Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

100 mb/d ?

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

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 31 Jan 2017, 21:22:07

ROCKMAN wrote:Adam - "Yes we did" Try to stay up with the conversation, buddy: we're talking global PO. Easy to get lost but the thread title, "100 mb/d" should have been a hint. LOL.


I did keep up, perhaps you missed global peak oil in 1979, but I didn't. Just because those claims of peak or running out went down the tubes like the 3 or 4 claims of the past decade doesn't invalidate the fact that they scared the crap outta the President!

So yes, we all know that the 80 mbpd claims of peak are so...maybe 20 mbpd ago....go tripping through the archives here and see how funny they are.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 31 Jan 2017, 21:27:58

Z - P110 is a fairly ubiquitous grade of casing and one of the most common used. And that chart proves my point perfectly: the cost to drill inflated greatly beginning in 2003. And it wasn't a result of increased oil prices then but NG prices. But that NG price bust happened just as oil prices began to boom. The correlation you see in that chart is that as the price of oil boomed companies could drill for smaller targets...as you pointed out. And as demand due to higher oil prices drove drilling costs up those new wells were able to meet the required ROR's but only because of those high oil prices. Which is exactly what the chart shows: higher oil prices allowed the service companies to greatly increase the prices they charged.

Again look what that chart shows: companies were willing to pay greatly inflated drilling costs because the price of oil yielded an acceptable ROR. The higher price of oil created higher drilling costs...not the other way around.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 31 Jan 2017, 21:44:01

ROCKMAN wrote:Ralfy - OK, didn't know what you were referring to...just what you said: "Cost has gone up because of peak oil." Which, as I proved in detail, is not correct. As I said: if the cost has increased because we reached PO then why have costs decreased so much in the last two years...because we've passed PO? And why did drilling costs boom as much in the late 70's as we just experienced...did we hit global PO over 40 years ago?

As I've explained many times: the year after we hit global PO we may see record high oil prices. Or we may see oil prices lower then we had seen for a decade or two. The oil price dynamic is much more complex then just a function of how much oil can be produced at some point in time.


The cost will go down briefly due to advances in technology, but in the long term it goes up due to diminishing returns. The peak oil phenomenon is part of that: because oil is a limited resource, then costs go up due to combinations of gravity and lack of oil. The same takes place for copper and other material resources.

Most assume that the effects of peak oil take place only when production peaks and reaches a decline. The truth is that they take place even before those happen and when demand has to rise significantly.

The assumption is that in an imaginary world where peak oil can be dealt with demand doesn't have to rise significantly. In the real world, it does because of increasing human population (which requires increasing basic needs) and a growing global middle class (because most human beings worldwide barely have access to basic needs and want those plus more).

One of the reasons why they want more is because that is ironically one of the reasons why oil was used: it allowed for extensive mechanized agriculture and manufacturing, both of which decreased infant mortality rates significantly and prolonged life to the point that the population boomed from around 2 billion to around 7 billion today in only around half-a-century. At the same time, the same technologies made possible a whole slew of middle class conveniences, from passenger vehicles to appliances.

Much of mechanized agriculture and manufacturing plus services are controlled by for-profit businesses, and they compete with each other. At the same time, they are funded by financial businesses that also compete each other. The reason why they use such technologies is not simply to "save" humanity but to profit from increasing sales of goods and services. And as they compete each other the drive for even-higher profits appears.

In order to attain higher profits costs have to be kept as low as possible while production is maximized. Of course, sales of what is produced has to be maximized as well, but that also means increasing costs (i.e., those who are expected to buy more goods are also the ones who are producing them, and are expected to produce more of them each time at the same labor costs). Investments in expanding production, following the previous paragraph, are gauged on expectations of high returns on investment, and given competition, ever-higher returns.

In short, this global capitalist economy requires ever-increasing profits through ever-increasing production made possible through ever-decreasing costs through the use of energy and material resources that should be available at larger amounts and at lower costs. That's not possible given peak oil, where costs go up because of diminishing returns, and which take place even before production reaches a peak and drops.

What makes matters worse is the drive for increasing production at the same or lower costs, including those involving labor. The "solution" to that problem was to increase credit, which in turn leads to more debt. Meanwhile, prices have to keep rising as supply has to keep up with demand.

Thus, we see a world where demand was expected to reach around 115 Mb/d by 2015 but did not, where it was expected that the world could continue buying oil at around $100 a barrel but could not, where the oil industry was expected to be able to pay off its previous debts easily thanks to higher-priced oil but is barely to do so:

100-mb-d-t73110.html#p1344810

and with production cost rising for reasons given earlier:

oil-prices-will-never-recover-pt-3-t72804.html#p1325112

all based partly on the phenomenon of peak oil.

In the end, one realizes that the "dynamic" goes beyond drilling costs and checkbooks.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4974
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 31 Jan 2017, 22:18:14

Ralfy - "...cost will go down briefly due to advances in technology, but in the long term it goes up due to diminishing returns." I know it seems counterintuitive but new technology actually increases drilling costs. The advances in hz drilling and frac'ng resulted in longer laterrals and a lot more frac stages. For instance early Eagle Ford wells could cost $4 to $5 million. At the boom they were costing $10 to $12 million. And yes: that's the cost per well and not cost per bbl produced. Obviously two very different metrics. But again if oil wasn't $90+/bbl a company wouldn't spend that much on a well. So as oil prices fell so did the rig count.

And less demand for anything does what it always does: pushes prices down due to cutthroat competition. As far as diminishing returns driving costs up, obviously not in absolute terms: companies aren't going to pay more for drilling that yields a smaller ROR. So I'll assume you mean the cost per bbl produced. But here's the realty: if a company wants a 12% ROR the can only spend so much to drill a well that will produce X bbls of oil. If the drilling costs are to high to provide ROR the company doesn't drill. And if the current drill cost are too high for most companies a lot of rigs go idle. Or those contractors lower their prices to provide the needed ROR. IOW as the price of oil declines drilling cost per bbl produced have to also decrease in order to meet that ROR threshold.

Which is what werwer have today: only the better yielding shale wells are being drilled because lower drilling costs are allowing an acceptable ROR.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 31 Jan 2017, 22:53:48

ROCKMAN wrote:Ralfy - "...cost will go down briefly due to advances in technology, but in the long term it goes up due to diminishing returns." I know it seems counterintuitive but new technology actually increases drilling costs. The advances in hz drilling and frac'ng resulted in longer laterrals and a lot more frac stages. For instance early Eagle Ford wells could cost $4 to $5 million. At the boom they were costing $10 to $12 million. And yes: that's the cost per well and not cost per bbl produced. Obviously two very different metrics. But again if oil wasn't $90+/bbl a company wouldn't spend that much on a well. So as oil prices fell so did the rig count.


By that, I mean costs go down because revenues are expected to rise faster: hence investments in new technology because oil was expected to sell at $90+. In short, we're looking at the effects of diminishing returns, something that checkbooks and temporary technofixes won't be able to reverse.


And less demand for anything does what it always does: pushes prices down due to cutthroat competition. As far as diminishing returns driving costs up, obviously not in absolute terms: companies aren't going to pay more for drilling that yields a smaller ROR. So I'll assume you mean the cost per bbl produced. But here's the realty: if a company wants a 12% ROR the can only spend so much to drill a well that will produce X bbls of oil. If the drilling costs are to high to provide ROR the company doesn't drill. And if the current drill cost are too high for most companies a lot of rigs go idle. Or those contractors lower their prices to provide the needed ROR. IOW as the price of oil declines drilling cost per bbl produced have to also decrease in order to meet that ROR threshold.



In this case, price plummeted but not demand. That's partly due to incredible levels of credit in the system (part of it needed to fuel the production "revolution") leading to financial instability while the world population needs more oil (and has to spend more of its limited disposable income to do so) and wants even more oil (which it can't afford for the same reason).

The rest of your paragraph explains my previous post and supports my argument: higher production cost as oil becomes more difficult to extract. Producers can provide more oil but at higher costs, which means higher prices. Consumers can barely afford those prices. Meanwhile, producers, consumers, and investors expect to earn more from their wages, businesses, and returns on investment. That's means increasing amounts of oil (and copper, fresh water, etc.) at lower costs each time, which is the opposite of what happens given peak oil.


Which is what werwer have today: only the better yielding shale wells are being drilled because lower drilling costs are allowing an acceptable ROR.


Unfortunately, we're looking at world oil production and consumption, as seen in the first post of this thread.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4974
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby Zarquon » Wed 01 Feb 2017, 06:05:15

ralfy wrote:...higher production cost as oil becomes more difficult to extract.


You keep pointing out that production costs did increase four or five-fold at the beginning of the century and attribute that to the PO phenomenon. But that argument is at best incomplete. There are clearly many factors affecting costs, and many have nothing at all to do with the end of easy oil:

- the construction boom in China forces up steel prices from 2003-2008. Clearly a huge factor in developing new fields. But it barely affects producing fields, apart from the need to replace corroded parts. And drops by half after 2009.
- Oil production competes with natgas for the same pipes, the same rigs and the same labor. As gas production soars, costs of oil production go up.

