peak fossil fuel in 15 years reboot

[geoguy]

Your opinion is what we are interested in. Facts rarely speak for themselves. If they did, nobody would argue over anything. Supplement opinion with said documents, reports, studies, etc. Recognize opinion as such and be careful not to speak for reports you did not write. Lord knows how many times I've done that.

 

Thumbs up. Words of wisdom. A scientific mind at work on a Science forum.

[Pangloss]

POM, that's twice in this thread now that you've denied being a doomer, but have you forgotten that you haven't changed your avatar since the bad old days when you used to sign every post with your prediction about the crash of the stock market and the worldwide panic that you needed us to know was waiting for us just around the corner?

 

BTW, the defamation and misrepresentation of my actions and positions in multiple threads all over this board stops right now. You've had your say, and everyone heard you. Now knock it off.

[Pangloss]

That is a straw man. I don't dispute your figures on oil reserves. I dispute your conclusion that oil reserves cannot grow any further.

[jackson33]

according to Info Please, there is currently a little over 1.2 trillion barrels of oil in known reserves around the world. these are accessible and proved reserves based on current technology. there are other sources claiming up to 1.5 trillion and above.

 

recent finds are expected to add to this figure and these reserves may increase as early as this year. additionally, the recent ability to drill in deeper water or practically test in very cold or otherwise inaccessible area are leading to many expectations.

 

a little check on Saudi reserves shows an increase in 2005. i might add that they are very protective of anyone or company in exploring for additional reserves. currently Iraq is expecting some dramatic finds, in places where test from the 1970's and 80's showed NO SIGNS of oil.

 

my continuous argument, has been, Peak anything requires the knowledge of KNOWN, and this total in crude oil, coal or any form of whats called fossil fuel is not by any measure, known.

[Pangloss]

But we have drilled all over this little planet.

 

Not yet we haven't. And you've agreed with me on this point in the past.

 

We know the 5 geological requirements that trap oil.

 

No, that's another educated guess that's been proven incorrect several times in the past. And you've agreed with me on this point in the past.

 

We know where to look.

 

Incorrect. And you've agreed with me on this point in the past.

 

We have looked there.

 

Incorrect. And you've agreed with me on this point in the past.

 

The uncontroversial history of discovery shows the declining discovery trends for the last 40 years. I'm not posting that graph again!

 

Good, because it's a straw man. Reserves and production are double what they were 40 years ago. I agree with declining trends, but the reason for that has been cheap oil, not some sort of magical maximum.

 

The proof is in the pudding. Your people predicted global economic collapse when oil prices doubled. But in fact they quadrupled, and the economy is doing just fine. Your theory isn't perfected truth that nobody can deny. It needs a lot of work.

 

 

There are no more Saudi Arabia's to find. (And even if we found one, it might only delay peak oil another 10 years because of economic growth causing more consumption.)

 

More guesswork, not fact. In fact recent trends suggest the opposite, as we've discussed in the past. You've agreed with me on this point in the past, in fact, and countered with the supposition that it won't matter because there's a magical maximum production capacity. (Which you can't prove, you can only point to plateaus that have other explanations. But you declare it to be fact just the same.)

 

 

We know that 54/65 nations have peaked and are now in PERMANENT decline, no matter what new technology may have been invented. They just simply are in permanent decline.

 

No, we do not know this. That is your theory. But you're entitled to your opinion, and more power to you.

[jackson33]

my argument is you nor any person can predict the unknown. i can only give you a day by day account of new finds verses the quantities used. there are those that would argue, the formation of the product itself is not understood.

 

 

China, is todays news as a large find has been discovered. China as is Asia in general along with Africa, has not been fully, even nearly checked for possible reserves. many places in the US are off limits to this exploration, since even a find would mean nothing or be to costly, by permit, to pump. if we were to find a hundred trillion barrel in California or Florida, it would be more cost/efficient to import the stuff, until it were non existent.

 

what was "easy oil", may peak or be close to it. however what is easy today is not what will be so as easy becomes technological conceivable in the future. we know that in thousands of places deep in the oceans, oil naturally seeps into the water and have absolutely no idea what exist in the pool this takes place. any one could be found to contain...and ill let you pick a figure.

 

again, alternative energy is and will continue to be explored and utilized by people, industry and governments. this will proceed for many reasons, none of which are or should be for any concern of running out. market forces that produced mankind's greatest advancements have changed, because of people reasoning short term atmospheric conditions. we now have concerns of dependency on people that think in ways to use any dependency as a control over other systems. the giving of a false premise that something will happen, detrimental to man or that a peak of something will cause catastrophic global problems, in my opinion falls just short of the doom and gloom scenario of some theological leader preaching doomsday. unwarranted, unfounded and unnecessary for the general public to be forced to swallow.

[Pangloss]

Well put.

 

What's interesting about China is that their plan involves both increased production and a comprehensive effort to curtail consumption (as well as pollution). Given the problem they're facing (bringing that many people into the 21st century), I think it's a pretty bold idea. Whether it'll work, of course, is another question.

 

Interesting article on the subject:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2007-04/11/content_848392.htm

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Peak Oil Man, you're using an argument tactic that I generally find very frustrating. Instead of directly engaging others in argument to discuss the fine points of your position, you simply throw more and more evidence at the matter, along with a repetition of the original evidence and statements. You need to learn to think for yourself and defend your evidence - don't just repeat it.

 

It's almost like a war of attrition, with Pangloss eating away at your evidence and you throwing more in as fast as you can. Go on, defend the evidence you have.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes, but repeating yourself when challenged doesn't work. You need to explain why the other side is wrong, not explain how much evidence there is to support you.

[jackson33]

POM; the Chinese find is located off shore in a shallow bay. this was a report from there media. this find is not all that important, but the fact they are beginning to get enthused, is important. coal their primary energy means is very hard to go around, as they have a great deal of known reserves.

 

Jack 2, the Chevron, Gulf of Mexico is an example of whats to come and what i have written on. the expected 3 Billion barrel find, is 28,000 feet deep.

cost 100 million to drill and with the current technology, the only question was to the total find. this a first and only the beginning of what could come.

very, very little of the oceans have been explored, or the deep waters around any continent.

 

what i say with referance to national reserves; this figure is based on accessible oil only. known means nothing if you cannot drill the oil or that is not yet practical. the Utah/Colorado shale/tar or sand is not included, along with known oil off the coast of California, Florida, some Texas and all of Alaska's National Parks. my point was very simple. as big as the oil giants are, a very small group can make it so costly to drill, by the use of courts and regulation, permits and consumed time that is by far cheaper to import the crude. these companies know where great reserves are, but the 100 or more dollar cost to access the oil and time involved is NOT WORTH THE EFFORT.

 

in the US, we have a serious problem in refining oil to the various products. additionally there are some 30-40 different grades needed to fit federal and state mandated requirements. California, for example is the most demanding and even demands various mixtures for different areas for not only gas, but diesel, heating oil or any burned product. then, they will not allow any refinery process in there state, nor allow any of the known new oil reserves to be pumped.

 

a few years ago, many of the Permian basin oil fields, were in the city limits of many towns. these towns are still there and thriving, never suffering any ill effects of these operations. Midland, Odessa and many others built there city halls ON the site of a rig. we have gone from this mentality to one where we can do very little, on any US territory. this in my opinion has come from many who are opposed to things other than environment or even preventing a problem.

[YT2095]

I think the problem will be somewhat more exhaserbated by Chinas growing Car usage too, there was a reasonable prediction made that by 2020 they will be using 6 times more petrol than the USA, and later will require More fossil fuel per week than is current obtained in a YEAR globaly!

 

something like that anyway, Either way, it simply Cannot Happen, according to it, in order to sustain the current growth, we need 3 More Earths!

 

there Will be a Crunch sometime soon.

[CPL.Luke]

Yes, but repeating yourself when challenged doesn't work. You need to explain why the other side is wrong, not explain how much evidence there is to support you.

