[TonyPrep]

So far, the peak of all liquids production was November 2018 (though I haven't seen the last few months). Conventional oil continues its steady decline.

Whenever the overall peak comes, I very much doubt the downslope will be a mirror image of the upslope. A declining supply will likely precipitate the collapse of societies, especially those who don't have their own oil and refining capabilities.

[Plantagenet]

Whenever the overall peak comes, I very much doubt the downslope will be a mirror image of the upslope. A declining supply will likely precipitate the collapse of societies, especially those who don't have their own oil and refining capabilities.

Perhaps the Chinese see the future they way you do, and perhaps that is why the Chinese have set up strategic partnerships with the oil producing countries of Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, guaranteeing a long term oil supply for China.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden has taken the opposite tack with his plan to supposedly get the US off oil.

There are some big bets going down on the importance of oil in the future, and somebody is going to be right and somebody is going to be very very wrong.

Either China will be right to have secured themselves a supply of oil into the future, or Joe Biden will turn out to be right to have reduced US oil production and severed the US-Saudi partnership as part of his plan to transition the US into a carbon free economy.

The Chinese have a much simpler task ahead of them....they just have to continue business as usual. The US, in contrast, has to totally reinvent and reorganize the US economy to function with much much less oil, something that has never been done before.



Good luck to all.

Cheers!

[Makati1]

Total oil independence is impossible in this age. Even natural gas will not substitute for some oil products. Yes, things will change drastically negative for the US but for multiple reasons. No reasonable amount of "renewables" are possible in the next decades, to replace FFs. Resources in needed amounts do not exist to do so. But, dream if you want. That is free...for now.

[theluckycountry]

[AdamB]

So far, the peak of all liquids production was November 2018 (though I haven't seen the last few months). Conventional oil continues its steady decline.

Can you please describe what you think "conventional oil" characteristics are? Does it have to do with the color, API gravity, impurities, and all the things that are used to describe oil properites and then grouped into crude benchmarks so a refinery knows the physical properties of the oil it is buying? And because of these chemical properites, these oil types cost different amounts to buy.

I ask because "conventional" oil isn't on the list of global oil benchmarks located here. Are you able to point out the ones that are?

Whenever the overall peak comes, I very much doubt the downslope will be a mirror image of the upslope. A declining supply will likely precipitate the collapse of societies, especially those who don't have their own oil and refining capabilities.

Well, we've had 6 occurred or claimed peak oils so far this century, and I agree with you that the natural decline profile of aggregated production from oil fields won't look anything like the build phase of the aggregate production increase. As far as a declining supply bringing about the collapse of societies, that was one of those old peak oil claims that didn't work out very well after the the 1979 global peak oil, where oil took 15 years to recover and reveal that it was not, indeed, the final peak oil, but just another in the overall sequence. And was the "go-go 80's" rather than "the decade of collapse because peak oil happened".

So if peak doesn't collapse society in 5 years, and it didn't happen in 15 years after a global peak, do you have a time frame in mind, undoubtedly needing to be measured in more than 15 years, for these collapse scenarios to play out? Back in the peak oil heyday, it was claimed that collapse evidence because of peak oil would be visible in days and weeks. By some real live energy expert no less back then who had credibility before it turned out that the early peak claimants of this century lacked exactly that.

[TonyPrep]

There is a definition of conventional oil in this article which seems reasonable:

Light or medium density oil occurring in discrete oil fields, usually having an oil–water contact, produced by primary (own pressure, or pumping) or secondary (natural gas or water injection) recovery techniques. Currently this class of oil supplies about 70% of global ‘all-liquids’, and has constituted the vast majority of oil produced to-date.

The same article has a graph of oil production and conventional oil has been on a slight decline (though the article calls it a plateau) since 2005.

Forecasting future production of total liquids is hard. Impossible to say exactly when different categories of liquids will peak or what new categories might be discovered or old categories revived and profitably so. I don't agree that peak oil voices lacked credibility at the time (hindsight is a wonderful thing). I'm sure human societies will take no notice anyway. It is only when any activity becomes a long term loss maker that the activity will cease.

[AdamB]

There is a definition of conventional oil in this article which seems reasonable:

Light or medium density oil occurring in discrete oil fields, usually having an oil–water contact, produced by primary (own pressure, or pumping) or secondary (natural gas or water injection) recovery techniques. Currently this class of oil supplies about 70% of global ‘all-liquids’, and has constituted the vast majority of oil produced to-date.

It does seem reasonable. But it isn't an oil definition. It doesn't list any of the charactertics that a refinery defines oil by, API gravity, impurities, color, viscosity, etc etc. Instead this definition is all about the geologic rock properties, the reservoir and common petroleum engineering recovery methods. "All liquids" even allows ethane into the mix, as it an HGL derived from the gas coming from the oils coming from these rocks.

All of these engineering and geologic particulars except one are also present in all light, tight oil and shale oil production as well, and those oils also produce things that are "liquids" rather than just oil. Wonder why they just don't use the one difference, and stop pretending this is an oil thing, rather than a geology thing?

The same article has a graph of oil production and conventional oil has been on a slight decline (though the article calls it a plateau) since 2005.

Good thing peak oil is about oil volumes then, and has never really cared from where. Well, maybe it cared for where it came from AFTER it turns out that geologic ignorance caused them to look silly as oil volumes continued to increase anyway, and they were trying to not look as discredited as they became.

Forecasting future production of total liquids is hard.

Indeed. But peakers only began using that line AFTER they got it wrong like the first 5 times this century. And peak oil was about oil, what would total liquids have to do with it? You really think Hubbert included ethane and butane in his bell shaped curves?

Impossible to say exactly when different categories of liquids will peak or what new categories might be discovered or old categories revived and profitably so.

Not impossible. Difficult. And the independent variable isn't what you think it is.

I don't agree that peak oil voices lacked credibility at the time (hindsight is a wonderful thing).

Those of us who knew it was a crock in real time can certainly make that claim. Discovery process modeling dates back to around 1958, Hubbert built a reserve growth equation that the USGS used in 1975 to make national scale estimates, the petroleum geology of discrete reservoirs has been around and known since anticlines were discovered, and production from continuous reservoirs began occurring by 1880 even if it wasn't properly defined geologically until the mid-80's or so. Plenty of time for Colin to use it in 1989 when he predicted global peak oil in 1990. You figure the peakers just couldn't be bothered to do the research?

I'm sure human societies will take no notice anyway. It is only when any activity becomes a long term loss maker that the activity will cease.

[/quote]

Quite right. But pointing out basic economic concepts back in the early days of peak oil would just get you banned. Made too much sense, bell shaped curves were indisputable, and obviously economics has nothing to do with oil production (remember the quote "you can't print money to make oil"). More amusingly that is EXACTLY what was claimed to have turned the US into the world's largest producer of oil and gas, quantative easing. No one ever said that logical consistency was required in church dogma either.

[TonyPrep]

Not impossible. Difficult.

No, impossible. Unless someone has a private line to the future. In the end, it's all guesswork. Maybe informed, but guesswork.

[Newfie]

Plant,

To add to your 2 paths scenario, there exists a 3rd possibility. Both are wrong.

There is an idea that we must be able to produce the equivalent amount of energy that we do now either by fossil fuels or alternatives. From my view fossils will eventually deplete, they are not a finite resource. But renewables also have restrictions: they don't work the same every where, high latitude winter sun and non-maritime winds, and then there is the cost of repair and maintain.

Nuclear holds some hope as a electrical generation stop gap, but there still exist areas where the power to weight ratios strongly favor fossils.

What is hopeful is that human population may he reaching a natural peak, God bless Africa, they will need it. Fewer people means less power requirements, so that is hopeful. But it is rolling out too slow.

[AdamB]

Not impossible. Difficult.

No, impossible.

I'll grant you that there are no facts in the future. But modeling the future isn't about knowing the future, it is about modeling A future with the best information, system and capabilites in such a way that when the present changes around you, so does that future estimate. For example, when high oil prices cured high oil prices after 1979, and the expected happened (more efficiency, less demand, a dropping in per unit costs for additional production via more advanced recovery methods), any model of future production would have needed to take that into account. Bell shaped curves can't. But that didn't stop Colin from doing it anyway in 1989. And others following him throughout the early 21st century. Not a one able to build a system that handled the present unknowns in order to make the best estimate in the future.

Unless someone has a private line to the future. In the end, it's all guesswork. Maybe informed, but guesswork.

There are informed estimates, and then there are peak oilers, I agree.

[TonyPrep]

I don't think it matters what the downward curve looks like and it's something we'll only know in hindsight (if at all). What matters more is when supply will turn down, permanently. If it wasn't for tight oil, we'd be well on the downslope now and the world would look very different. No-one knows when the actual peak will be and there could still be surprises, in terms of supply. One thing is guaranteed; oil companies will do their best to delay the downslope for as long as possible.

[AdamB]

I don't think it matters what the downward curve looks like and it's something we'll only know in hindsight (if at all).

Well, the decline rate and volume of future global oil production matters in that if it isn't aligned with demand, prices can still torture consumers along the way. Proclaiming doom and gloom just like peakers were back in 2005-2008.

What matters more is when supply will turn down, permanently. If it wasn't for tight oil, we'd be well on the downslope now and the world would look very different.

Well, yes, if the peak oilers hopes and dreams had come true, the world would be different. I understand why unemployed ambulance chasers and internet charlatans and the generally uninformed would fall for it all, but those with a background in a science or industry, those were the real disappointments. They should have known better.

As far as "if it wasn't for tight oil".... I can name 4 other large resource volumes just waiting in the wings to do the same. One of the key mistakes of peak oilers, not even knowing the resources available, waiting in the wings for the right price.

No-one knows when the actual peak will be and there could still be surprises, in terms of supply. One thing is guaranteed; oil companies will do their best to delay the downslope for as long as possible.

There are no facts in the future. And oil companies don't measure performance or act collectively to fight a "downslope", they are in it for the money. Always have been.

[TonyPrep]

Four large resource volumes waiting in the wings? Do tell. Likely to be profitable?

Of course the oil companies are in it for the money, that's why they will do anything to ensure their money flow continue and even increases. That's all I meant by their doing their best to delay the downslope.

[AdamB]

Four large resource volumes waiting in the wings? Do tell. Likely to be profitable?

And thusly we arrive back at a point I made earlier but you didn't respond to. The McPeaksters are using the wrong independent variable. For those who couldn't be bothered to do the research (internet quacks or professionals), there was an interesting tidbit published by a well known scientist at the USGS late in the 20th century. It stopped me dead in my tracks when I found it in the literature, such nonsense, published no less, coming from top flight geoscientists, I tracked him down and confronted him at an AAPG conference circa 2005, right when peaker-mania was at its height. "How could you publish such nonsense like this!" I exclaimed (I was quite caustic when I was younger), "it is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of as an petroleum industry professional and is a crock of crap! It is impossible!". His answer required no more than...let me think... 19 words. And he was right. True story. And from such small beginnings of me being a moron (or lacking the requisite macro perspective) on a topic were real peak oil models created, many years later.

Back to your question, "Likely to be profitable?". First you bring an unquantified probability metric into the game, but lets ignore that for an instant and think about your question more like this. "Four large resource volumes waiting in the wings that CAN BE profitable, do tell?" The answer is...of course. But as with all McPeaksters, you didn't think to provide even a hint as to the range of the independent variable that would allow the question to be answered in any other way than "Of course!". The independent variable you excluded was, obviously, price. Profitability is completely dependent on it, and hence, so is the answer to your question.

Of course the oil companies are in it for the money, that's why they will do anything to ensure their money flow continue and even increases. That's all I meant by their doing their best to delay the downslope.

Your statement had a hint of Machiavellian conspiracy to it, as though companies think about things together in a certain way that they just don't. I cleared up that implication is all. And their money flow continues, production growth, stability, or decline, there is no difference other than the costs involved in picking one path over the other. Growth costs money. Once the capital is sunk, it is all about market price and operational efficiencies, and debating the size and location of the next drilling program, should the opportunity present itself.

[Newfie]

Adam wrote:

I can name 4 other large resource volumes just waiting in the wings

This is the bit we all want to know about.
Please name them.

[AdamB]

Adam wrote:

I can name 4 other large resource volumes just waiting in the wings

This is the bit we all want to know about.
Please name them.

Sure. Would you like domestic, international, commonly known but underappreciated and why, or less known that I still haven't figured life cycle economics out on yet? Doesn't matter, how about some known and obvious?

The US oil shales of the Green River formation (muy caro!), the Texas ROZ (not near as expensive), the Canadian tar sands (currently underestimated in reserve size by 3x), the extra heavy of the Orinoco (the resource to reserve conversion rate there could be monstrous with more oil resources than all known oil in Saudi Arabia, its cheap, easy to get, but needs a functioning government and capital markets or outside investment), the Bazhenov of Russia (better than the Wolfcamp in the Permian),the Junggar and Songliao basins in China. You could throw in reserve growth on the North Slope if you want and are American and feel left out, that's probably as big as all the currently producing US shale formation ultimate recoveries combined, but pretty pipsqueak in the greater scheme of things. I was thinking significant, rather than just another "large enough to make the US the world's largest oil and gas producer...again"...no big whoop in the resource game.