But there is one PO factor I found while googling steel and pipes: more and more of newly developed fields are sour. That drives up demand for highly resistant pipes, tanks etc., and drives up the price of chromium, nickel and other materials. Not to speak of costs for de-sulphurization equipment, if that's the term. This steel is more costly to produce, and since the sulfur won't go away, these costs will remain higher. That is a permanent cost effect of the depletion of older fields, and a lack of new, sweet prospects. But the additional costs are not a fixed amount per barrel. When new production facilities are built, tech improves, new chromium deposits are being mined etc., the costs go down again. Not to the old levels, though. But they affect only new production, and only sour fields.

How much higher is now the cost per barrel of this new production, because of indirect effects of depletion? Ten cents? A dollar? Ten dollars? That the field is in Kasachstan, how much does that add? Depletion and lack of better prospects are the reason to go there in the first place, instead of drilling in the North Sea with all its existing infrastructure.

But is is upon you to separate these factors from each other, and quantify them. How much would costs have gone up without the boom in China, which BTW also drove up oil demand, thereby affecting both sides of the equation?

Again: if there are many factors affecting costs, then you need to show which ones are due to depletion, and how much they drive costs up. Otherwise your argument amounts only to a statement of gut feelings.

Don't get me wrong: I believe in the depletion/cost dynamic, aka PO. But I can't *quantify* the overall effect, not even by a long shot.
Zarquon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 273
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 19:53:46

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 01 Feb 2017, 09:34:08

Ralfy - You do make some valid points. But: "Producers can provide more oil but at higher costs, which means higher prices". The price of oil has never been determined by how much it cost to develop that production. The folks that set the price of oil, the buyers, don't care how much it cost the oil patch to develop that production. Look at oil prices today: the currently producing wells drilled during the high drilling cost shale boom were getting less then half the price for their oil. So to rephrase your above statement: Producers are providing more oil from high cost drilling and are getting LOWER prices for that oil.

Sorry to be redundant but higher drilling budgets and greater debt don't lead to higher priced oil...higher priced oil leads to higher budgets and greater debt. Today lower oil prices have reduced budgets and forced a lot of liquidation to reduce debt.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 01 Feb 2017, 12:54:22

ROCKMAN wrote:Ralfy - You do make some valid points. But: "Producers can provide more oil but at higher costs, which means higher prices". The price of oil has never been determined by how much it cost to develop that production.


Quite true. The price of oil is determined by the price people are willing to pay. That price then identifies who is buying the marginal barrel, and by extension where it resides.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 06 Feb 2017, 09:20:26

Zarquon wrote:
ralfy wrote:...higher production cost as oil becomes more difficult to extract.


You keep pointing out that production costs did increase four or five-fold at the beginning of the century and attribute that to the PO phenomenon. But that argument is at best incomplete. There are clearly many factors affecting costs, and many have nothing at all to do with the end of easy oil:

- the construction boom in China forces up steel prices from 2003-2008. Clearly a huge factor in developing new fields. But it barely affects producing fields, apart from the need to replace corroded parts. And drops by half after 2009.
- Oil production competes with natgas for the same pipes, the same rigs and the same labor. As gas production soars, costs of oil production go up.

But there is one PO factor I found while googling steel and pipes: more and more of newly developed fields are sour. That drives up demand for highly resistant pipes, tanks etc., and drives up the price of chromium, nickel and other materials. Not to speak of costs for de-sulphurization equipment, if that's the term. This steel is more costly to produce, and since the sulfur won't go away, these costs will remain higher. That is a permanent cost effect of the depletion of older fields, and a lack of new, sweet prospects. But the additional costs are not a fixed amount per barrel. When new production facilities are built, tech improves, new chromium deposits are being mined etc., the costs go down again. Not to the old levels, though. But they affect only new production, and only sour fields.

How much higher is now the cost per barrel of this new production, because of indirect effects of depletion? Ten cents? A dollar? Ten dollars? That the field is in Kasachstan, how much does that add? Depletion and lack of better prospects are the reason to go there in the first place, instead of drilling in the North Sea with all its existing infrastructure.

But is is upon you to separate these factors from each other, and quantify them. How much would costs have gone up without the boom in China, which BTW also drove up oil demand, thereby affecting both sides of the equation?

Again: if there are many factors affecting costs, then you need to show which ones are due to depletion, and how much they drive costs up. Otherwise your argument amounts only to a statement of gut feelings.

Don't get me wrong: I believe in the depletion/cost dynamic, aka PO. But I can't *quantify* the overall effect, not even by a long shot.


