Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

A personal overview of the peak oil theory

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

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 25 Nov 2019, 19:15:08

Plantagenet wrote:I have no idea what Adam thinks.
...
Do you get it now?


Both you and Adam agree that Hubbert was wrong. Anything deeper than that is anal-retentive bullying on your part, ironic considering you told me correcting your typos was somehow a post-flagging offense. So can we move on now or shall you continue to circle around obsessively and bore the few readers this site has left?

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3033
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 25 Nov 2019, 19:23:54

AdamB wrote:all we've got is plant and short. At least Plant hasn't been established as a welsher.


I guess the glass is half full considering that Pstarr is gone. As bad as Plant may be, PStarr was that much worse. Plant at least has a firm grasp on how much oil is left in the ground (that's my only olive branch). It's just his political axe-grinding, ecological hypocrisy, and occasional EV FUD to cause cringe.

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3033
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby sparky » Mon 25 Nov 2019, 20:02:30

.
A (simplfied) view of the Oil Peak is that the decline roughly correspond to half of the extractable crude

most field today extract a quarter or less of the crude in situ ,
if the recovery rise toward 50% it would probably follows the law of diminishing return.
Time is a factor , a slow recovery being ( probably ) capable of extracting more

however this would put the Peak in the future by several decades , thirty years being a wild guess

All fair and good , what of peak demand
crude oil is the base product for a bewildering range of products ,
while all could be produced in a lab without crude or gas ,
industrial production require very large quantity of the stuff
the demand is growing ,
not only because of a rise in the world population but also in the rise in the global standard of living

it is argued that demand do plateau in consumer countries ,
certainly the demand rise has slowed , some due to change in vehicle technology
but the larger decrease is due to de-industrialization ,
consumer production being moved to new , rising consumer markets , the products being then imported by the old producers
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... on-leakage
to call this a plateauing of consumption seems wrong ,
seen as a global trend , crude oil is still in great demand ,
the market price is not determined by the producers but by the international export market
about 30% of crude is exported , the large increase in US production contracted the world export market

It would seems that as long as the largest consumer doesn't import the price will remain low
but the largest consumer country is now China
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chin ... SKBN1WT099

On the face of it , China has a geopolitical problem ,
a vital resource transit is controlled by a country who doesn't care much what the price is
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 00:05:30

rockdoc123 wrote:
Now run along and quote others out of context to see if they notice.


I'm afraid that is his modus operandi. He will pick a sentence or part of a sentence, quote it out of context and then make a big deal out of misinterpreting what was said replete with childish repetitive rants and cartoons. I'm afraid he think it makes him look intelligent. :roll:


Are we sure Plant is a he?

rockdoc123 wrote:His work related to the subject of Peak Oil was not a major part of his research but rather a sideline that he found interesting.


It seems to have been related to his Technocracy affiliation. Peakers took a minor interest of his, related to his political affiliation no less, and turned it into a religion.

rockdoc123 wrote:What did turn the needle then and still does is the work that Hubbert did with respect to pore fluid pressure and its impact on fracturing and faulting. That work was used directly to formulate the idea of artificial fracking of rocks and hence remains the background research that was done to make all of the unconventional plays possible.


A classic. Interestingly, I use it as a reference to his true genius, as you've suggested, but also to demonstrate 100,000 frack jobs that had happened already, mentioned in the introduction no less.

rockdoc123 wrote: That piece seems to be largely forgotten, likely because most of the engineers and geos working in that area are either too young or too lazy to have availed themselves of the original research.


I am disappointed to say that I am forced to agree. Younglings nowadays just seem to want to fly their computers. Research? What is that? You mean, like I install some new software?

rockdoc wrote:Mores the pity, he was a brilliant researcher which doesn't come across in his publications related to Peak Oil.


I still see references to his original work, especially in hydrology. It is unfortunate that peakers have hijacked what was effectively a hobby, and then lessened him by pretending that this was his shining contribution.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 00:08:12

asg70 wrote:
AdamB wrote:all we've got is plant and short. At least Plant hasn't been established as a welsher.


I guess the glass is half full considering that Pstarr is gone. As bad as Plant may be, PStarr was that much worse.


Well, I've got to agree with you there. But sometimes when Pete was posting while half baked, those were hysterical classics.

asg70 wrote: Plant at least has a firm grasp on how much oil is left in the ground (that's my only olive branch). It's just his political axe-grinding, ecological hypocrisy, and occasional EV FUD to cause cringe.


Are we sure Plant is a he?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 00:15:04

sparky wrote:.
A (simplfied) view of the Oil Peak is that the decline roughly correspond to half of the extractable crude


Simplified, and as completely useless as bell shaped curves. If only because "extractable" is itself a moving target.

sparky wrote: most field today extract a quarter or less of the crude in situ ,
if the recovery rise toward 50% it would probably follows the law of diminishing return.
Time is a factor , a slow recovery being ( probably ) capable of extracting more


No need to speculate, when the USGS has done the science on the full distribution.

sparky wrote:however this would put the Peak in the future by several decades , thirty years being a wild guess


Peak demand appears to be getting ready to cause THE peak in the here and now. Nobody thinks it is decades off in the future anymore, or has scarcity as its cause.

sparky wrote:All fair and good , what of peak demand
crude oil is the base product for a bewildering range of products ,
while all could be produced in a lab without crude or gas ,
industrial production require very large quantity of the stuff
the demand is growing ,
not only because of a rise in the world population but also in the rise in the global standard of living


You assume it is growing. CSIS, Rystad, WoodMac, DNL-GV and Barclays would seem to disagree with you. Amy Jaffe mentioned this back in 2015, can you believe that peakers made fun of her? And now...everyone seems to be coming around.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 01:53:06

AdamB wrote:... Arps and Roberts ...but Hubbert didn't play with that math all that much.


Why should he waste time on it? The Arps and Roberts discovery model is pretty crude, relies on the determination of an "efficiency factor" that varies from field to field, and isn't very useful when it comes to the specific scientific question that Hubbert was investigating, i.e. the timing of peak oil.

Hubbert instead developed his own Linearization model to estimate future oil production. Hubbert believed his method was useful not just for single oil basins, as is the case for the Arps and Roberts model, but one that could also be applied to entire oil provinces, entire countries or even the entire world. Of course Hubbert's approach has been falsified by the recent new peaks in US and global oil production, but the man still deserves credit for working out a clever mathematical approach to the problem of peak oil, flawed though that approach was.

Cheers!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22890
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby sparky » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 03:57:30

.
As the OP state this is a personal view , never claimed to be spouting reveled truth
as a matter of fact , the symmetric shape of the curve was always disturbing me somewhat
I would have gone with a "surf wave" shape the front being steep while the back sort of tail out

as for increased demand , well it's pretty obvious since production is still increasing
beside some commercial storage , oil in transit and strategic reserves
the oil extracted has to be sold to somebody
if it's supply or demand is moot
both terms have to balance

As for the future , again as a personal hunch
one case is quite rosy ,
.......demand plateau with supply , easing into a soft decrease ,
beside the odd geopolitical trouble everything is cool , the peak walk away into the far off sunset

the other end of the possible spectrum is sheer porn-doom indulgence ,
.....Fracking hit its limits at the same time as old land based fields and more recent offshore get into terminal depletion, the severe drought of R&D of the 2010teen result in severe price competition for the dwindling supply
severe economic and budgetary crisis hit the OCDE countries who then run into adventurism and wars

Australian willtell you that black swans do fly in flocks
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 08:53:39

AdamB wrote:Are we sure Plant is a he?


Yes, unless he's secretly Sarah Palin.

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3033
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby asg70 » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 08:59:19

Plantagenet wrote:the man still deserves credit for working out a clever mathematical approach to the problem of peak oil, flawed though that approach was.


