[Newfie]

Pops,

OK on your analysis of Demographic Transition.

What is clear to me is that you and I are viewing the question of "Why Technology Will Solve PO In the End" from different vantag points.

From MY point of view one has to first define the "problem" we are trying to solve. The implication in the question as stated I. The title is the dissapearance of cheap calories; food or energy, claories.

to me that also implies that is our biggest if not only problem. I'm much more of the opinion that cheap calories, and the solution ot PO (If it were found) would only exacerbate our overall and bigger problems of resource depletion, over crowding, pollution, etc.

But, just to continue with my theme, does the stated problem we are trying to solve also include raising all other folks in the world to our level of energy consumption? Would that not, if possible, create a hoard of additional consumers with the attendant problems?

[sparky]

.
I supose if someone has a field drilled and not too much pressure from the bean counters it's a valid strategy
I don't know , but there also be some legal reasons to do some "blank "drilling , either toward the investors or the local laws

One thing is for certain Fracking is very supple , should price start to show a healthy shade production can be brough back on line quite fast ,
If the finances allows , it is possible to conceive a peak ( frack ) and trough ( hold ) mode of operation

[ROCKMAN]

Shallow - the big difference between today and 1986 IMHO is that the bloodletting has come much faster this time around. I suspect part of the reason is the huge debt load: they have to cut deep and fast to keep servicing that debt.

As far as "fraclog" goes let’s see where we are in 6 months. There has always been a backlog of drilled wells waiting for frac jobs. But consider this: a company may have already sunk $6 million into drilling a sell. And 6 months ago it might have cost another $5 million to frac it and go to production. But what if it only cost the company $3 million to frac it next month? Yes...a lower oil price but it isn't the same decision process as before they drilled the well.

Also remember most of the shale players are pubcos. Pubcos that are valued by Wall Street based mostly on PDP reserves...Proved Developed Producing. Wells that are PDNP...Proved Developed Non-Producing are valued lower. And they may not be given PDNP status but even a lower PUD status (Proved Un-Developed) since they haven’t been frac’d and thus don't have a proven initial production rate. Remember a lot of shale wells don't come on at high initial rates and thus never recover their total investment.

You and I can just relax and let others make predictions. Come 1Q 2016 we’ll have a pretty good idea of just how the dynamics have played out.

[ROCKMAN]

Parky – “One thing is for certain Fracking is very supple , should price start to show a healthy shade production can be brought back on line quite fast “. Maybe. It will depend on how long the down turns lasts IMHO. It the bleeding is deep enough and last long enough there won’t be nearly as many companies ready to swing back into action. Many leases will have expired. The equipment with have been cannibalized, personnel have started other careers, many capex sources will have been burned to death…deaths that new potential capex sources will easily recall.

And let’s not forget oil prices will still be tied to global economic vitality. The world consumed less $58/bbl oil in 2009 than it did $8/bbl oil in 2008. The new lower oil prices should help the global economy…eventually. But if it takes a couple of years for oil prices to get a stable footing at $60+/bbl I doubt you’ll see much of rush back to the shales. Maybe when oil gets back above $90/bbl. But how long will that take if the global economy is slow to recover? In 3 or 4 years there won’t be much oil patch left in place to jump hard into the shale if prices get high again. Folks need to look back and see that it took several years for the oil patch to ramp up the shales. And that was done by an oil patch that wasn't coming off a devastating financial meltdown.

[Pops]

But, just to continue with my theme, does the stated problem we are trying to solve also include raising all other folks in the world to our level of energy consumption? Would that not, if possible, create a hoard of additional consumers with the attendant problems?

Newf, my thesis (in this installment of Contrary Pops), is merely that the future of technology is as unknowable as the afterlife and positions either entirely anti or pro technology are knee-jerk opinions just like faith and religion. Technology, innovation, adaptation is neither divine nor evil and since they are by definition "new" how can they be pre-judged?

I've not here, or anywhere that I can remember, said that technology will save us by replacing FF energy watt for watt or that it will provide unlimited resources so that we might breed like rats, or that it will bring the "standard of consuming" of every earthling up to US levels. Those are all strawmen or at the least misreading of my original point:

So what is my point?
Basically that arguing whether technology can or can't save us in the future is the very same as arguing whether or not there is a heaven, you just can't know until you get there. Meantime, the best you can do is plan for anything to happen, including nothing, and live accordingly.

