Peak Oil Faithful Dealt Another Blow

[Pangloss]

Chevron's Deep Oil Field strike yesterday was big news. It's the biggest find since Prudhoe Bay, and it could increase domestic reserves by as much as 50-65 percent, to as many as 38 billion barrels. Still a far cry from those of Saudi Arabia (260+) or Iran (133?), of course.

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/15449975.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=2397397

 

As the price of oil increases, more expensive sources can be tapped economically, and I think we'll see a lot more of this. I don't think the end is a century away, I think the end is *centuries* away. This drill, while 30 thousand feet long (10k' water, 20k' land), only drips into the top portion of the Earth's crust. That's the limit of today's technology. But what about tomorrow's?

[gcol]

To which us pessimists/realists might reply "ah yes, just putting off the inevitable and leaving our kids to pay the bill".

[Pangloss]

Well we sprung them for a reason, didn't we?!

 

Perhaps that's a valid danger here, but look at it another way: Isn't the rising price of oil the very thing we've always sought as the "Path to Oil Independence"? Sure we're finding more expensive oil, but we'll never see CHEAP oil again. What does this mean for less expensive alternate energy forms? Will solar become more economical? What else is out there?

 

I think when we look back at it in a century or two, we'll see that we took slow steps in the right direction over a very long period of time, avoiding both economic disaster and global warming at the same time, by being reasonable and gradual in the steps we took.

[Sisyphus]

More oil is of course a good thing, since we really can't do without it yet. I cringed when I saw this thread's title, though, since I can't help but think people will see this as, "oh, I guess there wasn't an oil shortage after all" and forget about it, when really, it is still a problem, just a delayed one. It's like the kid who is frantically trying to write a paper the night before it's due, only to get an extension of a few more days, so he just puts it out of his mind until it's the night before again...

 

I agree with you that we'll probably be alright, BTW. I just think it would be a big mistake to lose the sense of urgency in finding alternatives.

[ParanoiA]

Well we sprung them for a reason' date=' didn't we?!

 

Perhaps that's a valid danger here, but look at it another way: Isn't the rising price of oil the very thing we've always sought as the "Path to Oil Independence"? Sure we're finding more expensive oil, but we'll never see CHEAP oil again. What does this mean for less expensive alternate energy forms? Will solar become more economical? What else is out there?

 

I think when we look back at it in a century or two, we'll see that we took slow steps in the right direction over a very long period of time, avoiding both economic disaster and global warming at the same time, by being reasonable and gradual in the steps we took.[/quote']

 

I take a more pessimistic view. We'll stay stuck on oil until the bitter end. Hydrogen, electricity, or any other long term infinite solution will never be embraced until big oil is broken. It doesn't matter how many wars nor how much money is lost - only how much money big oil can continue to scoop up. They don't give a crap about anybody's children dying for their business.

[swansont]

Well we sprung them for a reason' date=' didn't we?!

 

Perhaps that's a valid danger here, but look at it another way: Isn't the rising price of oil the very thing we've always sought as the "Path to Oil Independence"? Sure we're finding more expensive oil, but we'll never see CHEAP oil again. What does this mean for less expensive alternate energy forms? Will solar become more economical? What else is out there?

 

I think when we look back at it in a century or two, we'll see that we took slow steps in the right direction over a very long period of time, avoiding both economic disaster and global warming at the same time, by being reasonable and gradual in the steps we took.[/quote']

 

 

Still, adjusted for inflation, oil is still cheaper than it was in the early 80's. But the lack of really cheap oil does have this effect, and economics is probably a much better carrot than the government can offer.

 

But in the US, the politicians don't have the will to bump gas taxes up like they are in Europe, which would tend to curb (somewhat) our use, and make some alternatives economically viable. That wouldn't, however, make exploration as pointed out here any cheaper, so you needed a real increase in oil prices to swing it, along with advances in technology (and technology can, of course, be deflationary in some cases, and possibly make some discoveries economically viable without an increase in oil price).

[ecoli]

It is indeed possible that the new find will make the transition easier. That depends completely on us, I guess.

[Kylonicus]

Peak Oil isn't about the end of oil. It's about the end of cheap oil. There over 2.6 Trillion barrels of oil in North America, it's just very, very, very low EROEI oil. Some of the oil has an EROEI of 1-1.5. For every 1 barrel worth of energy you invest, you get 1.5 barrels worth of energy out of it. The majority of the oil stored in oil shales, and tar sands(to my knowledge) actually has a negative EROEI. You invest more energy than you get out.

 

That's not even mentioning the incredibly devastating environmental impacts of producing that oil. The environmental cost are much greater than the resources from the oil could ever possibly be, if we were looking at the environmental cost.

 

That's what Peak Oil is all about. It's not about the end of oil. We will always have oil. We just won't be able to use it to meet all of our needs.

 

Also, without cheap oil, economic growth(with current technology) is very difficult.

[Pangloss]

Sure, but what that doesn't take into account is the fact that "cheap" is a relative term. And what does environmental impact have to do with economic factors? Oil does the same amount of damage whether it costs 50 cents or 5 bucks. That has nothing to do with the concept of "Peak Oil".

[Saryctos]

Alternative fuels? no fuels! the internet is the best replacement for oil.

 

But seriously, running out of economically feasable* oil really isn't an issue on a humanitary survivability scale. If we stop having oil to go around, we just simply stop using things that require it.

[CPL.Luke]

also as oil becomes less feasible hydrogen and other alternatives become more feasible, until their equal and we use the alternatives, then over the next few decades the alternatives go down to the price that oil is today (maybe a bit higher)

[ParanoiA]

also as oil becomes less feasible hydrogen and other alternatives become more feasible, until their equal and we use the alternatives, then over the next few decades the alternatives go down to the price that oil is today (maybe a bit higher)

 

Geez, I hope it goes better than that. Big oil has held us back. I'd like to see a faster rollout of these alternatives. Ethanol doesn't help matters any either. Politicians are jumping all over that, gearing up for elections already. I'm going to be spending a lot of time shaking my head...

[J.C.MacSwell]

Oh good, more greenhouse gas. Gotta love carbon...cough...cough.

[Pangloss]

Actually, if there's one thing I can say for certain it's that you've demonstrated your own ideological agenda but completely failed to prove anything about peak oil.

 

And your post looks even more ridiculous coming on the heels of falling crude prices and talk about cutting production -- not because of concerns amongst OPEC nations about dwindling supplies (since supplies are increasing!), but because of fears of oversupply!

 

You say there's no new supply, but in fact the opposite appears to be true. The general rise in oil prices over the last few years to what may be a new level of pricing reality actually opened up a number of new methods, such as the vast fields of sludge in Canada which, if properly counted under the new economics of oil, constitute one of the largest supplies of oil in the entire world.

 

Same thing with deeper drilling -- you say there's no relief there, but in fact science and engineering is showing us exactly the opposite. Oh but I guess I just don't have the proper charts and graphs (from peak oil nuts) to show me the truth, right? Never mind the fact that the charts and graphs are all based on presumptions and preconceptions that are turning out to be false.

 

I didn't say that we were "all saved", you put those words in my mouth. You, on the other hand, are all about selling something regardless of the facts. And ultimately you fail, not because peak oil doesn't have a point, but because when it comes to that kind of zealotry, you can't sell it. You're not informing the world about a serious potential problem, you're evangelizing a matter of faith. It's pointless, hostile fear-mongering of the worst sort.

 

And frankly I'm not even sure why we tolerate it here. If you were evangelizing religion to the exact same extent that you currently evangelize "peak oil" (which is basically a religion), you'd have already been booted.

