dissident wrote:The EIA graph is utter rubbish. It invokes a mythical, basically unlimited undiscovered category to produce such retarded projections.
No it doesn't. And the shales aren't "undiscovered". They have a supply based model, itself a rarity and proof that they understand the basics of these issues, and their model basically just runs around and drills up existing locations. And it isn't even unlimited, they have explained this quite well, these parts of their methodology. Do you object to the geology being used to help quantify the supply side, and or perhaps the objection is to the very idea of POD, which they use explicitly, and Rockman himself talks about quite often? Did you miss the working paper on use of geology?
https://www.eia.gov/workingpapers/pdf/g ... encies.pdfDissident wrote: There is no hint of a basis for expecting such vast replacement of depleting conventional reservoirs.
Fortunate indeed that the graph doesn't say the volumes come from conventional reservoirs then. Did you even LOOK at the components of the expected future production?
Dissident wrote:The EROEI debate is nonsense as well. At the present time non-conventional is still cheap to extract. In the near future it will be too expensive to extract 1 barrel of oil by burning 20 barrels and over.
Fortunate indeed then that EROEI isn't OROOI. Energy comes in many forms, and nobody, ANYWHERE (well, except this post of yours) thinks that folks are burning oil to get oil...folks are using ENERGY to get oil, and that ENERGY comes from all sorts of places.
But you are right, because of these differences in BTU value, EROEI is nonsense.
Dissident wrote: People have been arguing that the oil price will never reach high levels because the global economy cannot handle it. That in itself kills off any chance of extraction of very low EROEI oil.
That isn't what Simmons said. He even lost bets saying the opposite. It isn't what Heinberg has claimed. It isn't what Savinar and Ruppert and all of the now quiet peak oilers were claiming, it isn't what Whipple and ASPO and TOD were claiming at the time. Your claim is peak oil revisionism, in light of a common misunderstanding about resource economics.