Those are the known and are affordable (might want to exclude US Green River formation stuff if "affordable" consists of <$150/bbl prices) that the US has prototyped all the technology for already, including drill-baby-drill. Just a matter of folks wanting or needing to, for some reasonable price or another. Achieving that itself is an issue with the recent acceleration into alternatives.

Peak oil has never been about the reserves, but rather resources.

[TonyPrep]

Thanks. Personally, I doubt any of those can be profitable and affordable at the volumes required, but you're the expert so maybe you're right. I hope not because that leads to just as much of a problem as peak oil. Even if one discounts environmental issues, perhaps thinking that humans are clever enough to comfortably inhabit an even more degraded biosphere than the one we have, continuing to expand an unsustainable civilisation with a fuel that will ultimately decline, possibly quite rapidly, is decidedly not clever.

[AdamB]

Thanks. Personally, I doubt any of those can be profitable and affordable at the volumes required, but you're the expert so maybe you're right.

Some of them already are profitable and producing. Doubt isn't involved when reality is involved.

I hope not because that leads to just as much of a problem as peak oil. Even if one discounts environmental issues, perhaps thinking that humans are clever enough to comfortably inhabit an even more degraded biosphere than the one we have, continuing to expand an unsustainable civilisation with a fuel that will ultimately decline, possibly quite rapidly, is decidedly not clever.

Combusting hydrocarbons to move fat suburbanites around in the safety of 6000# monster SUVs is as stupid as burning Picasso's to heat your home. But we humans seem to like doing it anyway, regardless of consequences.

I don't dispute that humans are happily turning up the thermostat in the planet. Only that peak oilers have 33 years of history in the modern era demonstrating that they aren't the ones you ask about anything peak oil, or the geologic, technical or economic components of it.

[Plantagenet]

The US oil shales of the Green River formation (muy caro!), the Texas ROZ (not near as expensive), the Canadian tar sands (currently underestimated in reserve size by 3x), the extra heavy of the Orinoco (the resource to reserve conversion rate there could be monstrous with more oil resources than all known oil in Saudi Arabia, its cheap, easy to get, but needs a functioning government and capital markets or outside investment), the Bazhenov of Russia (better than the Wolfcamp in the Permian),the Junggar and Songliao basins in China. You could throw in reserve growth on the North Slope if you want and are American and feel left out, that's probably as big as all the currently producing US shale formation ultimate recoveries combined, but pretty pipsqueak in the greater scheme of things. I was thinking significant, rather than just another "large enough to make the US the world's largest oil and gas producer...again"...no big whoop in the resource game.

Those are the known and are affordable (might want to exclude US Green River formation stuff if "affordable" consists of <$150/bbl prices) that the US has prototyped all the technology for already, including drill-baby-drill. Just a matter of folks wanting or needing to, for some reasonable price or another. Achieving that itself is an issue with the recent acceleration into alternatives.

Peak oil has never been about the reserves, but rather resources.

The development and use of any those potential sites would result in the release of enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, producing concomitant jumps in global warming.



That means warmer global temperatures, more sea level rise, more heat waves, more storms, more forest fires and more crop failure, ultimately resulting in more unnecessary deaths.

The price of oil is NOT the only factor to consider before developing these low grade oil resources....consideration must also be given to their deleterious effects on global climate.

Cheers!

[AdamB]

Peak oil has never been about the reserves, but rather resources.

The development and use of any those potential sites would result in the release of enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, producing concomitant jumps in global warming.

Of course. But Individual CO2 super emitters who think global jet setting is just a great thing to do every weekend or two for personal enjoyment can hardly complain. So why waste our time with faux concern? Post some pic of your last global trotting adventure, those are cool.

The price of oil is NOT the only factor to consider before developing these low grade oil resources....consideration must also be given to their deleterious effects on global climate.

Says who? The only happily admitting CO2 super emiter on this forum? You don't care about your portion of the jet fuel or bunker oil used in your global jet setting or long distance sight seeing boat trips....amusing that you pretend anyone else should. Dilettante.