I'd say he's gotten far too much credit, considering the damage it caused to the peak oil movement's credibility by prematurely calling doom. ETP was invented in no small part to offer a substitute to Hubbert's bell-curve. ETP may be bunk but there remains a need for a better model to take its place. In the meantime, those who seek to discredit any and all concern over oil supplies can just conveniently trash Hubbert's model.

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3033
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 13:17:28

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby GHung » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 09:19:08

asg70 wrote: ........ In the meantime, those who seek to discredit any and all concern over oil supplies can just conveniently trash Hubbert's model......

.... after they've assigned a bunch of strawmen and false claims to what Hubbert was actually attempting.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 13:23:57

Plantagenet wrote:
AdamB wrote:... Arps and Roberts ...but Hubbert didn't play with that math all that much.


Why should he waste time on it? The Arps and Roberts discovery model is pretty crude, relies on the determination of an "efficiency factor" that varies from field to field, and isn't very useful when it comes to the specific scientific question that Hubbert was investigating, i.e. the timing of peak oil.


Why did Hubbert waste time on peak oil at all? As Rockdoc has mentioned, it isn't what he is known for except among those still playing Fantasy Doom League games. It was more secondary interest, a lifelong one to some extent, and founded in his political beliefs. Tom Ahlbrandt has a good powerpoint available on part of the mans life story he gave in Tulsa back in like 2012 as he was laying out some of the principles incorporated in modern thinking about resource utilization and whatnot. Quite fascinating. Mason Inman also has a decent tome out on him, although he focuses on the hobby more than his ground breaking work.

Plantagenet wrote:Hubbert instead developed his own Linearization model to estimate future oil production.


We know. Like global peak oil in the mid-90's at 12 billion barrels a year. Do you really have to rub it in on the folks who were suckered in by this nonsense?
Last edited by AdamB on Tue 26 Nov 2019, 13:31:56, edited 1 time in total.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 13:26:09

asg70 wrote:
AdamB wrote:Are we sure Plant is a he?


Yes, unless he's secretly Sarah Palin.


Can't be. She knew that "drill baby drill" would work, which put her like farther up the evolutionary oil knowledge ladder than any avowed peak oilers on this website, including Plant.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 13:30:06

asg70 wrote: ETP may be bunk but there remains a need for a better model to take its place.


Indeed.

The first bulletin point being the one of interest.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 13:32:32

GHung wrote:
asg70 wrote: ........ In the meantime, those who seek to discredit any and all concern over oil supplies can just conveniently trash Hubbert's model......

.... after they've assigned a bunch of strawmen and false claims to what Hubbert was actually attempting.


Which was what? To make a bunch of peak oil calls that sucked? I doubt that was his ultimate goal.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby GHung » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 14:02:52

AdamB wrote:
GHung wrote:
asg70 wrote: ........ In the meantime, those who seek to discredit any and all concern over oil supplies can just conveniently trash Hubbert's model......

.... after they've assigned a bunch of strawmen and false claims to what Hubbert was actually attempting.


Which was what? To make a bunch of peak oil calls that sucked? I doubt that was his ultimate goal.


Thanks for proving my point so well.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2962
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 15:37:34

GHung wrote:
AdamB wrote:
GHung wrote:
asg70 wrote: ........ In the meantime, those who seek to discredit any and all concern over oil supplies can just conveniently trash Hubbert's model......

.... after they've assigned a bunch of strawmen and false claims to what Hubbert was actually attempting.


Which was what? To make a bunch of peak oil calls that sucked? I doubt that was his ultimate goal.


Thanks for proving my point so well.


You state "those who seek to discredit any and all concern over oil supplies" when there are no such people on this website. We talk about peak oil via demand regularly, it makes the front news page even. Sure, it isn't as fun as making doomer predictions of zombies running loose across the countryside because of lack of oil, but it is peak oil. We make fun of bad oil calls, which is nowhere near discrediting concern over oil supplies. Of course there are concerns over oil supplies, and we talk about that, don't you remember the attack on the Saudi facilities? That was all sorts of concern about oil supplies.

