[Outcast_Searcher]

That is what scares me about the whole situation. Human have a tendency to plug their ears and go "nahnahnah" as loud as they can when they get bad news, and if a competing source is blowing sunshine up their collective skirts they only want to hear the good news. If things turn out to be sweet no harm is done, but if things go sour they turn on the bearer of bad tidings and punish them for having brought the bad news into their realm of knowledge.

On the other side of the coin if you know a disaster is coming and you do nothing how can you live with yourself for not trying to do anything to help?

Or, human society overall could admit we mostly don't know, and learning the lessons of history, predict that the most likely outcome is somewhere between the extremes, and prudently plan for that, including not having society living near "the edge" in case things stray toward the bad end of the scale.

That would (as a "devout" moderate) be how I would prefer to see a lot of things handled, where we just don't know yet. Things like handling GMO's, dealing with global warming, and dealing with resource consumption, and especially trying to serious decrease net reproduction rates all come to mind as good candidates/examples for such prudence without mindlessly panicking.

But how likely is it that we get different societies with different core beliefs and different histories and different structures from all over the globe to agree?

Given that even just within the US, to even mention (for example) AGW is to set off a firestorm of almost violent disagreement -- tells me we don't. (You can't even get most people to save (even close to) enough for a secure retirement, and EVERYBODY knows they will grow old if they live long enough, for a fact).

If human society overall can't even come CLOSE to agreeing on what basic reality is -- how in the world can they come to any semblance of agreement on long term big picture policy to manage what MAY be seriously constrained resources? (I think we can't unless the evidence of big problems is overwhelming to all, and by then it is too late to do anything but try to contain major damage).

So, each individual can try do do what they think is "right" in their own interest and because of the principle of the thing, and they can speak out (against all the competing views) for their way of thinking.
Beyond that, collectively, humans are far too irrational to engage in long term planning that involves short term sacrifice. (So much for the big brain as a long term survival mechanism).

[Pops]

Pops, much of the world has not benefited from shale technology,

If benefit means higher production and lower price then N American production has benefited the world of oil consumers. NA is the only area increasing that last 5 years, and our decreased imports (and increased product exports) have definitely affected world price.

But what is "technology" anyway? Its tools to make life more successful. When all our tools and energy go to finding energy than technology will effectively be lost. We continue to build out a gas-guzzling suburbia instead of an electric sustainable solar infrastructure. We are using rusty shovels to dig ourselves into a deeper dry hole.

Not really. I mean yeah, we've invested a lot of money on tight oil that might wind up being stranded for a while. Investment lost to the original backers but such is capitalism and creative destruction. Eventually the going price will increase enough to make it profitable to produce - when we can increase utility enough to make it profitable for consumers to buy.

But there has also been lots of improvements in PV, Wind, conservation, efficiency* blah, blah. All the LED lightbulbs in my house combined use less than one did when this website began.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not turning corny. I know a lot of you think that to be a true believer (be it faith, politics, environmentalism, Peakedness) one must never entertain opposing thoughts. but it really is OK to be more open minded and to look at all sides of the issues, there is plenty out there to scare the bejeezus out of you!



*Come on, that 665hp Mustang gets 28MPG Hwy!

[ralfy]

Being open-minded involves looking at multiple factors. For example, higher prices means profitability but it also means lower demand and economic crisis.

Also, peak oil may be seen as one of multiple crises that may affect industrial output, etc. Perhaps studies that look at previous forecasts on various indicators compared to historical data might help:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

Given that, technology that will solve peak oil probably should be able to reverse the trends given in these forecasts.

[Newfie]

Outcast,

While I have some appreciation to your approach I think there is a flaw.

The current situation on Earth is one of extrimis. Humanity has pushed, and continues to push our biosphere and natural resources with unabated vigor. You make a nice argument for moderation saying you don't know how things will turn out.

However, human history is quite clear, we will use every available resource to the ultimate to grow our population.

Your sentiments are of moderation, humanities trajectory is hyperbolic. That is not good.

[ROCKMAN]

Pops – “If benefit means higher production and lower price than N American production has benefited the world of oil consumers.” That logic works fine if you selectively pick you time frame properly. But unless you can make a good argument that we would have seen the increase in US production had oil stayed around $35/bbl then let’s expand that time frame and see what the world, including US consumers, were subject to as a result of those higher prices that have led to the increased production and CURRENT lower prices:

From 2004, when oil pushed above $40/bbl inflation adjusted (for the first time in 14 years) thru 2014 the world’s oil consumers have paid an ADDITIONAL $10 TRILLION for its oil. That’s the price that all the consumers paid which led to the current production and “lower price”. And I make a point of noting a “lower price” because the current oil price is still 25% higher than it was 10 years ago.

So what has the consumers benefited as a result of paying an extra $10 TRILLION over the last 10 years: more production and HIGHER oil prices.

[Pops]

ROCK, I should have been clear, the price (even aside from the current blip) is not low, just lower than it would have been otherwise. Granted, much of the profit went to refiners in the US who bought crude at low WTI and sold product at World Price, but still, there is a slight surplus of flammable stuff right now and that is definitely a benefit.

Without Downhole Power Steering and multi-fracturizationing we would be down in C+C. The "All Liquids" number would be down some several millions of barrels a day from 2005 without LTO and as you've pointed out, the LTO/Tar sands combo. Not to mention the addition of frac'ed natural gas NGL. Oh, and then there is the dry nat gas supply that probably would have done exactly as predicted and fallen off a cliff as well.

IOW, we would be about where the doomers estimated we'd be, and in much worse shape than we find ourselves. The reason their estimates were wrong is because the things they said didn't matter and wouldn't help; money and technology, did help, at least temporarily. No matter the number of posts and threads that say different, Peakers don't have an infallible crystal ball and pretending the situation is different than it is by endlessly searching for the next Dot of Doom shows they don't have a corner on the reality market either.

I count myself in the Peaker club. My own WAG back in 2004 was 8-10 years to get prepped. I expected decline to be kicking in pretty hard by now and the economy to be well on the way to unravelling. My point is simply that if we are to count ourselves as realists, we have to accept the situation as it is and deal with it. That doesn't change how things turn out "in the end" but it does change how we each get there.

[Pops]

Global demand is up, not down, Pete. It doesn't matter how many times you chant the incantation LOL





US crude imports are down almost 4 million barrels a day.

Product exports are up a little under 3mmbopd




That is just simple reality.
It doesn't match my forecast either but nevertheless that is how things sit.

.

[ROCKMAN]

Pops - "Without Downhole Power Steering and multi-fracturizationing we would be down in C+Cops". Which is exactly my point: none of the technology you've pointed out would have given any increase in production if oil had been selling for $30/bbl like it was in 2002. In 1994 (twenty years ago) geosteered my first horizontal well with the drilling tech you described. In 1978 I pumped a frac 3X as big as a typical frac stage today. Every bit of tech used to drill and frac an EFS well in 2014 was available in 2002.

The only thing missing in 2002 to prevent an EFS boom then was the $80/bbl+ price.

[Pops]

So you think oil would have stayed at $80 if we were down 5mmbopd rather than up 5?

I don't.

[ROCKMAN]

Pops - Oil was selling for $80/bbl plus when we were producing all that new oil. Opinions vary but I still assign eventual demand destruction as the primary cause for the crash in oil prices. After all, we didn't increase oil production 5 million bbls/day in the last 3 months.

But that wasn't the point of my post: the tech isn't responsible for the low price of oil we have today. In fact, it was the high price of oil we've had the last few years that made applying that tech feasible. And that fact will become abundantly clear to you folks outside the oil patch. You're getting news lagged a month or two behind what's happening. I'm getting multiple calls daily about the growing shutdown in drilling activity in Texas. The attrition that took place in the 80's bust that took 2 to 3 years to materialize looks like it might happen in a little as the next 6 months. I'm getting reports of not just layoffs at the service companies but entire shops being closed and mothballed. I've been thru these busts before during my 40 years and have never seen this much damage done this quickly before.

[ROCKMAN]

And speaking of demand destruction - hot of the presses from Reuters:

Reuters - New orders for U.S. factory goods unexpectedly fell in January, posting their sixth straight monthly decline, a sign of weakness in the manufacturing sector. The Commerce Department said on Thursday new orders for manufactured goods slipped 0.2 percent after a revised 3.5 percent decline in December. Economists polled by Reuters had expected factory orders to gain 0.2 percent in January after a previously reported 3.4 percent tumble in December. The department also said orders for non-defense capital goods excluding aircraft - seen as a measure of business confidence and spending plans – rose 0.5 percent instead of the 0.6 percent advance reported last month.

[Pops]

I understand your point fine, ROCK. I've posted Kopits prediction of a shortfall before the end of the year several times.

My point is I don't remember anyone back in '04 saying that when oil goes to $80 horiz drilling and fracking would give the US a third peak within just a couple of years - that all that was needed was the do-re-me. Not just here but at TOD, any of the retail books (not written by Yergin), certainly not Campbell, ASPO, etc. The forecasts were all straight to natural decline of 2-3-4-5% per year because there just wasn't going to be enough places to drill no matter the price.

Maybe I was reading the wrong blogs, because the impression I got more than anything was that geology trumps economics every time but now you're telling me that maybe not every time.

(which is kinda what I'm saying as well)

.

[Plantagenet]

I don't remember anyone back in '04 saying that when oil goes to $80 horiz drilling and fracking would give the US a third peak within just a couple of years - that all that was needed was the do-re-me. Not just here but at TOD, any of the retail books (not written by Yergin), certainly not Campbell, ASPO, etc. The forecasts were all straight to natural decline of 2-3-4-5% per year because there just wasn't going to be enough places to drill no matter the price.

Yup.

Thats exactly what I've been saying for a while now.

The peak in conventional oil in 2005 was definitely not peak oil for all oil.

Somebody needs to recalibrate and reanalyze and this time take into account things like tight oil from shale. Somebody needs to look at this peak oil thing again taking into account all the unconventional oil, and also taking into account future financial magic.

[kublikhan]

Rockman, how long do you think it will be before we see $80 oil again? If you are seeing the crash play out in a compressed time frame compared to the 1980s glut, does that imply the many years of "low" oil prices will also be compressed and prices will rebound faster than they did compared to the 80s crash?

[Shaved Monkey]

The current cheap oil makes renewable alternative more expensive and less attractive investments so the eventual snap back in price is going to hurt way more.
http://permaculturenews.org/2015/02/27/ ... -it-costs/

[kublikhan]

Oil is not a very big player in the electricity market. So the only renewable sectors to take a big hit from low oil prices would be in the transportation sector, such as biofuels and EVs. But renewables as a whole just saw their best year ever, exceeding investments of both fossil fuels and nuclear.

Clean energy investment rose for the first time in three years in 2014, overcoming a slump in oil prices that unsettled the outlook for the industry. New funds for wind, solar, biofuels and other low-carbon energy technologies gained 16 percent to $310 billion last year.

“Healthy investment in clean energy may surprise some commentators, who have been predicting trouble for renewables as a result of the oil price collapse. The impact of cheaper crude will be felt much more in road transport than in electricity generation.”

The findings ease concerns that the oil price rout that began in the middle of last year would lead to a sharp reduction in funds for low-carbon energy, which is more costly than fossil fuels. “This increase in renewable energy investment demonstrates the resilience of the sector in the face of tumbling oil prices. This trend is set to continue as technology around renewables becomes more affordable. The increasing role that renewable energy plays in emerging markets will also help ensure sustainable growth for the sector.”

Unshaken by Oil
“Technologies such as solar are much more cost competitive now so you might not see as much pressure from low oil prices.”

Investment in biofuels, which are blended with gasoline to help cut emissions, was one of the few clean-energy segments to suffer a decline, dropping 7 percent to $5.1 billion.

Clean Energy Investment Jumps 16%, Shaking Off Oil’s Drop

“Ongoing oil price volatility and geopolitical challenges continue to emphasize the importance of energy diversification as a means of achieving greater energy security,” said Ben Warren, EY’s Global Power & Utilities Corporate Finance Leader and RECAI Chief Editor. “Renewables are becoming an increasingly important part of the broader generation mix for many countries. Global investment in renewables topped US$300b in 2014, exceeding investment in new nuclear and fossil fuel generation.”

Latest Ernst & Young Renewable Energy Country Attractive Index Loves Africa

[Pops]

I try to gauge the situation by how I can respond right now to prepare for the future I see in my crystal ball - Assess / Plan / Implement. My previous plan was mostly "collapse early and beat the rush." It was based in large part on a lifetime ideal of owning a small farm and being independent of the "job."

15 years ago I was getting nervous, about real estate, the general debt, about energy (oil and gas), about the US economic direction, about rich v poor. Back in 2000 PV was expensive, PO was not on anyone's radar, neither was AGW really, by 2005 the economy was on a wild-eyed binge, the US was on a crusade in the mideast, the US had become a surveillance state, the "you're with us or against us" ultimatum was about to get an answer, and on and on ...

Things are arguably better today. At least from the standpoint of general recognition and possible mitigation on the personal level. I could easily keep the lights on using a single PV panel and small battery for a few hundred bucks. That in itself is a huge thing that few modern American can really understand. Telecommuting from just about anywhere is a snap now (not so back in the 90's or even the oughts when I moved to the sticks), there are actual cars now that don't run on FFs; building materials, especially glass, are leaps and bounds ahead of where they were, "walkable communities" are actually a thing - and on and on.

If a person in not going to do anything or change their MO in any way, then yeah, you're probably screwed because no technology is going to be a drop-in replacement for too-cheap-to-meter FF energy. But if you plan to do something to improve your lot by active mitigation, I think technology has improved a great deal.

[KaiserJeep]

The realist in me must point out one other factor: The national average lifespan is 79.8 years in the United States. It would be longer if US citizens were not so fond of fat and sugar. But at this point in our lives we have a lot less to lose than we used to, Pops.

I have even had thoughts of spending lots more money on world travel and less on the doomstead, to tell the truth. It will make the wife happier and that would definitely make me happier. If I were to blow the whole wad from selling a California home in Wisconsin, I would almost certainly have too much home to live in for less than two decades, assuming I make the average age.

I find that I am winding down my career gladly, and noticing more and more how the wife stresses out during tax season. Hard to tell if she is stressing more or I am noticing it more, really.

It will be good to leave the Silly Valley.

[Pops]

I agree. When we decided to bug out not long after 9/11, I was in my 40's and our kids were in their 20's and not on their feet, grandkids were tiny and still coming, our extended family had absolutely no resilience we could fall back on - and we were only slightly more resilient than typical. And, I don't know, there was this vibe in the US that I found really unnerving. Kinda the Toby Kieth, "now you woke the Big Dog" bit that seemed bound to come back on us because we weren't "all that."

And it did, at home and globally. But one reason I am less doom-oriented than in the past is I kinda think the recession toughened us up a bit. That it gave us a slap in '09 that we needed really bad. The backhand of that slap is gonna come later this year or maybe in '16 when the oil price rebounds and LTO doesn't. The reason I've been so adamant that the various tremors we're feeling are just "dots" and not the real deal is that when the real deal comes down I'm pretty sure we won't need to be guessing, LOL


But you are right. Our kids are now more settled, we're heading into our 60's pretty fast and have enough of a nest egg to own a home outright if not a whole lots else. Additionally, I am hooked up to industrial life support via insulin so there's not much practical use entertaining Slate-Wiper fantasies, LOL
.