[vision-master]

One of these many small temporary peaks, eh shorty.....

[ralfy]

According to a post and information provided elsewhere in this website, C&C production has reached an all time high. Again. It sounds as though BP might be a tad behind the times.

The fact that it doesn't meet oil demand and that the industry now resorts to non-conventional sources is proof of peak oil. In order to "bury" peak oil we should be seeing more discoveries of light oil that should exceed oil demand, and with no need to resort to non-conventional sources. That is not taking place.

[seenmostofit]

One of these many small temporary peaks, eh shorty.....

What are you talking about? By definition, there can only be one peak in a bell shaped curve, although one with a flatter than expected top would be reasonable I suppose. But that idea hasn't been buried by industry either.

[seenmostofit]

The fact that it doesn't meet oil demand and that the industry now resorts to non-conventional sources is proof of peak oil.

Would you happen to have the link to a definition somewhere on peak oil which says that? Because the one I found on wiki seems to relate to extraction rates and whatnot. Clean, concise, terminal decline, and not a word about conventional or non-conventional soured, or even supply and demand.

"Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production is expected to enter terminal decline."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

In order to "bury" peak oil we should be seeing more discoveries of light oil that should exceed oil demand, and with no need to resort to non-conventional sources. That is not taking place.

My impression of the OPs original post was that "burying" was related to someone trying to hide or cover up the occurrence or idea of peak oil, and has nothing to do with discoveries, or demand, or how fast either is increasing or decreasing.

[ralfy]

Would you happen to have the link to a definition somewhere on peak oil which says that? Because the one I found on wiki seems to relate to extraction rates and whatnot. Clean, concise, terminal decline, and not a word about conventional or non-conventional soured, or even supply and demand.

"Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production is expected to enter terminal decline."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

What you post doesn't contradict my argument. You have a peak for conventional sources. Thus, one resorts to non-conventional sources, which like biofuels have lower energy returns. In order to "bury" the idea of "peak oil' one has to show that petroleum extraction will never reach a "maximum rate."

My impression of the OPs original post was that "burying" was related to someone trying to hide or cover up the occurrence or idea of peak oil, and has nothing to do with discoveries, or demand, or how fast either is increasing or decreasing.

No, it's not. Read the article carefully. The opposite is, in fact, argued: peak oil is "widely believed" but is not true because "the world has plenty of oil." The reason for that argument is that the points you raised in your last paragraph were hardly considered.

[seenmostofit]

What you post doesn't contradict my argument.

I didn't say it was going to. I simply requested a link to a definition which included all the extra stuff which you implied was part of peak oil. The definition from wiki doesn't include such things, hence my request.

In order to "bury" the idea of "peak oil' one has to show that petroleum extraction will never reach a "maximum rate."

In order to "bury" the idea of peak oil, one has to show that the oil companies are actively discouraging people from thinking about it, trying to hide the idea so it isn't published in the MSM, basically to keep it hidden from the sheeple and whatnot.

My impression of the OPs original post was that "burying" was related to someone trying to hide or cover up the occurrence or idea of peak oil, and has nothing to do with discoveries, or demand, or how fast either is increasing or decreasing.

No, it's not. Read the article carefully. The opposite is, in fact, argued: peak oil is "widely believed" but is not true because "the world has plenty of oil." The reason for that argument is that the points you raised in your last paragraph were hardly considered.

It is impossible to read the original article carefully, it is behind a subscription wall. Certainly from the snippet provided it is difficult to tell much of anything except part of the setup the author wishes us to see early. Who knows what they say next, but obviously there are faults even early in the preview. Ufortunately, they titled the snippet in such a way that it is not clear how they mean the oil companies buried the idea, when all of us are well aware of the idea, have been aware of it for more than half a century, and it is published about on a regular basis.

[ralfy]

I didn't say it was going to. I simply requested a link to a definition which included all the extra stuff which you implied was part of peak oil. The definition from wiki doesn't include such things, hence my request.

It's very obvious: when you have production not meeting demand, then the effects are similar to a drop in oil production given the same demand. In which case, you don't even have to wait for a drop in oil production to take place.

Thus, in order to "bury" the "idea of 'peak oil,'" we need to see an increase in conventional sources to meet increasing consumption. This has not been taking place for the past five years, which is why the IEA has concluded that we are now in peak oil.

Finally, none of these things is "extra stuff" unless you want to see the issue academically, i.e., as long as oil production can go up even just a little bit, then technically peak oil will never take place. But in order to see peak oil as relevant, we need to see it in relation to a global capitalist economy.

In order to "bury" the idea of peak oil, one has to show that the oil companies are actively discouraging people from thinking about it, trying to hide the idea so it isn't published in the MSM, basically to keep it hidden from the sheeple and whatnot.

No, that's not the OP's point. Read the article linked at the start of the thread.

