It does count as a liquid hydrocarbon energy. It does not count as crude oil.meemoe_uk wrote:To get the undulating plateau myth from these figures, doomers have to throw all manner of crap at them, under the banner of 'just about every type of oil is unconventional these days so doesn't count' .
I think everyone here gets that oil is an incredibly rich source of energy far superior to muscle power. What you seem to be missing is that many of the tasks that are economical to perform with $100 oil are not economical to perform at $10,000 oil. To go from $100 a barrel oil to $10,000 is a 100 fold increase. Lets look at what that might do to the gasoline bill of the average American household. Last year the average monthly gasoline bill in America was $368. Increase that 100 fold and you get a monthly gasoline bill of $36,800. You see where I am going with this? Yes, that $10,000 barrel of oil can still do an incredible amount of work. But the average American family cannot afford to spend nearly 40 grand a month on gasoline. Even if they switched to an ecobox car and doubled their mileage, they still could not afford to spend 20 grand a month on gasoline. Thus that work will not get done, those high prices caused demand destruction. With demand destruction the price of oil falls. With the price of oil falling, that ultra expensive oil that cost $10,000 to extract is no longer economical to extract.meemoe_uk wrote:Oil is worth extracting up to around $10,000 a barrel. Oil is very cheap at $100, or even $200 a barrel. It's always been at least very cheap throughout history. The energy in a barrel of oil can move a 1 ton car 1600 miles in less than 36 hours.
You fancy doing this task using your back?
You think it's cheap to pay a man to move a car at this rate,
But expensive to use a $100 barrel of oil to do the same thing?
Have you ever considered that you yourself belong to the religion of cornucopia? Religion seeks not truth, but dogma. You seem to be spouting cornucopian dogma rather than facts. For example:meemoe_uk wrote:While I'm here on the cornucopian annual reminder to the peak oil doom is now religion that peak oil isn't anywhere near happening yet, and you all fall back on other myths such as dwindling EROEI and economy based on $20pb oil, I'll just shoot down the ' we've been on a 10 year undulating plateau ' myth.
Source? I want to know the truth of peak oil, not doomer or cornucopian dogma. You seem uninterested in the truth though. Just spouting whatever pops into your head. And it's not just with peak oil either. You did the same thing when you tried to prove that the gender imbalance in China was caused by human trafficking here.meemoe_uk wrote:Bear in mind the EROEI figures that doomers come out with are highly biased in favour of doom, and are already taken from engineers worse case analysis, the EROEI of an average barrel is usually higher than 100:1.
meemoe_uk wrote:http://omrpublic.iea.org/currentissues/full.pdf
page 59
88.46mbpd average for 2011
That beats the previous record set by 2010 by 0.99mbpd.
biofuels were static this year. OPEC NGLs increased by 0.45mppd.
Cornucopian predictions have been shown to be correct again, continuing over a hundred years of correct predictions.
Peak oil is now predictions have been falsified again, continuing over a hundred years of failed predictions. ( when included with their predecessors the 'running outers' predictions. )
The flood of oil from the 2001 middle east oil bonanza is expected to increase for a few year to come, and keep the world economy supplied with plenty of oil for at least another 20 years. No oil shortage in sight.
Last years threadmeemoe_uk wrote:Another year, another fail for the 'peakoil is now' gang.
But, this doesn't mean anything to a peaker.
Don't wobble in your beliefs about panic and hype about an imminent oil shortage crisis.
Let JD explain
Now you can have all the fun of hype and scare you had last year ( and year before that, and the decades before that..etc) all over again.
Because now.....
PEAK OIL WAS IN 2010!!!!
And this isn't like all the other times we think peak has happened. This time we really know for sure. There is absolutely no way conventional supply can top 2010. And this is time, it's not like dozens of other years that there's been absolutely no way that supply can go up. Oh no, THIS...IS...IT!!!
Now peak oil was in 2011, right?
So commence same unfouned hype as last year, and see you all for same falsification same time next year.
meemoe_uk wrote:While I'm here on the cornucopian annual reminder to the peak oil doom is now religion that peak oil isn't anywhere near happening yet, and you all fall back on other myths such as dwindling EROEI and economy based on $20pb oil, I'll just shoot down the ' we've been on a 10 year undulating plateau ' myth.
According to the IEA : Oil supply has been shooting up fast for at least 18 years. These figures are taken from the September issues of their world oil reports where possible.
http://omrpublic.iea.org/
use the 'see archives' box to get the world supply reports, which are usually around page 50.
World average oil supply by year. Millions of barrels per day average.
2011 : 88.45
2010 : 87.46
2009 : 85.06
2008 : 86.50
2007 : 85.70
2006 : 85.60
2005 : 84.46
2004 : 83.10
2003 : 79.70
2002 : 76.60
2001 : 76.91
2000 : 76.69
1999 : 74.06
1998 : 75.44
1997 : 74.39
1996 : 72.05
1995 : 69.94
1994 : 68.56
1993 : 67.45
Yep. Wouldn't surprise me if its one of the most continuous and fast rising supply runs in oil history.
To get the undulating plateau myth from these figures, doomers have to throw all manner of crap at them, under the banner of 'just about every type of oil is unconventional these days so doesn't count' .
The supply is expected to continue is rise at an accelerated rate for a few more years, what with the epic development in the middle east continuing, and the practically limitless reserves of shale and sand oil becoming economical, as by Kublikhan's graph.
Bear in mind the EROEI figures that doomers come out with are highly biased in favour of doom, and are already taken from engineers worse case analysis, the EROEI of an average barrel is usually higher than 100:1.
Source? I want to know the truth of peak oil, not doomer or cornucopian dogma.
According to the IEA : Oil supply has been shooting up fast for at least 18 years. These figures are taken from the September issues of their world oil reports where possible.
http://omrpublic.iea.org/
use the 'see archives' box to get the world supply reports, which are usually around page 50.
World average oil supply by year. Millions of barrels per day average.
2011 : 88.45
2010 : 87.46
2009 : 85.06
2008 : 86.50
2007 : 85.70
2006 : 85.60
2005 : 84.46
2004 : 83.10
2003 : 79.70
2002 : 76.60
2001 : 76.91
2000 : 76.69
1999 : 74.06
1998 : 75.44
1997 : 74.39
1996 : 72.05
1995 : 69.94
1994 : 68.56
1993 : 67.45
meemoe_uk wrote:>What you seem to be missing is that many of the tasks that are economical to perform with $100 oil are not economical to perform at $10,000 oil.
What you seem to be missing is that dollars are a fiat currency. There were times in the 1st half of the 20th century Oil was 10 cents a barrel. How would you tell a kublikhan living in the 1930s depression that $20 oil was a really good price for a stable and prosperous economy? Wouldnt he say " There are many things that wouldn't be economical if the price was that high " ?
As long as it is easier to do stuff by using oil than without, then the economy and dollars would evolve around any oil price.
>Have you ever considered that you yourself belong to the religion of cornucopia?
Of course. But the most compelling evidence is that peakers have been wrong about 'peak oil doom about now!' for over a hundred years, while cornys have said 'nope, just improving prosperity'. This year is no different. New oil supply highs for 2011.
top peak oil man - Matt Simmons. One of the things I've learnt is that peakers have to ignore their own oracles if they are to believe peak oil is now, simply because this concept peak_oil_is_now is false, so there's bits of the peak oil myth that have to be ignored when the whole thing is put together.
Matt would say $4000 was a good price for a barrel of oil, in 2005 dollars. Implicit in that is a reflection of the enormous EROEI of oil. He was saying that a 100 fold increase in the price of oil would be a true representation of the payback we get from oil. Therfore an EROEI of at least 100:1 is implied.
Alternatively, consider your own analysis. What are the main costs in the oil industry? Cost of fuel to create and run machinary? No.
The dollar calcuations that infer land oil EROEI at around 30:1 assume the cost of dollars is 1:1. i.e. since the cost of creating a dollar ( a small piece of paper ) is negliable. However, you know that's not how it works. Oil companies have to rent oil equipment from banks at high cost. Banks have monopolised the oil industry ( like everything else ), and now ration out equipment tightly.
In other words, any analysis done using actual dollar costs of oil companies is going to include the fiat renting cost of equipment, and if you try to work out EROEI from dollar costs, there's going to be a multipicative discrepancy from the real EROEI due to that rent.
