[shortonsense]

That was a very weak response.

He's trying to subsist on only locally grown produce and meat, and is starving because there isn't any.

[AirlinePilot]

Ahhhh, I see where your coming from now Oily! Your doing us a civil service eh?

pstarr kind of has it right, thats really not the way to look at it. ive come to realize the downward spiral will not be a "crash" but If I dont learn to change what I CAN, and soon, then I will be caught up without any sort of preps. preps both mentally and materially. I see this as a time when I can get ahead a bit and learn to understand why things will not be getting better with respect to long term energy markets and supplies.

I dont live my life a whole lot differently than i did before. I just acknowledge that your scenarios plausibility is thin for a variety of reasons. You choose to see a different outcome. That's fine, really it is.

I see a frustration level with your posts which signals to me that your in a sort of denial.

One thing I've learned in my time here at PO is this. The world does not work smoothly and simply. Humans have a larger tendency to resist change, especially large scale sweeping changes. They dont do it easily nor swiftly. It is often resisted mightily and anything which causes any level of sacrifice or pain is put off until the last possible minute. I am not a die-off doomer, although I believe that is plausible, I'm not quite in that camp yet and doubt I will ever be. Peak oil is not a simple problem. It is and will be a very complex hard to handle subject with many constantly moving parts.

I dont think I'm right dogmatically. I do think I'm close though. Realistic is a term I like to use. Most folks these days are not, that is and will be painfully evident as this unfolds in the future.

What i've come to understand is that just because we live in modern times, have significant technological prowess, and are able to think in terms of future survival, it does not garauntee we will do the right thing. It does not garauntee the outcome will be positive. History should have taught you that. Humans have a rich and colorful history of failing spectacularly. What makes you think we are any different? I also see that we are lazy as a majority and doing the right thing in this case cannot be put off until things show signs of immediate change. IMHO we are already there and it is this point which makes this particular problem such a challenge.

You think there is plenty of oil. I dont deny that. What I have is an understanding that we will find much more oil, we just wont be able to exploit it as we have in the past. Even with all our technology and ingenuity it wont do anything other than prolong the agony of the decline of a finite resource.

When you can point to something on the near term horizon, say within the next 5-7 years, which can begin rapidly replacing what oil does for us as a species, I'll sit up and take note. I just cant share the optimistic viewpoint that we make any sort of smooth transition. I do not believe it is possible given the scope and time line of the problem we face. Hard for you to understand that I'm sure with your obvious idea that oil is going to gush forth from the ground at increasing rates for generations to come. I cant come to grips with how that can possibly play out with what we have seen in the last 5-6 years and I have problems with any related thesis based on your assumption because of it.

[copious.abundance]

I see a frustration level with your posts which signals to me that your in a sort of denial.

Funny you should say that: I see a frustration level in your posts which signals to me that you're in a sort of denial. For example, when you attack me for merely posting an article saying a new Mexican oil discovery is expected to produce 250,000 bpd in 2015, then clearly you're frustrated I'm presenting evidence that doesn't square with your vision and expectations of the future. There is no other explanation for such a hostile reaction to the mere posting of an article. And so on with dozens of other examples of articles I've posted.

Humans have a rich and colorful history of failing spectacularly.

We also have a rich and colorful history of succeeding spectacularly. Forty years ago, who ever thought that we could have a debate like this over a computer network? Not many. Doomsday is dead. History proves it.

[AirlinePilot]

Your debate style is kind of third gradish dont you think? Repeating accusations shows lack of original thought.

You'll notice I've never said "Doomsday" is coming. But it is important to change attitudes like yours. That's why this site exists. You can stay here and yell all day long that everything is going to be fine, but expect that more and more folks will not ascribe to your blind optimism. Touting discoveries is one thing, but don't get all rumpled around the edges when we put those discoveries in context. That's why your frustrated, you still dont get what the implications are of simple long term decline. It means all that stuff your claiming means squat and globally it means nothing to the larger picture.

You are not able to think other than linearly and put this particular complex problem into perspective.

I'l say what I've always said. Time will tell. I dont claim to have the solutions, but personally I'll be far more prepared to understand why over the next 5-10 years things are unfolding they way they are. Good luck with your project Oily. Dont expect us to stop calling you out on your misunderstandings and childish proclamations that all is going to be well.

Your going to have to toughen up to the replies though , that isn't going to stop. I'm pretty much finished here, you've shown us your true colors.

[AirlinePilot]

Humans have a rich and colorful history of failing spectacularly.

We also have a rich and colorful history of succeeding spectacularly. Forty years ago, who ever thought that we could have a debate like this over a computer network? Not many. Doomsday is dead. History proves it.