 

I have yet to see pangloss pick apart any evidence, or anybody pick apart the evidence, all I have seen is a number of posters saying "no, you're wrong" no counter evidence, nothing more than a vague oppinion such as "well there are a couple of finds here and there, therefore we are gaining reserve capacity at a faster rate than we are burning it." POM then provides statistics showing conclusively that we are burning oil faster than we are finding it, and unless some magical discontinuity occurs in the nxt several years, we are still going to reduce the world wide oil reserve.

 

Its time that we stopped pretending that humanity is incapable of depleting planetary resources cause we are just that insignificant. We exist on every continent on the planet, and in some places up to a density of 66,000 people per square mile. Were using resources and fast.

 

As fr deep sea finds I would like to mention that a very quick calculation will show that the deeper the oil is, the more energy it takes to extract it, then you also have to add in the energies involved in shipping it. and pretty soon you aren't getting energy out of the oil.

 

 

And as for detection methods, they now have instruments sensitive enough to detect the tiny differences in gravitational field that would indicate oil, and we can put these things in planes and fly them over vast amounts of land. If these tools aren't picking up the oil at a rate faster than we are burning it, than I would doubt that the left over oil is worth finding.

[YT2095]

I can`t, it was on Discovery Science chan a few nights ago, in fact the program wasn`t about Oil or related topics, but about "Buying Happiness" or at least the Idea of Happiness.

 

edit: here, this chart is similar to the one shown: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4716528.stm

[YT2095]

so what`s wrong with that?

I`m mostly always in jeans, Rock Band T`shirts and leather waistcoat, long Loooooong hair and a chin beard (although very Gray).

I also wear Loud Flowerprint Hawaian shirts in the summer.

 

 

also another thing to factor in is during that time the Population in China increases! (as I said, it wasn`t ALL about fuel usage/Demand).

[Pangloss]

Loud shirts really DO speak for themselves.

[insane_alien]

i want that shirt

[Pangloss]

I have yet to see pangloss pick apart any evidence, or anybody pick apart the evidence, all I have seen is a number of posters saying "no, you're wrong"

 

I've never attempted to pick apart PeakOilMan's numbers -- I've always accepted them. And I don't think I've ever once simply made a flat denial as an argument. It's just his interpretation that I disagree with.

 

Even PeakOilMan gives me more credit than that, guy. Be fair.

[Pangloss]

POM, I appreciate the effort you are making above, so I'll leave it at that. The only complaint I have about the last few posts is that I wish you would be more respectful of other people's opinions and less demanding about acceptance of your interpretation of the what the evidence means. Statements like "the facts speak for themselves" and "other people just don't recognize the truth" absolutely ruin egalitarian debate (and are against board policy for that reason). If you can turn it around and work with folks in a more fair and cooperative manner, there's no reason why you can't continue talking about this.

[CPL.Luke]

sorry pangloss, I was commenting on someone elses interpretation of the events.

 

I'll try and dig up a link on those gravitational interferometers, I saw an article in sciam about them and they're use in oil searching a couple years back.

[1veedo]

POM, I appreciate the effort you are making above, so I'll leave it at that. The only complaint I have about the last few posts is that I wish you would be more respectful of other people's opinions and less demanding about acceptance of your interpretation of the what the evidence means. Statements like "the facts speak for themselves" and "other people just don't recognize the truth" absolutely ruin egalitarian debate (and are against board policy for that reason). If you can turn it around and work with folks in a more fair and cooperative manner, there's no reason why you can't continue talking about this.

The facts really do speak for themselves, and PeakOilMan has done a great job explaining what exactly these facts tell us. I have never seen any counter evidence against PeakOilMan's claims; I really think the only thing I've ever seen as a counter point is "no, you're wrong."

 

For instance when people posted stuff about tar sands, he brought up the appropriate data that shows it isn't going to effect the reality of a peak. And how did these posters respond? "No, I still think tar sands will effect peak oil. I don't care about all of the evidence that you provided that shows my statements are incorrect, I'm just going to ignore every word you posted."

 

So where are your references that say peak oil wont happen? Last time I checked, Hubert's peak was being taught by every university in geology 101. The mathematics behind it have been shown to be correct many times and they are used everyday within the field itself*. You cannot extract oil from the ground without understanding peak oil*.

 

* See for instance Beyond Oil: A View From Hubbert's Peak.

[Pangloss]

I've not posted countering evidence, I've posted an opinion. It is a different opinion from Peak Oil Man's. I fully intend to keep challenging his opinion, and if he's the intelligent advocate I think he is, then he should welcome that continuance. And so should you.

 

I've never said peak oil can't happen, so what evidence am I supposed to produce? You can't prove a negative -- the evidence is incumbent upon the hypothesizer, not the hypothesizee. But more to the point, I have no problem with the evidence as presented! I simply draw a different opinion from it than Peak Oil Man does. The problem here is that a couple of people aren't recognizing that that's an opinion. Thankfully most of us see very clearly what this is.

 

Are we going to respect differing points of view here, or are we going to declare one point of view to be correct and deny others the right to state their opinions if they differ from what's accepted?

 

Choose wisely.

[Dave]

I draw this opinion about the future based on the data

 

Forgive me for cutting off your post at this point, but I believe this is the part that is most relevant to what I am about to say.

 

Essentially, you are doing what statisticians and meteorologists all around the globe do every day. You're attempting to extrapolate what's going to happen in the next n days from existing data.

 

Now, ask yourself this: how often do the weather guys get it wrong? My experience from watching weather reports around here is that it's wrong about half of the time. And that's by using huge computer simulations and all of the advanced prediction techniques at their disposal. Additionally, consider that given all of these methods at their disposal, they are only able to predict accurate weather for probably the next 24-48 hours.

 

Hopefully this is the message that Pangloss is trying to convey. One can only observe trends in statistical data; these may be right and they may be wrong, as many stock traders out there will no doubt know. Additionally, you are trying to observe trends for a system in which you do not know all of the variables. An oil company could dig up an absolutely huge deposit tomorrow and it would nullify your 10-15 years claim immediately. There is no way that anybody can possibly predict this.

 

I have not really taken part in this discussion so far so I shouldn't try to comment too much. But just bear in mind that data sets do not give you the complete picture. As good as the data looks, it can be completely wrong. Additionally consider that the evidence will not speak for itself - you need to provide clear, statistical reasons as to why you think your extrapolation is in any way justified. Meer observation of the data will simply not suffice.

[jackson33]

i would suggest we have tested 10% or less of the earths service, specifically for oil reserves. even from space we can some idea conditions where a particular element should be found, but with extremely low accuracy.

 

of this 10%, many finds in reserves have been rediscovered by the newer seismic methods which found none before. deeper or hidden by other elements are still a problem. even the Jack 2 find is with in a several thousand foot thick salt/rock formation, until recently or by older standards would never have been a potential exploration drilling sight, much less practical.

 

land is one third the planet, oceans make up 2/3rds. of the land Antarctic and its northern sister represent great potentials, with virtually no activity. by sisters i am referring to inside the Arctic circle, as the waters under that pole are not well documented, much less tested.

 

yes we can determine usage and the financial contributions to the worlds economy. by far, energy in all its differing methods from locating, transporting, refining, shipping, distribution and so on is the single most important issue for this continuance. alternatives, which are just as important will some day replace the original and as i maintain, even when this day comes, oil would still be available.

 

there is nothing chaotic about the current system. its very well organized and the efficiency is better than any other industry, including food. as crude oil, food is plentiful, plenty of each available to feed and energize the world, but i will suggest that you can get gas/petrol in many places, where food you may not find....

[Pangloss]

Hi Pangloss,

where does your different opinion come from?

 

I'll answer that, but I think you have to acknowledge that I (and several other members here who have agreed with me and disagreed with you) have one, and that it's allowed for it to differ from yours.

 

Let me be forthright with you, since we're on the subject: I've been asked to review some of my old posts on the subject, and I agree with you that I have been, at times, a bit abrassive and overbearing in opposing your opinion. I can understand your frustration, and it's lead to some back-and-forth that I regret. There's also been some well-reasoned debate in the midst of battle on both our parts, and I want to recognize that value as well.

 

What I'm getting at is that I get a little huffy sometimes, but I regret casting aspersions on your honest opinion, and I'm not asking (nor have I ever asked) for your departure. I believe you're fully capable of bringing value to the board and I'd like to see that continue in a positive vein.

 

This is one of the most interesting subjects we discuss here, and I'd like to keep it open and honest, and continuing forward. You're provocative, but you're also resourceful and intelligent, and you bring new information and perspective to the table. All I'm asking is that you respect other points of view. The main thing that makes me unhappy is when one person or another dominates a subject, making it difficult for others to voice their opinions.

 

 

I'm discussing a number of known data sets — facts if you will — and drawing from them my opinion that nothing, but nothing can prevent a major recession or even Great Depression in the next 10 to 15. That is my main argument.

 

I have no problem with you having that opinion. As others have pointed out, it's a good argument, and a valid opinion. There are also other possibilities.

 

We've seen this before, and it's not a matter of evidence, but it IS a matter of valid differences of opinion. I don't have to produce evidence that the world won't collapse tomorrow. I can simply point to the size of the Earth, the accepted set of assumptions by your "geologist friends" that in fact is constantly changing and mutable, and so forth. For example, when I point out that a new "deep strike" has been made, that's not an argument that one strike is going to save us all (as you once responded, inappropriately IMO). That's pointing out that strikes can come from areas not currently accepted by geologists.

 

It's perfectly reasonable for you to respond to that by saying something along the lines of "I don't believe that will be sufficient, and these scientists don't believe it either". Great, more power to you. Post that, and we won't have a problem.

 

20 years ago, every Nobel Prize-winning economist in the country was convinced that the mathematics and science of the Savings & Loan Crisis was going to lead to economic catastrophe. They had mounds of evidence just like yours -- charts and graphs, opinions from brilliant minds, empirical data, the whole nine yards.

 

But it never happened. The crisis was averted with a relative minimum of fuss. And history is full of similar examples.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not simply saying "well aliens could land tomorrow and hand us a bunch of matter replicators". I'm being logical and responsive about this, and I believe I've answered your question (and am willing to answer it further). I agree that a response like that (replicators) would be too silly to discuss.

 

But I (and others) have outlined specific areas and technologies where, in our opinion, the answers will come from, including changes in energy policy, greater geological understanding, more attention from the public, and improved technology.

 

I believe you should respect that opinion and respond to it on a professional level. If you can do that, then perhaps we can bury the proverbial hatchet and move on.

[1veedo]

For example, when I point out that a new "deep strike" has been made, that's not an argument that one strike is going to save us all (as you once responded, inappropriately IMO). That's pointing out that strikes can come from areas not currently accepted by geologists.

Peak oil does not say that there will be no more major oil discoveries. All it says is that cumulatively, oil discovery will decrease. And sense 1965, oil discoveries have gone nowhere but down, despite recent discoveries. Production does not follow discovery linearly, but discovery is a good indicator for what's going to happen in the future. Right now we're using 3 barrels of oil for every discovered barrel.

 

I think you might be interested in a little principle known as Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor basically says that we should keep things as simple as possible -- the best solution out of two equal solutions is the one that is simplest.

 

Peak oil basically says that our ability to produce more oil is dependent on the unproduced portion. This has of course been true for the entire history of oil production on this planet, and I see no reason that it should cease to be true in the future, so why should we create a more complex model?

 

Peak oil has accurately described oil production through unexpected increases in oil reserves, better technology, and even a great depression without the need to alter the model in the slightest. None of these "external" or "unexpected" influences changed the reality of peak oil.

 

When people talk about mitigating peak oil, they usually look to new technologies or potential oil producing regions that aren't currently considered (eg the antarctic/arctic). But all things considered, if we follow the very well established principles of peak oil, none of this should matter. And history has proven this to be true over and over again. So if none of this has ever mattered in the past, why should it matter in the future?

 

 

Btw, you don't bury a hatchet because it can dull the blade. Either sheath it or split it into wood (but not a live tree!).