Anyway, another main point I wanted to make about $10,000 oil is not how we'd get by when oil costs that amount. It was to put into perspective just how cheap oil is today. Peakers wail about how expensive it is at $100, and hype about $200 oil wiping out the economy. 1st, there are many rich countries that get by fine with high taxation on oil that brings the effective cost to way over $300pb already. Then there's Japan, arguably the most prosperous country in the world, certainly wrt health and longevity, and it has low oil consumption. So high oil costs = ok, low oil consumption = ok.
Oil shale is $50pb in todays costs to produce, and there's over a hundred years supply. So no PO_doom_is_now prob.
meemoe_uk wrote:
But, guess what? Crude oil supply is likely going up as well. So likely no need to invoke the above argument.
But from IEA data 'likely' is the best we can do. IEA oil figures include crude, bio and NGLs. Bio is explictly stated in the figures, so can be subtracted from the total. Without bio, world oil supply is still going up. But when it comes to NGLs, the IEA is a bit obscure. So the PO religion can hide behind this small obscurity and say " all new oil supply in the IEA figures is NGLs ", not that its a solid defense ( see above argument ).
meemoe_uk wrote:>Not religion but confirmed by the same IEA a few months ago.
the undulating plateau myth is propagated by the IEA mass media hype department, while its fact and figure department reports the contrary.
The IEA is an agent of the oil and banking business, and duly parrots any scare and hype message they want injecting into the mass media.
It can have contrary operations like this because anyone savy with the oil industry knows the scare and hype is unfounded BS, and they also know that it has to be done to scare the market into amping the trading price of oil. ( fear of scarcity drives up prices ). Meanwhile the public aren't interested enough to compare the figures with the headlines, so just believe the headline.
As for the peak_oil_doom_is_now religion.... hmmm ... what they gonna go for? IEA scare and hype headlines or IEA figures saying everythings OK?
Get used to it. The IEA scare and hype headlines have always been as baseless as any doom-monger website headline.
meemoe_uk wrote:If you ever bother reading the thread before posting vtsnowedin, you'd see
- we can keep plugging the gap with 'substitutes' . oil from Shale is plentiful and at only $50pb to produce, its cheap.
- Not that we need to. Most of the new supply is likely from the 2001 middle east crude oil bonanza, and there's a heck of lot more to come from that.
- The world economy is kept unstable my money changers. It's nothing to do with the supposed diminishing EROEI, or peaking of crude oil. Such ecomonies have been intentionally kept unstable for thousands of years.
The price of oil is controled by the energy cartel. It isn't a direct reflection of supply and demand. Your oracle, Matt Simmons , kept alluding to this when he said the market mechanism between supply and demand is broken.
Peak_oil_doomer 'have it both ways' rule
If oil price is low ; then the market mechanism between supply and demand is broken
If oil price is high ; its a true indication of oil value in the market
Actually, the market mechanism is permenantly broken. There's a different system in place.
Before 2020, oil prices will crash. Why?
With high oil prices, the oil industry is booming now, with start up companies flourishing along side the old establishment. Lots of new oil wells and supply.
But the old establishment don't want to create competition for themselves. So before these new competitor companies become too big, they will be felled by low oil prices. The old establishment control the price of oil on the markets, and at their convenience they will axe the dollar price of a barrel of oil. The competitors will then either face bankruptcy or consolidation. It's an old cycle that repeats every 40 years or so.
>First thing is it is a list of Production not of supply.
If so , and if there's a great difference between the 2, it just make the figures more compelling in what they say. 18 years of increasing oil production. But I don't thinks there's much difference, at least by IEA definitions.
As of November 2011, there were more than 100 active oil sands projects in Alberta. Of these, six mining projects have been approved; five of these projects are currently producing bitumen. The remaining projects use various in-situ recovery methods.
By 2020, crude bitumen production is expected to more than double to 3.5 million bbl/d.
On average it takes about two tonnes of mined oil sands to produce a barrel of SCO.
meemoe_uk wrote:Peak_oil_doom_is_now types should be ashamed of considering dismissing NGLs, shale, sand oil, reserve growth or whatever new source of oil crops up. The bottom line is - energy is energy. According to you lot oil was the only core energy source of today, and that all other energy sources were effectively deriviatives from crude oil,
Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests