Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Is fast crash likely? Pt. 7

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

Is fast crash likely? Pt. 7

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 13:54:40

Why does Robert B. Laughlin transport us two centuries into the Future?

Answer: Because he knows there will be 200 years of fighting over the last remaining dregs of fossil fuels.

And he knows that the pitiful PV and hydropump storage is the only possible successor.

He also bloody well knows that billions will die during the 200 Year Scrap for Crap Oil.

https://sts.stanford.edu/publications/p ... vilization

In Powering the Future, Nobel laureate Robert B. Laughlin transports us two centuries into the future,

The Predictable:

Fossil fuels will run out. The present flow of crude oil out of the ground equals in one day the average flow of the Mississippi River past New Orleans in thirteen minutes. If you add the energy equivalents of gas and coal, it’s thirty-six minutes. At the present rate of consumption, we’ll be out of fossil fuels in two centuries’ time.

We always choose the cheapest gas. From the nineteenth-century consolidation of the oil business to the California energy crisis of 2000-2001, the energy business has shown, time and again, how low prices dominate market share. Market forces—not green technology—will be the driver of energy innovation in the next 200 years.

The laws of physics remain fixed. Energy will still be conserved, degrade entropically with use, and have to be disposed of as waste heat into outer space. How much energy a fuel can pack away in a given space is fixed by quantum mechanics—and if we want to keep flying jet planes, we will need carbon-based fuels.

The Potential:

Animal waste.If dried and burned, the world’s agricultural manure would supply about one-third as much energy as all the coal we presently consume.

Trash. The United States disposes of 88 million tons of carbon in its trash per year. While the incineration of waste trash is not enough to contribute meaningfully to the global demand for energy, it will constrain fuel prices by providing a cheap supply of carbon.

Solar energy.The power used to light all the cities around the world is only one-millionth of the total power of sunlight pouring down on earth’s daytime side. And the amount of hydropump storage required to store the world’s daily electrical surge is equal to only eight times the volume of Lake Mead.
I'm currently eating the Songbirds from the trees.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 14:13:35

This dude has come to the correct conclusion: The Prices are fake, The Market is a Fake, The Money is Fake

Soon, it won't be fake because the lights will go off somewhere (australia).

The Mental Hospitals are now being built for the Non-Believers of PV and Hydro Storage.

I'll probably end up in the same room with BW Hill.

http://euanmearns.com/implementing-the- ... /#comments

Rov says:
November 19, 2017 at 4:12 pm

I think, as an average citizen reading this you are all absolutely crazy in thinking that the average Taxpayer and citizen will put up with all this garbage. You are asking the average person who is paying his/her taxes putting up with all the rules and regulations to accept a massive decrease in their standard of living. While looking at the people who oh so concerned living the high life. Does the results that occurred in the recent US election mean anything in England. Brexit would be a small thing compared to what will happen. People will not accept it period and all the reports and wishful thinking will not change that. Good luck
Last edited by StarvingLion on Tue 21 Nov 2017, 14:16:18, edited 1 time in total.
I'm currently eating the Songbirds from the trees.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 14:15:18

StarvingLion wrote:Why does Robert B. Laughlin transport us two centuries into the Future?

Answer: Because he knows there will be 200 years of fighting over the last remaining dregs of fossil fuels.

https://sts.stanford.edu/publications/p ... vilization

from the article in the link above wrote:
In Powering the Future, Nobel laureate Robert B. Laughlin transports us two centuries into the future,

The Predictable:

...

Solar energy.The power used to light all the cities around the world is only one-millionth of the total power of sunlight pouring down on earth’s daytime side. And the amount of hydropump storage required to store the world’s daily electrical surge is equal to only eight times the volume of Lake Mead.

Why don't you learn to do basic proof reading and/or properly learn to use the quote function when posting?

I temporarily thought you had posted something sensible when reading the final paragraph, until I went to the article and saw that it was really a quote you were, as usual, whining about.

You keep acting like we're all doomed in the very short term in most of your posts. So how is it that we will be around and functioning well enough to "scrap over oil" for two centuries?