Not a very good student of history now are you Oily?

[Voice_du_More]

The aliens are already attacking. They are mounting nightly raids on our southern border and they have brought spice production to a near standstill in the Niger Delta, Peru, Venezuela...pray to your oil soaked idols that 'THEY' never understand the implications of Dune, or they will bring all spice production to a halt on Arakkis. Sting is retired now so you can't bring him in for the final knife scene. What will we do we are running out of movie metaphors. We've burned through LOTR's, Star Wars, now heading for Dune,...there is nothing left?

BTW the gods you have fashioned out of plastic cannot see, or smell, or taste, or feel. They will not deliver anyone in the day of God's wrath.

Finally, the whole idea that we ae now moving into such interest in these oblique hydrocarbons proves the point, the age of cheap oil is over and with it the American century comes to a close. If we do not wake up soon and make every possible effort to increase efficiency and decrease fossil fuel use (smartly of course) peak oil will be the end of the Union as well.

I like Pickens plan to leverage natural gas as a bridge to the future. I think that a crash course in alternatives does just as well though maybe not as economical. What am I saying...of course it is over, of course we will not get the 757 billion dollars needed to build and connect a wind power mega farm to the grid, I mean we would need some kind of bailout for that. Better to send more money to Afghanistan and Iraq and make sure the CIA is never stupid enough to let someone take pictures of an interrogation again.

Humans! Lost children. But I heard a rumor, Daddy is coming home soon so the party is over.

[Kez]

My position is that there is far more oil than peakers believe, that the technology and resources to produce this oil exists or will soon exist, and therefore, that production of oil will peak when demand for oil peaks. When that demand-peak will occur, I don't know. It could have been last year, or it might not be for decades. Or we might plateau for decades. Nobody knows.

BTW, you might want to take mental note of the implication of my position: If my position is correct (and of course I believe it is), the price of oil will fall once production and demand begins to fall, rather than the price rise as production falls. It might steadily rise for a while, which will encourage new production, and this new production might even be from increasingly expensive sources. But that steady rise in price will encourage people to gradually reduce their consumption and switch to other energy sources (hint: this discussion is in a thread about gas hydrates *ahem*). Once the switch-over to other sources really starts to gather steam, oil consumption will decline, and so will production, and oil producers will reduce their prices in a desperate attempt to attract customers, but by now they're pumping much of their oil from the deep waters off the coast of Labrador, so they'll be losing money. Then they'll shut down their more expensive production, but it won't matter because there's no demand for it anyway. Near the end of the Age of Petroleum you'll still have the Saudis and Iraqis pumping out most of the world's oil, but that's only because they're the only ones who can still do it for $15/barrel.

As I see it, and I think as most peak-oil believers see it, there is no realistic speed that would allow us to "switch-over to other sources" in a manner in which oil companies will desperately reduce prices, because there won't be anything close to oil's energy capabilities. Even assuming something does appear, the transportation infrastructure is too large to change with any rapidity, personal and national debt is extremely hindering, engines and consumers are too particular, and corporations and politicians are too greedy.

Electric vehicles in my view are our best bet, but they are a long term bet because of energy creation and storage issues. Even if we could all drive EVs today, batteries will not move trains, planes, tractors, boats, cranes, 18-wheelers, dump-trucks, and most everything bigger than an SUV. Biodiesel can help here, but again, I don't think it will be enough.

[copious.abundance]

Kez, what I described I envisioned happening over a period of decades. After a slow initial transition period (that's the decades), after a while, demand for oil would have fallen so dramatically producers would become desperate to sell it and drive down the price.

If you don't think electricity is good for some vehicles, no problem. There already exists an easy-to-transition-to alternative which already has a large infrastructure in place and 7-8 million vehicles already on the road worldwide: Feel free to join in on the natural gas vehicles thread. And I remind you natural gas in abundant.

[copious.abundance]

I had you all wrong Oily. You are just post-modern, kind of self-referential. It appears that each of the two links above (plus the link embedded in your signature) reference your own arguments in other threads. So what we have here is Truth-Enfolding-in-On-Itself in a Never-Ending-Loop-of-Self-Fulfilling-HooHa

And here I am thinking you were actually a petroleum professional, as pers your name.

Yes, and those particular threads contain loads of information from sources besides myself. So your point is . . . ?

[yesplease]

It appears that each of the two links above (plus the link embedded in your signature) reference your own arguments in other threads. So what we have here is Truth-Enfolding-in-On-Itself in a Never-Ending-Loop-of-Self-Fulfilling-HooHa

The first link has links to greencar and autoblog, and the second is organized and those posts have links to journalrecord, txco, and so on.

