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 » Sat 03 Mar 2018, 15:59:51

Something has happened to the WTI price. Inventories has fallen, but the WTI hasn't risen to previous levels. Peak oil will take place if the oil prices stay below the cost of production. Oil companies are still cutting capex to survive in this lower price environment, which will lead to a fall in production in the coming future. If the oil prices don't respond to falling inventories and falling production, then the production will have to continue to fall.

Image
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 03 Mar 2018, 20:00:26

Yoshua wrote:Something has happened to the WTI price. Inventories has fallen, but the WTI hasn't risen to previous levels. Peak oil will take place if the oil prices stay below the cost of production. Oil companies are still cutting capex to survive in this lower price environment, which will lead to a fall in production in the coming future. If the oil prices don't respond to falling inventories and falling production, then the production will have to continue to fall.

Image

You are placing too much emphasis on Cushing. It is one storage hub of several. Total crude inventory in the US rose three million barrels last week. If that were the only factor prices might decline slightly next week but things like the storms this weekend will also effect prices.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8927
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Yoshua » Sun 04 Mar 2018, 02:53:04

U.S total inventories are now at the 5 year average level, but the WTI is at a lower level today. The yield curve has changed from its previous track. There could be several reasons for the change. But if the trend is rising cost of production and falling oil prices, then production must decline and we post peak oil.

Image
Yoshua
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sat 28 May 2016, 05:45:42

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby asg70 » Sun 04 Mar 2018, 11:42:18

vtsnowedin wrote:apparently shortonoil is just keeping quite hoping against hope that oil prices will dive.


Or trying to escape his lost bet.
[space to store bad short-term prediction currently vacant]
asg70
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Sun 04 Mar 2018, 12:24:22

Yoshua wrote:Something has happened to the WTI price. Inventories has fallen, but the WTI hasn't risen to previous levels. Peak oil will take place if the oil prices stay below the cost of production. Oil companies are still cutting capex to survive in this lower price environment, which will lead to a fall in production in the coming future. If the oil prices don't respond to falling inventories and falling production, then the production will have to continue to fall.

As if cherry picking Cushing in the short term meant anything in the global scheme of things.

As if WTI prices in the past weeks weren't strongly correlated to the US stock market. The price in general likely would continue trending up, IMO, but when the US market takes a significant hit over a week, the longs get skittish and sell off net WTI contracts, seeking more liquidity.

As if your claim of "lower" WTI prices weren't crushing the 2018 MAP claims of the ETP paper like a bug, week by week.

Nothing new. Nothing surprising, re recent WTI behavior.

This has no more meaning than shortonoil's claims during the Feb. initial US market scare/dip that the US dollar is "worth less than toilet paper", showing a short term DXY chart. Yet if one looks at, say, a ten year chart of the DXY to gain a bit of perspective (as I did to check his claim at the time), then one sees that prior to 2015, the DXY was consistently lower, and averaged meaningfully lower than the recent price hovering near 90.

Oops. So much for the dollar signalling imminent destruction of the US or global economy.

You really don't need to constantly toss out this random nonsense here. Zerohedge and lots of doomer blogs already have that hobby well covered.
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: 5649
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sun 04 Mar 2018, 14:23:30

>Improving Peak Oil Credibility

What for? It's a myth based on wrong geology theory. we should be reducing its credibility, not improving it.
peakoilwhen
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 04 Mar 2018, 16:07:59

peakoilwhen wrote:>Improving Peak Oil Credibility

What for? It's a myth based on wrong geology theory. we should be reducing its credibility, not improving it.

You will have to show us where the theory is wrong in the geology? Except for timing and under estimating our ability to improve recovery rates the foundation still holds. There was only so much oil and gas in the ground when we humans came on the scene and learned how to extract and use them. We have burned up somewhere near half of what is recoverable using current methods. We do not know what methods it will take to recover the bulk of the second half. Fracking is just a method to improve the recovery rate of the original oil in place. At the rate we are producing oil we will pump dry most of the largest oil fields within a few years and there is no guarantee that there are sufficient shale beds to frack to make up that decline or a technology yet uninvented to extract it from old depleted fields.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8927
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sun 04 Mar 2018, 17:09:55

hi vtsnowedin
the concept of fossil fuel is wrong.
abiotic oil theory is the correct theory. the mantle produces oil + hydrocarbon far faster than we can consume it. Notice that methane is common in the worlds of the solar system, even david middleton accepts that most methane is abiotic. Yet to get from methane to ethane and propane is no harder than going from carbon and hydrogen to methane. Hence we have Titan, a world with seas of LPGs. Earth is not a special exception, it follows the rule all worlds do, abiotic hydrocarbon.
peakoilwhen
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 04 Mar 2018, 17:18:34

vt - Sorry buddy but you're making yourself look foolish arguing against abiotic oil. What next: are you pick you going to pick a fight with the FES?

FES: Flat Earth Society
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 04 Mar 2018, 17:34:39

ROCKMAN wrote:vt - Sorry buddy but you're making yourself look foolish arguing against abiotic oil. What next: are you pick you going to pick a fight with the FES?

FES: Flat Earth Society

Well I certainly won't waste much time with Mr. abiotic oil but you do have to tell them they are nuts once in a while so they don't think everybody agrees with them.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 8927
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Sun 04 Mar 2018, 20:03:36

you two should present your theory of how space monkeys got all that fossil hydrocarbon over to Titan from Earth, then left no trace of themselves or their spacecraft. That's how dumb your fossil fuel theory is when faced with the reality of extra terrestrial hydrocarbon.