--
But sticking with demographics, low fertility in Asia today is much more valid than the Demographic Transition model of the 1920's I think. Low fertility arising in part from women's decisions to postpone kids in favor of career, increased competition among workers, risk aversion and jumbled social expectations is much different today than 100 years ago. Those considerations can lead to postponement of childeren that can in turn become permanent. That can lead to quickly changing demographics, falling population and big economic trouble.

Aging populations will be as big a topic in coming decades as the population explosion was back in the '60s because falling fertility means there will necessarily be a shortage of consumers, and worse; young, tax paying workers to support old farts like us. Lots of things will contribute to very low fertility: risk aversion, worker competition, social liberalisation, automation and globalization are a few.

This is a good article and not too long on that very "problem." Very low fertility manifests as rising tax burden to support Pops, wage inflation (heaven forbid) and less innovation.

Social liberalism and economic restructuring have given rise to two important changes for individuals:
• the provision of gender equity through an opening up of opportunities for women beyond the household, and
• increasing levels of risk aversion among young people of both sexes in an increasingly competitive labour market.

I sometime think that we Peakers are like old generals still fighting the last war

.

[Newfie]

I think what you are arguing is the inevitability of the fall of our consumer society.

I take your point that future technology is unknowable. But then, if it's unknowable how can you argue, pro or con, that it will "solve peak oil", whatever the hell THAT means.

What we DO know is that the trajectory we are on, driven by cheap calories, and lubricated by technology, will result in a disastrous state.

Sure, some unknown technology may (or may not) save us. But does that make for a good strategy?

[ralfy]

In order to deal with a future that's not knowable, one can look at forecasts from the past, compare them to historical data, and if they are generally the same:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

identify which types of technology will reverse trends.

[sparky]

.
@ Rockman ,I liked your answers ,
....then the proverbial anvil dropped on My head "The world consumed less $58/bbl oil in 2009 than it did $8/bbl oil in 2008"
followed by tossing ideas why a quick restart might or might not happen
including a certain shyness by Capex money ( scalded cat is afraid of cold water )

an awful though came to my mind . What if , due to a deep lack of manufacturing activity , demand doesn't pick up
in fact the worst case is if demand is so suppressed that depletion itself is not keeping pace with the softening demand
no 200$ barrel , no 100$ barrel , no 80$ barrel , 60$ is the new "normal "

I know this is economic doomer porn but unless consumption pick up any crude price rise is going to be a very soft wood

[Pops]

I take your point that future technology is unknowable. But then, if it's unknowable how can you argue, pro or con...

Ta Da!
That is exactly my point:
You can't!

The overwhelming majority of posts on this site (including mine) are speculations about the future based on opinion. Since opinions are deep-seated, subconscious beliefs, they should be given a probability score of maybe P10, lol

But what's more, after a while we begin to believe our own beliefs! The more we type We're Dead! (or We're Saved!) the more we believe it - hell we read it somewhere!

Keeping our opinions and beliefs up to date with changing reality takes a conscious effort.

All I'm saying is we should be cognizant of the fact that most of the "facts" we post, aren't. And that when we make plans, especially if we plan to work those plans (otherwise who cares), we should allow for a margin of error due to our inherent, subconscious "Reality Distortion Field."

[Newfie]

"Reality Distortion Field". You make that up? It's good.

Just trying to judge reality, to recognize it, can be a challange.

I keep going back to "The Matrix" as being a fairly good representation of our reality. Not the slomo kungfu crap, the the larger Metaphore of us existing in a media driven world view of our own creation.

We tell one another stories and then begin to believe them.

Sticking with the very basic facts, trends, and maths is is a good antidote, if boring and depressing.

We don't have TV, don't much listen to radio. Now that we are weaned when we DO get exposed it comes across very crass and irrelevant, and frankly quite scary. The "news" (if it even deserves the name) strikes as pathetic and irrelevant, useless emotional doggerel.

Our reality is much more about things that effect us directly, that which we can physically touch, Nature and people. We read a fair bit, nonfiction. We attempt to be engaged in a real world.

Our "Real World" is a pretty scary place with a lot of people running helter skelter, chasing some technological "fix". All the while the "Real World" (nature) is reeling under our influence.

Of course you can argue what constitutes the "Real World", and there we may diverge.