[Pangloss]

I fully admit that deeper drilling has opened up amazing new fields in deep sea beds, and that there are fields now accessible that were impossible just a decade ago. Science is performing wonders and miracles here! I was referring to the fact that eventually there are limits. We've almost reached them. Can someone please tell my friend here what the maximum practical depth oil forms? He will not believe me. (Try wikipedia mate, I'm not making this stuff up. You need to do some basic homework.)

 

You started off so well, but you lost me at the end. I've done a LOT more than just "basic homework". There is a reason why so few respected and authoritative experts are willing to embrace and champion your fatalistic, faith-based ideology.

 

The simplest expression of your ideology, and the core of what you can't defend, is right here:

I was referring to the fact that eventually there are limits. We've almost reached them.

 

You don't know that at all, you're just making flat assertions based on science that even you admit is constantly changing. That's what I mean by "religion".

 

I see nothing in the rest of your post to warrant any further response. You just haven't got anything other than a thrilling sales pitch.

[bascule]

Is BP's data scientific or religious?

 

Who did the projection? Regardless, I'd consider it unreliable because it relies on static analysis which doesn't compensate for practical consideration or unpredicted factors.

 

Also, according to the graph it's based on ExxonMobil data, not BP data

[bascule]

What exactly was your response to all the agencies Reason quoted who claim that oil won't peak for another 20 years, including United States Geological Survey, the International Energy Agency, and the Cambridge Energy Rearch Associates?

 

I'm wary of trusting your presentation of data when the source you claim it's from doesn't match what the graph is labeled.

 

And furthermore, none of these predictions take into account the enormous potential oil bonanza that lies underneath the southwest US in the form of oil shale...

 

That's an example of why static analysis doesn't work. What potential sources of oil aren't getting included in present estimates? How can we possibly know what those are?

[ParanoiA]

Ok, so let me get this straight...oil is not a finite resource? Most scientists believe we will always have oil for the foreseeable future? Most people believe oil is really great and we should keep drilling for it and sacrificing the lives of our kids to fight for it?

 

Because, while peak oil doomers may be a little premature and disingenuous, it sounds fairly sensible to me. I've always thought oil was a limited resource and due to all of the environmental and economic problems - and war - why the hell do we want to keep investing in it?

 

I say more power to the peak oil propaganda. Maybe this little bit of payback to big oil (for crushing all anti-oil technologies and patents over the decades) will speed up alternative fuels before we find ourselves blackmailed by OPEC.

 

Big oil cares about big oil - and will do so at the expense of our country's future. Just about any capitalist will. Oil seems to be the blood of our country and key to the technologies that shape our way of life. They've done a great job of marketing it and crushing all competition. We, the people, have done a great job of buying into all of the shiny things that are made with it and / or need it residually.

 

So we, the richest and most powerful, hated nation in the world put all of our proverbial eggs in one basket - a basket we can hardly contribute much to, and is mainly controlled by those who hate us - OPEC. And Peak Oil faithfuls are nuts???

[Pangloss]

But the margins of return are getting less, and less, and as the Australian Senate says…

 

You're trying to convince us that the profit margins of oil companies is a problem? Now? When the oil companies are the largest AND most profitable corporations in the world, setting new profit MARGIN records quarter after quarter after quarter?

 

That's... an interesting argument. (cof)

 

 

BTW, you said earlier you're not an alarmist, but look at your signature:

 

2008 — World oil production begins to decline,

stockmarkets crash, airlines bankrupt, and the

Greater Depression begins!

 

You ARE an alarmist, you ARE leaping to *CONCLUSIONS* based on supposition and faith, and you ARE requiring that everyone agree with you in spite of a lack of evidence.

 

You asked me for my definition of religion. There it is.

 

Any more questions?

 

BTW, I've already answered these questions:

 

Ok, so let me get this straight...oil is not a finite resource? Most scientists believe we will always have oil for the foreseeable future? Most people believe oil is really great and we should keep drilling for it and sacrificing the lives of our kids to fight for it?

