[Bruce_S]

You must be referring to tight shale gas, shale oil, oil shale and necessary and very expensive production systems such as THAI, SAGH, and shale horizontal fracturing? Correct?

No. I am referring to what people claim will happen, versus what actually happens.

[Moto]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Don't take things to seriously. Someone was asking why I don't like environmental groups. This is sort of sums things up, but I don't really agree about the plastic part.

[Keith_McClary]

I think prices will remain about as high as the economy can handle.

That's one definition of "Peak Oil".

[kublikhan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Don't take things to seriously. Someone was asking why I don't like environmental groups. This is sort of sums things up, but I don't really agree about the plastic part.

George is right. It's about saving ourselves, our children, and all god's creatures from the rapacious investors and corporations who have no values or obligations other than greed

+1
Moto, did you miss the part where he said the human race is going bye-bye? The human race needs other values besides greed or else we will end up like the other 90% of the planet's failed creations.

[Moto]

That's one definition of "Peak Oil".

True, but I think it is going to be kept artificially high. Oil companies will drill only enough wells to keep the value high. The companies will work together because it will benefit them all. I suppose it is a peak, but it is going to have a funny shape.

Moto, did you miss the part where he said the human race is going bye-bye? The human race needs other values besides greed or else we will end up like the other 90% of the planet's failed creations.

No, I didn't miss it, and I agree with it, but it is a time frame issue. I think we will get energy figured out before it does us in. Our planet is full of energy it is just a matter of using it. Something else will probably get us in the long run though.

[Revi]

Let's say we do go to a million barrels per day from North Dakota. Let's say we can get a million each out of say Pennsylvania and Texas. Let's even add another million from Alaska. We would be back up to our peak production in the 70's. Can the Bakken and similar formations keep producing indefinitely? Will fracking and enhanced oil recovery techniques be able to keep us producing that amount of oil forever? I don't think so, but let's say we can get production back around 10 mbpd for the foreseeable future. That's still only half of the oil we use every day.

We have been living on our inheritance. The money is starting to run out. We just found some money in the couch cushions. What do you think we'll spend it on? If we use it to transition to green energy it would be great, but I think we'll blow it on another couple of years of car culture and a movie.

[Bruce_S]

We just found some money in the couch cushions. What do you think we'll spend it on? If we use it to transition to green energy it would be great, but I think we'll blow it on another couple of years of car culture and a movie.

We didn't just find it in the couch cushions. The Bakken has been around since the mid-50's or so, it just required more effort and a better price for the market to decide to start producing it. Peak demand in the developed countries will probably be more significant in these matters than absolute supply volumes anyway, so it might not matter much.

[Moto]

Artificially high? Oil company collusion? Funny Curve? Need to support this stuff as it sounds kind of fringey.

Something else will get us by? That sounds faith-based. Our complex consumer/industrial system requires inexpensive free-flowing light sweet crude to keep those trucks on the road.

We have been in a period of energy plateau/decline now for perhaps 6- years and no alternative has appeared on the horizon, regardless of claims and renewed interest in old second-rates substitutes. Have you not heard of EROEI or the energy cost of doing business?

I kind of support the first statement by referring to natural gas... I don't think oil companies are going to do that again. (overproduction)

You struck out on the faith thing. I'm a science based person. I was thinking more along the lines of a super volcano, nasty virus, bolide impact, or maybe a nice tsunami to knock the population down a few pegs.

Did you look at my post on EROEI? I kind of think the development boom speaks for itself on EROEI.

Revi - I liked your point I might try to crunch some numbers based on your argument.
Bruce - I will also incorporate something based on your comment.

I'll probably just do another blog post that is going to focus on development of continuous resources.

[Keith_McClary]

Oil companies will drill only enough wells to keep the value high. The companies will work together because it will benefit them all.

I think they would if they could, but that kind of collusion only works when there are a small number of companies dominating the market, eg. computer RAM.

Only a few large companies can do deepwater or other megaprojects, but there are still plenty of opportunities for hundreds of smaller companies that would not join a price fixing conspiracy.

[Pops]

That's one definition of "Peak Oil".

True, but I think it is going to be kept artificially high. Oil companies will drill only enough wells to keep the value high.

So back in '04 or some time all of OPEC and all of the multinationals along with all of the national oil companies got together and decided to restrict production to keep prices high? Not only that but they also decided to start start wasting billions drilling in the hardest places for the crappiest oil, even though I presume you think there is lots of cheap oil left? To keep prices high?

Doesn't sound very "science based" to me.

Doesn't that seem a little... complicated, when "there is less easy oil to be had" would explain the entire situation?

[MD]

why are humans so ready to accept complicated answers to simple questions?

answer: when the natural conclusions create tension.