It is impossible to read the original article carefully, it is behind a subscription wall. Certainly from the snippet provided it is difficult to tell much of anything except part of the setup the author wishes us to see early. Who knows what they say next, but obviously there are faults even early in the preview. Ufortunately, they titled the snippet in such a way that it is not clear how they mean the oil companies buried the idea, when all of us are well aware of the idea, have been aware of it for more than half a century, and it is published about on a regular basis.

It's not behind a subscription wall. Read the link below the snippet referring to free registration.

That's it. I don't see why I should waste more time explaining even these basic points to you. Given that, I will have to put you in my "ignore" list and stop responding to your posts.

[meemoe_uk]

>Thus, in order to "bury" the "idea of 'peak oil,'" we need to see an increase in conventional sources to meet increasing consumption. This has not been taking place for the past five years, which is why the IEA has concluded that we are now in peak oil.

New sources of oil don't need to be conventional. A society starved of oil isn't going to ignore unconventional sources just to apease and vinidcate the POisNOW gang. The totem of conventional oil is an absurdity that POers have built in the safty of PO dens. It has no power in the real world and when the time comes, society will extract unconventional oil en mass.
At the moment there's no real need of mass unconventional oil. Huge amounts of conventional oil are being developed around the world but mostly in the middle east. This new supply will feed the world and its increasing demand for the next 20 years. The bounty of the development has been apparent in the IEA and EIA charts of the last couple of years - record oil production.

The IEA and other authorities have been concluding peak oil is now for decades. Its because they are paid to fanfare such conclusions, even though all their data says the opposite.
You wouldn't have to pay me much to hype the myth of peak oil is now!.

[Pops]

So the IEA charts the bounty of new oil while at the same time it's been touting peak oil for decades? hmm.

The IEA forecast peak conventional oil 4 years after it happened, prior to that they seemed to feel for their entire existence that mere desire creates oil.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that yearly average oil prices has never been more expensive amidst these "huge amounts of conventional oil" and record oil production?

I think you try too hard to piss someone off with your nonsensical jabs.

[meemoe_uk]

>So the IEA charts the bounty of new oil while at the same time it's been touting peak oil for decades? hmm.
Yes, as I explained above. You could call it 'corruption'. Have you not encountered the idea that its possible to corrupt an agency with a bribe? Or are you just playing the 'nieve kid' who thinks the only people who're corrupt wear masks and try and rob banks like in scooby doo ?

>The IEA forecast peak conventional oil 4 years after it happened, prior to that they seemed to feel for their entire existence that mere desire creates oil.

I've still to read your excuse on how you've browsed this forum and managed to avoid seeing mine and oilfinder's links to IEA and EIA data on new supply records.

This is the IEA oil report
http://omrpublic.iea.org/omrarchive/12apr12full.pdf
which states a new monthly all liquids production record in January 2012, and it also states the new annual record set in 2011.
This is at odds to the IEA peak oil 4 years ago, if all liquids is the standard.

Here's OF2's post on the EIA data showing new records for the C&C aka conventional oil production annual and monthly in 2011.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. May I have your attention please.

The EIA has now reported that the world has a new crude and condensate production record. As of December, 75.4 million barrels/day were produced, compared to the previous records of 74.8 million barrels/day in November, 75.2 million barrels/day in December 2010, and 74.6 million barrels/day in July 2008. Numbers are rounded off.

We also have a new yearly crude & condensate record of 73.964 million barrels/day, eclipsing the previous record of 73.889 million barrels/day set in 2010. Yes, that's correct: Last year the world produced nearly 74 million barrels per day.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

This contradicts the IEA assertion that peak oil was 4 years ago, even if you only count conventional oil extraction.

How anyone can read this forum or have and interest in oil supply and then assert that peak oil was 4 years ago can only be by delusion.
Its clear. The IEA statement of peak oil 4 years ago contradicts there own and the EIAs reports.

>Doesn't it strike you as odd that yearly average oil prices has never been more expensive amidst these "huge amounts of conventional oil" and record oil production?
No. Even with an inexhaustable oil supply which always meets the demand, there would still be inflation of prices causing the current prices to be around or at record prices. This is due to the nature of the world money system, which has intrinsic inflation. Indeed, looking at the history of oil prices, they are often at or around all time highs.
I've stated this several times on this forum already. You've missed it everytime? And you can't see it for yourself?

[vision-master]

The Hirsch Report - "Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management"

[ralfy]

New sources of oil don't need to be conventional. A society starved of oil isn't going to ignore unconventional sources just to apease and vinidcate the POisNOW gang. The totem of conventional oil is an absurdity that POers have built in the safty of PO dens. It has no power in the real world and when the time comes, society will extract unconventional oil en mass.

The fact that one replaces conventional sources with the opposite confirms peak oil. And there is nothing about some "POisNOW gang" stating that we shouldn't use non-conventional sources. Rather, the energy returns from the latter will be lower. That confirms peak oil as well.

At the moment there's no real need of mass unconventional oil. Huge amounts of conventional oil are being developed around the world but mostly in the middle east. This new supply will feed the world and its increasing demand for the next 20 years. The bounty of the development has been apparent in the IEA and EIA charts of the last couple of years - record oil production.

You're too late: what you claim isn't needed for the next two decades has been employed the last five years. See the BP annual for details, plus your first paragraph.

The IEA and other authorities have been concluding peak oil is now for decades. Its because they are paid to fanfare such conclusions, even though all their data says the opposite.
You wouldn't have to pay me much to hype the myth of peak oil is now!.

The IEA made that conclusion only two years ago. Before that, they were making the same claims as yours in 2005, i.e., we won't see peak oil until around 2030 or so. The problem is that they could no longer repeat these claims after data from the next five years began to show oil demand exceeding production from conventional sources, with non-conventional sources being used to meet the difference. The best that they can do now is argue that production from all oil and gas sources will rise by around 9 pct for the next two decades. But that assumes that conventional sources won't drop. Also, demand has to go up around 2 pct a year to maintain global economic growth.

Thus, what was buried isn't the idea of peak oil but promises of "huge amounts of conventional oil" not being developed the past five years to meet that demand, even with high oil prices.

[ralfy]

That's it: I've to put you back in my ignore list. I don't see why I should waste more time explaining basic points to you.

[eXpat]

That's it: I've to put you back in my ignore list. I don't see why I should waste more time explaining basic points to you.

Trolls gotta Troll ralfy.

[vision-master]

meemoe_uk is most likely a shill for BP.

[Rune]

Telegraph

Can we please just declare the end of 'peak oil' and start worrying about something important?

Apparently something terrible happens when we get to peak oil. I've never really quite understood the argument myself, but when we've used half of all the oil then civilisation collapses or something. I'm not sure why this should happen: we don't start starving when there's only half a loaf of bread left. But I am assured that something awful does happen.

Even if we accept the geological conventional wisdom, then there's still no cause for panic. Prices will rise, yes, so people will go off and do other things. Either use something else instead of oil (that ever cheaper shale gas for example) or simply doing things that require less energy. That's what a price system is for, after all, providing the signals that a certain resource is in scarce supply.
But the thing is, we really shouldn't be accepting this geology either.

The Green River Formation—an assemblage of over 1,000 feet of sedimentary rocks that lie beneath parts of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming—contains the world’s largest deposits of oil shale. USGS estimates that the Green River Formation contains about 3 trillion barrels of oil, and about half of this may be recoverable, depending on available technology and economic conditions. The Rand Corporation, a nonprofit research organization, estimates that 30 to 60 percent of the oil shale in the Green River Formation can be recovered. At the midpoint of this estimate, almost half of the 3 trillion barrels of oil would be recoverable. This is an amount about equal to the entire world’s proven oil reserves.

Yes, we do know how to get this out: these reserves are similar to the Bakken shale in North Dakota that is spurting out oil as you read.
So, peak oil wouldn't be a problem if it did happen and it's not going to happen anyway. So can we please just declare the end of peak oil and get on with worrying about something important instead? Like, say, what is the solution to Simon Cowell?

Yeah, but shale is no good except to throw on a campfire.

[Pops]

There is not a big enough eye roll in the gallery for that guy, [urlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xnZ6g14WwY]I'll have to go outside for a response.[/url] LOL!

"Prices will rise and people will just go off and do other things.." ?

In my list of 10 arguments against po I only have 7 but that one certainly isn't gonna be number 8.

And how about the logic of "we don't start starving when there's only half a loaf of bread left"? Now there is some heavy thinking.

This guy is the epitome of the common fiction that around 200 years ago humans overnight evolved a God gene and now the rules no longer apply to us. It's like the old saw "we're born on third base but think we hit a triple" because we believe that our progress these last couple centuries is all about our own intelligence. No one even considers that the root enabler of our lifestyle and current population has been fossil energy that allowed us to achieve massive surpluses of basic necessities.

[meemoe_uk]

>meemoe_uk is most likely a shill for BP.
This lot just sums you lot up. To be a long term peaker you have to be stupid. If your stupid, your going to post all sorts of absurdities.

A shill is someone who works to pump up the price of a commodity, often by creating baseless fear of scarcity.
The PO gang is doing precisely this with oil, and that is the reason why the oil companies quietly support the PO gang as well as suggesting PO in their own media.

The exact opposite of a shill would be someone who works to downplay any notion of scarcity, and instead tries to promote the idea of abundance of the said commodity.

Most POers here will never be able to see cornies for what they are - counter-shills, and they'll never consider that PO hype increases market fear of scarcity of oil therefore making every POer here a shill for the oil companies.

There is a name in the business for a shill who doesn't realise what he is doing and so doesn't need paying for the work of shilling, fearing and hyping -
useful idiot