[ROCKMAN]

Sparky - "no 200$ barrel , no 100$ barrel , no 80$ barrel , 60$ is the new "normal". Well, not that history always repeats itself but: after oil prices (adjusted for inflation) peaked over $115/bbl about 35 years ago the "new normal" price of $25-30/bbl held for the next 20 years. Of course, thanks to the POD, this isn't 1986. OTOH the POD still existed back which is why oil prices jumped 300% and then crashed by 2/3 over a course of just 10 years. Déjà vue all over again??? LOL.

[Tanada]

Sparky - "no 200$ barrel , no 100$ barrel , no 80$ barrel , 60$ is the new "normal". Well, not that history always repeats itself but: after oil prices (adjusted for inflation) peaked over $115/bbl about 35 years ago the "new normal" price of $25-30/bbl held for the next 20 years. Of course, thanks to the POD, this isn't 1986. OTOH the POD still existed back which is why oil prices jumped 300% and then crashed by 2/3 over a course of just 10 years. Déjà vue all over again??? LOL.

ROCKMAN I agree none of us are clairvoyant enough to really know the future, if I were I would have won the big jackpot lotto and not be sitting here right now. On the other hand 1986 was IMO a confluence of supply growth, you had Siberia, the North Sea and Alaska all ramping up at the same time while in the USA consumption had taken a steep decline due to price increases in 1979. When the KSA decided they were tired of losing market share and put a lot of oil back on the market well you know better than I what it did to the American domestic Oil Industry.

Really a big military attack in the Persian Gulf could happen any time that would cause serious damage to middle east exports, or the Russians could decide that price is more important than market share and cut their exports, or the TRRC could order production in their area of authority cut 10%. Or things could just muddle along until demand makes supply tighter once again driving the prices back up.

[ROCKMAN]

Pops - Great post. But as far as predicting future tech there is a basis for some pessimism even though we can't know with 100% certainty. After 100 years of experience the oil patch has a very good understanding of the physics controlling the movement of fluids thru porous rocks. Consider the recent shale boom. We not only knew the oil was there for more the half a century we also knew the key to getting it out was to intersect the fractures with the well bore as well as the potential to create even better flow rates by frac'ng the rocks. And this knowledge did lead to a boom in drilling for a fractured shale....35 years ago. The Austin Chalk boomed long before its days of thousands of hz wells drilled in the 90's. In the late 70's drilling vertical wells drilled thru the AC was THE hottest oil play in the country. The difficulty was hitting enough natural fractures (which themselves tended to be nearly vertical) to get a high flow rate. Everyone knew the key was developing a way to intersect more fractures. Drilling direction wells out to 60 degrees had been accomplished by that time. It then took about another 10 years to push the tech to a hz 90 degree well.

That tech used to chase the shales recently didn't just happen: the motivation to develop those fractured shale formations existed decades ago. Though the tech has been tweaked in recent years we drilled a lot of hz wells in fractured rocks 20 years ago. That would have happened sooner had oil not dropped to under $15/bbl in the mid 80's. The AC was a very hot hz play in the 90's because it worked at $30/bbl. During the same period we could have developed the EFS and Bakken with the same established tech. But those formations didn't work at that price level.

IOW we understood the oil was there in those fractured formations and began designing the tech to exploit them over 25 years ago. One can make the analogy to the Canadian oil sands. The tech to develop them began developing about 20 years ago. Again some tweaked improvements but they were producing 1 million bopd more the a decade ago with oil prices significantly lower then they are today.

I'm a career development/reservoir geologist. My focus has been, and continues, to be recovering oil/NG from mature trends. That's how I just successfully drilled hz wells in a 66 year old conventional oil field. And I did it exactly like I did it just like I did it in 1994 in field in La. state waters that was discovered in the 1950's. Yes...that tech has been tweaked since then also but it's still the same basic methodology.

The main point: I'm always pushing way outside the box looking for ways to get more hydrocarbons out of those known deposits. I continually consort with the tech developers at Schlumberger, Halliburton, etc. looking for the next "trick pony". And at the moment I don't see anyone proposing a potentially significant game changer let alone trying to develop one. If it's coming down the road and we don't see it yet that's fine. But remember the game changers (frac'ng, hz drilling, 3d seismic, Deep Water production) typically took 20+ years before meaningful applications arose. So whatever "it" is it better began soon since we probably won't see that fruit develop until the 2030's.

[Pops]

"Reality Distortion Field". You make that up? It's good.

Just trying to judge reality, to recognize it, can be a challange.

Naw, "Reality Distortion Field" is what they said Steve Jobs had. The 'doers' at Apple would say, "we can't", and he's say, "do it", and they were amazed that they could.

I think the more a person repeats the mantra, "I'm objective", "I'm a moderate", "I'm independent" "I'm a realist"; the more they convince themselves their "mind map" is the true picture and inevitably the less objective they become. If I'm not convinced we're all going to die except on alternate Tuesdays and Thursdays, am I less in touch with reality than someone who never considers any other option?

LOL, it just dawns on me how silly it is to be arguing with you about the reality of collapse when I am the one who ran off to the hills (and will hopefully do it again).

[Pops]

The main point: I'm always pushing way outside the box looking for ways to get more hydrocarbons out of those known deposits.

Thanks ROCK.

I understand your point, and your point of view. When I think about tech "solving" PO, getting more oil isn't really what I think about. I brought it up to point out the error in prior predictions that said tech and money would be unable to postpone peak.

I'm still just as convinced of PO as I ever was. If peak is today my WAG will have been pretty darn close! If it isn't 'till 2040 (or beyond my horizon whenever) I won't be all that surprised either. (I'd as soon it be sooner than later, just on the precautionary principle.)

The kind of high tech I'm thinking about is south facing glass, insulation, caulking and weatherstripping. Heat pumps (space and water heating) and cheaper solar water heating. And LED lamps, LOL. Just that stuff, all fairly new tech in the last couple of generations or less can build a fairly low energy home without much effort, a little attention and creativity and you can get much further.

Then add in lifestyle changes allowed by recent tech like working close to or at home and you get some real solutions - I haven't burned a gallon of gasoline in a month probably.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

Then add in lifestyle changes allowed by recent tech like working close to or at home and you get some real solutions - I haven't burned a gallon of gasoline in a month probably

There's been talk of our division (which does care coordination) working from home since we have transitioned to EHR. It'd be a dream. I feel so much more productive at home than sitting in an office anyway.

I recently began a graduate program in health informatics, which deals with EHR, telemedicine, and the like. Here's an article from '09 that actually addresses its importance in a world of declining cheap energy. It's already hot field and am hoping it continues to provide steady employment as much of it centers around reducing transportation by improving access to healthcare. I'm not really in the position to do the whole bug out to the country thing, so I'm hoping this helps me transition to the next stage of our collapse.

[ROCKMAN]

Pops - Got it. Not my area but I wonder if we are close to topping out on conservation tech also. In fact, we always see posts pointing out that we have sufficient conservation tech to but it isn't being used enough to have a significant impact. Unless you're angling for an approach that would encourage a greater application why would spend much effort to develop new tech that would see much application. For instance how long have e known how to build cheap solar water heaters? And what percentage of the world that heats water has a system...1%? Just about everyone in the US has some electronic device...cell phones, ipad, etc. How much effort and expense to hang a tiny solar panel and charge those devices or your rechargeable batteries? So why spend $millions to improve technology that works today but sees little utilization?

[Pops]

I'd say the answer is the same as you gave for why fracking had been around for years but never used - didn't need it, couldn't afford it.

[ROCKMAN]

Pops - Actually frac'ng was a very hot technology when it first came out. It was every bit the got-to tech when I started 4 decades ago. Companies jumped on it just as hard (or harder) then folks jumped on hz wells with frac jobs. And there was a good reason: there were hundreds of thousands of EXISTING vertical wells completed in tite reservoirs. Unlike the EFS and Bakken there wasn't the expense of drilling a well first before you frac'd it. In fact, according to wiki before the recent surge in shale frac'ng over 2 million frac jobs had been performed worldwide on oil and gas wells with over 900,000 of those within the U.S. Over 35 years ago I was involved with one the first "mega-fracs"...500,000lbs+ of sand pumped. And guess who else did one that year: George Mitchell. The only difference was that George got the feds to pay for most of it thru a DOE grant. He was always very good at sucking on the govt teat. LOL.

[Pops]

hmm, so I'm trying to follow along with what you've said
fracking has been around for years
but it needed $100 prices to be implemented in the shales
although it has been used millions of times before

I guess I'm not following.