[copious.abundance]

Make the point that an amorphous crystalline structure intact as great undersea pressure can somehow be scraped off rocks and brought to the surface (by mining devices that do not exist in the real world) intact, not evaporated, in a solid form that can be collected and brought ashore.

Then make the point that this lightweight virtual resource (and all the infrastructure necessary to retrieve) it will supply more energy than is contained in the collection system.

If you can do that with examples (other than more self-referential presumption) then I would be willing to entertain your cornucopian vision. Until then gas hydrate as an energy source remains on par with dylithium crystals from Krypton Superman's home planet.

Prove to me that it is impossible for a machine to fly.

You lose.

In the meantime, we can wait for them to perfect hydrate-extraction technology, 'cause we've got the best thing since sliced bread.

Chesapeake expects the play, which only became widely known when the company began talking about it last March, will produce at least 500 Tcf over time and then recover around 700 Tcf before potentially growing even larger, McClendon said during a presentation to the annual Cambridge Energy Research Associates conference in Houston.

"We think in time it will become the largest gas field in the world at 1.5 quadrillion cubic feet," he added.

[copious.abundance]

BTW, to put that 1,500 Tcf of methane gas from the Haynesville in perspective, let's see what the USGS says about the USofA's largest known concentration of gas hydrates:
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas- ... title.html

A pair of relatively small areas, each about the size of the State of Rhode Island, shows intense concentrations of gas hydrates. USGS scientists estimate that these areas contain more than 1,300 trillion cubic feet of methane gas, an amount representing more than 70 times the 1989 gas consumption of the United States.

Yesiree folks, the proven productivity of the Haynesville shale beats one of those hydrate thingy's.

[copious.abundance]

A diversion Ignoratio Elenchi "red herring" You need to prove that it is possible to mine deep sea hydrates.

No dimwit, actually it was you who changed the topic. I replied to Kez by giving him links to threads about natural gas vehicles and shale gas discoveries. In response to that you complained about me posting self-referential sources. Myself and yesplease noted that these threads contained information from external sources. You then changed the topic to challenge me to prove that hydrates have been produced with certain conditions. What does that have to do with shale gas discoveries and natural gas vehicles? Nothing.

Peak oil, the particular subject of this forum, has always been about production rates, not imagined reservoir size.

Maybe if I show these two charts about a zillion more times it will occur to everyone else, if not you, how much of a loser you are.



And:
>>> Barnett Shale Production <<<

You know you cannot win the natural gas argument in 3000 years - 1000 years at the least - so you have to resort to desperate tactics about asking someone to prove blah blah blah about the prodution of methane hydrates. As if we even need them anytime in the next 100 years.

Oh yeah, and speaking of "cornucopian fantasies," here's another better-than-hydrates shale, right in the old USofA. Again.

>>> Marcellus Shale <<<

At the Pittsburgh meeting, Oklahoma-based Chesapeake Energy said each square mile in the Marcellus shale area could contain 30 billion to 150 billion cubic feet of gas.

In computing his new estimate, Engelder said he used an average of that range, 90 billion, to figure that the entire 31 million-acre region might hold 4,359 trillion cubic feet of gas. If 30 percent of that gas were brought out of the ground as Chesapeake anticipates, he said, that would be 1,307 trillion cubic feet from the entire region.

Producers working in the area will provide a more accurate picture over time, he said, adding that he was trying to keep his estimates conservative.

So, we've got up to 1.5 quadrillion cf from the Haynesville, and up to 1.3 quadrillion cf from the Marcellus. And that's just two shales! Add in who-knows-what from the Eagleford, the New Albany, the Woodford, the . . .

Abundance - what a concept!

[shortonsense]

Make the point that an amorphous crystalline structure intact as great undersea pressure can somehow be scraped off rocks and brought to the surface (by mining devices that do not exist in the real world) intact, not evaporated, in a solid form that can be collected and brought ashore.

You must not be referring to hydrates, the topic of this thread. Hydrates are so difficult to produce that its been done accidently, and it took years for the professionals to realize what was happening.

Scraped off rocks? Good God PStarr, what is it with you, baiting the faithful to see how big a whopper you can get over on them without being challenged?

[shortonsense]

Between all this blather neither of you cornies have shown me hydrate production.

Easy to claim you don't see something when you refuse to ever open your eyes. This link was provided back on page 1 I believe?

http://www.spe.org/atce/2008/technical/ ... 114375.pdf

So difficult to produce its been done accidently. Amazing that PTheStarr is the one now requiring, literally, Star Trek technology.

Don't let that phase change trick you up there PTheStarr, when its a gas field, they don't mind methane being in vapor form at all...just a clue before you dream up with some more rock scraping nonsense and bring down the "expert" title another couple of notches.