Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak oil debate

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby dorlomin » Wed 07 Dec 2011, 04:18:17

OilFinder2 wrote:Ooo, this is rich! Argentina has been one of the poster children


United States 11297 7337 -35% 1970
Venezuela 3754 2566 -32% 1970
Libya 3357 1846 -45% 1970
Other Middle East 79 33 -58% 1970
Kuwait 3339 2784 -17% 1972
Iran 6060 4325 -29% 1974
Indonesia 1685 1004 -41% 1977
Romania 313 99 -68% 1977
Trinidad & Tobago 230 149 -35% 1978
Iraq 3489 2423 -31% 1979
Brunei 261 175 -33% 1979
Tunisia 118 89 -25% 1980
Peru 196 120 -39% 1982
Cameroon 181 84 -54% 1985
Other Europe & Eurasia 762 427 -44% 1986
Russian Federation 11484 9886 -14% 1987*
Egypt 941 722 -23% 1993
Other Asia Pacific 276 237 -14% 1993
India 774 766 -1% 1995*
Syria 596 398 -33% 1995
Gabon 365 235 -36% 1996
Argentina 890 682 -23% 1998
Colombia 838 618 -26% 1999
United Kingdom 2909 1544 -47% 1999
Rep. of Congo (Brazzaville) 266 249 -6% 1999*
Uzbekistan 191 111 -42% 1999
Australia 809 556 -31% 2000
Norway 3418 2455 -28% 2001
Oman 961 728 -24% 2001
Yemen 457 305 -33% 2002
Other S. & Cent. America 153 138 -10% 2003*
Mexico 3824 3157 -17% 2004
Malaysia 793 754 -5% 2004*
Vietnam 427 317 -26% 2004
Denmark 390 287 -26% 2004
Other Africa 75 54 -28% 2004*
Nigeria 2580 2170 -16% 2005*
Chad 173 127 -27% 2005*
Italy 127 108 -15% 2005*
Ecuador 545 514 -6% 2006*
Poster children?

Ive heard a lot about the US, Mexico, UK, Norway, Kuwait but Argentina....

There is cherry picking then there is finding a needle in the haystack of post peak countries and announcing your haystack is now in fact a luxuary castle in the sky.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby dorlomin » Wed 07 Dec 2011, 04:26:29

Bruce_S wrote:Gee....I wonder how something like that could ever happen?
Hi Shorty, hiya pal.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby MD » Wed 07 Dec 2011, 06:45:07

It's only lost relevance in that it's been over for some time.

We're mining oil like crazy now, and will continue to do so, which was unthinkable just 10 years ago when most attempts were economically buried in the flood of cheap supplies still available.

Saudi Arabia has declined to add new production of their own, stating competitive alternatives as their reason, which is remarkable when looking back just a few years.

Oil prices are "steady" at four times times previous "steady" values, despite the fact that the world's cheapest oil is still flowing at remarkable rates --making up the bulk of production, yet declining steadily in quantity--.

What's to debate? Hubbert was right, and Hubbert was wrong. He saw the global picture as only sweet supplies and abandoned reserves, a model that when observed in one group fields amongst "endless" world supplies made perfect sense.

The global model is entirely different, once each layer of reserves becomes economical due to the depletion of less expensive resource, people will turn to it in droves, as we've seen and are seeing.

Don't forget to watch the ratio of cheap to expensive oil-production over time. That's where the real problem lies, at the moment, one where the more relevant discussions are centered around economy and ecology, not geology.

The answers to the geological questions have been mostly answered, except for the fine points that drive the endless squabbling you see here.

So yeah, Peak Oil has become irrelevant.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4951
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby seahorse3 » Wed 07 Dec 2011, 08:36:22

The world maybe finding a lot of NG but it won't be replacing oil anytime soon for vehicles. As as Bern argued PO is a liquid fuels crisis. Many of these MSM articles citing all these new gas finds don't realize or overlook the fact that virtually no one is using NG to fuel cars/trucks/planes. The number of NG vehicles on the road today is insignificant. So far there is little or no movement to transition to NG vehicles. CLNE is one such US company but again it's insignificant at this time- caveat I'm long CLNE.
seahorse3
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue 01 Mar 2011, 15:14:13

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby Pops » Wed 07 Dec 2011, 11:20:39

No wonder the optimists in the crowd love to post PR stories.

First, let's review; if there are +/- 2.2T barrels of gettable oil and we've already got 1Tb, it follows there are still a trillion somewhere. It's peak oil, folks, not no oil.

Second if there is a billion barrels of something flammable in Argentina and globally we use 85 million a day... what is that? 12 days worth? Again, I think it's a little early to say we're saved.

What is important is the price. This is PR, the guy is pumping his stock, Repsol does lots of business in Libya and they haven't had a good year there. But still, if his PR is even close to true it really brings the overall situation into focus, the floor for oil isn't based on high extraction costs like some of us have been guessing, it's simply too little supply to meet demand.


Look at the drilling boom in the '70s, there was a huge increase and within a couple of years the price of oil came way down, not so this time. The reason is fracking isn't like old fashioned oil where you drill a hole then stand back and watch it produces for years under it's own pressure. The fast decline in production from each well (up to 85% the first year) means more holes need to be made, quicker, just to keep up with declining production from the last one.

Also one of the reasons that there is so much drilling going on right now in the US is the 3 & 5 year leases bought for, say, $100 are expiring and if they aren't drilled on before expiration the lease will be renegotiated, the going price is $1,500 today so there is a big incentive to get those leases "proved".

They are making big money with lots of incentive to make more but still the price of oil is historically high. So, with oil higher than it's been since 1860 where are all the rigs?

Image


The bottom line is this doesn't making PO irrelevant, it does just the opposite. Is there a grand conspiracy and a bunch of entities are sitting on a lot of oil to keep the price of even fracked oil at 4x break even? Look at the futures, oil is trading between $95 and $100 all the way out so the consensus is Fracking isn't the blessing bestowed by the Energy Fairy some would lead you to believe.

What is irefutable is there just isn't anywhere to drill for easy, cheap, quick oil - otherwise someone would be doing it and making a killing. Since demand keeps rising but supply can't keep up, the price rises instead.

Sounds like a great argument for peak oil too me.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 18294
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby Schadenfreude » Wed 07 Dec 2011, 20:01:15

Kristen wrote:Arent there serious consequences to using shale gas? What about the amount of water needed? Even if there is an over abundance, kicking the can farther down the road is hardly solving the problem


The oil industry has been kicking the can down the road for the past 100 years. That's the history of petroleum chicken-littleism.

Sure, oil will become scarcer and more expensive. But it has become clear that there won't be any oil emergency for decades. and that leaves plenty of time for adaptation, innovation, and discovery of alternate sources of energy.

These sure aren't the days of Jay Hanson and dieoff.org any more. Back then, all the doomerish forecasters like Heinberg and all the rest were forecasting severe energy crunches by 2011.
Last edited by Schadenfreude on Wed 07 Dec 2011, 20:12:03, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Schadenfreude
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1096
Joined: Wed 16 Jan 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby Cloud9 » Wed 07 Dec 2011, 20:05:02

I would not gloat about the time frame.
User avatar
Cloud9
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby Schadenfreude » Wed 07 Dec 2011, 20:13:42

Cloud9 wrote:I would not gloat about the time frame.


Then don't.

U.S. oil and gas yield will beat peak by 2020, research projects

The United States is on track to beat its previous peak production of oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids, according to an analysis by consulting firm PFC Energy.

The analysis projects that the United States will become the world’s top producer of those fossil fuels by 2020. Though Saudi Arabia will continue surpass it in oil production, the United States’ booming shale gas business will make it the global leader in well-borne fossil fuels, according to PFC Energy.

Domestic energy production has declined since the early 1970s, when the United States peaked at about 22 million barrels of oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids per year, the analysis noted. About 45 percent of the product was oil and 43 percent was natural gas.

The United States is poised to hit 22 million barrels of oil equivalent again in 2020. But natural gas will make up the majority of energy produced – about 58 percent, according to PFC Energy.

In September Bentek Energy predicted that combined Canadian and U.S. oil production would reach an all-time high by 2016.

The analysis attributes most of the growth in natural gas to shale formations in Texas, Louisiana and the Northeast. Technology improvements, including hydraulic fracturing, have allowed energy companies to access oil and natural gas from shale rock that was once too complex to access economically.

Shale will also increase production of oil and natural gas liquids, the report noted. PFC Energy projects that by 2020, more U.S.-produced oil and liquids will come from shale than from the Gulf of Mexico.
User avatar
Schadenfreude
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1096
Joined: Wed 16 Jan 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby MD » Thu 08 Dec 2011, 00:05:45

Pops wrote:...

Sounds like a great argument for peak oil too me.


Exactly. It's completely evident, which is what makes it irrelevant.

It's a done deal, at least from 2005's perspective. Now we get to experience how the world continues to react to its effects.

It's not so much a roller coaster so far as it is the early phase of a river rafting trip.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4951
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby kiwichick » Thu 08 Dec 2011, 05:04:05

please don't upset of2

he (it?) gets so excited
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby Pops » Thu 08 Dec 2011, 08:37:29

Schadenfreude wrote:Sure, oil will become scarcer and more expensive. But it has become clear that there won't be any oil emergency for decades.

I'm not sure what this means? Oil is obviously not meeting demand because it is higher than recent historic level by 500%. A 1.5% drop in supply this year caused the price to rise to it's highest yearly average in 150 years.

If you mean we (lots of us anyway) won't be fighting over candle stubs then you're probably right. The people who thought oil would go to $1,000/bbl overnight obviously thought there would be people able to pay $1,000/bbl which was pretty obviously wrong and lots of people said so at the time.

But if you mean the cost of oil that has added $3-4k to the overhead of the average (US) family over the decade hasn't had an effect on the entire economy then you are pretty obviously wrong. I mean look around.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 18294
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby TheAntiDoomer » Thu 08 Dec 2011, 09:11:03

Pops, you keep quoting that 2.2 trillion barrel number as if its set in stone! The reality is the URR number is likely to be much larger than that.
"The human ability to innovate out of a jam is profound.That’s why Darwin will always be right, and Malthus will always be wrong.” -K.R. Sridhar


Do I make you Corny? :)

"expect 8$ gas on 08/08/08" - Prognosticator
User avatar
TheAntiDoomer
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby Pops » Thu 08 Dec 2011, 11:27:20

TheAntiDoomer wrote:Pops, you keep quoting that 2.2 trillion barrel number as if its set in stone! The reality is the URR number is likely to be much larger than that.

I said if it is 2T. And is there any reason you think it will grow - other than it's always grown before?
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 18294
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby Bruce_S » Thu 08 Dec 2011, 17:16:05

Pops wrote:
TheAntiDoomer wrote:Pops, you keep quoting that 2.2 trillion barrel number as if its set in stone! The reality is the URR number is likely to be much larger than that.

I said if it is 2T. And is there any reason you think it will grow - other than it's always grown before?


Because people who study such things, have experience measuring such things, and do such things professionally, say there is quite a bit more than 2.2T available.

http://www.spe.org/spe-app/spe/jpt/2006 ... illion.htm
Bruce_S
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 20:45:40

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby MD » Thu 08 Dec 2011, 17:31:33

Bruce_S wrote:
Pops wrote:
TheAntiDoomer wrote:Pops, you keep quoting that 2.2 trillion barrel number as if its set in stone! The reality is the URR number is likely to be much larger than that.

I said if it is 2T. And is there any reason you think it will grow - other than it's always grown before?


Because people who study such things, have experience measuring such things, and do such things professionally, say there is quite a bit more than 2.2T available.

http://www.spe.org/spe-app/spe/jpt/2006 ... illion.htm


It's not a question of availability. It's a question of how much we will ultimately use. I'm of the opinion that production will taper off to a trickle long before we produce two trillion barrels.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4951
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby Bruce_S » Thu 08 Dec 2011, 17:51:11

MD wrote:
Bruce_S wrote:
Pops wrote:
TheAntiDoomer wrote:Pops, you keep quoting that 2.2 trillion barrel number as if its set in stone! The reality is the URR number is likely to be much larger than that.

I said if it is 2T. And is there any reason you think it will grow - other than it's always grown before?


Because people who study such things, have experience measuring such things, and do such things professionally, say there is quite a bit more than 2.2T available.

http://www.spe.org/spe-app/spe/jpt/2006 ... illion.htm


It's not a question of availability. It's a question of how much we will ultimately use. I'm of the opinion that production will taper off to a trickle long before we produce two trillion barrels.


Possible. Certainly I am of the opinion that oil has seen its better days, and as humanity places higher priority on things like emissions and whatnot, we will use less just because it makes good sense, and we will make it more expensive to do it cleaner, and that alone will place a floor under which renewables and such can flourish.
Bruce_S
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu 22 Sep 2011, 20:45:40

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby MD » Thu 08 Dec 2011, 17:55:13

Schadenfreude wrote:These sure aren't the days of Jay Hanson and dieoff.org any more. Back then, all the doomerish forecasters like Heinberg and all the rest were forecasting severe energy crunches by 2011.


We still have a gazillion challenges ahead of us.
Stop filling dumpsters, as much as you possibly can, and everything will get better.

Just think it through.
It's not hard to do.
User avatar
MD
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4951
Joined: Mon 02 May 2005, 02:00:00
Location: On the ball

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby dorlomin » Sat 10 Dec 2011, 06:11:08

Peak oil is all around us. The suffocating drabness of expensive energy, the slow loss of the easy freedom of cheap air travel and inconsequential petrol (gas) prices.

It is the return of economics as the dismal science, returning from the post war world of its promises of a new Jerusalem builded here.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby sparky » Sat 10 Dec 2011, 06:48:51

.
never has the Peak oil debate been more important than now
the last oil crisis eased when oil prices collapsed to under 10$ a barrel
it allowed the world economy to get back on it's feet
now the manure level is pretty thick on the ground and the prices are RISING

I.E. production cannot follows demand , no matter how anemic
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3265
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Peak oil debate losing relevance?

Unread postby Pops » Sat 10 Dec 2011, 09:07:30

You are exactly right Sparky.

While the little people are continuing to argue semantics, the oilmen are just finishing their World Petroleum Congress in Qatar, at which the Total CEO gave a keynote titled: Peak Oil: Ahead of us or Behind us?

The fact that Peak Oil is the theme for one of the seven main presentations at the congress shows that Peak Oil is now an important topic of discussion in the international and national oil industries.

--Kjell Aleklett

His answer now has now changed to "yes we can" but I think it is telling there were two round tables focused specifically on peak oil at the world oil pow-wow, along with lots of "non-conventional" FF and scraping the bottom of the barrel type topics:
    Peak Oil: Ahead of us or Behind us?
    Peak Oil: Reality or Mirage?
    Attracting Investments to Capital Intensive Exploration & Production Project
    Developments of Deep Offshore and Deeply Buried Reservoirs
    Enhanced Recovery: New Challenges and Technologie
    Drilling and Completion Technologies Applied to Challenging Reservoirs
    Unconventional High Tech Applied to the Upstream Sector

Plus:
Feasibility of Hydrogen as an Energy Source <?

I don't have a link handy but I think I read somewhere that one attendee said many of the non-conventionals had a EROEI of around 5:1 and that it can't get much worse than that and be doable.


Chatroom pundits may dismiss peak oil but oil men don't.

.
PR piece from the conference: http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/47a ... 47a68ae9/1
Program: http://www.wpc.total.com/pdf/WPC_Progra ... Sept_1.pdf
http://aleklett.wordpress.com/
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 18294
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests