[SumYunGai]

To be honest I have not read that paper you cited. From your outline this makes compelling sense. I am not confident of my forecast, it may work out the way you say especially given that our Economy has integrated into globalization so much. Perhaps, my faith lies in the ability to transition quickly to a Command Economy as we sort of did during WWII. Also because unlike many places we in the US have a more favorable resource to population ratio. All quite tenuous but gotta keep some faith alive. I realize all this is assuming the ability to maintain social order, that is not a given

Thank you for giving me a direct and honest answer to my question, onlooker. Those are mighty hard to come by around here.

This is the best way to have a serious discussion about peak oil. Perhaps our interchange could serve as some sort of template for others to emulate.

[onlooker]

Yep rather than the tedious personal bickering

[Hawkcreek]

It is important to remember that Peak Oil is not about when the Saudi's will peak, or when the USA will peak (or possibly re-peak).
It is not important whether or not the worldwide peak comes from lack of supply, lack of demand, or lack of cash or credit to produce the oil that is still down there.
It is not about how many prophets called the peak dates totally wrong. This is the red herring that irritates me. The date does not matter.
All those just muddy the waters about the fact - Peak Oil is coming, and it will have an effect (or is already having an effect) on the lives of everyone on Earth. Our "unlimited growth" societies will stop growing.
How can a concept that will affect EVERYONE, be considered dead?

[Hawkcreek]

To be honest I have not read that paper you cited. From your outline this makes compelling sense. I am not confident of my forecast, it may work out the way you say especially given that our Economy has integrated into globalization so much. Perhaps, my faith lies in the ability to transition quickly to a Command Economy as we sort of did during WWII. Also because unlike many places we in the US have a more favorable resource to population ratio. All quite tenuous but gotta keep some faith alive. I realize all this is assuming the ability to maintain social order, that is not a given

Thank you for giving me a direct and honest answer to my question, onlooker. Those are mighty hard to come by around here.

This is the best way to have a serious discussion about peak oil. Perhaps our interchange could serve as some sort of template for others to emulate.

I read the article you linked to, and enjoyed it very much. Thanks.
I believe it shows clearly how our globalized world could collapse fairly quickly, but I feel somewhat like Onlooker does. I believe the important word in the term, Complex Adaptive Systems, is adaptive. I hope that allows us to see hard times, rather than total anarchy.

[Kylon]

Unfortunately no, the effects of peak oil are not dead.

There may be more unconventional oil, but that oil has lower EROEI or energy returned on energy invested.

If the EROEI gets too low, complex society can't be maintained.

Another way to look at it, is if the overall price/cost of getting the oil out of the ground, exceeds the value of the oil your getting out of the ground, then ultimately that will lead to bankruptcy.

Many energy companies are suffering from massive debts that may be impossible to pay off.

Many shale wells have a fast rate of depletion (the production doesn't last as many number of years)

Without the continued influx of cash to create new shale wells, the glut is going to disappear.

The massive number of bankruptcies mean investors may avoid investing in oil again. That means that there may not be another shale boom.

That doesn't mean that oil will become 200 dollars a barrel.

What it does mean however, is that oil may move up to whatever price is needed to cause demand destruction to reduce it's consumption, thereby limiting it's supply. That being 60 dollars a barrel or 500.

Peak oil is still an unfortunate problem. It was simply delayed by the use of massive amounts of debt/capital/seed corn.

[ROCKMAN]

What are conventional vs unconventional oils? First, neither exist. But here's a definition misused by many folks...especially the MSM:

"What is unconventional oil? Unconventional oil is petroleum produced or extracted using techniques other than the conventional (oil well) method. Oil industries and governments across the globe are investing in unconventional oil sources due to the increasing scarcity of conventional oil reserves."

Second folks can use what definition they like. But given the various meanings it makes many conversations confusing. There are conventional and unconventional RESERVOIRS. As far as the rediculous definition above they don't define what techniques are "conventional" so the entire definition is meaningless. So what is a conventional extraction technique? An unconventional technique: A vertical well? A horizontal well? A frac'd well? A completed well that hasn't been frac'd? A well completed in a tite (low porosity/low permeability) rock whether it's frac'd or not?

Here's the confusion: there have been tens of thousands of tite reservoirs completed conventionally; there have been tens of thousands of conventional reservoirs that have been frac'd. There are thousands of horizontal wells drilled in conventional reservoirs; and the permutation s continue. So is it unconventional oil that's produced from a horizontal well bore in a very porous and permeable rock? Is it conventional oil produced from a tite rock if the well was vertical and not frac'd?

Does the cost of the well determine the classification of the oil? Many consider Deep Water wells costing $100+ million to be producing unconventional oil despite the fact those reservoirs are very conventional. Are the Canadian oil sands production conventional or unconventional? Some consider such oil as unconventional regardless of how it's extracted because its low viscosity and composition.

So then: what constitutes conventional and unconventional RESERVOIRS? I'll let others offer the views first.

[ralfy]

It's dead only if production per capita didn't peak during the late 1970s, we're no longer resorting to shale, etc., and production cost has plummeted.

[ennui2]

Being able to "call" peak oil by itself is academic at best. Peak oil as a concept of any appreciable concern is alive only if you can attribute enough hardship to it. That's why so much of the discussion here is an attempt to correlate anything bad that happens in the world to peak oil when usually it's disconnected.

[AdamB]

It's no wonder no-one on this site can stand you, you seem to only be interested in feuding with people.

Interesting characterization from the new guy.

Sock puppet alert? Is what's his name at it again?

That's really nice of you Adam, to try to start another feud after the first one was over.

No feud from me. You would to have to know something about peak oil for that to even be possible.

[AdamB]

My two cents as others can speak more authoritatively on this subject is the following. First, oil depletion is a physical reality.

And has been since 1859 or so. And peakers can't even explain why today's ongoing depletion is any different than that depletion, or why it matters other than they just learned about it, and think it is. Oh..and it will be going on during this entire century as well, unless some cosmic collision or alien invasion ends th species.

Second, easy to access conventional Oil does seem to have reached a peak.

ANOTHER peak. The first easy oil ended and peaked around 1901 with the use of the rotary table to access new, large oil resources because the easy oil was going. Very similar to what happened during the shale revolution, except it marks the end of about the 6th easiest oil having disappeared.

What this means is both the US and world will be getting less bang for buck as more energy is being utilized to access energy. I do not foresee an adequate or comprehensive transition for our modern Industrial civilization to Renewable energy.

A common claim during the last peak oil. And disproven, at least in part, by that peak oil not stopping the ongoing transition. As anyone who has driven through Kansas along I70 can attest.

[AdamB]

Resource wars in a world where everyone is armed to the teeth, and many sides have nuclear weapons (some are still in the process of obtaining them). That doesn't seem like something to look forward to.

You are recyling ideas from what peak oil was going to do LAST time. Now that we've been through it, according to some, we know many of the things claimed never happened. It is my supposition that this was because people couldn't be bothered to learn even the most basic precepts of economics.

But this is who you are apparently channeling.

[AdamB]

Lets return to this topic after Ghawar peaks---which it is very close to doing. Peak Oil theory will seem a lot more viable then.

Cheers!

Ghawar has been dying longer than this website has been alive. It is still here, with dying just around the corner. Just like 15 years ago.

http://www.sustainablecitynews.com/ghawar-html/

[onlooker]

There goes Adam saying we haven't all died therefore, good times must be ahead. Sheesh, talk about correlation is not causation.

[onlooker]

So Simmons was essentially correct about everything P, except his timing was a bit premature uh?