[Moto]

People on this forum like to make lots of assumptions about about other members based on what they think. I do not think there is lots of easy oil left. Nor do I think they are going to restrict production to keep prices high. We are going to need to develop about as fast as we can just to keep up with demand. (along with other energy sources) Oil companies need to make a significant amount of money, and the simple answer is that it is in their best interest to only drill enough wells to keep prices up. Regardless, OPEC has a good recorded of doing what they can to keep prices up and that isn't going to change any time soon. So the answer really isn't very complicated.

I think the definition of what we think of as easy oil is probably going to change over the next few years. I'm working on a group of posts regarding continuous resources, but it is going to take awhile to find information to back up what needs to be explained.

[kublikhan]

I think the definition of what we think of as easy oil is probably going to change over the next few years.

Yeah. The epic 100 EROEI Spindletops will be nothing but a distant dream. 4 EROEI oil will be the new norm. The rare oil wells that produces oil at 8 EROEI, that will be the new easy oil. While the new difficult oil will barely be energy positive at all.

Just to give you a rough idea as to where we are at present with respect to EROI, “according to legendary oilman Charles Maxwell” on The Money Show, most countries report that it costs from $55 (Saudi Arabia) to $70-90 (Russia and most of OPEC) to $90 (Iran and Venezuela) to produce a barrel of oil. That is a lot of money but underneath the surface also represents a lot of energy. Recent work in our lab suggests that when you divide the energy produced by the energy used by oil and gas industries (data is available for only a few countries such as the US and UK) that these industries use about 17 MegaJoules (MJ) per dollar spent in 2006. This is the energy intensity per dollar spent for seeking and producing oil. This compares to about 14 MJ per dollar for heavy construction and about 8-9 MJ per dollar as a societal average, so it seems to be in the right ballpark. If we assume 5 percent inflation since 2006 we might expect there to be used about 16 MJ per dollar spent by the oil and gas industries in 2008. So if it takes Saudi Arabia $55 to produce a barrel then $55 times 16 MJ/$ equals about 880 MJ required per barrel. For Venezuela, which requires $90 a barrel, this number would be 1440 MJ required per barrel. Since a barrel of oil contains about 6164 MJ of energy, the EROI would be about 7:1 for Saudi Arabia to 4.3 for Venezuela or Iran. These estimates, although crude, indicate the seriousness of the problem and sound a clarion call for opening up data banks all around the world to greater scientific scrutiny while also calling for companies to make their energy, as well as dollar, costs explicit and public.

It is important to remember that this is a rough estimate of the EROI for total “upstream” costs, i.e. exploration, development, and production of new wells, and so a calculation of the EROI for simply producing wells within Saudi Arabia would be considerably higher. (I.e., it is possible that seemingly high EROI is only 'at the margin', (on wells and infrastructure put in place long ago), and is masking a deterioration in the EROI of 'new' oil and gas requiring new energy and resources to harness). Nonetheless, the cost of getting energy has been increasing greatly of late which implies that the world is approaching a point at which the energy required to get new oil will be a substantial part of, and eventually all of, the energy found within the barrel. At this point the oil age will be over, regardless of the amount of oil left in the ground or the price that the oil commands.

Dreadful EROI numbers for new oil exploration and production

[Moto]

Can you back that up? Got examples of successful prosecution in a US or World Court? I'd rather assume the obvious; market supply of oil mediates demand with appropriate high prices. And then hits a price ceiling. Much simpler explanation.

The definition has already changed. Didn't EIA recently reclassify old rubbers at petroleum?

http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/20/56461787.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/25/busin ... wanted=all
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/OPEC_ ... 42006.html
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/engli ... 75657.html
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/22/world ... rices.html

I think you will have to wait for part 3 of what I am working on. I don't think you are as up to date as you think regarding today's production technology. Times are changing.

Yeah. The epic 100 EROEI Spindletops will be nothing but a distant dream. 4 EROEI oil will be the new norm. The rare oil wells that produces oil at 8 EROEI, that will be the new easy oil. While the new difficult oil will barely be energy positive at all.

I think it will be more like high teens to low twenty. (maybe slightly below today's 19 average) Hydrocarbons have to stay better than alternative fuels or there is no reason to develop them. (less reason anyway)
obviously you won't agree with this statement so just give me a few days to to try to find the necessary data to back it up.

Even the crap wells in North Dakota are probably better than 8.

[Bruce_S]

Even the crap wells in North Dakota are probably better than 8.

Much.

