[Plantagenet]

If non-conventional oil production ... causes global oil production to spike much higher, leading to the global economy becoming even more dependent on oil, with China and India becoming hooked just like the Western economies, with renewable energy withering on the vine, setting up a rapid decline in oil production after the inevitable peak, then it could be the most harmful black swan of all time.

China is already hooked on fossil fuels.

Their GDP growth, car sales and oil use ALREADY exceed those of the USA. China burns so much coal the air over much of China is dangerously polluted,a and they contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than any other country.

China is also starting an ambitious program of oil shale exploration in China using horizontal drilling and frakking.

Its too late. China and the whole rest of the world want nothing more than to copy the US of A.


Look!---US-style suburban homes are now being built in China

[ennui2]

Anwar and the Arctic region in general will be open to production. The reserves are being expanded and developed now by the soviets with EXXON at the helm. That should be reassuring to anyone concerned about future oil supplies.

You expect us to take your opinion seriously and you still think Russia is the Soviet Union?

[Keith_McClary]

Anwar and the Arctic region in general will be open to production. The reserves are being expanded and developed now by the soviets with EXXON at the helm. That should be reassuring to anyone concerned about future oil supplies.

You expect us to take your opinion seriously and you still think Russia is the Soviet Union?

And these "soviets" will be piping Arctic oil through the Alaska Pipeline to the Pacific? Instead of to western Russia where most Rooskies live?

[Keith_McClary]

Look!---US-style suburban homes are now being built in China

Is that a real photo? Seems odd that the trees look several years old, but no signs of occupation - cars? Is it one of those "ghost cities" ?

[Plantagenet]

Look!---US-style suburban homes are now being built in China

Is that a real photo?

The National Geographic magazine says this is a photo of a new US-style suburban development in China.

If you can't trust the National Geographic, who can you trust?

[Keith_McClary]

The National Geographic magazine says this is a photo of a new US-style suburban development in China.

If you can't trust the National Geographic, who can you trust?

Seems to be a real ghost town:
http://www.nationalgeographicassignment ... z/Aerial/2

Some of Steinmetz's other 24 photos are amazing. Too bad there are no captions indicating what/where they are.

[Econ101]

You mad braugh?

Actually you seem to be displaying symptoms of intense right-wing paranoia. With a touch of childish whining. And yet you keep returning for a another beat down? Crazy.

Hint: the Russians are not coming to take our oil

Fortunately the soviets and the other 6 nations will use the pipeline when their arctic production picks up.

You seem uptight bro?

The Russians are not going to take our oil, they are going to develop their own. They are among the small group of nations controlling the entire Arctic region and have rights to the resources. I think there are six, maybe 8 but the USA and Russia are among them. The Alaska pipeline will be a very useful tool for Arctic producers to get their oil to market.

It was originally intended to handle the flow for 100 yrs but Arctic development on US public lands was essentially stopped and now the flow is very low. The excess pipeline capacity will find a market and the flow should pick up nicely. Another unintended, but beneficial consequence of peak oil politics: Arctic oil development by competitor nations.

[Econ101]

The National Geographic magazine says this is a photo of a new US-style suburban development in China.

If you can't trust the National Geographic, who can you trust?

Seems to be a real ghost town:
http://www.nationalgeographicassignment ... z/Aerial/2

Some of Steinmetz's other 24 photos are amazing. Too bad there are no captions indicating what/where they are.

thanks for those pictures. You can see the apt houses in the background. Just think how one of those houses would seem to a person used to a small apt? China is spreading out.

That picture of the tomato harvest showed a very inefficient use of header rows. Those could be closed and more land put into production. The present configuration is handy for hand labor, just like the cotton. We have huge 40 acre+ sized sugar beet storage areas here and they are all mechanized.

Hard to figure what they were doing on the snow?

[Tanada]

Peak oil denier nitpicks would imply that the insurance industry could never estimate risk. There has been enough observational data gathered from all of the developed oil fields to characterize their life cycle. There has also been enough data gathered in the last several decades about discovery of said fields to also characterize the probability of further discoveries. It's not just blind linear extrapolation.

There is a reason why non conventional is all the rage. That is because conventional is not providing what is needed by the world economy. And guess what: non-conventional is quite well characterized too. There has been enough field work around the planet to characterize all the geology of the surface and even the seabed. There are no gaps hiding Ghawar scale conventional oil fields.

This is something worthy of remembering IMO. If you take all of the 'unconventional' fracked oil and heavy Canadian 'Tar Sands' oil off the market what would happen? The "glut" would flip flop to a shortage overnight and all that stored oil the media bleats about would get drawn down within a few months filling the gap between conventional production and world demand.

[ROCKMAN]

T - Most of the yet to be developed unconventional oil has already been taken out of the market. We're producing reserves now that were developed under very different economic conditions. Producing an existing shale well obviously cost much less then drilling a new one.

The general public will never be able to grasp the lag time factor very well.

[AdamB]

Peak oil denier nitpicks would imply that the insurance industry could never estimate risk. There has been enough observational data gathered from all of the developed oil fields to characterize their life cycle. There has also been enough data gathered in the last several decades about discovery of said fields to also characterize the probability of further discoveries. It's not just blind linear extrapolation.

There is a reason why non conventional is all the rage. That is because conventional is not providing what is needed by the world economy. And guess what: non-conventional is quite well characterized too. There has been enough field work around the planet to characterize all the geology of the surface and even the seabed. There are no gaps hiding Ghawar scale conventional oil fields.

This is something worthy of remembering IMO. If you take all of the 'unconventional' fracked oil and heavy Canadian 'Tar Sands' oil off the market what would happen? The "glut" would flip flop to a shortage overnight and all that stored oil the media bleats about would get drawn down within a few months filling the gap between conventional production and world demand.

Fortunate then that for all the interest in supply, they aren't really the issue, because there are more than enough known and to be developed for the rest of this century. Even better, with people begin to grapple with what peak oil demand signifies, we don't even need as much oil as we previously thought, for the rest of this century.

Just global light/tight development and canadian tar sand development would be enough to last out the century at current or declining demand rates. Let alone the USGS undiscovered amounts, reserve growth amounts, the Orinoco, those are all icing on the cake in this scenario.

[JV153]

.

Just global light/tight development and canadian tar sand development would be enough to last out the century at current or declining demand rates. Let alone the USGS undiscovered amounts, reserve growth amounts, the Orinoco, those are all icing on the cake in this scenario.

The Canadian tar sands and Orinoco oil require large energy inputs and diluent from somewhere (20% of canadian natural gas production is used to extract tar sands oil). Canadian tar sands output isn't increasing... maybe some Utah bitumen (with even more diluent requiremens) perhaps ? Anyway, US tight oil is starting to decline. The Canadian bitumen is diluted with US light oil.. so if one goes down..so does the other. Ramping Orinoco heavy oil production (in the most favorable environment, of course) needs even more diluent - from .. where ?

[ROCKMAN]

I'll have to split the sheet with my buddy Adam on this one. The vast majority of the reserves he talks about are technically recoverable...not commercial. Of course in time as prices increase some will shift categories. But IMHO we'll never have such a period long enough to produce anything close to the tech recoverable volume.

[AdamB]

I'll have to split the sheet with my buddy Adam on this one. The vast majority of the reserves he talks about are technically recoverable...not commercial. Of course in time as prices increase some will shift categories. But IMHO we'll never have such a period long enough to produce anything close to the tech recoverable volume.

And that is because of the size of that volume, and the relatively meager rate we are using up until this point in time.

Now, start drawing down the endowment at 150 million/day, and baby we will be on our way!!

[StarvingLion]

The tar sands is EROEI negative. Price of oil means nothing. It operates today because the central banks are connected thus the EROEI is averaged. In other words the still high EROEI of the saudi fields results in a bogus positive EROEI for the tar sands.

Of course the oilman "experts" on this site are waiting for the oil price to "normalize". That will never happen because then the price of a blouse would be $500 US. These "experts" couldn't see a collapse if you wrote it on their foreheads.

The only places on earth with usable oil (high EROEI) is Siberia and Iran and deep ocean.