While you're learning to proofread and use the quote function, perhaps you should actually come up with at least some consistency in your thesis of constant negativity.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4160
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 14:20:09

Australia will be the first country to be forcibly suicided with "Renewables" because of their mineral wealth and the fact its right beside the Banking Scums new HQ, China.

Australia will go Totally Renewable.

The lights will go off.

They will financially fail.

Failed Nation.

Mineral wealth looted
I'm currently eating the Songbirds from the trees.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 14:44:39

StarvingLion wrote:Australia will be the first country to be forcibly suicided with "Renewables" because of their mineral wealth and the fact its right beside the Banking Scums new HQ, China.

Australia will go Totally Renewable.

The lights will go off.

They will financially fail.

Failed Nation.

Mineral wealth looted

OK. So if that's to be the level of your posting, with no reasoning, no details, no citations, no chain of logic, just the usual "X will fail". Because banks and China exist apparently. :roll:

So if my rebuttal is:

Fairies are real.

Elves are real.

Superman is real.

The universe is ruled by purple unicorns wearing pink underwear. (And I hate pink, so that's really bad).

So green energy will dominate the world within 30 years. (Ta da!)

My case looks roughly as credible as yours, given the depth of your analysis, support, detail, etc.

Congratulations.

...

To me, it seems as though if Australia goes totally renewable AND has incredible mineral wealth, then all things being equal, it will have the capability to kick some serious ass economically in coming decades. But pardon me for throwing a logical thought in there.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4160
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby StarvingLion » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 14:55:09

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
StarvingLion wrote:Australia will be the first country to be forcibly suicided with "Renewables" because of their mineral wealth and the fact its right beside the Banking Scums new HQ, China.

Australia will go Totally Renewable.

The lights will go off.

They will financially fail.

Failed Nation.

Mineral wealth looted

OK. So if that's to be the level of your posting, with no reasoning, no details, no citations, no chain of logic, just the usual "X will fail". Because banks and China exist apparently. :roll:

So if my rebuttal is:

Fairies are real.

Elves are real.

Superman is real.

The universe is ruled by purple unicorns wearing pink underwear. (And I hate pink, so that's really bad).

So green energy will dominate the world within 30 years. (Ta da!)

My case looks roughly as credible as yours, given the depth of your analysis, support, detail, etc.

Congratulations.

...

To me, it seems as though if Australia goes totally renewable AND has incredible mineral wealth, then all things being equal, it will have the capability to kick some serious ass economically in coming decades. But pardon me for throwing a logical thought in there.


kick some serious ass economically


Hmmm, last time I looked...

Fake Money + Control over the oil fields that matter is the only way of kicking ass. Its called a Petro currency.

Planes and bombs don't get much inspiration or utility from PV's and batteries.
I'm currently eating the Songbirds from the trees.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby onlooker » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 16:03:23

I have to agree with Starve especially about the level of fraud and deceit in all this.
Even if maybe the timetable will be a bit longer than he anticipates
You can ignore reality but not its consequences
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8173
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 16:27:49

onlooker wrote:I have to agree with Starve especially about the level of fraud and deceit in all this.
Even if maybe the timetable will be a bit longer than he anticipates

Got it. The doomer mantra relies on accusations of fraud and conspiracy, since the facts on the ground and their track record make their predictions so outlandish.

As if hedging instruments for the highly improbable scenarios didn't exist.
But hey, keep on hoping. Some day, maybe, that doomstead will come in handy after all and it will all have been worth it.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4160
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 6

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 21 Nov 2017, 22:07:48

Outcast_Searcher wrote:Did you compare the two charts? To my eyes, they're the same chart, re the graph and the numbers. The only difference is that the vertical axis has been relabeled (from % of global GDP ex-financials, to $trillions). I wouldn't have said what I did about Short being wrong before verifying that, and also verifying that the global GDP isn't constant or roughly $100 trillion.

Now, if the global GDP were a total of $100 trillion every year from 2001 through 2013, then you could just call the percentage dollars, and you're done.

But every source I look at like the FRED says the global GDP was about $33.4 trillion in 2001 and about $76.7 trillion in 2013, in constant dollars, so that doesn't come out remotely close. I'm assuming, of course, that the IMF figures for the global GDP will have a passing resemblence to the FRED figures (which resemble other sources I Googled).

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MKTGDP1WA646NWDB


Can we see it this way?

(global GDP using what you shared and world total debt as as pct of GDP from Fig. 1.1)

For the year 2001: 33.4 trillion global GDP x 162 pct (world total debt as pct of GDP) = 54 trillion

For the year 2013: 76.7 trillion global GDP x 212 pct (world total debt as pct of GDP) = 163 trillion

163 - 54 trillion = 109 trillion

109 trillion / 13 years = 8.4 trillion (amount by which world debt increases each year)

Shortonoil's number is 7.5 trillion.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4699
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 7

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 22 Nov 2017, 21:15:23

Moronville: Renewables is about reducing co2 and saving the planet


Climate Change is a scam to distract attention away from Peak Oil.

Its also another wealth transfer mechanism.
I'm currently eating the Songbirds from the trees.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 7

Unread postby StarvingLion » Wed 22 Nov 2017, 21:40:06

Why Fast Crash is 100% Guaranteed.

Oil is Brilliant. Nothing else is.

Thats all you need to know.
I'm currently eating the Songbirds from the trees.
StarvingLion
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 7

Unread postby Yoshua » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 08:34:12

Hubbert rules despite all the technology in the world.

Image
Yoshua
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 861
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 7

Unread postby Yoshua » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 08:37:23

The fast crash


Image
Yoshua
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 861
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 7

Unread postby shortonoil » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 08:49:32

Fossil fuels will run out. The present flow of crude oil out of the ground equals in one day the average flow of the Mississippi River past New Orleans in thirteen minutes.


Go to Appalachia - there are thousands of abandoned coal mines. Fossil fuel production ceases when it no longer pays to take it out of the ground. Two centuries; sure: someone is dreaming.
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 7

Unread postby onlooker » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 08:55:44

shortonoil wrote:
Fossil fuels will run out. The present flow of crude oil out of the ground equals in one day the average flow of the Mississippi River past New Orleans in thirteen minutes.


Go to Appalachia - there are thousands of abandoned coal mines. Fossil fuel production ceases when it no longer pays to take it out of the ground. Two centuries; sure: someone is dreaming.

Yep, when the gain is not worth the effort. It is game over
You can ignore reality but not its consequences
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8173
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 7

Unread postby shortonoil » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 10:29:03

When an oil well reaches a WOR (water oil ratio) of about 45:1 it becomes uneconomical to continue its operation. Reservoir engineers shut them in as their lifting costs exceed the value of the oil produced. At a WOR of 45:1 it has reached the "dead state". That is demonstrated in our paper "Deletion: A determination for the world's petroleum reserve"

Image

The world's reserves are now at the 81% extracted point. That is well supported by the on going situation that reserves can no longer be replaced as they are extracted. Once past the 80% extracted point water cut will begin to increase along the exponential curve shown in the graph above. Operational costs will increase with it. By 2030 the water cut curve will be almost vertical, and the day of copious supplies of petroleum will have come to its end.

Without the huge economic input derived from petroleum extraction, processing, and use the integrated global economy will cease to function. As opposed to those who wish to believe that the world has centuries, or decades to adjust to the coming end of the oil age, we have a very few years at best. Like the General System's adage goes, "its not what you don't know that hurts you, its what you know that ain't so". We are about to get a very pronounced demonstration of the wisdom inherent in that statement!

http://www.thehillsgroup.org
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 7

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 11:32:18

Yoshua wrote:Hubbert rules despite all the technology in the world.



Hubbert linearizations don't work for specific reasons. Learn about them before claiming something that isn't true, comes in helpful with credibility and whatnot.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2389
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3329
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 7

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 11:38:54

shortonoil wrote: That is demonstrated in our paper "Deletion: A determination for the world's petroleum reserve"


Peer review done by...who?

shortonoil wrote:The world's reserves are now at the 81% extracted point.

Random Number Generator Creators


Only if you exclude trillions of barrels of oil, as the random number generator does. Hence the name. now, if you go back and include all the volumes you removed because the random number generator wouldn't deliver the answer you want, what might the answer be then? The folks at the IEW in July seemed to have a good handle on just such a number, but they do this for a living, and don't build random number generators that can't get through peer review.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3329
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 7

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 12:15:46

The world's reserves are now at the 81% extracted point. That is well supported by the on going situation that reserves can no longer be replaced as they are extracted. Once past the 80% extracted point water cut will begin to increase along the exponential curve shown in the graph above. Operational costs will increase with it. By 2030 the water cut curve will be almost vertical, and the day of copious supplies of petroleum will have come to its end. 


Please give us the documentation for worlds reserves being 81% extracted and make sure you understand the difference between Proven, Probable, Possible and Resources. Given countries around the world invariably report only Proven you have a bit of a problem in verification.
According to the latest BP reserve study Global proved oil reserves in 2016 rose by 15 billion barrels to 1707 billion barrels. These are Proved reserves and the definition BP uses is the exact same thing as SPE etc.

estimates for how much oil has been produced to date range from 135 billion bbls since 1850 up to as high as 944 billion bbls (Oil depletion analysis Centre). In the interval between 2009 (when those numbers were calculated) and today an additional ~400 billion bbls has been produced. That makes to date at the highest estimate 1.3 trillion bbls produced. But BP indicates current remaining Proved oil reserves in the world are 1.7 trillion bbls. So right out of the gate your 80% is a fictitious number. Might suit your fancy but it is entirely wrong.

But worse yet you do not take into account the fact that the BP estimate does not include Probable, Possible or Resource numbers.

As has been pointed out numerous times here the E&Y annual reserves study for the top 50 companies operating in the US came up with this:
for all 50 companies operating in the US five year replacement of production was 142% and when you take out revisions due to temporary price drops three year replacement was 158% and five year replacement was 190%.

So bottom line is that using the most aggressive estimate of what has been produced to date and what Proven reserves remain to be produced we have only produced around 50%. But this is a relatively unimportant statistic given the BP estimate does not include Probable, Possible and Resource numbers meaning it is not a representation of what ultimately will be produced. And not understanding the difference between reserve categories has you continually putting out the BS line that companies aren’t replacing their production which (as has been pointed out countless times is complete crap according to published results).

And as has been pointed out to you numerous times not all reservoirs have an active water drive (the vast majority do not) and hence you may never see much in the way of water production from them at all. I recently looked at some producing wells from the TX Gulf Coast for a friend and out of the 50 or so wells not one of them had an active water drive, water cut remained the same throughout the history of production and I have seen this same scenario in many places in the world during the 30 some years I was in the industry. Your problem is you do not understand reservoir engineering principles and as a consequence having read a description of predictive formulas used for Water Injection Drives and ultimate recovery prediction you immediately think this can be applied not only to natural water drives (no water flood) but all kinds of drives. It cannot. As I have said there is no one “common” reservoir, they are all different and hence behave differently.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5568
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Is fast crash likely? Pt. 7

Unread postby shortonoil » Thu 23 Nov 2017, 12:44:18

Only if you exclude trillions of barrels of oil, as the random number generator does.


It's doubtful if you even know how much oil is in your car, but you want to quote the world's oil supply?

2000 WEO Campbell-Leharrere estimated total extractable reserves at 1,800 Gb. The Etp Model puts it at 1761 Gb, of which 1,513 have already been removed. That differs from the post above by 4 Gb, or 1.4 month's worth.

Now you can proceed at trying to cover up the post above with more of your trivial trash.

By the way, have you even heard of Campbell-Leharrere? They are world renowned petroleum geologists; and you are?

Yep, when the gain is not worth the effort. It is game over


In financial sectors its called bankruptcy. It is a world with a Debt to GDP ratio of 320%. Like ours. It's the same thing as abandoned coal mines, and an average US water cut of 90%. It is most likely to blow up first in the high yield bond market. Credit is the area for which the central banks have no control. The misallocation of capital that their shenanigans have generated will come back to bite us hard. When interest rates hit 25% we'll be back to 3000 BC, and spending the day looking for something to eat, and another dry stick for the fire.
User avatar
shortonoil
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 5133
Joined: Thu 02 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: VA USA

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests

cron