[Moto]

Sorry watching the vikings get their asses kicked. It isn't going to be easy to "prove it", but the fact that the rig count is up by more than 50 since last winter acts a good indicator of economics which is a good indicator of EROI

Wind towers have a better EROI than 8 so if oil wells were less they would just be building more wind towers.
The rig count keeps growing and the LM glasfiber laid off about 150 people because they shut down one whole mold for making new windmill blades... What does that tell you about the economics? ---really that is a lie... LM also has operations in China that undercut the US division (f#$%ed up?). So much for clean jobs in the US. (ask me to prove that.... I worked there. You won't find it in any documents In total they laid off more than 300 in the US)

Anyway, the data probably does exists for some companies operating in the bakken, but I don't think anyone has crunched the numbers in the last two years so it will take some time. The the amount of time I would have to dump into to figure it out probably isn't worth it. Check the blog in a week or so. If it isn't there I'm probably not going to take the time to do it.
Sounds like something worthwhile to get an undergrad to do for a senior project.

[Bruce_S]

I think the definition of what we think of as easy oil is probably going to change over the next few years.

It already has. In the US, "easy" oil had begun to disappear by, oh, 1947 or so? That was when Kerr-McGee Corp drilled out of sight of land, GOM. If there had been any "easy" oil left then, they would have drilled that instead.

"Easy" is just too relative of a term when trying to figure this stuff out.

[kublikhan]

Wind towers have a better EROI than 8 so if oil wells were less they would just be building more wind towers.

You can't stick a windmill in your car and batteries are expensive. Oil is not just highly desirable because of EROI, it is also highly desirable because it is incredibly energy dense. You can pack a hell of alot more energy in your gas tank than you can in an electric or natural gas powered vehicle. It's one of the main reasons we continue to produce corn ethanol at all, even though the EROI is pathetic, less than 2:1. So even if the EROI of oil falls very low, I expect we will continue to use it to feed our oil addiction.

Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol there is a 34-percent energy gain. Furthermore, producing ethanol from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy, which helps the United States to reduce its dependence on imported oil. Ethanol production utilizes abundant domestic energy feedstocks, such as coal and natural gas, to convert corn into a premium liquid fuel. Only about 17 percent of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel. For every 1 Btu of liquid fuel used to produce ethanol, there is a 6.34 Btu gain.

The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol - U.S. Department of Agriculture

[kublikhan]

The rig count keeps growing and the LM glasfiber laid off about 150 people because they shut down one whole mold for making new windmill blades... What does that tell you about the economics? ---really that is a lie... LM also has operations in China that undercut the US division (f#$%ed up?). So much for clean jobs in the US. (ask me to prove that.... I worked there. You won't find it in any documents In total they laid off more than 300 in the US)

Sorry to hear about you losing your job. I work in the IT field and am all too familiar with losing jobs to cheap outsourced locations. But as I understand it, wind workers have an advantage in this area that IT and sneaker manufacturing does not. Parts for wind turbines are large and expensive to ship. The transportation costs have only gotten worse as the price of oil keeps going higher. So many turbine manufacturers have relocated to be closer to their markets. China has been adding wind power at a blistering pace, so it is no surprise that they have many manufacturers. But the US too has been adding wind jobs, despite the shakey politics that often see wind tax credits expire or threatened to expire.

U.S. and foreign manufacturers have expanded their capacity in the United States to assemble and produce wind turbines and components. Nearly 400 U.S. manufacturing facilities produced wind turbines and components in 2010, up from as few as 30 in 2004. An estimated 20,000 U.S. workers were employed in the manufacturing of wind turbines in 2010. Because turbine blades, towers, and certain other components are large and difficult to transport, manufacturing clusters have developed in certain states, notably Colorado, Iowa, and Texas, which offer proximity to the best locations for wind energy production. The U.S. wind turbine manufacturing industry also depends on imports, with the majority coming from European countries, where the technical ability to produce large wind turbines was developed. Although turbine manufacturers' supply chains are global, recent investments are estimated to have raised the share of parts manufactured in the United States to 50-60%, up from 25% in 2005.

Wind Power: a growing source of green manufacturing jobs the U.S. is trying to botch

[ethanehunt]

-The general consensus among now disinterested scientists
is that oil production will peak by 2010 at the latest. Who get's to say what constitutes a "disinterested" scientist is (whatever that is and assuming that's even a good thing...)? How "disinterested" is someone selling a book anyway? This person is not The Authority on this subject. He may be right, but he certainly doesn't represent the majority viewpoint. See graphs here: npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5374852 Energy analyst and historian Daniel Yergin has heard these arguments before. He counts five different periods when the world feared it was running out of oil. The first was in the 1880s. Such fears usually gain traction when oil prices are high. But each time, Yergin says, the dire warnings have proved premature.

"The last time before this time was in the 1970s, when people thought we were going to fall off the oil mountain and live in an age of permanent shortage. Since then, world supplies have increased 60 percent. I don't see why we're at the end of technology now, or why it would be finished now," Yergin says. I was in elementary school in the '80s and remember people predicting back then that we had 20 years left before oil was gone. This is a common doom-and-gloom scenario that I just don't buy into. Yes, production will peak and yes it will fall after that - but it isn't here yet and it won't be nearly so dramatic when it is.