Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Improving Peak Oil Credibility

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

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Yoshua » Sun 18 Feb 2018, 06:41:00

"So long as oil is used as a source of energy, when
the energy cost of recovering a barrel of oil becomes
greater than the energy content of the oil, production
will cease no matter what the monetary price may
be.” (M. King Hubbert)
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 06:45:42

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby marmico » Sun 18 Feb 2018, 08:29:08

he used Pratts number along with an estimate of what had already been produced to arrive at the 375 billion barrel figure.


Jesus wept. What a pedant. It's Hubbert's URR incorporated by reference to Pratt's 200 gigabarrels estimate plus the addition of 175 gigabarrels for a total estimate of 375 gigabarrels. Hubbert's Persian Gulf estimate is a spectacular failure.
marmico
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 14:46:35

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 18 Feb 2018, 13:15:23

rockdoc123 wrote: dipshit


Is that what you like on your ice cream cones?

rockdoc123 wrote:just shut the hell up.


You are quite incapable of staying calm and discussing the data and making a logical argument, aren't you?

No wonder your advisor flunked you out of the Ph.d. program. :lol:

Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26606
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Sun 18 Feb 2018, 13:28:05

It's Hubbert's URR incorporated by reference to Pratt's 200 gigabarrels estimate plus the addition of 175 gigabarrels for a total estimate of 375 gigabarrels. Hubbert's Persian Gulf estimate is a spectacular failure.


neither of those numbers were derived as part of his paper. Perhaps you need to read it again.
It was Wallace Pratts estimate plus what had been produced to date. That number went into Hubberts model.....it did not fall out of it so it was by no means "his prediction", it was his assumption which drove the prediction of peak date and peak level.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7685
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 18 Feb 2018, 14:05:27

Alright you two, enough with the cutesy name calling and cursing, keep it up and you will both get a day off to cool down.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 18 Feb 2018, 14:27:51

Yoshua - "...when the energy cost of recovering a barrel of oil becomes greater than the energy content of the oil, production will cease no matter what the monetary price may be.” As explained many, many times before that condition will never be reached. But that concept fits with the huge overestimate of the amount of oil (actually diesel) used to drill and produce a well. Typically the total cost of the fuel component is less then 10% of the total well cost. IOW it's when the total cost of the wells become greater then the revenue (including profit margin) from the wells oil development will cease. IOW economic limitations will prevent the EROEI from becoming much less the 6.

Which is also why EROEI does not necessarily decrease over time. In fact in can (and has) increased over time. When oil prices boomed about 10 years ago it took fewer net bbls for a prospect to be economically worth drilling. IOW the EROEI decreased significantly. But could still not drop much below 6. In fact given how much the price of frac'd shale wells eventually increased the minimum EROEI of such projects might have gotten as high as 8 or 10 despite very high oil prices. IOW it took a lot of bbls (even at $90/bbl) to justify drilling and completing a $12 million well. But when oil prices fell it took at least twice as many net bbls to be justified as economic. Perhaps 2X to 3X the EROEI was reached at the low point of oil prices.

The same is true for the refining sector. Some still think a large amount of the energy contained in crude oil is lost during the refining process. In reality an insignificant amount of Btu's are lost. Oil refining separates the components in the crude into different products. The process does not consume them. Essentially those products contain the same total Btu's as the original crude oil. Not sure how one would calculate the EROEI of a refined bbl of oil since almost no oil Btu's are lost.

But the refining process does consume a significant amount of energy. But that energy comes from NG and, to a lesser extent, electricity. Which is a major reason why the US has become the largest oil refiner and exporter of products in the world. Thanks largely to the frac'ng of the Marcellus Shale the US has an abundance of relatively inexpensive NG. Imagine the cost of refinery products, such as gasoline, if NG prices were $13+/mcf as they were in 2005 compared to the $3.70/mcf we have today. The amount of energy used to refine oil has changed very little for many years. But the cost of that energy has been very volatile. Today the US exports about 5X as much refinery products as we did in 2005 when NG prices were about 4X the current price.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 18 Feb 2018, 15:15:09

IMHO, the first step towards improving Peak Oil Credibility is to accept that although past estimates of the timing of Peak Oil promulgated by Hubbert and others have proven wrong, the underlying concept remains valid, i.e. oil is a finite resource rather then an infinite resource and global oil production will inevitably peak at some time in the future.

Image
Cheers!
Never underestimate the ability of Joe Biden to f#@% things up---Barack Obama
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keep running between the raindrops.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26606
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Yoshua » Sun 18 Feb 2018, 16:05:50

Rockman

The economic cost to develop an oil field and operate it is perhaps a very close estimate of the total energy cost that goes into the extraction of crude oil. The volatility of oil prices on the hand makes it hard to say for sure what the total energy cost is by using just the monetary value.

Why does an oil well become uneconomic when you get 6 bbl by investing 1 bbl? Sounds like a great deal to get 6 for 1 invested. But that won't cover the total cost of production.

The total energy cost of oil production is perhaps impossible to calculate...shortonoil tried to do the impossible.

But you of course right that other energy sources are used in the petroleum production...but those energy sources are produced by the use of petroleum somewhere in their production line.

In the end the whole energy sector is extremely complex and hard to predict. My guess is that at some point (today) things will start to fall apart and no one will agree on what the cause is.
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 06:45:42

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby asg70 » Sun 18 Feb 2018, 23:30:23

Yoshua wrote:My guess is that at some point (today) things will start to fall apart and no one will agree on what the cause is.


Nobody ever all agrees to anything. Note how there continue to be AGW denialists, flat-earthers, moon-landing hoaxers (who are now trolling SpaceX), etc...

http://www.theblindelephant.com/the_bli ... fable.html

Beyond our propensity for superstition and paranoia, humans are not holistic thinkers and can't really conceptualize complex systems in their totality.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 4290
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby ralfy » Sun 18 Feb 2018, 23:53:52

If a global capitalist system involving competition will require the equivalent of more than one earth to meet the basic needs of a growing population plus a growing global middle class, then an energy return of 6 won't cut it.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5558
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Darian S » Mon 19 Feb 2018, 02:03:26

Arent many(most?) involved in fracking in economic turmoil?

I think some said there were complaints of too low a price even at 100$, though perhaps those rumors are untrue.

In any case high debt and economic problèms if true probably point to higher energy intake down the deep chain than would be reflected in most estimates.
Darian S
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 114
Joined: Mon 29 Feb 2016, 16:47:02

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby marmico » Mon 19 Feb 2018, 05:55:41

It was Wallace Pratts estimate plus what had been produced to date.


Jesus wept again. Pedant-Part 2. You are off your rocker if you think that Hubbert thought that Middle East cumulative production to 1956 was 175 Gbs. Hubbert's estimate of world cumulative to 1956 was 90 Gbs, of which the US was 52 Gbs.
marmico
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1112
Joined: Mon 28 Jul 2014, 14:46:35

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 19 Feb 2018, 10:55:53

ralfy wrote:If a global capitalist system involving competition will require the equivalent of more than one earth to meet the basic needs of a growing population plus a growing global middle class, then an energy return of 6 won't cut it.


The present system is unsustainable. How things unwind is still an open question but I see AGW being a more proximate (and more importantly, intractable) threat. Looking at 70+ degree weather near me this week in a northerly location.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 4290
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 25 Feb 2018, 01:22:29

shortonsense wrote:PO.com credibility is not the topic. For those with ADHD, the topic is that peak oil itself, in its resource depletion context, is an important topic and yet, because of its association with crackpottery, suffers in the credibility department.


Now this deserves the highest praise.... Oh Snap! You go girl!


shortonsense wrote:Advocating or even mentioning the words "peak oil" in front of a normal audience is as likely to get polite giggles as it is any serious consideration.


Maybe a decade ago. Since you wrote this, peak oil sites have vanished as the oil world rewrote itself in light of higher prices, and those once associated with it don't get polite giggles...more like raucous laughter from half the audience, and insane giggling from the other half.

shortonsense wrote:Because resource depletion is a real issue, with real consequences (particularly economic ones) I find it irritating that even a subset of the overall debate ( oil depletion ) is besmirched by the cross pollination of crackpottery from other areas.


One more for the road.... Oh Snap! You go girl!
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Yoshua » Sun 25 Feb 2018, 05:42:40

We are experiencing peak oil. Conventional oil peaked in 2005. The oil price peaked in 2008. Coal peaked in 2013. World GDP in dollars peaked in 2015. All liquids peaked in 2016. Now we are just waiting for peak debt...and the apocalypse.
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1977
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 06:45:42

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 25 Feb 2018, 05:47:52

AdamB wrote:
shortonsense wrote:PO.com credibility is not the topic. For those with ADHD, the topic is that peak oil itself, in its resource depletion context, is an important topic and yet, because of its association with crackpottery, suffers in the credibility department.


Now this deserves the highest praise.... Oh Snap! You go girl!


Adam B Why are you quoting and trying to argue with someone that has been permanently banned from the site back in May 2010??
Stop posting crap just to fill the space up.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby GHung » Sun 25 Feb 2018, 11:42:52

Tanada wrote:Alright you two, enough with the cutesy name calling and cursing, keep it up and you will both get a day off to cool down.


Can we ban silly gifs that have nothing to do with the topic and are only designed to taunt and belittle other commentators?
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 25 Feb 2018, 14:13:12

GHung wrote:
Tanada wrote:Alright you two, enough with the cutesy name calling and cursing, keep it up and you will both get a day off to cool down.


Can we ban silly gifs that have nothing to do with the topic and are only designed to taunt and belittle other commentators?


They are already banned in the COC but if nobody flags them I usually don't see them. Just FYI I do not read every post on this website, I actually have a real world life to experience and do not dedicate that much time to reading here.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sun 25 Feb 2018, 14:43:20

Tanada wrote:
GHung wrote:
Tanada wrote:Alright you two, enough with the cutesy name calling and cursing, keep it up and you will both get a day off to cool down.


Can we ban silly gifs that have nothing to do with the topic and are only designed to taunt and belittle other commentators?


They are already banned in the COC but if nobody flags them I usually don't see them. Just FYI I do not read every post on this website, I actually have a real world life to experience and do not dedicate that much time to reading here.

Just so I understand, so the (often humorous) pictures that various posters use to drive home a point are banned via the COC? (i.e in any format, I presume).
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby asg70 » Sun 25 Feb 2018, 16:04:41

There's barely enough posters left to foster any genuine discussion one way or another.

I could probably duck in here once a month and not really feel like I'm missing any insights.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 4290
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests