Peak Oil News and Message Boards

ralfy wrote:They will, but by then it will no longer matter.

How so? Those changing their behavior now could very well be leading themselves to a healthier lifestyle, certainly Americans are doing something now that they are driving cars much less. While sitting around eating bonbons is one possibility, so is the sudden surge in bicycles populating the streets which has been going on even in the dead of winter.

I figure it has something to do with this.

Plantagenet wrote:

mmasters wrote:Will the media ever fully embrace peak oil?...
I mean embrace it as a crisis and give it at least somewhat the status it deserves rather than just a cover story.

Not bloody likely.

The MSM isn't going to run stories on peak oil and oil production decline now that oil production has stopped declining and instead is going up in the USA.

The MSM news stories instead are going to be all about frakking and politicians promising energy independence and oil production going up in the USA and all the jobs being created in North Dakota and stuff like that, because that is what is happening right now.

Maybe someday ten years from now the MSM will cover peak oil, when oil production in the USA reverses again and heads back down, but I wouldn't look for it to happen any time soon unless Ghawar production suddenly falls rapidly or something else like that happens.

Plantagenet takes the words right out of my mouth. Peak oil is miles away from the mass media's consciousness, and receding farther all the time as the US ramps up shale oil production. And let's face it (if we care to), PO is now at least three decades away instead of a handful of years away. Probably even longer, since some other countries also have vast shale-oil reserves but aren't even exploiting them. It's conceivable that PO won't become an actual, current issue in the lifetime of any POer.

The REAL issue we will be dealing with is global warming, especially if we are so foolish as to actually burn off our new-found fossil-fuel bonanza (as will certainly will). Also all the other resource issues, esp. water and topsoil. Those are the things that will kill us (us being our civilization).

pstarr wrote:I mean really. Does anybody believe the tight-shale scam can continue much longer? Look at the facts. What do you get for your $10 million investment? A single 20,000 ft. well, a fract job and 130/bpd.

$13 000
10 000 000/13 000.
769 days to recoup cost at $100 barrel.
2 years.

More expensive oil, higher bpd or lower costs by about a third and you would seem to be in the pink.

But unless costs come down it is not a route back to cheap oil.

Costs will continue to escalate. For one thing, there is a vicious cycle where we're using cheaper energy, and products made from that, to extract expensive energy. As less of the former becomes available the latter will make the extraction cost untenable.

SamInNebraska wrote:

ralfy wrote:They will, but by then it will no longer matter.

How so? Those changing their behavior now could very well be leading themselves to a healthier lifestyle, certainly Americans are doing something now that they are driving cars much less. While sitting around eating bonbons is one possibility, so is the sudden surge in bicycles populating the streets which has been going on even in the dead of winter.

I figure it has something to do with this.

That's my point. People are adjusting even as media have not fully embraced peak oil. In which case, when they do, it will no longer matter.

pstarr wrote:Simple fact: advanced industrial nations go into recession and then depression when fuel accounts for more than 5% of GDP. 3rd world countries do same at 10%. See Hamilton.

So no. Saturian space methane is too expensive to produce. As is Green River Shale and Orinocco super heavy. I would expect someone with your expertise to understand this, Econ101. You Sam. Not so sure.

I dont believe your simple fact. If oil prices are exceeding a healthy ratio of GDP, and that is actually significant, there are other truly significant and powerful forces at work as well.

Isolating that single statistic when it actually takes a set of financial statements to understand what causes a particular recession is over-simplifying beyond reason. You are trying to create a useful cause and effect for yourself, however meaningless it actually is.

pstarr wrote:I mean really. Does anybody believe the tight-shale scam can continue much longer? Look at the facts. What do you get for your $10 million investment? A single 20,000 ft. well, a fract job and 130/bpd. That kind of production would be shoddy for an old Venango County stripper. And what's more, the lease-holder would still have to invest another $5 million on the next fract job, two years down the road. I don't see how Grannie couldn't afford denture cream on that kind of rental income.

Your $10 million will get you probably 50,000 million barrels of sweet crude, huge amounts of natural gas, some water and if you own enough of it a very nice lifestyle!

Remember a stripper well is producing around $1,000/day of useable crude or more. Every drop counts. These things all add up and help support that almost verticle production line.

pstarr wrote:

Lore wrote:Costs will continue to escalate. For one thing, there is a vicious cycle where we're using cheaper energy, and products made from that, to extract expensive energy. As less of the former becomes available the latter will make the extraction cost untenable.

A critical issue yet to be addressed; peak infrastructure. Much of the equipment and infrastructure (heavy machines, pipelines, roads, transmission lines, etc.) was built and maintained when gasoline and diesel cost $1.00. Next time around we might not have the energy/money/will to replace these things. This is a oil-production subsidy as least as important a government handouts, investment activity, credit or professional know-how. It just hasn't been studied or measured.

I'd like to see this discussed here and even mathematized by the brainiacs who forage these web sites. (I don't do the nerd thing.)

You must not be aware of the 1 billion North Dakota has committed to road projects? How about the huge upgrade in rail infrastructure to handle the crude and supplies needed by the industry?

You havent been reading about the huge pipeline projects now underway across this country?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1137951-the-silver-bullets-of-the-north-american-energy-transport-infrastructure-part-i

That article will indentify at least a dozen. Its the first of a two part series. All of it is helping to get the crude to the exisiting infrastructure and expansion of existing infrastructure to handle the new much higher volumns of crude. The oil is headed to refiners and export terminals depending on whos buying at the well head and at what price.

Have you taken a look at Caterpillar and john Deere Stock? How about pickups. Did you ever wonder why they are the largest selling vehicle in the US? Heck we are even replacing old worn out steel factories to take advantage of the cheap natural gas and the demand for specialty steel products.

Econ101 wrote:You must not be aware of the 1 billion North Dakota has committed to road projects?

So little.

I hate to say it, but Yergin may have been right to predict that unconventional would work and peakers may have been biased in the other direction. What's probably going to happen is somewhere in the middle, in which case we DO in fact have a respite for a while. Maybe not 30 years, maybe more like 5-10, but a respite nonetheless, and as terrible as this is for the environment, I guess it's not such a bad thing. I've got a daughter to raise and nobody in my family got behind my plan to pool resources and move to a doomstead in VT.

ennui2 wrote:I hate to say it, but Yergin may have been right to predict that unconventional would work and peakers may have been biased in the other direction. What's probably going to happen is somewhere in the middle, in which case we DO in fact have a respite for a while.

How do you figure it was possible for Yergin to know all of this before it happened? The guy is basically a historian with some award winning books, it just doesn't seem fair that he knew what was going on better than us.

ennui2 wrote:I hate to say it, but Yergin may have been right to predict that unconventional would work and peakers may have been biased in the other direction. What's probably going to happen is somewhere in the middle, in which case we DO in fact have a respite for a while. Maybe not 30 years, maybe more like 5-10, but a respite nonetheless, and as terrible as this is for the environment, I guess it's not such a bad thing. I've got a daughter to raise and nobody in my family got behind my plan to pool resources and move to a doomstead in VT.

Unconventional? The first oil resources were found in pools above ground. It was often called naphtha. As those started to disappear we faced our first crisis of peak oil. We turned to the unconventional method of pounding a bit into the ground to get the oil. After a while we were thinking peak oil again until the unconventional drilling method of a rotating bit was used. This worked fine until peak oil and chicken little came around again. Once again they turned to an unconventional method called fracking. it's all the same oil except in larger quantities than the peak oil crack-pot Hubbert could even imagine.

Lore wrote:Costs will continue to escalate. For one thing, there is a vicious cycle where we're using cheaper energy, and products made from that, to extract expensive energy. As less of the former becomes available the latter will make the extraction cost untenable.

Drilling costs are actually dropping. Frack sand is being replaced with various shaped tiny ceramic sand, much cheaper than the natural stuff that has to be imported from wisonsin and minnesota. Drilling skills are to the point where well pads are being used over and over again. Rig counts are becoming manageable as supply infrastructure is developed and efforts become more focused on the long run. The big enemy of the producers is the EPA. They put upward pressure on costs with unecessary regulation, stalling tactics permit delays. They are a real threat and costing you a lot of money. Lets hope the coalition of the State of North Dakota and the producers can keep them at bay.

the president just delayed the decision on the keystone another 6 months but this issue is becoming secondary with new pipeline developments outside of federal control ongoing. Stopping the Keystone is a deliberate political effort to hamper oil production and is costing every consumer dearly. However, once the new pipelines are in place the oil will move more cheaply again bringing down costs in the face of federal efforts to drive them up.

Thats the real vicious cycle, not the imaginary "more energy to extract less energy" fairy tail.

People are tripping over themselves proclaiming a shale oil bonanza. Where is it? It's not in the millions of barrels per day. The Bakken is producing 700,000 barrels per day and it is by far the largest "shale oil" source in the USA. It experienced a drop in production in December. Is it headed for 7 million barrels per day? A snowball's chance in Hell.

Econ101 wrote:Once again they turned to an unconventional method called fracking.

Deary me my child. Fracking is not an unconventional method. It has been around for many many decades.

It is simply being applied to an unconventional source. This is only possible because of the very high price for oil.

If high prices creates efficiency savings like we seen in the early 80s and a following price drop, the oil is no longer viable.

We have substituted cheap energy for expensive energy.

Econ101 wrote: Rig counts are becoming manageable as supply infrastructure is developed and efforts become more focused on the long run.

That is meaningless management speak.

Unconventional is the new abiotic. What a goose.