 

As I said before, everyone understands that the Earth is finite in size. But you've come nowhere close to proving that we can or will consume anything like the total amount of oil in anything like the near future. Much less the 2008 doom-and-gloom prediction in YOUR signature.

 

This one sentence sums up your entire belief:

 

I say more power to the peak oil propaganda.

 

Yup, that's what you're saying. And that's ALL you're saying.

[ParanoiA]

Ok' date=' so let me get this straight...oil is not a finite resource? Most scientists believe we will always have oil for the foreseeable future? Most people believe oil is really great and we should keep drilling for it and sacrificing the lives of our kids to fight for it?[/quote']

 

As I said before, everyone understands that the Earth is finite in size. But you've come nowhere close to proving that we can or will consume anything like the total amount of oil in anything like the near future. Much less the 2008 doom-and-gloom prediction in YOUR signature.

 

Umm...I don't have a 2008 doom-and-gloom prediction in any part of my life. I didn't even hear about such a thing until this morning.

 

I say more power to the peak oil propaganda.

 

Yup' date=' that's what you're saying. And that's ALL you're saying.[/quote']

 

I realize, at this point, you think you're responding to the Peak Oil guy. Like I said, I just read this thread this morning and it sounds like agenda activism alarmist jargon to me. However, what's wrong with it in the context of what's going on today?

 

I'm tired of spending money and blood on oil. Haven't we had enough yet? Do we have to lose our whole way of life before we admit that oil won't last forever - even if we still have plenty in 2008? Can't you see how dangerously stupid we are to depend on something we can't replenish on our own? Especially when virtually every source hates us?

 

That's why I say, quit calling Peak Oil activists nuts. We're the ones who are nuts. We live in a country that still can't see straight without oil.

[Pangloss]

I thought I was responding to POM and didn't realize that was from you. Sorry about that.

 

I want to be clear that I'm not everyone who believes that "peak oil" is a possibility "nuts". Everyone should consider that possibility. But that's not what Peak Oil Man is doing. He's a walking billboard for doom and gloom, convinced of the utter certainty of it, that there can't be any other possibility.

 

That's not science. It's religion.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, he did undermine his own position by contradicting his text with his signature. He's way too excited about all this...

[herme3]

I believe that Peak Oil Man is making the best argument in this thread. He has posted a graph created by an oil company, and it clearly shows that the discovery of new oil sources has declined sharply. This data is also comparable to data from other reliable sources. Most of these sources are showing that production will start to decrease between 2006-2010. This prediction was made by calculating the known supply of oil, the current demand for oil, and the decreasing rate in which new oil is being discovered. I'm sure you could get these numbers from reliable sources, and come up with the same prediction yourself. Just do the math.

 

What I have trouble understanding is how people assume peak oil is all fictional. It's obvious that oil is a non-renewable resource, so its production will decrease someday. Peak Oil Man has already provided the data that supports his prediction. Where is the data that says we have enough oil to last hundreds of years?

[Pangloss]

Where have I said that peak oil is fictional? Are you talking about someone else?

 

Again, it's not a question of whether there is evidence that peak oil is a possibility. It's not a question of whether that point of view should be considered. It should be.

 

But he's not asking us to consider the possibility, he's asking us to take it as FACT. And his "evidence" for that leap of faith is entirely on blinders and lopsided analysis. He presents us with a dozen experts, ignoring the vast majority of experts. He presents us with charts and graphs, ignoring other charts and graphs.

 

When creationists behave that way, crying doom and gloom and putting up signatures like Peak Oil Man's, we don't hesitate to put a stop to it. The only reason it's tolerated here is because it is politically correct.

 

I have a problem with that. I'm not saying I'm going to stop it as moderator, I don't think I'm qualified (or objective) enough to make that kind of call here. But I have no problem calling it out. It's nonsense, and people should see it for what it is.

[-Demosthenes-]

We CAN get through this, but it’s no simple picnic. Everything is going to change, and I’m just hoping we can at least keep the internet going.

 

Meh, the work has been changing rapidly over the past 200 years already.