Peak Oil News and Message Boards

How brave to give themselves a 15 year window of possibly correct years.

Subjectivist wrote:How brave to give themselves a 15 year window of possibly correct years.

Pretty much like the climate change doomers who always predict that we are all dead in 10 years. Far enough out not to be able to call them on their BS.

"Peak Oil" is reduction in demand. Go with the flow on that point, and don't get caught up in arguing that it is a supply problem. There will always be supplies to meet market demand.

If you reel back at that statement, stop and study basic supply/demand economics.

My statement is not a denial of peak oil. Again, if you don't see that, stop again to think it through.

MD wrote:"Peak Oil" is reduction in demand. Go with the flow on that point, and don't get caught up in arguing that it is a supply problem. There will always be supplies to meet market demand.

If you reel back at that statement, stop and study basic supply/demand economics.

I agree peak oil could come about through reduction of demand.

However, I'm skeptical that demand for oil will actually peak between 2025-40 given that world populations continue to grow and third world countries like China and India are seeing increasing demand for for oil as more and more of their huge populations become wealthier and want cars and other trappings of an affluent lifestyle.

These factors are currently driving a significant increase in the global demand for oil.

oil-demand-growing-at-fastest-pace-in-five-years-says-iea

Plantagenet wrote:

MD wrote:"Peak Oil" is reduction in demand.

I agree peak oil could come about through reduction of demand.

However, I'm skeptical that demand for oil will actually peak between 2025-40 given that world populations continue to grow and third world countries like China and India are seeing increasing demand for for oil as more and more of their huge populations become wealthier and want cars and other trappings of an affluent lifestyle.

These factors are currently driving a significant increase in the global demand for oil.

oil-demand-growing-at-fastest-pace-in-five-years-says-iea

I think it's REALLY hard to see 23 years out, much less accurately see 8 years out, as far as just one factor in the supply/demand balance -- how the green technologies for EV's will progress.

Without meaningful SWAG's (scientific wild ass guesses) for key variables like that, trying to predict global peak oil seems pretty silly to me.

And certainly the Paris accords don't do much (except promise happy rhetoric going forward) to reduce demand for burning FF's. I still think without a massive (growing over time) CO2 tax, we won't see a reduction in global oil demand for a LONG time. It's just to economically useful (in the short term, if we ignore things like pollution and AGW).

The problem with every last economic prediction ever made and every economic model ever created, is that none are able to account for the variable of human behavior. Thus they are all useless for planning purposes.

KaiserJeep wrote:The problem with every last economic prediction ever made and every economic model ever created, is that none are able to account for the variable of human behavior. Thus they are all useless for planning purposes.

Yep.

Just focus in this one point: there will always be sufficient supplies to meet demand: at a given price point.

The exact amount of available supplies does impact global economic health, in a significant way, but again, the total production, or the timing of the "peak", isn't as significant as "peak oilers" would like to believe. There are far too many other factors involved.

The world can't afford high prices. Unfortunately, oil companies need higher prices because their production costs have gone up, and that's due to peak oil. Finally, the same problem can be seen for copper and other commodities, which can be seen in light of diminishing returns. Those lead to limits to growth, with pollution, population growth, middle class demands, and other factors creating more problems.

The implication is that the effects of peak oil take place even before production peaks or even drops.

ralfy wrote:The world can't afford high prices. Unfortunately, oil companies need higher prices because their production costs have gone up, and that's due to peak oil. Finally, the same problem can be seen for copper and other commodities, which can be seen in light of diminishing returns. Those lead to limits to growth, with pollution, population growth, middle class demands, and other factors creating more problems.

The implication is that the effects of peak oil take place even before production peaks or even drops.

With respect, I think you're conflating "peak oil" with global carrying capacity, or limits of BAU growth.

IMO, stretching the definition of "peak oil" to cover anything remotely related to a growth constraint essentially renders the term useless.

M_B_S wrote:https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/129260/bp-predicts-peak-oil-will-hit-2025-2040/

Broad consensus has suggested “peak oil” the peak oil window will be between the years of 2025 and 2040.

Lines up pretty close to the EIA estimate from like 2004 o4 2005? Except of course back then they were derided for not falling for the near term peaker claims, and now their estimate done back looks precognitive.

MD wrote:"Peak Oil" is reduction in demand.

An interesting concept, considering that Hubbert said it was a reduction in supply. Is this a relatively new concept, created after it became obvious that industry was capable of producing more supply than anyone could ever imagine a decade ago?

MD wrote:My statement is not a denial of peak oil. Again, if you don't see that, stop again to think it through.

So this would explain low prices nowadays...but not the increased supply that caused it.

ralfy wrote:The world can't afford high prices.

It already has.

ralfy wrote: Unfortunately, oil companies need higher prices because their production costs have gone up, and that's due to peak oil.

Not according to a previously provided EIA study on the topic.

ralfy wrote:The implication is that the effects of peak oil take place even before production peaks or even drops.

Implication according to who? LATOC implied that civilization was ending, and here we are more than a decade later and all we got was lower fuel prices for years now. And what peak oil effects, some still said we already had peak oil and the effects were those lower prices.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:IMO, stretching the definition of "peak oil" to cover anything remotely related to a growth constraint essentially renders the term useless.

That is one horse that has already left the barn OS.

AdamB wrote:

Outcast_Searcher wrote:IMO, stretching the definition of "peak oil" to cover anything remotely related to a growth constraint essentially renders the term useless.

That is one horse that has already left the barn OS.

Yes. Many years ago. The term itself died with the singularly defined resource curve that brought about its birth.

That fact, however, does not make the discussion of its redefinition useless.

The tag line "exploring hydrocarbon depletion" remains relevant. Hydrocarbon depletion in all its forms remains highly relevant, and the fact that early "peak oilers" latched onto one facet of the puzzle, thus defining the term in that context, is just normal to human nature.

So redefine the term, abandon it, or ignore semantics entirely and talk about what's important (in plain language), and skip the endless wrangling over made up terms.

MD wrote:

AdamB wrote:

Outcast_Searcher wrote:IMO, stretching the definition of "peak oil" to cover anything remotely related to a growth constraint essentially renders the term useless.

That is one horse that has already left the barn OS.

Yes. Many years ago. The term itself died with the singularly defined resource curve that brought about its birth.

That fact, however, does not make the discussion of its redefinition useless.

Quite true. And interestingly, and unmentioned among those who are discussing the redefinition, are those expending substantial resources to build not just an answer to that question, but quite a few more. Considering that these are the same folks who were smart enough to have not fallen for the original scheme, makes it worth watching.

Looks like it has been underway for 3 years now.

http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/documentati ... 140211.pdf

http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/documentati ... 140522.pdf

MD wrote:The tag line "exploring hydrocarbon depletion" remains relevant. Hydrocarbon depletion in all its forms remains highly relevant, and the fact that early "peak oilers" latched onto one facet of the puzzle, thus defining the term in that context, is just normal to human nature.

Well, early peak oilers are probably those claiming either peak, or running out, in the 1886-1925 era. There were some middle peak oilers between 1938 to 1956 or so (bookmarked by Hubbert's US peak call in 1938 and again in 1956, including the Sec. Of Interiors written fears in 1943), and I would say the modern peak oilers began with Colin Campbell and his peak oil call in 1989.

So I'm not sure you meant the early peak oilers, but more the early claimants of the modern era.

MD wrote:So redefine the term, abandon it, or ignore semantics entirely and talk about what's important (in plain language), and skip the endless wrangling over made up terms.

Well, you and I can agree that peak oil is some poorly conceived and defined term, now rotting on the dustbin of its poor ability to foresee anything, but others are still quite enamored with the idea. Richard Heinberg, amateur violin player and peak oil expert extraordinaire is still using the term, as just one example of those who can't learn from history, and appear to determined to refuse to learn from their past mistakes in this regard.

http://www.postcarbon.org/the-peak-oil-president/

Prices are relative things. I remember both $0.18/g and $5.69/g gasoline, which is a 3160% increase in my lifetime.

The present approximately $3/g gasoline will cost $95/g after 3160% price escalation, and be perfectly affordable as long as that 3160% happened over 50+ years as did the price range I described. But if it happens in 10-20 years, our economy is dead.

The dollars are not constant, of course. Also note that $95/g is more likely to be $200/g as the various governments load on taxes to discourage gasoline consumption. Having failed to prevent the problem, the least they can do is make it worse, for your own good, of course.

Peak oil might be a problem for the 1st World countries, or it might not, depending upon how long it takes. It will certainly kill billions of humans elsewhere in the world, where relatively cheap food has enabled a huge increase in the population of 3rd World countries.

Here's a prediction for you: When the cost less taxes is $100/g, we will still be pumping oil, and there will still be some to pump. The slope of the declining half of the peak oil curve is itself an interesting discussion, and as with all economic predictions, the biggest variable is human behavior.

KaiserJeep wrote:...

Here's a prediction for you: When the cost less taxes is $100/g, we will still be pumping oil, and there will still be some to pump. The slope of the declining half of the peak oil curve is itself an interesting discussion, and as with all economic predictions, the biggest variable is human behavior.

Oil will be available at any price. Ultimately it may mean human slave laborers breaking and cooking fire rocks so that the local feudal lord can light his lamps (or any other dystopian fantasy, you pick your flavor).

AdamB wrote:So I'm not sure you meant the early peak oilers, but more the early claimants of the modern era.

I mean all of them, along with 98% of the rest of the crystal ball gazers.

In the other 2% there are a couple that can see ahead with some accuracy, at least in the short term. Most of them exist in the fortune 500, with the exception of those who were born to the position.

Outcast_Searcher wrote:

ralfy wrote:The world can't afford high prices. Unfortunately, oil companies need higher prices because their production costs have gone up, and that's due to peak oil. Finally, the same problem can be seen for copper and other commodities, which can be seen in light of diminishing returns. Those lead to limits to growth, with pollution, population growth, middle class demands, and other factors creating more problems.

The implication is that the effects of peak oil take place even before production peaks or even drops.

With respect, I think you're conflating "peak oil" with global carrying capacity, or limits of BAU growth.

IMO, stretching the definition of "peak oil" to cover anything remotely related to a growth constraint essentially renders the term useless.

I didn't "stretch" the definition. I said the effects of peak oil take place even before production peaks or drops.