I stated a fact, about the prognosticators prognosticating poorly. Nothing more. Folks making peak oil calls suck at it. That doesn't belay any concern about supplies. Only that the prophets of the peak oil religion are more like Harold Camping than the members of the congregation will ever admit.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 17:32:58

AdamB wrote:
I stated a fact, about the prognosticators prognosticating poorly. Nothing more. Folks making peak oil calls suck at it. That doesn't belay any concern about supplies. Only that the prophets of the peak oil religion are more like Harold Camping than the members of the congregation will ever admit.


You are right that the timing of Hubbert's peak oil call turned out to be wrong. He made assumptions that were incorrect and his prediction turned out to wrong, falsifying his mathematical model.

That does't make the concept of peak oil a religion or Hubbert a phony prophet like Harold Camping. It just means he did the science wrong.

Scientists make mistakes all the time, but that doesn't mean the concept of science is invalidated or that science is tantamount to a religion or scientists who develop invalid scientific models are no different than cult leaders or religious prophets. When a scientific model is falsified all it means is that its necessary to develop a new model that incorporates all the available data and more accurately reflects actual physical processes and laws. Either the original scientist will modify his model to incorporate the new data or some other scientist will find a totally new approach to address the question at hand. Thats how science works.

Image

CHEERS!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22890
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 17:41:20

That does't make the concept of peak oil a religion or Hubbert a phony prophet like Harold Camping. It just means he did the science wrong.


No, he did not. He was working within the data universe that was available at the time. When Hubbert constructed his analysis mid-twentieth century there was really no view that oil could be extracted from tight reservoirs and especially shales with any large success. The Antrim shale which was the only tight siliceous reservoir of any significance at the time did not have well rates that were of any interest. It was the change in technology, costs, availability of capital etc that allowed for the exploitation of shales and siltstones but nobody guessed it could be at all significant until around 2003 or so and it took another 10 years to really demonstrate how important it would be.
Working within his limits Hubbert was bang on. Remember he was looking at Reserves, not Resources which meant it didn't matter how much oil might be in place in shales and very tight rocks across the US it mattered if they would be recoverable and Hubbert had to use the knowledge of what would be recoverable at the time.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7312
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: A personal overview of the peak oil theory

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 26 Nov 2019, 19:11:34

Plantagenet wrote:You are right that the timing of Hubbert's peak oil call turned out to be wrong.

He made assumptions that were incorrect and his prediction turned out to wrong, falsifying his mathematical model.


Assumptions are assumptions for a reason.

Plantagenet wrote:That does't make the concept of peak oil a religion or Hubbert a phony prophet like Harold Camping. It just means he did the science wrong.


Peak oil as a religion has been hashed out here already. It fit the description, particularly back when members of the congregation were banning everyone in sight who dared discuss the things that ended up happening. Talk about sifting the wheat from the chaff.

Hubbert wasn't the prophet, he was playing around with an interesting concept from his Technocracy days. Colin Campbell was a prophet. Hirsch and Deffeyes. Heinberg and Savinar, Ruppert and Simmons.

Plantagenet wrote:Scientists make mistakes all the time, but that doesn't mean the concept of science is invalidated or that science is tantamount to a religion or scientists who develop invalid scientific models are no different than cult leaders or religious prophets.


We scientists know this. It was the faith based believers in peak oil that were the issue, not us.

Plantagenet wrote:When a scientific model is falsified all it means is that its necessary to develop a new model that incorporates all the available data and more accurately reflects actual physical processes and laws.


Obviously. The scientists and analysts have been busy. No more 2 year olds building sand castles.

Plantagenet wrote: Either the original scientist will modify his model to incorporate the new data or some other scientist will find a totally new approach to address the question at hand. Thats how science works.


We know. But more importantly, other people not only knew, but they built it.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4797
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tuike and 17 guests