I wasn't referring to the beginning of the century. I think the chart shared by Observer starts at 1994. Also, my understanding is that the $500+ billion in loans by the oil industry were made only a few years ago.

About that construction boom, it doesn't have anything directly to do with the end of easy oil. Rather, it requires easy oil. And it's not just China but a global population that needs it:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470

And it's not just oil that's needed but also copper, phosphorus, iron ore, and more. From what I remember, what's needed is estimated to be the equivalent of at least one more earth.

What's driving that growth are incredible levels of credit:

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/05/ ... arket.html

with both financing and production controlled by only a few:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... -the-world

Put simply, given lots of easy money coupled by an incredible drive by both the rich and a growing global middle class for more goods and services, we will obviously need easy oil. And copper, and iron ore, and more. And given the drive for better returns on that easy money and competition, not just easy oil but easier oil each time.

I don't think technofixes can reverse that, and the trend for discoveries isn't helping, either:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... fall-ahead

Finally, I think references to Kazakhstan and "tech [improvements]" are mentioned several times in this forum, but I still don't see how they have reversed the numbers given in the chart shared by Observer, ensure that the industry will be able to make over half-a-trillion in debt repayments during the next five years, and reverse the 70-year low in oil discoveries in the long term.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4974
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ralfy » Mon 06 Feb 2017, 09:35:08

ROCKMAN wrote:Ralfy - You do make some valid points. But: "Producers can provide more oil but at higher costs, which means higher prices". The price of oil has never been determined by how much it cost to develop that production. The folks that set the price of oil, the buyers, don't care how much it cost the oil patch to develop that production. Look at oil prices today: the currently producing wells drilled during the high drilling cost shale boom were getting less then half the price for their oil. So to rephrase your above statement: Producers are providing more oil from high cost drilling and are getting LOWER prices for that oil.

Sorry to be redundant but higher drilling budgets and greater debt don't lead to higher priced oil...higher priced oil leads to higher budgets and greater debt. Today lower oil prices have reduced budgets and forced a lot of liquidation to reduce debt.


Consider reading the next few sentences after the one you quoted.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4974
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:58:13

i think peak oil will happen when supply is around 100 mb/d.
peakoilwhen
permanently banned
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby sparky » Mon 06 Mar 2017, 00:11:32

.
Nothing factual about it but I got the same hunch
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 06 Mar 2017, 01:06:50

sparky - Even though I'll have assumed room temperature long before there is proof my hunch is similar to yours...we're about there now. Or al least at the upper tier of the undulating plateau. The plateau which, with respect to the volatility induced by the POD, is more critical then the specific date of global PO IMHO.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 06 Mar 2017, 17:14:58

peakoilwhen wrote:i think peak oil will happen when supply is around 100 mb/d.


People once said the same thing when supply was around 34 mb/d. Hubbert said that one. And then Colin Campbell said it was when supply was around 60 mb/d. And then in this century they said it when supply was around 70 mb/d. And then 85 mb/d. So now your number if 100? Cool. Sooner later using this type of sequential delphi approach someone will win the prize. I recommend you get all the kick the can estimates written and claimed right now, claim if it isn't 100, it will 101, and after that 102, and go up to 200 mb/d, that way you will most probably WIN, and be able to point back to the time you correctly predicted peak oil. You could be famous!
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby sparky » Mon 06 Mar 2017, 17:31:09

.
@ AdamB , you well could be right , I do not claim to be ,
as for 200m/b/d , I would truly be amazed !
That's a lot of oil .

seriously increase of crude extraction face the problem of the depletion of the (cheap) super giants
I'm not aware of any new Ghawar
conventional crude (Hydrocarbon liquid which float on water and can maintain combustion)
is a window in the fossil carbon range ,
this goes from Kerogen , natural gas , pools of tar mixed or nor with soil to various smudges in rock
or even rocks themselves as all the grades of coal

Conventional crude is not infinite and must obey the universal law of depletion ,
if you take it ,it's gone and the easiest stuff is ALWAYS dug first .

This true has held since the Roman mines of Rio Tinto to the mining ghost towns in Australia
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3278
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 06 Mar 2017, 17:41:17

Adam - So true. Which is why I won't stop pounding the point that the date of PO has little relevance. Similarly the global production rate has little significance. How anyone can look at the volatility of the energy dynamics over just the last 10 years and think those metrics are worth spending anytime arguing over still amazes me.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 06 Mar 2017, 22:26:10

sparky wrote:.
@ AdamB , you well could be right , I do not claim to be ,
as for 200m/b/d , I would truly be amazed !
That's a lot of oil .


When Hubbert called for a global peak of 34 mb/day, I imagine folks of that time would have thought that 70 mb/day was quite a lot of oil as well.

sparky wrote:seriously increase of crude extraction face the problem of the depletion of the (cheap) super giants
I'm not aware of any new Ghawar
conventional crude (Hydrocarbon liquid which float on water and can maintain combustion)
is a window in the fossil carbon range ,
this goes from Kerogen , natural gas , pools of tar mixed or nor with soil to various smudges in rock
or even rocks themselves as all the grades of coal


Additional Saudi Arabia's on a 3 year basis were what US Presidents have claimed were necessary to stave off oil running out. That was in 1977. I wonder if all those new Saudi Arabia's, to get from there, to now, ever joined OPEC? And if they didn't, I guess it is funny that anyone thinks they are necessary?

sparky wrote:Conventional crude is not infinite and must obey the universal law of depletion ,
if you take it ,it's gone and the easiest stuff is ALWAYS dug first .


Not always, but close. The uncertainty of calculating this is contained with the Arps and Roberts ideas from the late 1950's. The really good news is that the US has been producing shale gas and oil since the 1800's, and recently learned how to do it REALLY well, so the entire conventional/unconventional angle just doesn't matter at this point. It is just a matter of cost, and with the work being done in the ROZ right now? Well...can't wait to see what happens when that creates it own cycle in the oil sine wave production scenario some here have begun to theorize about.

Also, depletion isn't really a law. If you have 100 of something, and you remove one, you have 99 left. No law other than subtraction needed for this.

sparky wrote:This true has held since the Roman mines of Rio Tinto to the mining ghost towns in Australia


Yup. Once you remove everything, there isn't much of a reason to go back. Fortunately, when it comes to oil and whatnot, the IEA has already calculated that we've used maybe 1/9th of the total available in the last 150 years, so it isn't as though it will be gone any time soon.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 06 Mar 2017, 22:31:10

ROCKMAN wrote:Adam - So true. Which is why I won't stop pounding the point that the date of PO has little relevance.


In the sine wave model of oil production rates that the US has recently demonstrated (as well as the world), you betcha! When one peak is just as likely to be followed by another, slightly larger or smaller, and this can continue through multiple cycles of development of different resources, the only thing that really matters is how many more cycles. The frequency is then just driven by the supply response to price.

Rockman wrote:Similarly the global production rate has little significance.


Has TREMENDOUS significance...but only in relation to demand.

Rockman wrote: How anyone can look at the volatility of the energy dynamics over just the last 10 years and think those metrics are worth spending anytime arguing over still amazes me.


Because peak oil isn't about understanding oil Rockman. It is about finding a trigger to a cool scenario that allows someone to fill in the blanks on how to ride out the apocalypse, gold and guns, or gardens and small Amish communities. If they wanted to understand oil production they wouldn't keep recycling ideas that were worn out before Colin began declaring peak oils back in 1989.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby tita » Tue 07 Mar 2017, 11:33:48

AdamB wrote:It is about finding a trigger to a cool scenario that allows someone to fill in the blanks on how to ride out the apocalypse, gold and guns, or gardens and small Amish communities. If they wanted to understand oil production they wouldn't keep recycling ideas that were worn out before Colin began declaring peak oils back in 1989.

In many aspects, the peak oil debate was used as an argument from "doomsdayists" to announce the fall of our civilisation, the systemic collapse. It is not the only argument possible, debt, GW or pandemie are used by some.

Anyway, a limited rate of production happened a few times already, since the beginning of the the use of oil, triggering events that affected our society. But this triggered also new possibilites that kept the rate growing.

I also just want to point out that the possibility of not getting higher than 100 mb/d exist. Probably not, of course. It's just that we can't figure out how production and demand are gonna react to the maelstrom of factors that affect them.
User avatar
tita
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 02:00:00

Re: 100 mb/d ?

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 07 Mar 2017, 12:04:33

tita - "It's just that we can't figure out how production and demand are gonna react to the maelstrom of factors that affect them." So true. Of course you could have said the same thing with fewer words: the POD. LOL. Yes, all those factors that not only vary over time but can swing from positive to negative effect in just a few years. As you've seen some folks constantly argue over the effects of individual factors as if any one, such as the price of oil, daily global oil production rate, the date of global PO, etc. as if that factor alone impacts our fate.

I think that's why some dislike he inclusiveness of the POD: it takes some of the wind out of their ranting sails about individual factors. Got that: "maelstrom", wind, sails. Just love those verbal themes. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests