Page 6 of 6

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postPosted: Mon 19 Feb 2018, 23:57:50
by ralfy

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Feb 2018, 07:03:50
by tita
AdamB wrote:You never know how many of the Happy McPeaksters are left until..you know...you ask a question and see if they are too embarrassed by their oil ignorance to show up and answer. Or not.

Well, maybe AirlinePilot, who make some appearance from time to time... But mcgo was last seen 6 years ago. And anyway, what we thought 9 years ago changed a lot.

Besides, the title to this thread is important, you see, the US has since demonstrated the sine wave function of oil production, and I am working my way through this thread to see if someone knew it could happen before it did. Because then not only would I not be originator of the idea, but someone might have actually figured this out, right here on this forum, before it actually happened. And you can't find any peak oiler here who managed that, so it is quite the anomaly.

The global oil demand doesn't follow a sine wave function... It's more like straight growth. There was like two visible decrease in the last 40 years...

But yeah the idea of multiple peaks in production is indeed real. Either because geopolitical events like in Russia. Or in the case of the US for technological and economical events. Not exactly sine-wave function anyway.

The sine-wave function can only happen if the global supply-demand of oil reach some plateau, and then oscillate around some rate level. Both from demand and supply unable to set a balanced price for both to grow. This would put some real stress on the global economy, as the price would be volatile.

We are not in such situation. Both global supply and demand are growing

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Feb 2018, 13:24:29
by ROCKMAN
It's amazing how many charts of US oil production show almost nothing before 1900. PA had its boom around 1865. In fact: At the peak of the oil boom, Pennsylvania wells were producing one third of the world’s oil. At one point PA was doing about 4 mm bbls/yr. But that's just a guess since no official records were kept.

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Feb 2018, 13:33:15
by asg70
This is a naive question but what was petroleum being used for prior to the automobile? I know kerosene was used in lamps and whale-oil but what else?

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Feb 2018, 13:53:07
by KaiserJeep
Although natural petroleum seeps were used to a certain extent for waterproofing rope and twine and the like with viscous tar, there was no use for natural petroleum as a fuel until kerosene replaced whale oil lamp fuel and candles made from tallow.

In fact, the seeping of petroleum from the ground was regarded as a disastrous misfortune for the land owner.

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Feb 2018, 14:13:59
by Plantagenet
The oil biz has always been about booms and busts----with each new major oil discovery igniting a boom that ended with oversupply and a bust. Its been going on for over a century.

The latest oil boom is in TOS in the USA. No doubt it will be followed by another bust.

Then we'll have to wait and see where and what the next oil boom is.....

Image

Cheers!

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Feb 2018, 14:29:10
by Outcast_Searcher
tita wrote:The global oil demand doesn't follow a sine wave function... It's more like straight growth. There was like two visible decrease in the last 40 years...

Yup. Thus far, global oil demand corresponds very strongly to global economic activity. Since that's growing almost every year, the total demand for oil continues along with it.

tita wrote:The sine-wave function can only happen if the global supply-demand of oil reach some plateau, and then oscillate around some rate level. Both from demand and supply unable to set a balanced price for both to grow. This would put some real stress on the global economy, as the price would be volatile.

We are not in such situation. Both global supply and demand are growing

Yup. We can only hope (since neither governments nor voters are going to force or even incent change via intelligent tax incentives like a moderate and growing CO2 tax) that the move to BEV's and even PHEV's and efficient HEV's in the coming few decades will flatten and then decrease the demand for oil.

Perhaps the impacts of AGW becoming worse / blindingly obvious to all but the most obstinate deniers, will help, especially if EV's become as easy to use day to day as ICE's, but are cheaper to own, maintain, and keep reliable for a long time. (Not forecasting in the robotic taxi displacing the private car, as I think there's far too much "Musk-like" hype in them taking over very quickly. It may well happen, but it could be several decades.)

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postPosted: Tue 20 Feb 2018, 22:53:01
by ralfy
ROCKMAN wrote:It's amazing how many charts of US oil production show almost nothing before 1900. PA had its boom around 1865. In fact: At the peak of the oil boom, Pennsylvania wells were producing one third of the world’s oil. At one point PA was doing about 4 mm bbls/yr. But that's just a guess since no official records were kept.


Also, the world population was much smaller then, together with a global capitalist system on a scale similar to the current one.

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postPosted: Wed 21 Feb 2018, 03:51:38
by Outcast_Searcher
ralfy wrote:More like 30+ years post-peak.

Of course. If you don't like the numbers reality gives you, change the yardstick.

Given the falling energy intensity per GDP of the global economy, using energy per capita isn't such a great yardstick.

Examples:

A BEV, PHEV, or plain old HEV gets a HELL of a lot better MPGe or MPG than a typical "big steel" car from 50ish years ago. A smart phone uses a tiny fraction of the power of a PC from 20 or 30 years ago, and yet is far more powerful and connected, and that plus the internet eliminate a GREAT many miles I "need" or want to travel by car.

It's not as easy as just saying "We have less of X per capita, so things must be getting worse".

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postPosted: Wed 21 Feb 2018, 13:15:41
by AdamB
ralfy wrote:More like 30+ years post-peak.


Says he who has his fingerprints over every half baked crackpot idiot idea from a decade ago, when he was a father figure seeking part of the pseudo religious group Life After The Oil Crash, and wants to reference someone who never even bothered to learn the history of peak oil before misrepresenting it on his blog.

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postPosted: Wed 21 Feb 2018, 13:19:43
by AdamB
tita wrote:
AdamB wrote:You never know how many of the Happy McPeaksters are left until..you know...you ask a question and see if they are too embarrassed by their oil ignorance to show up and answer. Or not.

Well, maybe AirlinePilot, who make some appearance from time to time... But mcgo was last seen 6 years ago. And anyway, what we thought 9 years ago changed a lot.


For those with neurons that work maybe. Shorty is spewing the same thing he did back then, only changing the references he uses,substituting random number generators for his Bush and Larouche quotes.

Pete has been running around declaring peak oil happened more than a decade ago now, you figure he is the only one who didn't learn? I'm betting there are far more, just keeping quiet, hoping no one goes back and rounds up their posts to see how hard they fell for herd think.

tita wrote:
Besides, the title to this thread is important, you see, the US has since demonstrated the sine wave function of oil production, and I am working my way through this thread to see if someone knew it could happen before it did. Because then not only would I not be originator of the idea, but someone might have actually figured this out, right here on this forum, before it actually happened. And you can't find any peak oiler here who managed that, so it is quite the anomaly.

The global oil demand doesn't follow a sine wave function... It's more like straight growth. There was like two visible decrease in the last 40 years...


Go back to global production rates starting in 1979...tell us what you see.

tita wrote:But yeah the idea of multiple peaks in production is indeed real. Either because geopolitical events like in Russia. Or in the case of the US for technological and economical events. Not exactly sine-wave function anyway.

The sine-wave function can only happen if the global supply-demand of oil reach some plateau, and then oscillate around some rate level. Both from demand and supply unable to set a balanced price for both to grow. This would put some real stress on the global economy, as the price would be volatile.

We are not in such situation. Both global supply and demand are growing


Imagine that..this far after global peak oil...in 1979...or a decade ago. The good news being that there appears to be quite a discussion on peak demand nowadays.

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postPosted: Wed 21 Feb 2018, 13:21:49
by AdamB
ralfy wrote:
ROCKMAN wrote:It's amazing how many charts of US oil production show almost nothing before 1900. PA had its boom around 1865. In fact: At the peak of the oil boom, Pennsylvania wells were producing one third of the world’s oil. At one point PA was doing about 4 mm bbls/yr. But that's just a guess since no official records were kept.


Also, the world population was much smaller then, together with a global capitalist system on a scale similar to the current one.


Please reference the chapter and verse from the Happy McPeakster bible you cut and pasted this from, we are all curious.

Re: Multiple Peaks (split from EIA confirms 2005 Peak)

Unread postPosted: Wed 21 Feb 2018, 14:15:50
by asg70
AdamB wrote:Shorty is spewing...
Pete has been running around...


They are both gone forever, right? At what point can we kind of close the book on their talking points?