Psychological studies should be made about a "turning inward" or "self stimulation" of the news dissemination, where energy and means of news dissemination are used to say how much energy and means our society still has.

This is typical now, as news is trumpeted how we are out of the "Great Recession" and Bamama, Bernanke, Geithner and others have started to self masturbate on how well they did.

Maybe call it the "masturbation factor", as any teenager deprived of sexual partner certainly knows what it means...

This in face of 3 blatant realities:

Reality #1: The stock market is shit, as adjusted for inflation the Dow is at 4000 or less compared to the year 2000.

Reality #2: The job market is shit, as it keeps on growing and about to break the 10% official barrier, unofficial maybe 20%. Some parts of the country are at third world level, like some areas of Detroit and the deep south.

Reality #3: Since 2005 oil production has remained as flat as a pancake, thanks to gargantuan investments to keep up, as it would be already freefalling, but it will cheerfully catch up no that and start freefalling next year....

The thing strikes me about technology fixes is that oil recovery technology as developed by the Western oil companies has been incredibly impressive since the 1970's. Secondary recovery, tertiary, horizontal drilling, etc. Amazing.

Yet the oil produced from all fields in the US (and all other countries and the world) continues to delete according to the decline curves presented by Mr. Hubbert. We always wind up smack dab back at Hubbert's curve.

Exactly when is this unnamed "technology" going to swoop in and let us support several more billions of people on the earth? These "I predict" articles are, ultimately, counter-productive.

Crash? Oil is $80, four times what it was several years ago. The ride across the plateau and down the other wide will be rough: such is the nature of complex systems in distress. Like downed dying animal twitching.

What's the marginal cost of oil?

How much would it cost to get an additional thousand barrels of oil a day out of the ground?

That's the figure I care about. The day to day price fluctuations are irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

Without a doubt, the marginal cost of oil has been increasing over the past decade.

Offshore drilling costs more than onshore drilling. EOR techniques cost more than conventional oil extraction. CO2 injections aren't cheap. Heavy sour oil isn't light sweet crude.

I've seen estimates that the Athabasca oil sands of Canada cost around $50/$60 a barrel to break even. When oil prices crashed into the 30s, the tar sands projects were temporarily halted, that tends to reinforce the $50/$60 price level as a new price floor (much like $20 was the price floor throughout the 20th Century)

If the next century is going to overflow with petroleum, it's not going to be the $10 Saudi crude.

Exactly Tyler. Boiling tar sands for oil and drilling 3 miles under the gulf of Mexico doesn't say "we have lots of oil" - it says "we're getting desperate"

You are so full of it Oily. The only reason I don't put you on ignore is for a good laugh now and then... I really hope you don't believe the crap you post...

I think you're smarter than that....

-G

Tar sands costs have come down as all suppliers are hurting and therefore able to cut prices. There were labour shortages and material shortages when those costs were compiled. No such problems now. Many of the delayed projects are starting up again.
I saw recently that some say they can break even at 35-45 now.

One thing I will agree on with this article is the Oil companies have not spent enough on exploration. The price crashes of 1986 and 1999 scared them too much.
I suppose that makes sense and really there has been ample supply so little incentive for them to expand their exploration programs beyond what they have done. Few in the business took that blip up to 147 seriously. Everyone of my colleagues that I spoke with at that time remained cautious and nobody ran out and bought a new house or some such. We all knew it wouldn't last.

He does kind of wash over the costs part though. These new areas will be expensive to operate in, no doubt about that. Costs will come down as experience is gained but it will take some time.

He does mention that many desirable areas are under control of state oil companies.
This will be a problem unless they are able to get their shit together.
Many have shown their incompetence. Some have done very well.
I guess they can't all be Statoil.
Time will tell.

There may be a concerted effort as well to destroy the US's purchasing power and knocking its share from 25% to maybe 10% - blind guesses. That oughta make whatever's available cheaper for rest of the world and extend supplies significantly.

Big deal. We still have plastic pumpkins, wal-mart, etc...

$80 is not the doomsday that peakers thought it would have been back in 2005. Maybe $150 sustained will be. Time will tell.

How much is "enough"? I just read in the news that Shell is going to send an expedition to the arctic, against all environmental protestations. So the majors are scraping the bottom of the barrel for sure.

Please be specific. Do "unconventional oils" include thermaldepolymerized turkey guts as well as Green River bitumen? How about corn ethanol and algae biofuels?

Where we stop? If industry and copious free energy can add hydrogen atoms to coal and tar, (even pencil leads) does that mean we have unlimited fuel forever?