Page 10 of 18

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postPosted: Tue 13 Dec 2011, 20:19:54
by ErrantOlafr
Too bad with all that shale fracking we won't have any more clean drinking water.

Video: Peak oil debate - Shell vs ASPO

Unread postPosted: Fri 17 Feb 2012, 17:00:14
by kublikhan
The debate is an hour long and I have not watched it yet, but thought I'd share it here.

Video of a spirited debate on peak oil between John Hofmeister (Shell) and Ted Patzek (University of Texas and ASPO-USA).

The former president of Shell Oil Company debated Tad Patzek, Chair, Dept. of Petroleum Engineering, University of Texas on Feb 14 at the University of Wisconsin – Madison. The subject was: "The World Oil Supply: Looming Crisis or New Abundance?"

Gasoline will hit $5 per gallon this year predicts John Hofmeister, former president of Shell Oil Company, the U.S. subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell. He points to rising demand by developing countries, especially China and India, and says that the recent increase in U.S. oil supply rates and decrease in demand is not enough to offset global trends, and that prices will continue to creep upward, unless there are major changes in public policy to substantially increase domestic U.S. supply.

Gasoline prices could suddenly spike even higher, and though increases in U.S. domestic supply may be important, no realistic U.S. increase will offset declining yields from other nations, according to Professor Tadeusz Patzek, chair of the Department of Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin and Vice-President of the ASPO-USA Board of Directors. He highlights that declining output from most oil-exporting nations over the past decade, in the face of rising global demand, is likely to create a lasting drop-off in global availability of oil-spelling serious consequences for all oil-importing nations, including the United States.

Regardless of who is right, this issue needs to be examined with seriousness and urgency, which has been the driving motivation behind the collaboration of multiple University of Wisconsin and local Madison groups that are co-sponsoring this event."
World oil supply debate between ex-Shell chief and ASPO-USA professor

Video Debate

Re: Video: Peak oil debate - Shell vs ASPO

Unread postPosted: Fri 17 Feb 2012, 17:59:41
by Pops
Thanks Kub, I was just going to post it.

It's a good view of the enviro vs drill baby, non-negotiable lifestyle vs live smaller, powerdown vs China will beat us, debate. It sounds entirely left/right as Patzek talks a lot about environmental risks and the shell guy talks about over regulation, billions of barrels available, etc, right up till the shell guy says he's a dem?

Worth missing a couple simpsons reruns.

Re: Video: Peak oil debate - Shell vs ASPO

Unread postPosted: Fri 17 Feb 2012, 20:59:01
by kublikhan
Ok just watched it. I thought it was really good. I recommend everyone watch it. Let me share a few points I took away from the video and offer a bit of a summary:

A few points that were not in contention:
1. We consume 100 times the amount of energy that we need to biologically survive. If we ate all of that energy as food, we would all be the size of sperm whales, weight 40 tons and be bigger than a 5 story building. Newfie, pay attention to this point. We only need 1/100th of our current energy levels to survive. Stop harping about a dieoff!
2. OPEC has given up on enforcing production quotas.
3. Technology will enable us to get access to fossil fuels we could not previously access. But it will be more expensive and more risky. Meemoe, pay attention to this one. There is no such think as a free lunch. Yes technology will give us access to more fossil fuels than we had in the past. But it comes with the tradeoff of higher costs and higher risks. It is not some international conspiracy driving up costs!!
4. Every gallon of biofuel consumes 1000 times more water than the equivalent amount of gasoline. Biofuels are not environmentally friendly.
5. Our current path of business as usual points a bleak picture for the future. Just to emphasis again that both speakers agreed on this point. Predictions included 70's style rationing, more environmentally destructive energy sources, etc.

Points that were more contentious:
Shell guy was more along the lines of the American way of life is non-negotiable. We need to continue to feed it with: drill baby drill, gas to liquids, coal to liquids, biofuels, electrification, fuel cells etc. No power down is needed.
Also, he felt we need an independent energy board that was answerable to no one. Similar to the fed except with energy.

The ASPO guy was arguing more for a power down and conservation(less SUVs, more solar water heaters). He was less optimistic about increasing out energy supply with the aforementioned items(They are more costly, more risky, more environmentally destructive, etc.) Also, he was arguing more for individual action, and was pessimistic on government or an independent board saving us. The keeping up with the joneses attitude will stimulate your friends, family, and neighbors to make smart energy choices as well.

Re: Video: Peak oil debate - Shell vs ASPO

Unread postPosted: Fri 17 Feb 2012, 22:04:56
by ralfy
About the first point, I think the current ecological footprint is around 2.6 global hectares and biocapacity of the earth given the current population is less than 1.8. In order to maintain a middle class lifestyle, one will need a footprint of around 4 or more.

Also, I read somewhere that the life expectancy rate of various hunter-gatherer tribes is around 20 or 30 years.

Re: Video: Peak oil debate - Shell vs ASPO

Unread postPosted: Sat 18 Feb 2012, 02:08:05
by Plantagenet
I really enjoyed the debate video.

Except it wasn't much of a debate---both the ASPO person and the Shell Oil guy agreed that oil prices are going higher, interspersed with oil shocks when oil suddenly goes much much higher.

The Shell guy was scathing about the failure of the political class in DC over the last 40 years to do anything about the energy crisis, and he was equally scathing about the corrupt leadership in oil producing states from Venezuela to Saudi Arabia. He pointed to Canada and Norway as two countries that are doing a good job with their oil resources.

The ASPO guy was a little more touchy feely, recommending folks insulate and install solar water heaters.

We've covered the same ground here in our discussions at PeakOil.com.

Re: Video: Peak oil debate - Shell vs ASPO

Unread postPosted: Sat 18 Feb 2012, 11:18:15
by dinopello
kublikhan wrote:Ok just watched it. I thought it was really good. I recommend everyone watch it.


Me too.

These are not currently the only points of view, but I think once the majority see the reality of the energy dilema, these two points of view will be the main debate.

1) Rape the earth (as gently as possible, perhaps) in an attempt to maintain the current consumtive lifestlye or
2) Adapt our lifestyle to accomodate the energy we can obtain while maintaining the quality of our human habitat.

Both agree that consequences of doing nothing are likely disorder and suffering.

It will be interesting how this turns out.

Re: Video: Peak oil debate - Shell vs ASPO

Unread postPosted: Tue 21 Feb 2012, 18:31:23
by kiwichick
the only chance we have long term is to

a) move towards stabilizing the human population
b) after stabilizing we need to manage a controlled decline to match the declining availability of resources
c) climate change could accelerate in the near future (2 - 5 years ) and further stress the system
d) long term we (or more correctly our descendents) will have to leave this planet if we are interested in surviving, and they will need the resources to do so
e) therefore we need to not only use fewer resources but also to recycle and reuse more of them

Re: Video: Peak oil debate - Shell vs ASPO

Unread postPosted: Thu 23 Feb 2012, 19:37:02
by Beery1
Personally, I didn't see much spirited debate. I saw two guys in complete agreement about what's happening and two different ways to respond to it. It made for a boring debate. If this is what passes for spirited debate these days, I'm even more sad that Christopher Hitchens is no longer with us. Now there was a guy who could always give you a spirited debate.

Re: Video: Peak oil debate - Shell vs ASPO

Unread postPosted: Thu 23 Feb 2012, 20:15:43
by dinopello
Beery1 wrote:Personally, I didn't see much spirited debate. I saw two guys in complete agreement about what's happening and two different ways to respond to it. It made for a boring debate. If this is what passes for spirited debate these days, I'm even more sad that Christopher Hitchens is no longer with us. Now there was a guy who could always give you a spirited debate.


That's just the point, everyone should agree on what's happening, because that is what is happening. The debate should be about how to respond to it because that is where the options lay. The problem today is that everyone doesn't have the same view of reality. Too many people think its all a conspiracy for example - its the speculators, its the oil companies, its the environmentalists - whatever. There is and there is gonna be less and less cheap energy - what should we do ?

Re: Video: Peak oil debate - Shell vs ASPO

Unread postPosted: Wed 29 Feb 2012, 08:40:36
by dissident
dinopello wrote:
Beery1 wrote:Personally, I didn't see much spirited debate. I saw two guys in complete agreement about what's happening and two different ways to respond to it. It made for a boring debate. If this is what passes for spirited debate these days, I'm even more sad that Christopher Hitchens is no longer with us. Now there was a guy who could always give you a spirited debate.


That's just the point, everyone should agree on what's happening, because that is what is happening. The debate should be about how to respond to it because that is where the options lay. The problem today is that everyone doesn't have the same view of reality. Too many people think its all a conspiracy for example - its the speculators, its the oil companies, its the environmentalists - whatever. There is and there is gonna be less and less cheap energy - what should we do ?


Thank you mainstream media for the epic fail. News is about presenting facts and not just opposing opinions. I suspect that Exxon and friends not only fund global warming deniers, they fund peak oil denial as well. And the media whores for Exxon and its paid shills. Without the media creating a consensus there is not going to be one.

Hedge your Bets in the Peak Oil Debate

Unread postPosted: Mon 02 Jul 2012, 21:41:02
by Graeme
Hedge your Bets in the Peak Oil Debate

There is nothing but “Sad News for Peak Oil Disciples” these days, according to the Financial Post.
The latest example: Leonardo Maugeri, a fellow in the Geopolitics of Energy Project at the Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs—and a long-time critic of Peak Oil analysis—has just published a new report, “Oil: The Next Revolution,” in which he forecasts a sharp increase in world oil production capacity and the risk of an oil price collapse. His report has triggered a spate of press articles with titles like “No Peak Oil In Sight”, “Potential U.S. Oil Boom shakes Up Energy Politics,” and “Peak Oil Is Simply Not a Threat Anymore.”

These follow on the heels of a string of other articles touting increasing production of oil from “tight” shale deposits in the US—pieces with titles like “Has Peak Oil Peaked?” and “Is ‘Peak Oil’ Idea Dead?” And those in turn ride the slipstream of Daniel Yergin’s widely feted book The Quest, which provided last year’s fodder for an anti-Peak Oil media frenzy.


We at Post Carbon Institute [this is an article by Richard Heinberg] hope to sort out some of the technical issues related to unconventional oil in a report (forthcoming in September) by David Hughes, a follow-up to his 2011 reality check on U.S. shale gas production. But the bigger environmental and economic questions will no doubt continue to generate uncertainties for some time.

Still, there are a few observations that no serious energy analyst can dispute. Oil exploration and production costs are skyrocketing (Bernstein Research estimates that this year the industry needs prices in the range of $100 a barrel to justify new projects). The super-giant oilfields that still account for 60 percent of world crude production are aging, and so the more modest contribution of unconventionals, which are expected to be both expensive and slow to come on line, must push against a tide of depletion and decline. It’s only a question of when the overall global production decline begins, not if. Meanwhile, some of the fuels (ethanol, natural gas liquids) counted by IEA and EIA in the “all liquids” category have significantly lower energy content per unit of volume than regular crude oil; thus an increase in barrels-per-day of “all liquids” does not necessarily mean an increase in the amount of energy delivered to society.


oilprice

Re: Hedge your Bets in the Peak Oil Debate

Unread postPosted: Tue 03 Jul 2012, 07:40:50
by Pops
The proof of concept of peak oil is the current wave of published celebration over wells that deplete 65% the first year, might replace 7 or 8% of our imports, for a while, and cost 400%-500% more to produce than what we need.

Meanwhile we'll do less and less to change our dependence – there is a glut after all, I read it in the WSJ – and all the while we continue to deplete the $20 oil our society was built on.

Tight oil is not a replacement for conventional oil, it's a quaternary or quinary recovery technique where there never was a primary. It's at best an extender, a kicked can, the Hamburger Helper of petroleum. At worst it's a diversion, a whistle past the graveyard, the thing that takes the eye off the ball.

Re: Hedge your Bets in the Peak Oil Debate

Unread postPosted: Tue 03 Jul 2012, 10:03:26
by seahorse3
I just started a thread titled "There won't be a glut in US oil production." That is according to Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources and one of the largest developers of US oil in Bakken and other areas. So, it makes me question the optimistic assumptions made by Maugeri, who believes that oil shale production worldwide will lead to a glut in oil production - assuming no recession before 2015, a big assumption.

Re: Hedge your Bets in the Peak Oil Debate

Unread postPosted: Tue 03 Jul 2012, 12:04:59
by shortonoil
"The cornucopian mindset is certainly rife among leaders in the oil industry (Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, recently said of climate change and energy security, “We [humans] have spent our entire existence adapting. We’ll adapt . . . it’s an engineering problem and there will be an engineering solution”)."


The Hill's Group is an affiliation of freelance engineers that have been working on the problem of world oil depletion for over two years. Over that period we have developed a model that is simple, mathematically and thermodynamically complete, and testable. We can conclusively demonstrate that world oil depletion is a function of the specific internal energy of crude oil, which is a constant. Our conclusion is that the world's oil reserves are in an advanced stage of depletion. There is no engineering solution to this problem; it can not be solved by increasing reserves. There is a specific, definable amount of reserve that will ever be be extracted - and no more. The problem results from the fundamental properties of the substance oil and the Second Law, and those can not be altered.

The term "Peak Oil" has been a most unfortunate choice of terms. Because of the term it is suggested that there will be a gradual downside to world oil production before it terminates. Our model demonstrates that other alternatives are possible, and even probable. The most probable senario is that production of crude oil will decline very slowly until wide spread shut-ins of major fields begin. The final stage of world oil production is more likely to resemble the fall of dominoes than the gradual decline projected by Hubbert's curve.

Because of this we find the comment of the CEO of EXXON distressing; either for its total lack of understanding, or for its disingenuous nature. Our methodology is not above the capabilities of any good engineer, and the oil industry has a plethora of them. It is very unlikely that we are the sole wards of this knowledge, and thus, it is very unlikely that Mr. Tillerson believes what he is saying.

As human beings we have a responsibility to our society. The continuance of our culture depends upon it. The comments of Mr. Tillerson and his piers appear to have the semblance of a troop of monkeys fighting over the last banana in a tree; at a time of great upcoming social stress they are hardly the responses that will be needed from our society's leaders.



The Hill's Group

Re: Hedge your Bets in the Peak Oil Debate

Unread postPosted: Wed 04 Jul 2012, 04:17:53
by dorlomin
We are running much faster to stand still that when I first joined this site.

In that short time I have watched $100 oil go from unthinkable to the ordinary. We have lived in a world of permenant financial crisis and we see car miles continue to fall across the west.

No rabbit has been pulled from any hats, just higher prices accessing the real tought to get oil. The real savings are made from driving less and buying smaller cars.

Re: Hedge your Bets in the Peak Oil Debate

Unread postPosted: Wed 04 Jul 2012, 06:23:54
by SeaGypsy
The rabbits which have been pulled (not tight plays, but new conventional oil such as Iran's) have been shoved back in, as they are too competitive with the tight plays. The magician has a stage hook around his neck.

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postPosted: Thu 08 Nov 2018, 15:43:06
by Tanada
Now that we have done our politics for a while time to get back to the purpose of this website.

The world of Peak Oil has been pretty silent since the fires in Fort McMurray last summer disrupted tar/ bitumen production from Canada. Even the Iran renewed sanctions havn't made much of a dent in public consciousness. I think this is mostly an issue of three years of surplus supply and low prices coupled with short attention spans but am ready to be debated on that POV.

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postPosted: Thu 08 Nov 2018, 15:55:11
by Plantagenet
The oil surplus continues.

US production hit another record high and oil prices have been falling for five weeks.

oil-bear-market-

We're technically in a bear market for oil now, and Jim Cramer is predicting oil will fall further to ca. $40/bbl soon.

Cheers!

Re: Peak oil debate

Unread postPosted: Fri 09 Nov 2018, 12:44:57
by ROCKMAN
P - I'm curious: do you know what Cramer was predicting for 30-day future closing prices this second week in Nov back in the second week of Oct when they were closing about 20% higher? If he did come close to being correct and made bets backing his mouth he should have pocketed many $millions. As would anyone who followed such a recommendation...had he made it.

Very easy to predict 30-day future contract closing prices. If you wait a month to do so. LOL.