more oil production is good news for Americans and the world

The fact that things can go either way is not comforting. The same goes for the point that any benefits will occur only for a short term.

[ralfy]

About the Sci Am article, according to the IEA and others, global crude oil production peaked in 2005 or so. The acknowledgment was made together with a report released to the public in 2010.

For shale oil, production is characterized by high costs and decline rates, and is expected to peak after only a few years.

[ROCKMAN]

Ralfy - But here's a question I just answered in another post: when did global refined petroleum products peak? After all those are what the world's economy actually run on...not oil.

[toolpush]

http://www.prairiecompanies.com/news/15 ... atural-gas

By Jessica Holdman | Orginally published in The Bismarck Tribune

With a new liquefied natural gas plant in the works in Tioga, North Dakota LNG Chief Executive Officer Pat Hughes predicts 50 percent of North Dakota oil drilling rigs will run on natural gas in the next 12 months.

Hughes is hopeful that 100 percent will use natural gas to supplement diesel fuel by the end of 2015, he said Tuesday during the Williston Basin Petroleum Conference.

Sixty to 70 rigs in the U.S. now use liquefied natural gas, said Kirt Montague of North Dakota LNG parent company Prairie Companies.

“There are bi-fuel rigs coming into North Dakota,” he said “There are more coming in all the time.”

For those rigs that aren’t already bi-fuel, Williston-based ECO-AFS offers a conversion kit, which takes five days to install and doesn’t shut down production during the process.

liquefied natural gas can displace 50 percent of the diesel fuel needed on a rig. Hughes said using LNG reduces fuel costs by 20 percent compared to running just diesel.

Killing two birds with the one stone, cutting down on flaring and cutting down on Diesel use. It is easy to see all the drilling rigs, frac spreads and delivery trucks using some percentage of Nat gas in the near future. Certainly for the more developed areas of drilling.

[ralfy]

Ralfy - But here's a question I just answered in another post: when did global refined petroleum products peak? After all those are what the world's economy actually run on...not oil.

I don't think refined petroleum has peaked because shale oil is being used, but the latter is not expected to last. In addition, capex has increased considerably.

[ROCKMAN]

Ralfy - They haven't peaked yet. Last stats from the EIA was for 2012 which show they've increased since 2005. I offered that fact in another thread where folks were arguing about what liquid hydrocarbons (oil, condensate, NGL's, etc.) did or didn't peak in 2005 or when ever. A big debate over what was supplying us with what. I pointed out there that 99% of the population cares little about such debates: they only care about the supply of refined products they need. And those supplies haven't peaked.

And you're correct: the shale production won't last. OTOH none of the hydrocarbons used to make products "won't last". Some will declines faster then others. But that discussion is of no interest to the world: it doesn't care if they get their motor fuel from a shale well or from pig poop. They just want to get it...period. There's nothing wrong with debating such issues as long as we remember none of it is of primary concern for the public. We can entertain ourselves with these discussions but they don't really go anywhere else IMHO. Which might also explain why the US political system doesn't appear to be very reactive to PO. But Peak Refined Products? Given what the public's reaction to PRF would be I suspect the politicians would become much more engaged at that point.

[ralfy]

They care about the supply, but also about the price. If the price is too high, they will cut down on consumption. Meanwhile, the oil industry will need higher prices if capex keeps rising. And higher capex is connected to the issue of peak oil.

Thus, the effects of peak oil may take place even before production of oil or of refined products peaks.

[AirlinePilot]

ralfy,

Agree with your last post. POD also has an unknown aspect which will become more clear when acknowledged decline begins....probably sometime a few years from now when the fracking numbers show the moonshot growth is over. That unknown aspect will be the result of the acknowledgement that we are moving off the plateau. What Im talking about is what do the nation state producers do with their production once we move towards that change in the paradigm.

I believe there is a good chance that they will slowly begin to withold some percentage and not allow it to be exported. Its a possibility which could really do some damage to GNE.

[Synapsid]

AirlinePilot,

We saw one response get underway in Saudi Arabia a year or two ago, when GE contracted to supply NG-fired generators. A drop in the bucket, but I suspect it's an indicator; the more oil they can replace with NG the more is left to sell.

[ROCKMAN]

Ralfy - "They care about the supply, but also about the price." Yes indeed: they very much care about the supply and price...of refined products and not oil. It's us who discuss PO...not them. Has it occurred to you that this is why the public, and politicians, are detached from the subject: none of them buy oil...they buy motor fuel and heating oil. You mention oil to 99% of the public their first thought will be of the oil they put into their car's crankcase or the fuel oil they use to keep their house warm in the winter.

We here have become fixated on crude oil here because most of appreciate the POD. But we do so at the risk of losing sight of what drives public opinion and political policy. And that's consumerism IMHO. And the public doesn't buy and consume crude oil. But it does buy and consume a lot of refined products. I'm not trying to make a subtle point. Just a very big picture point. The one viewed by the vast majority of the world's population. The one that typically hasn't been the focus here. And to prove the point: how many here gave a thought to peak refined products and knew that we haven't peaked yet? I didn't until a couple of days ago when I researched it.

[Pops]

It would be pretty strange to see the peak of "refined products" when we have yet to see the peak of "liquid fuels."

Don't tell me you are back to arguing that the price is high just because the producers got tired of taking a measly $10/bbl?

[ralfy]

In general, the price of oil will drive up the price at the pump. At least that's what I think most people--and they are found in developing countries--feel, and unlike the minority they are very sensitive to oil prices. In fact, it's even assumed that when oil prices go up, so will prices for various goods (including food and medicine), and that makes the situation worse. In addition, for many of these places, oil is not used for personal transport but for public transport, as well as delivery of necessary goods and services, and even electricity. Thus, more than consumerism, the need to obtain basic needs becomes important.

The problem is that most don't know about peak oil. The assumption is that oil is easy to obtain and abundant, and that the problem simply lies with oil companies or rich speculators who are greedy.

Finally, the most important point to consider is that peak oil is only one of several crises, including environmental damage coupled with global warming, and increasing debt and financial speculation that will lead to more economic crashes. These crises amplify each other, and we are now seeing the effects in various countries. Those effects, in turn, may spread given a global economy with countries coupled to each other. Several of these countries also have military forces that may be itching to justify increased costs.

[JV153]

They just want to get it...period.

Don't know how the US or European GP buys more refined products when oil is at 100+ USD as compared to 11-20 USD a barrel in 1985-2000. Your quote of "they just want to get it" sounds like a line from "Three Days of the Condor".

[ROCKMAN]

JV - We make the analogy even darker: in the early days of our "adventures" in Iraq many Americans weren't opposed. After all we weren't swapping our tax receipts and blood for oil...we were "exporting democracy" to an oppressed people. Righttttt. I just responded to you in the other thread that 6 or 8 years ago I would not have expect the global economy to be function as well as it is now with these high AND sustained prices.

And right now many people are "getting it (oil)". But many aren't. But, fortunately, "they" don't count because they don't look like many of us. LOL.