The remaining oil in North America is basically worthless. Drilling of that stuff is not preventing collapse.

[ROCKMAN]

For a change I have to go a!ong with the pissed off kitty on this one: "The only places on earth with usable oil (high EROEI) is Siberia and Iran and deep ocean. The remaining oil in North America is basically worthless. Drilling of that stuff is not preventing collapse." Obviously not to the same extreme. And, of course, not based directly on EROEI but on the economics as the Rockman has explained many times. But regardless of how one describes the dynamics at play the futurer of a world so dependent on fossil fuels will not be a happy place. After all, much of tytyhe current world is already a rather sad place with no real prospect of holding where it is let alone getting better.

[AdamB]

The tar sands is EROEI negative.

So what? As has been explained elsewhere, the oil industry doesn't run on a BTU basis, it runs on a $$ basis.

This has been explained so many times by so many different people, as well as the multi-century history of the industry itself, that I am amazed anyone still falls for it, let alone pretends it has any meaning.

EROEI was in part utilized when it became obvious that oil production wasn't behaving as expected (in peaker-speak, that is all decline, all the time). So another mechanism was needed, divorced from the reality of oil production rates themselves, to proclaim doom. That is what folks are looking for, a mechanism to be able to proclaim the end. Food production and population (Malthus and Ehrlich), efficiency (Jevons), oil and gas resources (Lesley, White, Hubbert), EROEI (Hall and Cleveland) and so on and so forth.

Price of oil means nothing.

So down to the local gas station and tell them that. Or attempt to pay them less than they are asking for a gallon. See how quickly you can unlearn this nonsense.

It operates today because the central banks are connected thus the EROEI is averaged.

Central banks don't trade BTUs, take payments in that form, or advance BTU credits.

In other words the still high EROEI of the saudi fields results in a bogus positive EROEI for the tar sands.

There is this thing. Called reality. Generally, it seems best to stick with that, rather than making up our own versions. Just sayin.

Of course the oilman "experts" on this site are waiting for the oil price to "normalize". That will never happen because then the price of a blouse would be $500 US. These "experts" couldn't see a collapse if you wrote it on their foreheads.

Based on the number of times, and mechanisms, by which it has been previously claimed, neither can those desperately hoping it will arrive, predicting it, and then being disappointed.

Anyone remember the Olduvai gorge? Ever notice that we don't talk about it anymore? Do I even have to explain WHY at this point?

The only places on earth with usable oil (high EROEI) is Siberia and Iran and deep ocean.

Fortunate we are indeed than that Rockman's legions were able to cause a glut, repeak the United States, and cause prices to crash with other stuff then.

The remaining oil in North America is basically worthless. Drilling of that stuff is not preventing collapse.

I would defer to the experts on this one, as to the value of American oil, let alone the trillion barrels that Canada might produce in the future.

And let us not forget, these people didn't fall for peak oil, which puts their prognostications on a higher level of quality than, say, those who are still focused on the irrelevant like EROEI. Caught this one at a meeting of state legislators, interested in risk issue related to energy and electrical supply.

[Tanada]

I would defer to the experts on this one, as to the value of American oil, let alone the trillion barrels that Canada might produce in the future.

And let us not forget, these people didn't fall for peak oil, which puts their prognostications on a higher level of quality than, say, those who are still focused on the irrelevant like EROEI. Caught this one at a meeting of state legislators, interested in risk issue related to energy and electrical supply.

I will grant you that in terms of global peak oil and resource constraints from 2005-today the EIA has been more correct than any advocate of the theory I could name in terms of absolute production numbers.

That being said can you point to any projections the EIA has ever made that turned out to be accurate 5 years into the future? That graph projects 25 years into the future, and it projects that lower 48 onshore oil production outside of the tight oil plays will not only replace the declining Alaska TAPS supply but it will also expand in absolute numbers despite the fact that it has been declining since 1970. In addition it projects that starting around mid 2017 tight shale fracking will pick back up so much that by 2025 we will exceed the total oil produced in 1970.

To say I take such long term or such optimistic projections with a grain of salt is putting it very mildly.