Image
rockdoc, rockman vts : yeah maybe if we ignore AN ENTIRE WORLD, it'll go away

state of the art method used by our POforum experts when faced with evidence
Image

“The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.”
— Sir Fred Hoyle, 1982
peakoilwhen
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 10:12:15

It's kind of sad that the site has detriorated to the point where the middle has hollowed out and you have perma-doomers on one end and abiotic oil cornies on the other.
[space to store bad short-term prediction currently vacant]
asg70
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1869
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 10:58:38

We are now 15 years into this internet age of exploring oil theory. That's much more than plenty of time to figure out what the reality is. Most people have figured it out 10 years ago and moved on.
pick a side. there's nothing in the middle except a fence, and its the saddest position of all - the " i'm too scared to form an opinion in case someone laughs at me, even though im anonymous " position. pathetic, you haven't made a single step from your 1st day here. At least the fossil fuel idiots have the balls to throw themselves down their hole of wrong theory.
Last edited by peakoilwhen on Mon 05 Mar 2018, 12:09:56, edited 1 time in total.
peakoilwhen
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 11:41:07

And some insight into Sir Fred Hoyle's view of his role in science in his own words: "I don't care what they think" about his theories and "...it is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right".

IOW being interesting is a good to garner publicity even if one is wrong. Which actually seems to be a common drive mechanism of more the one person on this web site. LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11111
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 12:34:28

and who is the interesting and wrong one here? 10s of Thousands have come to these screeching hysteria fossil oil sites over the last 15 years, many doom books sold, careers made simply off the irresistible appeal of promise of imminent doom. LATOC, dieoff.org , the oil drum, this place, Olduvai gorge, ,peakoilbarrel.com, powerswitchuk & several others, all had a thriving community at some point.
Now show me the interesting sites bringing in thousands of punters at the abiotic sites. Even at the high point u could count the number of visitors on your fingers. Now they average about 1 visitor a day, and it might just be the admin.
Its certainly been true for peakoil sites, interesting and wrong is better than boring and correct.

If u want to debate abiotic oil, I've set up my evidence, experiments and links on the other threads. I hope you've got more in your arsenal than just quips at dead men.
Last edited by peakoilwhen on Mon 05 Mar 2018, 13:26:31, edited 1 time in total.
peakoilwhen
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 12:56:51

The trouble with the theory? So far, abiotic oil has not been proven to exist on Earth in any economic quantities. Oil exploration geologists have also not been able to make any discoveries using abiotic theories, and many abiotic claims have been debunked as pseudoscience.

http://www.mining.com/web/how-oil-is-formed/
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9545
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 13:38:53

>proven
noting is proven outside of mathematics. In the realm of physical reality, we use evidence, which either falsifies a theory (strong) or verifies it (weak). Whoever wrote that article is a numbskull and he invalidates his argument when he uses the word 'proven'. A lot of shills and numbskulls use that word, unwittingly revealing they don't have science training.

However, if u want to fight his corner you can replace the term 'proven', with 'conclusive evidence'.
>abiotic oil has not had conclusive evidence to show existence on Earth in any economic quantities.
no surprise there. U can't dig a hole into the mantle, go down it and sit for a thousand year at 50Kbar and 1500C and watch a vast amount of petroleum form and rise into the crust. But likewise you can't do it either with biotic oil ( 10Kbar and 400C, millions of years ).
But unlike biotic mineral oil, u can do abiotic oil in the lab, from iron ore, marble and water. Experimental evidence is good.
Kenney et al. (2002) analyzed theoretically, via thermodynamic computations, the possibilities for hydrocarbon generation at high pressures and temperatures and showed that it is possible. They went on and performed successful experiments, using a specially built high pressure apparatus (Nikolaev and Shalimov, 1999) at pressures of 50 kbar, temperatures to 1500 °C . Using only as reagents solid iron oxide and 99.9% pure marble, wet with triple distilled water, they were able to generate methane. They reported that at pressures lower than 10 kbar only methane was formed while at pressures greater than 30 kbar a multi-component hydrocarbon mixture was formed including methane, ethane, propane, n-alkanes as well as alkenes, in distributions characteristic of natural petroleum.

http://origeminorganicadopetroleo.blogspot.co.uk/
peakoilwhen
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 14:13:15

If you want to talk about conclusive findings which stand up to the reality of repeated observation then
http://richardheinberg.com/richard-hein ... biotic-oil

Meanwhile, however, the oil companies have used the biotic theory as the practical basis for their successful exploration efforts over the past few decades. If there are in fact vast untapped deep pools of hydrocarbons refilling the reservoirs that oil producers drill into, it appears to make little difference to actual production, as tens of thousands of oil and gas fields around the world are observed to deplete, and refilling (which is indeed very rarely observed) is not occurring at a commercially significant scale or rate except in one minor and controversial instance discussed below.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9545
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby peakoilwhen » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 14:30:05

> starts another strawman after his last one collapsed

before we start the usual antics of the last 15 years on this site of thrashing around grabbing at one straw man after another in a frantic effort to avoid the truth, 1st acknowledge the argument you've just abandoned, otherwise we'll get nowhere.

write this
I, onlooker, acknowledge that petroleum has been experimentally created abiotically in the laboratory with scientist's sincere attempts to recreate mantle conditions. I acknowledge that this verifies and bolsters the abiotic origin theory of mineral oil.

then we can move onto your ' but most wells don't refill at economic rates!' strawman.
peakoilwhen
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed 08 Feb 2017, 07:53:15

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby onlooker » Mon 05 Mar 2018, 15:24:00

Okay, I acknowledge it!
Interested to hear your reply to the next "strawman"
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9545
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tanada and 42 guests