[TonyPrep]

The more I read and listen to official deniers (like oil executives and optimistic analysts) the more the story on conventional oil seems to be that we're at or very near peak. It's sometimes referred to as the end of "easy oil" or "cheap oil". There appears to be almost universal concensus on that (though there are always exceptions).

Given this apparent fact, how likely is it, in the real world (where there are hurricanes, geopolitical situations, lack of personnel, and so on), that unconventional production can replace the decline of conventional oil production (because peak is always followed by decline, and accelerating decline) and supply additional demand?

It doesn't seem likely, to me and, if it's not likely, then effective peak is now, not in 2010 or later.

Tony

[whereagles]

I would venture to say that while the development of non-conventional sources can mitigate decline of conventional oil, the time needed to put non-conventional oil at rates of flow that actually make a difference might not be short enough.

In other words, we COULD have, say, tar sands oil yielding 5 mbd, but while we gather the machinery to do that, decline in conventional oil might already be 8 mbd. So we would end up with a net loss of 3 mbd. Conclusion would be: peak light sweet = peak oil.

Of course, if we speed up extraction from non-conventional sources then it needn't be so.

[Taskforce_Unity]

I have just written an paper that includes unconventional oil sources (tar sands, polar oil, extra-heavy stuff from venezuela), it will become available on the website of ASPO -5 next week. Doing a poster presentation about it.

"that unconventional production can replace the decline of conventional oil production"

It probably can't do that, as soon as the easy stuff starts declining (and then im including deepwater and caspian sea oil), unconventional oil from bitumen, orimulsion or other sources can't keep that rate up. To my opinion, only quick development of biofuels to liquids and coal to liquids can keep sustaining increased liquids production after 2012 to my opinion, and that will be very hard to do. In other words, we need to save liquids, maybe develop an electrical infrastructure in some places based on renewables and for the rest go big on the alternative liquids investment

[Olle]

I have just written an paper that includes unconventional oil sources (tar sands, polar oil, extra-heavy stuff from venezuela), it will become available on the website of ASPO -5 next week. Doing a poster presentation about it.

"that unconventional production can replace the decline of conventional oil production"

It probably can't do that, as soon as the easy stuff starts declining (and then im including deepwater and caspian sea oil), unconventional oil from bitumen, orimulsion or other sources can't keep that rate up. To my opinion, only quick development of biofuels to liquids and coal to liquids can keep sustaining increased liquids production after 2012 to my opinion, and that will be very hard to do. In other words, we need to save liquids, maybe develop an electrical infrastructure in some places based on renewables and for the rest go big on the alternative liquids investment

That sound really reasonable! Have you been able to read the Swedish Gouvernmental report on how the Swedes are to get rid of about half of their oil consumtion until 2020 and do you belive it is possible or not? Do you belive it is a good strategy or not?

PS
It is easy to spot the "doomers" and the "extreme optimists" but what shall you call people that "are in the middle"?
"Energy Concerned Citizens" maybe or ECC for short
DS

[MonteQuest]

In other words, we COULD have, say, tar sands oil yielding 5 mbd, but while we gather the machinery to do that, decline in conventional oil might already be 8 mbd. So we would end up with a net loss of 3 mbd. Conclusion would be: peak light sweet = peak oil.

As the CEO of Suncor, who produces the tar sands said, "while we project to triple our output to 3 mbpd in 10 years, by then the world will be demanding another 20 mbpd."

You must consider growth demand. It isn't going away.

[MonteQuest]

Here's a little update from the Rand Corporation on the Development Timeline for Oil Shale:

Currently, no organization with the management, technical, and financial wherewithal to develop oil shale resources has announced itsintent to build commercial-scale production facilities. A firm decision to commit funds to such a venture is at least six years away because that is the minimum length of time for scale-up and process confirmation work needed to obtain the technical and environmental data required for the design and permitting of a first-of-a-kind commercial operation. At least an additional six to eight years will be required to permit, design, construct, shake down, and confirm performance of that initial commercial operation. Consequently, at least 12 and possibly more years will elapse before oil shale development will reach the production growth phase. Under high growth assumptions, an oil shale production level of 1 million barrels per day is probably more than 20 years in the future, and 3 million barrels per day is probably more than 30 years into the future.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG414.pdf

For a point of reference, in 20 years, the world will need an additional 33.6 mbpd. In 30, an additional 55 mbpd.

3 million barrels = 2%

The US will need an additional 8.4 mbpd in 20 years, 13.8 mbpd in 30.

3 million barrels = 21%

[DoomersUnite]

I have just written an paper that includes unconventional oil sources (tar sands, polar oil, extra-heavy stuff from venezuela), it will become available on the website of ASPO -5 next week. Doing a poster presentation about it.

"that unconventional production can replace the decline of conventional oil production"

It probably can't do that, as soon as the easy stuff starts declining (and then im including deepwater and caspian sea oil), unconventional oil from bitumen, orimulsion or other sources can't keep that rate up. To my opinion, only quick development of biofuels to liquids and coal to liquids can keep sustaining increased liquids production after 2012 to my opinion, and that will be very hard to do. In other words, we need to save liquids, maybe develop an electrical infrastructure in some places based on renewables and for the rest go big on the alternative liquids investment

That sound really reasonable!

Sure does. With more unconventional oil wrapped up in tars and shales and deep water than we've ever used, plus using mining techniques in places like South Belridge ( conventional oil obtained in an unconventional way ) I figure the Doomers have been giving the optimists WAY too much to work with.

[TonyPrep]

In other words, we need to save liquids, maybe develop an electrical infrastructure in some places based on renewables and for the rest go big on the alternative liquids investment

We need to build a renewables based electrical infrastructure in all places. We also need to figure out how to live, as a society, without growth (i.e. without needing a constantly increasing supply of energy).

I'll look for your paper.

But if conventional has peaked then, apart from a bumpy ride whilst decline rates are lowest, we have peaked now.

Tony

[Sleepybag]

According to the Dutch branche of the PeakOil network, the production peak of conventional oil is likely to be already behind us. Back in 2005 we hit the 74 million barrels mark twice, never to return since.

Peak Oil Newsletter May 2007 (Large PDF warning)

See also: Peak Oil Netherlands

[PraiseDoom]

According to the Dutch branche of the PeakOil network, the production peak of conventional oil is likely to be already behind us. Back in 2005 we hit the 74 million barrels mark twice, never to return since.

Peak Oil Newsletter May 2007 (Large PDF warning)

See also: Peak Oil Netherlands

YEAH!!! But what good does this fact do us if we can't get DOOM out of it?

[billp]

But what good does this fact do us if we can't get DOOM out of it

I went to a PNM, we are shareholders, natural gas meeting on thursday.

PNM sent out about 500,000 postcards since they apparently missed a filing which could have been sent out with bill.

Of about 30-35 attendants, only about 10 or less [mostly retirees ... like [senior techie citizen] <u>were not </u>associated with PNM.

I took some jpgs.

So let's start a post and ask some questions about the future of Nex Mexico natural gas which the IRP is tasked to address.

[billp]

DOOM

I'm a bit worried about the future of our kids and, maybe even more important, our grandkids.



So senior citizen techie is thinking about to what to do.

Let's ask PNM natural gas IRP some GOOD questions. And DEMAND some good intelligent answers.

While continuing our legal project, of course.

[PraiseDoom]

But what good does this fact do us if we can't get DOOM out of it

So let's start a post and ask some questions about the future of Nex Mexico natural gas which the IRP is tasked to address.

I'm all for it, but in the greater scheme of things, do you think New Mexico gas production will really affect much?

[PraiseDoom]

DOOM

I'm a bit worried about the future of our kids and, maybe even more important, our grandkids.

Cute kids.

Its unfortunate, but its too late. We peaked 2 years ago, Doom should have happened immediately according to the experts, but it didn't, so it can't be that far off.

Maybe some advanced firearm training for the kids? Teach'im how to hunt and become farmers, self defense training? Buy some land away from everyone else? Mine it, booby trap it, desensitize the kids to survival by letting them have first shot at trespassers?

Just some suggestions, I'm gonna try and ride it all out in a bomb shelter basement closer to the city, figuring it'll implode quicker and I can mop up after the zombies starve.

[Nicholai]

An excerpt from a member in the Alberta Legislature on November 28th, 2007:

The government needs to realize that not only do they have to spend wisely, do they have to make investments wisely, but they need to realize that we have passed the peak for conventional oil and gas.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

Sure wish you included a link to verify.

[Nicholai]

LINK

[catbox]

Link = Dead.

Maybe they said toooooo much?


cb

[Nicholai]

LINK 2

You will need to click on Wednesday, November 28th Afternoon ! View in html or PDF, your choice.

[timmatoil]

Reuters reports that Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach has announced an “incentive plan” to reverse the “sharp drop in drilling in Canada’s biggest energy-producing province.” (http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNew ... 6?rpc=401&) The fall in the price of oil couple with a sharp increase in revenue royalties has resulted in a situation whereby drilling might drop as much as 20% in 2009. The Small Explorers and Producers Association of Canada are willing to consult with Stelmach but cautions, “We’ve been in serious trouble in this province for a year and a half now, preceding the fourth-quarter collapse in commodity prices and equity markets.”

Via Stock Research Portal (http://www.stockresearchportal.com)

Alberta was producing a ton of oil prior to its price collapse. Do you think this incentive plan is a good thing or bad thing? And how would you expect it to affect companies with interest in the tar sands?