[JohnDenver]

But it's not just consumption, as I've pointed out. Your statement requires production of the same energy content, from coal, for the length of time you claim coal will be around, at current consumption levels. That is not remotely possible

Tony, my point was that coal usage is unlikely to grow beyond current consumption levels. You're not refuting me; you're agreeing with me.

You can't simultaneously argue for exponential growth in coal consumption and inability to maintain current consumption levels.

[TonyPrep]

Tony, my point was that coal usage is unlikely to grow beyond current consumption levels. You're not refuting me; you're agreeing with me.

Come off it, JD. The point you were responding to was the uselessness of a statement about the longevity of a resource that includes the phrase "at current levels of consumption". Your statement on coal is equally meaningless since production of any resource (including coal) will never proceed at current levels of consumption until it is all used up. I also don't agree that coal consumption is unlikely to rise above today's levels. A desperate society will try anything to keep BAU going and there is almost no willingness to address human caused climate change, to any significant degree. In my country, a moratorium on new coal fired power stations (introduced by the last government) is quite likely to be lifted under the current government if there are pressures on electricity supply. Nothing stands in the way of economic growth. Nothing.

However, back to the point. You attempted to show that statements, of the sort I mentioned, are valid with some resources (e.g. coal) but your example doesn't show that.

You can't simultaneously argue for exponential growth in coal consumption and inability to maintain current consumption levels.

I can if some proportion of coal can be imported. Exports in a few coal producers have been rising. However, I agree that increases in coal consumption will likely hit some geological barrier in the not too distant future.

[shortonsense]

I posted the link to the size of the resource estimate. I certainly didn't make it up

I didn't say you did.

No, you simply dismissed a study showing thousands of years of supply, I characterized as "immense", as "rhetoric".

It isn't rhetoric when backed up by an industry study, unless you have your own industry study based which you can use to refute it? The last time I asked for the New Zealand government estimates to refute the EIA, you came up a little short on that rebuttal as well. Matter of fact, I don't think you even referenced one?

Perhaps when marketed production gets back up there and rises further, then you can begin to gloat.

You mean I didn't get enough gloating all the OTHER times it happened? Back in the 80's, people really DID think the sky was falling. Nowadays its just, like "can someone please start the electric car production line rolling already".

[TonyPrep]

No, you simply dismissed a study showing thousands of years of supply, I characterized as "immense", as "rhetoric".

Nope, I didn't do that either.

My comment was for your use of the word "immense", which is the kind of word usually used to indicate that there is no need to ever worry about a resource, when no such thing has been demonstrated.

The study doesn't give absolute figures for the size of the resource, or its accessibility and likely production rate. So your characterization is wishful thinking.

Perhaps when marketed production gets back up there and rises further, then you can begin to gloat.

You mean I didn't get enough gloating all the OTHER times it happened? Back in the 80's, people really DID think the sky was falling. Nowadays its just, like "can someone please start the electric car production line rolling already".

Nope. US natural gas marketed production has been on an undulating plateau for 35 years, with a peak in 1973.

[shortonsense]

My comment was for your use of the word "immense", which is the kind of word usually used to indicate that there is no need to ever worry about a resource, when no such thing has been demonstrated.

Your own definition of the time frame required to be pertinent to humans, was approximately 50 years.

I get to use the word immense under your very definition when I reference a 1000 years of supply, certainly far outside your "window of concern" as it were.

Thank you again for a semantics lesson while not disputing the amount of actual natural gas floating around our blue little planet.

The study doesn't give absolute figures for the size of the resource, or its accessibility and likely production rate. So your characterization is wishful thinking.

Only to those who can't make the leap from "bunches of a valuable commodity" to "gee lets produce some of this valuable commodity". The question resides within the economics of any particular scenario, and since I haven't seen you whip out any cost/supply curves to debate with, I certainly do not feel the need either.

US natural gas marketed production has been on an undulating plateau for 35 years, with a peak in 1973.

You mean, except for the big decline off into the early 80's? Come on Tony, you are only going to be able to convince a blind man that natural gas production in the US wasn't sliding down the slippery slope of Hubberts sorta-bell shaped curve, and you certainly can't hide the fact of its long and steady increase from that trough, these several decades ago. At least not with a straight face in this place. Too many people have seen that graph, and you sure don't have a New Zealand equivalent of the EIA to refute it, as hard as you might wish for one.

[TonyPrep]

Your own definition of the time frame required to be pertinent to humans, was approximately 50 years.

I get to use the word immense under your very definition when I reference a 1000 years of supply, certainly far outside your "window of concern" as it were.

50 years is not my window of concern. I'm concerned with a period much longer than that. There is no certainty (not by a long shot) that there is a 1000 year supply of natural gas. That's why your word is simply your wishful thinking. I wouldn't describe 100 years supply as immense, anyway, because knowingly relying on a resource as limited as 1000 years is pretty stupid. Doing so implies complacency about the future of resources and energy.

US natural gas marketed production has been on an undulating plateau for 35 years, with a peak in 1973.

You mean, except for the big decline off into the early 80's?

No, I don't mean that. Look at the EIA estimates. That is what I was referring to. Of course there were declines. That's what undulating means. But marketed supply has, so far, never exceeded the peak of the early 70s. If you regard a plateau (not "steadily increasing" since the peak) as comfortable, for a growing nation with aspirations of increasing living standards, then I think you are fooling yourself.

[shortonsense]

50 years is not my window of concern. I'm concerned with a period much longer than that.

Earlier you were pretty specific about your timeframe, and you know why. If you don't specify a timeframe, the sun swelling up and turning red means that our unsustainable system here on earth is gone under any and all circumstances, and that concern is much more real than the declining energy game.

US natural gas marketed production has been on an undulating plateau for 35 years, with a peak in 1973.

You mean, except for the big decline off into the early 80's?

No, I don't mean that. Look at the EIA estimates. That is what I was referring to. Of course there were declines. That's what undulating means. But marketed supply has, so far, never exceeded the peak of the early 70s. If you regard a plateau (not "steadily increasing" since the peak) as comfortable, for a growing nation with aspirations of increasing living standards, then I think you are fooling yourself.

And you are reduced to semantics again to try and discount the post peak production slide of natural gas in the United States, and the corresponding and consistent increase through decades to get back to that level again, give or take. Naughty naughty Tony. If you have to start making up undulating plateau's which most certainly aren't, then you open the door up for everyone else to just start making stuff up as they go along as well. Extremely Savinarish of you, but also disingenuous.

[TonyPrep]

Earlier you were pretty specific about your timeframe, and you know why. If you don't specify a timeframe, the sun swelling up and turning red means that our unsustainable system here on earth is gone under any and all circumstances, and that concern is much more real than the declining energy game.

Nah, that's just your way of side-stepping the issue. Real is real, whether it's something billions of years hence or something that will be a concern in a much shorter time frame. "Immense" implies not needing to worry over any period that might concern you. However, the resource can't be so described because it is a guess, with no clear data on the size or the rate of production. At best, you could say that there could be significant quantities of natural gas available over a period that would allow it to be used to help build sustainable societies, if sufficient investment is made and all the guesses turn out to be close to the truth.

And you are reduced to semantics again to try and discount the post peak production slide of natural gas in the United States, and the corresponding and consistent increase through decades to get back to that level again, give or take. Naughty naughty Tony. If you have to start making up undulating plateau's which most certainly aren't, then you open the door up for everyone else to just start making stuff up as they go along as well. Extremely Savinarish of you, but also disingenuous.

I'm not making anything up, SOS. Take a look at the EIA data. It only shows one period of consistent increases in marketed production, since the 1973 peak. That was from about 1984 to about 1994. A decade (not "decades"). The last 3 years have also seen rises but let's not call that a decade, just yet, eh? You're the one making stuff up, not me. Given the level of marketed production since the peak, "undulating plateau" is not too bad a phrase to use, but you can use another phrase if you wish, provided it isn't "decades of consistent increases".

[shortonsense]

Real is real, whether it's something billions of years hence or something that will be a concern in a much shorter time frame.

Fine by me, but that lumps your sustainability concerns with the much more critical sustainability of our solar system. Certainly the suns "final solution" to our problems is much more certain, and much more devastating to our environment than some slow degradation which doesn't compare in the least to peak hydrogen on the sun.

"Immense" implies not needing to worry over any period that might concern you. However, the resource can't be so described because it is a guess, with no clear data on the size or the rate of production.

Rate of production is an economic question which must be preceeded by "is there enough". "Is there enough" has been satisfied. The answer to "what is the rate" is usually "what is the demand".

At best, you could say that there could be significant quantities of natural gas available over a period that would allow it to be used to help build sustainable societies, if sufficient investment is made and all the guesses turn out to be close to the truth.

I'll certainly take guesses from experts in the field before some of the nonsense amateurs spew out, and of COURSE we want to use our vast natural gas resources to build a more sustainable society, and every time a windmill goes up in Kansas, or another solar panel is manufactured, that is EXACTLY what we are doing. And we haven't even reached off particularly far into the exotic hydrocarbons yet, we're still just using the regular stuff.

Take a look at the EIA data. It only shows one period of consistent increases in marketed production, since the 1973 peak. That was from about 1984 to about 1994. A decade (not "decades"). The last 3 years have also seen rises but let's not call that a decade, just yet, eh? You're the one making stuff up, not me. Given the level of marketed production since the peak, "undulating plateau" is not too bad a phrase to use, but you can use another phrase if you wish, provided it isn't "decades of consistent increases".

Hirsch considers a peak rate to be +/- 4%, and the undulating plateau, to be a plateau, needs to stay in that range. The secretary of ASPO used just such a definition in a recent paper he wrote.

Peak on your graph is 22.6 on an annual basis. Trough is 16.8, a drop of 25%+. According to the author of the DOE 2005 Peak Report, you are OFF the peak and have declined.

Not a undulating plateau, a decline.Quite substantial in fact. And a decline which was REVERSED, consistently and long term, by drilling unconventionals. You might not like it, but that sir is NOT a plateau, and there is even another increase from ANOTHER trough.

[TonyPrep]

Rate of production is an economic question which must be preceeded by "is there enough". "Is there enough" has been satisfied. The answer to "what is the rate" is usually "what is the demand".

Only if there is no geological or other restraint on production (such as manpower or access).

I'll certainly take guesses from experts in the field

Of course you would, but only if they correspond to your beliefs.

of COURSE we want to use our vast natural gas resources to build a more sustainable society

More sustainable doesn't cut it, if it's not sustainable. Without a plan of action for sustainability, we're unlikely to get sustainability. And unsustainable societies must end.

Not a undulating plateau, a decline.

As I said, you can use another phrase, if you wish.

Quite substantial in fact. And a decline which was REVERSED, consistently and long term, by drilling unconventionals.

It was reversed, but only consistently for a decade, not "decades". The peak (so far) was 35 years ago.

[shortonsense]

Rate of production is an economic question which must be preceeded by "is there enough". "Is there enough" has been satisfied. The answer to "what is the rate" is usually "what is the demand".

Only if there is no geological or other restraint on production (such as manpower or access).

Tony, do you even understand what a geologic constraint is? Here is a definitive geological constraint. Field X contains 1 billion barrels of oil.

There ya go. Now, how many different peaks, how many plateau's, and how far apart can I space all of these things with nothing more than the application of various sizes and shapes of economic context? See, you don't really get to add after the initial estimate "geologic restraint" because if I want to mine this billion barrels, such as in the tar sands of Canada, there aren't any.

I'll certainly take guesses from experts in the field

Of course you would, but only if they correspond to your beliefs.

I do not have a belief, only a global resource number provided by qualified experts. Feel free to reference your own.

of COURSE we want to use our vast natural gas resources to build a more sustainable society

More sustainable doesn't cut it, if it's not sustainable. Without a plan of action for sustainability, we're unlikely to get sustainability. And unsustainable societies must end.

Then what is your plan of action for fixing our solar system? It is inherently unsustainable, your insistence on being concerned with penny-anny microscopic issues is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, get your politicians to sponsor a human diaspora to another solar system. Ours is unsustainable.

The peak (so far) was 35 years ago.

Absolutely. 3-1/2 decades ago. So how many decades do we need to wait to make sure that peak oil is the actual peak this time, versus all these fake ones we keep having? These multi peak profiles are just wonderful things, they make the economic components so obvious.

[TonyPrep]

I do not have a belief, only a global resource number provided by qualified experts.

Sure you have beliefs. You believe that the number provided is accurate, down to the last cubic foot, and that there are no geological, or any other kind of, constraints to production of that resource, at whatever rate is wanted, for the next 100 years.

Then what is your plan of action for fixing our solar system?

Well that's a pretty stupid comment, so I'll leave it out there for all the rational folks to laugh at.

The peak (so far) was 35 years ago.

Absolutely. 3-1/2 decades ago.

Wow! It seems we have agreement.

[shortonsense]

I do not have a belief, only a global resource number provided by qualified experts.

Sure you have beliefs. You believe that the number provided is accurate, down to the last cubic foot, and that there are no geological, or any other kind of, constraints to production of that resource, at whatever rate is wanted, for the next 100 years.

It is not a belief that the mining of a particular resource yields as much as possible, without regards to your phantom geologic issues. . I have NO knowledge of the uncertainty provided in the resource estimate because none was provided. This is a critique, and a reasonable one, of the people who did the study. Feel free to round up a similar one which provides the uncertainty inherent in such an estimate. Until then, the deeterministic number is the best that the experts can provide.

At the end of the day what we have is simple. A resource number which you don't like because they don't provide the information in a way you would prefer. Well Tony, round up a consulting firm, or hire the USGS, to provide you with such an estimate. Until then, this may be the bests we got.

And at no point in time is any belief required on my part. Thats the beauty of sticking with other peoples estimates of things, what I believe has nothing to do with THEIR estimate.

Then what is your plan of action for fixing our solar system?

Well that's a pretty stupid comment, so I'll leave it out there for all the rational folks to laugh at.

Spoken like a man who can't convince his neighbors to vote for a sustainable candidate...perhaps because they too recognize that your issues with unsustainability are less plausible than mine?

[TonyPrep]

I have NO knowledge of the uncertainty provided in the resource estimate because none was provided.

So you have the beliefs, I stated.

And at no point in time is any belief required on my part.

It may not be required but you have a belief anyway, which is why you seem to regard the report as sacrosanct and perfect in every way that satisfies your aspirations. You don't even consider that the estimate may be inaccurate or that there are any kinds of constraints on production or production rates. They are, most certainly, beliefs; beliefs that may cause you to make certain choices that may turn out bad if your beliefs turn out to be false.

Then what is your plan of action for fixing our solar system?

Well that's a pretty stupid comment, so I'll leave it out there for all the rational folks to laugh at.

Spoken like a man who can't convince his neighbors to vote for a sustainable candidate...perhaps because they too recognize that your issues with unsustainability are less plausible than mine?

Hah! I'm not sure what a sustainable candidate is but, if you mean a candidate that proposes working for a sustainable society, then no such candidate exists. Which is a shame. As for your harping on about the end of the solar system, please continue to make a fool of yourself.

[shortonsense]

You don't even consider that the estimate may be inaccurate or that there are any kinds of constraints on production or production rates.

Quite incorrect Tony. I KNOW the estimate is wrong, but you certainly didn't ask me why, or even how I might know such a thing. You simply assumed. I am an equal opportunity dissector of information, everybody's. Its the only way to remain as objective as possible, an honest seeker of truth must understand both sides pretty well before making a decision.

This point appears to be lost on more than a few around here, who don't even take the time to ask a question before indulging in whatever fantasy most closely matches prior beliefs.

As for constraints on production rates, I've laid out my scenario and why it is possible. You don't refute the obvious, you simply keep repeating yourself on the topic.

I'm not sure what a sustainable candidate is but, if you mean a candidate that proposes working for a sustainable society, then no such candidate exists. Which is a shame. As for your harping on about the end of the solar system, please continue to make a fool of yourself.

I do not require antagonists to understand or accept the difference between factual information and speculation, hysterical assumptions or the myriad of other types of angles which pass for "information" at times around here.

I do however know that sustainability ( or lack thereof ) is quite an issue, and that your inability to convince your neighbors and countrymen of your sustainability claims ( or lack thereof ) is much tougher than me presenting my solar system claims to the nearest astrophysicist. One is taken as the usual ramblings of a "we're all going to die if you don't comply with my vision of the world" personality and the other receives simple nods of agreement from people who actually know something about such things.

Science is not run by consensus, so I certainly do not need a popular vote to tell me which is the correct unsustainable system to worry about, and which is just another round of the same old Malthus/Ehrlich routine.

[TonyPrep]

Science is not run by consensus, so I certainly do not need a popular vote to tell me which is the correct unsustainable system to worry about, and which is just another round of the same old Malthus/Ehrlich routine.

Feel free to worry about events billions of years hence. The next few thousand years is quite enough for most people.

Folks here might be interested in an article on on Energy Bulletin about the 100 years supply, A shale gas boom?

[shortonsense]

Folks here might be interested in an article on on Energy Bulletin about the 100 years supply, A shale gas boom?

Quite a good article Tony.

Nice to know that even the pessimists can't escape the first 100 years of unconventional gas, let alone the actual 1000 more waiting in the wings.

The entire high decline argument doesn't tend to make much sense from an economic perspective, but ASPO'ers have a bad habit of running that way every time as though its meaningful.

[energyhoggin]

Uh huh. Under 5000ft of solid bedrock under North Dakota, next to the 200 year supply of oil.

i remember them planning to blast a nuclear bomb so they could be able to get to the natural gas, this was back in the day when they were doing a bomb test every day..i forgot the logic behind it but somehow i remember the shockwaves were for something, here is a snippet about in wiki;


"Peaceful Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy," also referred to as "Program 7," involved testing of industrial nuclear charges for use in peaceful activities. Nuclear detonations were conducted with the stated purpose of searching for useful mineral resources with reflection seismology, breaking up ore bodies, stimulating the production of oil and gas, and forming underground cavities for storing the recovered oil and gas. The "Program" numbers come from the USSR's classification system of nuclear explosions, the first five programs designating various phases of nuclear weapon development.

All together, the Program 7 conducted 115 nuclear explosions. Among them:

39 explosions for the purpose of the geological exploration (trying to find new natural gas deposits by studying seismic waves produced by small nuclear explosions
25 explosions for intensification of oil and gas debits
22 explosions for creating underground storage for natural gas
5 explosions for extinguishing large natural gas fountains
4 explosions for creating channels and dams (including the Chagan test in Kazakhstan, and the Taiga test on the potential route of the Pechora-Kama Canal)
2 explosions for crushing ore in open-pit mines
2 explosions for creating underground storage for toxic wastes
1 explosion to facilitate coal mining in an underground mine
19 explosions were performed for research purposes

[Tanada]

Uh huh. Under 5000ft of solid bedrock under North Dakota, next to the 200 year supply of oil.

i remember them planning to blast a nuclear bomb so they could be able to get to the natural gas, this was back in the day when they were doing a bomb test every day..i forgot the logic behind it but somehow i remember the shockwaves were for something, here is a snippet about in wiki;


"Peaceful Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy," also referred to as "Program 7," involved testing of industrial nuclear charges for use in peaceful activities. Nuclear detonations were conducted with the stated purpose of searching for useful mineral resources with reflection seismology, breaking up ore bodies, stimulating the production of oil and gas, and forming underground cavities for storing the recovered oil and gas. The "Program" numbers come from the USSR's classification system of nuclear explosions, the first five programs designating various phases of nuclear weapon development.

All together, the Program 7 conducted 115 nuclear explosions. Among them:

39 explosions for the purpose of the geological exploration (trying to find new natural gas deposits by studying seismic waves produced by small nuclear explosions
25 explosions for intensification of oil and gas debits
22 explosions for creating underground storage for natural gas
5 explosions for extinguishing large natural gas fountains
4 explosions for creating channels and dams (including the Chagan test in Kazakhstan, and the Taiga test on the potential route of the Pechora-Kama Canal)
2 explosions for crushing ore in open-pit mines
2 explosions for creating underground storage for toxic wastes
1 explosion to facilitate coal mining in an underground mine
19 explosions were performed for research purposes

Do a web search on the term Project Gasbuggy to read about the USA version setting off small devices at depth in tight gas sands in I believe New Mexico.

[shortonsense]

Do a web search on the term Project Gasbuggy to read about the USA version setting off small devices at depth in tight gas sands in I believe New Mexico.

Sounds like a wonderful way to create radioactive natural gas.