chumley wrote:I enjoy persecutedgadflies posts. I would like to be exposed to information that is contrary to the theory of peak oil. I find his posts to be informative and well spoken. And he has the all important links to back his theory.
Forums are set up in order for people of differing views to argue their position.
From reading this thread it appears to me the ad hominem attacks are being carried out by the PO crowd.
Refute his argument if you can.
You are not a troll just because you argue against popularly held views on a discussion board and post reason's why.
Armageddon wrote:
A secretive gathering some of the world’s biggest oil companies has concluded the industry will discover far less oil than officially forecast, meaning global oil production may peak much sooner than many expect.
NoFreeSpeech wrote:You probably recognize his face
MattSavinar wrote:40,000 oil fields across the world and not a single one shows any sign of refilling.
Below the Gulf of Mexico, hydrocarbons flow upward through an intricate network of conduits and reservoirs. They start in thin layers of source rock and, from there, buoyantly rise to the surface. On their way up, the hydrocarbons collect in little rivulets, and create temporary pockets like rain filling a pond. Eventually most escape to the ocean. And, this is all happening now, not millions and millions of years ago, says Larry Cathles, a chemical geologist at Cornell University.
"We're dealing with this giant flow-through system where the hydrocarbons are generating now, moving through the overlying strata now, building the reservoirs now and spilling out into the ocean now," Cathles says.
He's bringing this new view of an active hydrocarbon cycle to industry, hoping it will lead to larger oil and gas discoveries. By matching the chemical signatures of the oil and gas with geologic models for the structures below the seafloor, petroleum geologists could tap into reserves larger than the North Sea, says Cathles, who presented his findings at the meeting of the American Chemical Society in New Orleans on March 27.
Deep underwater, and deeper underground, scientists see surprising hints that gas and oil deposits can be replenished, filling up again, sometimes rapidly.
Although it sounds too good to be true, increasing evidence from the Gulf of Mexico suggests that some old oil fields are being refilled by petroleum surging up from deep below, scientists report. That may mean that current estimates of oil and gas abundance are far too low.
Recent measurements in a major oil field show "that the fluids were changing over time; that very light oil and gas were being injected from below even as the producing [oil pumping] was going on," said chemical oceanographer Mahlon "Chuck" Kennicutt. "They are refilling as we speak. But whether this is a worldwide phenomenon, we don't know."
Kennicutt, a faculty member at Texas A&M University, said it is now clear that gas and oil are coming into the known reservoirs very rapidly in terms of geologic time. The inflow of new gas, and some oil, has been detectable in as little as three to 10 years. In the past, it was not suspected that oil fields can refill because it was assumed that oil was formed in place, or nearby, rather than far below.
According to marine geologist Harry Roberts, at Louisiana State University ... "You have a very leaky fault system that does allow it (petroleum) to migrate in. It's directly connected to an oil and gas generating system at great depth."
... "There already appears to be a large body of evidence consistent with ... oil and gas generation and migration on very short time scales in many areas globally" [Jean Whelan] wrote in the journal Sea Technology ...
Analysis of the ancient oil that seems to be coming up from deep below in the Gulf of Mexico suggests that the flow of new oil "is coming from deeper, hotter [sediment] formations" and is not simply a lateral inflow from the old deposits that surround existing oil fields, [Whelan] said.
Plantagenet wrote:Welcome back, OiM.
Those are very interesting ideas about the refilling of oil fields. Its notable that they are coming from mainstream academic scientists.
OilIsMastery wrote:Plantagenet wrote:Welcome back, OiM.
Those are very interesting ideas about the refilling of oil fields. Its notable that they are coming from mainstream academic scientists.
I have a feeling I won't be around long now that I'm bringing facts to the table again.
jboogy wrote:It's all really just academic quibbling at this point isn't it?
The Institute for Defense Analyses released its very thorough “Review and Analysis of the Peak Oil Debate” authored by Brent Fisher last summer, but I only discovered it today (thanks to a link at DTIC, below). This 50-page study is detailed, balanced in its determinations, carefully worded and thoroughly sourced.
The study’s executive summary ends with these two sentences:
“We conclude from these reviews that the most alarmist of the peak-oil claims are likely false. Still, we see some convincing reasons to think that global oil production could peak within 20 years, with demand outstripping production indefinitely.”
But almost no-one from this list (including Fisher) has addressed the subsequent questions and concerns which arise from an awareness /acceptance of the peak oil concept:
•export decline (please see Armed Forces Journal Forum posting #7)
•fuel poverty: how will sustained high oil prices affect the global economy, “globalization” itself, public revenues & public services, low-income families, etc? (please see Jeff Rubin’s recent book, Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller)
•Agri-food: this sector may be squeezed from both ends (by family farmers who can’t afford fuel, and by a faltering import/export system, Armed Forces Journal Forum posting #17).
•Emergency planning: how might a severe fuel (& food) emergency be best planned for and administered? (Armed Forces Journal Forum postings #9, #10, #15, #16, #17)
•Domestic security: are there foreseeable problems which warrant military analysis & planning?
Every year oil industry around the world has to add at least 5–6 Mbpd of gross production capacity just to break even with the 5–6 Mbpd gross capacity is lost. Any additions to world capacity are on top of the 5–6 Mbpd capacity turnover each year. These figures are much larger than the drops in production capacity contemplated by Simmons, which would be on the order of 500 kbpd YoY. Thus, Lynch concludes that non-Saudi Arabian oil production is capable of making up losses in Saudi Arabia (Lynch 2006, pp. 1–32).
On the question of water cuts, Lynch compares Ghawar, whose water cut is around 37%, to the world average, which is 75%, though it is not specified how the 75% average is calculated (volumetric average or average overall wells) (Lynch 2006, pp. 1–32).
In addition to the foregoing three main points, optimists provide a series of facts that they claim show Saudi oil production to be under no stress at all. Hence they conclude that there is no reason to expect a peak in Saudi production. Chief among these is the famously low cost of oil production for Saudi Aramco. Production cost estimates ranging from $1/bbl to $5/bbl are cited by Lynch 2006, pp. 1–32, which are much lower than those almost anywhere else in the world.
It is a well known refrain: Peak Oil is always now !
peeker01 wrote:Well strings, had you read that article, you'd see it was written by Andrew McKillip of the
Market Oracle. I thought it was rather good.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests