peak fossil fuel in 15 years reboot

[GutZ]

Canada has oil for everyone!

 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/01/11/canadian-oil060111.html

[Pangloss]

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 know that peak oil doesn't say there won't be any more major oil discoveries. I didn't say that it said that, and you've missed my point.

 

When a discovery comes from an area previously thought to be not a valid area for discovery, this changes the formula for calculating "peak oil". This has happened several times, causing the formula to be recalculated several times over the decades.

 

Why assume it won't happen again? That's one of the reasons I believe Peak Oil Man's prediction is just that -- one prediction. Out of many possible outcomes.

 

 

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.

 

No it doesn't. It states that when all other factors are equal, the simplest answer is usually the correct one. It is an interpretive tool. I don't know what relevence this has here. Scientists don't make factual determinations based on Occam's Razor.

 

If you're asking me if Occam's Razor SUGGESTS that Peak Oil Man is correct, I would answer "perhaps". It's a reasonable thing to suggest, and I certainly have no problem with people forming their opinions on that basis.

 

 

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?

 

I'm glad you brought this up, because it raises another issue I still want to talk about. I keep hearing that peak oil has predicted all of the plateaus in oil production over the years. I have a real problem with this, because the idea behind peak oil is that production cannot be increased beyond a certain capacity, which is a theoretical maximum. So what happens is that a plateau is reached, the peak oil fans cheer, and then nothing happens for a while, and then -- production grows again at a later time.

 

How is that an "accurate prediction"? It's like a prognosticator standing on a street corner shouting "Come and do business with me, because I've accurately predicted the end of the world every single time it's happened!" It makes no sense at all.

 

And then there is the problem of WHY production halted or slowed. Peak oil says it stopped because production hit its theoretical maximum. But that has never been the case -- not once. Oil production has never capped out, one not single time in history. That is the fundamental tenet of peak oil theory, and it has never happened. Production has always stopped because of market factors, like temporary lack of demand. That's been the case every single time, including right now.

 

What does lack of demand have to do with running out of accessible oil or reaching a maximum capacity?

 

 

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!).

 

(grin) Okay.

[jackson33]

the search for, test drilling, even testing for possible reserves has slowed many times in the short history of oil for energy. the process is very expensive and for many small companies there death nail. the better operated and now oil giants have there own operations, however hire others to do much of the work. the largest and most known is Haliburton, which in turn hires out many small companies for certain jobs. if i have inferred a costly and potential failure of a search, this my point. this process and discoveries, you can track to the price of a barrel of oil.

 

the current capacity, of refiners is less than the output of the current pumping operations. top this off with the massive transportation, ships, pipe lines and storage problems. to produce an over abundance or more than could be used would drop the price to levels the major producers do not want to happen. no purpose would be served, other than government taxation which would occur, if the price of the crude or products declined. every time the product prices have declined, taxes have gone up. in the US this has been done on Jan. 1st in most every year and both by federal and state governments. heating oil, just beginning its annual increases and diesel/gas at its lowest levels.

 

over production of the products produced, from gasoline, diesel to fertilizer and plastics, are not permitted for reasons of natural degradation or breakdown of the final products. long before the products become totally unusable, the efficiency of each product becomes less. oil then can be stored and many countries have some in storage, BUT the products cannot be stored for any long period of time.

[1veedo]

I still remember reading in Deffey's first book a prediction for peak oil in Norway in 2001. The book was written before the peak, and I was reading it after the peak, so it was pretty cool when I discovered that the prediction was correct. It was sort of a side-note too and wasn't expressed as if it were any big deal. "Yeah, the North Sea is about to peak...The middle east is the largest region that has not yet peaked..." (not an actual quote, I checked it out of the library so I don't have it anymore)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Norway_Hubbert.svg

 

I'm pretty sure they've add to this graph every year. I first saw it in 2004 when the latest date graphed was 2003 and 2004-2006 are on there now.

[Pangloss]

I can instead write off whole geographical regions as inappropriate for large oil fields because they are missing even just 1 of the 5 essential ingredients that could indicate the presence of oil.

 

That's one of the problems of peak oil right there -- areas that have been geologically "written off" in the past end up producing oil. (Maybe we should debate more specific details here, just as a thought.)

 

 

But can you please provide data as to which peak oil predictions have failed in this way? I'll provide a footnote as to some instances where Big oil were wrong and the peakniks were right.

 

Fair enough. You posted some specifics earlier and I disputed them in a very general way. Let me suggest that you take one of those (or another one) -- some specific peak oil prediction that you believe came true -- and post it here, and I'll respond to that specific point, and we'll see where it goes from there. Just one, for the moment, so we can focus on it. (I won't take that to mean that you don't have others available.)

 

I don't know, Peak Oil Man, maybe I have some room to learn here. I like to think I have an open mind.

[jackson33]

POM; "i would suggest, 10%" of the worlds service; is based on some real facts. the real figure for world land service is 30%. a large portion is state owned or the government requires permits to visit, much less test for anything. in general this amounts to ABOUT 50% of that 30%. as you have said, we or the industry has previously not check in many places for reasons. also the new methods are less than 10 years old, and exploration takes time. additionally the 70% oceans have at best been .01% explored. in all probability, using the newer techniques we have probably not tested 5%, being polite to your "everywhere" comment. even here its often old fields, which are being revived. you might know, since its your thing, that well were abandoned in groves because it was not possible or known how to get oil up and out of the ground, with about 1/3 the reserves pumped. (economically)

 

in the US, over 1/3 of our land service is public. this in National Parks, Forest and the like. most of which is in good areas for potential oil reserves and no person can test the water, much less than for oil. there are no figures for what is permitted to be explored, however in areas where oil is know to be from the 70's to 90's, much cannot be accessed. the California, Oregon, Florida Coast, Alaska and about 50 major areas on land in these same states.

 

i am sorry, but i wish you would get to your intended point. your handle here "POM", your threads on peak oil, peak coal and comments on some pending world calamity (all in 20 years) is taking on a very spooky scenario. the best i can figure your concern is China, its development and potential threat to your country. for 20 million folks, Australia is thriving, as stable and sound as any other nation, per capita. i have always feared government actions can scare a society, which may be in your case. mandating light bulbs, for an entire nation is a precursor to whats intended.

 

one last little side note. the US road system, from the 1950's is a copy of the German system, based on national security. the inter-state, was started for truck and military purposes, but the public would not let fly.

[1veedo]

It's actually very easy to find oil in the oceans. Instead of driving a truck around in the desert, setting up equipment every few miles, and gathering data, a boat can just float around and find any oil that can be drilled.

POM; "i would suggest, 10%" of the worlds service; is based on some real facts.

And you get these "facts" from where exactly?

[jackson33]

the service of the planet is 30% land and 70% oceans. if all land could have been re-explored with new technology and accepting that oceans have not been, this leaves a 30% max. of this max, most requires formal permission or is off limits for exploration, national parks and forest in the US cover most areas where oil is known to be or is thought to be and a good portion of land areas are just to cold to explore effectively. my original 10% of the total area on the planet is likely a high estimate, 5% more likely but still subject to lowering.

 

in my arguments on GW and now on the peak stuff, i have never heard anyone suggest most our service areas have been tested, certainly not by the newer technology which has made test drilling a less of a gamble. my figures on surface areas can be found any where, as are the ideas of where and what lands can or are subject to can be found in any number of geological reports. the 5 and 10%, even though i consider to high are my opinion based on others and mentioned stats.

 

i will take your "float around in the oceans" as a negative on finding oils in the open oceans. this is a new trend offered by this new seismic technology. done now by laser, opposed to explosives, less than ten years old. oil seeps into the oceans all the time, more each day than the "great Alaskan oil spill, at least its been said. this can happen only under some pressure, meaning a reservoir is there. of the many thousands of such places, there is no limit to potential or whats called effect on the peak theory. peak oil theory is trying to base itself on old procedure and whats called easy oil. my contention is easy or not, this unknown fact is not determinable and in logic, much greater oil is available than even conceivable, by most that made up these limits or times to peak.

[1veedo]

Not to be rude but you're just pulling these numbers out of your ass. I asked for a reference (and I don't mean a reference for land/sea area, I want a reference talking about areas of the planet which are feasible drilling locations that have not yet been searched). Unless you can come up with one then your argument that the majority of the planet has not been searched is incorrect.

 

According to Beyond Oil: A View From Hubert's Peak, we have already drilled about half of the total recoverable oil on this planet, and have already found the majority of it.

[Pangloss]

North America would be a great case in point because it peaked right on schedule in 1970, then there were some more discoveries, but where is America today? How are they doing now? What is their domestic production, and how does it relate to it did in 1970?

 

Just to clarify, was this intended as a response to my question? It sounds like it is, because that's a number we've looked at before.

 

My response to this number before was that I agree to its accuracy, and I interpret its meaning in a different way. You believe it means that they capacity to increase that number does not exist. I believe it to mean that the capacity to increase that number exists just fine. (In other words, wells are shut down/capped/stored for future use because the price of oil doesn't support its tappage at present.)

 

So let's see if we can go another level deeper with the evidence trail at that point, instead of just leaving it to my opinion versus yours:

 

Is there a specific piece of evidence that you can present here that would show that these numbers cannot be raised under any circumstances?

[Pangloss]

Not to be rude but you're just pulling these numbers out of your ass. I asked for a reference (and I don't mean a reference for land/sea area, I want a reference talking about areas of the planet which are feasible drilling locations that have not yet been searched). Unless you can come up with one then your argument that the majority of the planet has not been searched is incorrect.

 

According to Beyond Oil: A View From Hubert's Peak, we have already drilled about half of the total recoverable oil on this planet, and have already found the majority of it.

 

This is not a valid response for this thread. Hubbard is not a valid source for that piece of information -- you have to quote HIS source, not his opinion, please.

 

And lay off the cursing, please. If you make a comment like that first line again I'm going to issue you an infraction. Thanks.

[Pangloss]

5 Questions.

 

1. With all the billions invested in oil discovery technology, which year had the highest discovery rate? When did world discovery peak?

2. With all the billions invested in oil discovery technology, which year was the last year we actually discovered more oil than we burnt?

3. How did Hubbert accurately predict USA production peak? (Answer has something to do with the discovery peak.)

4. What is the overall trend in discovery for the last 40 years, and why is this trend going so far down when technology for discovery is skyrocketing?

5. How much faster are we burning oil now than we are discovering it?

 

The rate of discovery is affected by economic issues that have nothing to do with running out of easy access oil. Oil's cheap. We got big reserves. Why spend all that money during a recession looking for... more reserves? You don't do that -- you wait for boom times. You want for times like the ones we're coming into right now. THEN you start spending money on stuff like that.

 

This is why I don't like it when you repeat yourself. It ignores the arguments made against your points in earlier repetitions. You're setting yourself up for a situation in the future when I'm not around and miss a particular repetition, leaving you holding the field with a dogmatic opinion, presented as if it were a fact.

 

That is unacceptable to me, and that is why I keep challenging you on a personal level. The debate should be on the merits, not whomever happens to get the last word in.

[CPL.Luke]

Hmm its interesting to note that during the energy crisis (that happened right around the peak) gas was at the highest price per gallon in US history, right around $3.50 a gallon (after inflation), this would not be consistant with Pangloss's argument that it suddenly became unfeasable to pay the workers to maintain the pumps.

 

(also is it really logical that it was cheaper for companies to import the oil and ship it clear across the oceans than to pay a couple of guys 20 bucks an hour to maintain the pumps)

 

 

Also why are the known numbers for saudi arabia and other arab states not included in the graph? POM

[jackson33]

POM; nothing is trashed in the process of discovery or recovering of crude oil. many suggest the aftermath of the process leaves the environment in better shape. however, your apparent motive, seems to be an opposition to Capitalism, the answer to my question.

 

Iveedo; i think you will find, my opinions, and stated as such, were based on logical assumptions of what could be accomplished and more important why from the need to and the cost. geological reports were mentioned, which i generally read and trash, but are all over the WWW under many search results.

 

in a brief search this morning *modern testing for oil reserves* the first page had many good sites for much of what i suggest.

 

csun.edu, had a well written, informative report on oil discoveries in Russia, where these areas were search 30-40 years ago and said to contain no oil.

they mentioned 11 major and one giant find.

 

free energy news; also on the first page has a very interesting report on

*biotic oil* which is an alternative fossil fuel scenario and gaining much respect from this newer process to explore. i might add, i have not touched on this in my argument, since it is argumentative. in short, the idea is oil is plentiful (VERY), at deeper levels, an element in constant reproduction.

 

some interesting things to consider on fossil fuel...1-just what poundage of organic material that could have been, which by reasons, turn to oil, did so.

we have used an awful lot in weight. 2-we can find remnant of organic life in some cases down to 18k foot, however have found reserves, to date, down 30k foot. 3-many old well, when revisited have been found to have near the amounts and some suggest more, than the yielded in the past.

 

my arguments on peak, are not that complicated. to know such a peak, you have to know the limits of the item. we have no idea whats this limit could be, under even todays technology and certainly not under tomorrows. my second contention, is motivation or for what reason a person, group or government would have in attempting to panic a society. it generally leads to;

person-dislike for a social structure, ie; capitalism. free trade, wealth, free trade or in some cases a desire for socialism or isolationism. group; an effort to attain funding for a non related cause, such as global warming, political achievement or any small project. government; the real culprit, IMO, because it uses the others to achieve higher income or increase taxes.

[jackson33]

Hmm its interesting to note that during the energy crisis (that happened right around the peak) gas was at the highest price per gallon in US history, right around $3.50 a gallon (after inflation), this would not be consistant with Pangloss's argument that it suddenly became unfeasable to pay the workers to maintain the pumps.

 

(also is it really logical that it was cheaper for companies to import the oil and ship it clear across the oceans than to pay a couple of guys 20 bucks an hour to maintain the pumps)

Also why are the known numbers for saudi arabia and other arab states not included in the graph? POM

 

yes, it was and remains cheaper to transport crude or the final product, than to go through a very costly process to explore for, drill and pump oil in the US.

a permit to test, requires about 5 costly reports, generally based on environmental effects. then you have permits, from the state, county and in some cases municipal authorities. prices can range, but in many sates, none have been issued in years. why do you think BIG OIL, doesn't just pay that 20.00 bucks to begin with???

 

the mid-east oil embargo's that led to a shortage in the pipeline for those days had nothing to do with any bodies estimated oil peak. it did begin our national crude oil reserve, which has helped to prevent some political entity from trying this again. along with our efforts to globalize world trade and inter actions between economies, this is now less likely to happen. the one BILLION barrels in these reserves and the dependency on the revenue from selling the product by most producing countries, is only a small portion of what i classify as an efficient system.

[Pangloss]

Hmm its interesting to note that during the energy crisis (that happened right around the peak) gas was at the highest price per gallon in US history, right around $3.50 a gallon (after inflation), this would not be consistant with Pangloss's argument that it suddenly became unfeasable to pay the workers to maintain the pumps.

 

Just to be clear, I'm talking about the pumps that pull the oil out of the ground, not the pumps that put gasoline in the car. I think you understood that, but I did a double-take at your mention of the per-gallon price in the same sentence, and that may cause some misunderstanding for other readers, so I wanted to make sure we're clear on that. The economics of running a filling station aren't particularly relevent here, I don't think, for either point of view.

 

Getting back to your point, I didn't say "suddenly", I said that when oil is cheap you buy from overseas. You've just pointed out that when oil was expensive, oil was at its highest domestic production level in history. This would seem to back up my point, would it not?

 

 

my arguments on peak, are not that complicated. to know such a peak, you have to know the limits of the item. we have no idea whats this limit could be, under even todays technology and certainly not under tomorrows.

 

Hear, hear.

[Pangloss]

Before I go on to argue that they cannot raise domestic production, can I ask if you have any data that confirms that they can raise production? Some evidence would be appropriate at this point.

...

Peak oil is NOT voluntary, they have other terms for that such as "reducing production" to affect price, or being a "Swing producer". The American peak was far from voluntary. They are going as hard as they can.

...

If it is a "voluntary capping", as you suggest, can I ask why on earth an oil company would do that? Why would they cap a perfectly good well still full of cheap oil and walk away from it? What possible economic incentive would reward such behaviour? And why do it in such a manner as to slowly decrease oil supply in a perfect bell shape, almost exactly to Hubbert's predictions? You are asking me to believe that for 30 odd years, American oil companies have defied capitalism and consistently reduced their production and PROFITS from the lower 48 states. Hmmm.

(etc)

 

Sure, I can help you with that. I'm going to post ONE reference, not because I only HAVE one reference, but to give you a chance to refute it spot-on.

 

(I don't mean to abbreviate your post, by the way. It was interesting and informative, as always, and I did read it all the way through, I just quoted a portion of it so that I'm clear about what I'm responding to.)

 

Anyway, this is an article from November 2005 about the uncapping of oil wells in California that were capped because of changing economics:

 

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47618

 

And it includes this interesting quote, which I imagine you'll have an interesting response for:

 

"The decision to uncap California oil wells proves that U.S. oil production did not 'peak' because we ran out of domestic oil," comments Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D., co-author with Craig R. Smith of "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil." "Much oil in the U.S. has been kept in the ground awaiting new technology and higher prices. Truly, we do not know how much oil we have in the U.S. because environmental objections have consistently blocked efforts to explore for oil and natural gas offshore and in Alaska."

 

Clearly Dr. Corsi has an agenda of his own, with a book title like that! But then that seems to be a common thing when it comes to this subject.

 

(Edit: I've never heard of that book, but here's its page at Amazon, where it's apparently been on sale since late 2005. Some of the comments posted by readers are pretty heated and interesting.)

[CPL.Luke]

pangloss between the years of 1970 and 1975 (the big opec years) oil by the barrel hit $80 per barrel (US inflation adjusted) which is higher than it was back when katrina hit, the idea that suddenly US oil companies stopped getting new oil during this time due to changing economics is absurd in light of the fact that the price of oil was at its highest in the years when US oil production had flatlined and begun to decline.

 

you really are saying that oil companies packed up and stopped investing in the US just as the price of oil quadrupled, and most of the oil producing nations ofthe world ceased shipping oil to the US.

 

That is a very extraordinary claim.

 

 

As to your point on the uncapping of wells in california. It doesn't surprise me that there were and are oil wells that are only economic when the price of oil is over $50 a barrel, afterall during the opec years the cost was higher, so companies found the oil and drilled it. However even as the price of oil remained high even by today's standards between '70 and '75 US production fell. Even when there were massive shortages and politcal presure to increase production the production still fell. You really are saying that oil companies packed up and stopped investing in the US just as the price of oil quadrupled, and most of the oil producing nations ofthe world ceased shipping oil to the US.

 

That is a very extraordinary claim, especialy in light of the fact that this massive withdrawal took place almost exactly when a guy ignorant of any of the events of the 1960's and 70's predicted almost 20 years earlier (and to a very similar curve that he predicted).

[1veedo]

My response to this number before was that I agree to its accuracy' date=' and I interpret its meaning in a different way. You believe it means that they capacity to increase that number does not exist. I believe it to mean that the capacity to increase that number exists just fine. (In other words, wells are shut down/capped/stored for future use because the price of oil doesn't support its tappage at present.)

[/quote']That's actually an interesting idea. I've never heard this anywhere else before though. However, it does appear to contradict the data that we have. Sense prices are higher now, you'd think that America would be producing more. Although American production is slightly higher then is predicted based purely on the mathematics, I doubt this is really evidence that these "old" oil wells come back online (or maybe evidence that they are, but not that they can mitigate peak).

This is not a valid response for this thread. Hubbard is not a valid source for that piece of information -- you have to quote HIS source, not his opinion, please.

 

And lay off the cursing, please. If you make a comment like that first line again I'm going to issue you an infraction. Thanks.

This was not a source from Hubert. This was a source from Kenneth Deffeyes who has a PHD in geology and worked in the petroleum industry almost his entire life. Today he teaches at Princeton University, and is a very respectable authority in this field (I think he might be retired now though). Furthermore, it is not his opinion, but is based on other data itself.

 

jackson33 just doesn't understand the concept that you cannot make up random numbers through any method, but you have to provide references. He has absolutely no proof that the majority of the planet still has undiscovered oil -- all I am asking for is a reference.

 

 

Let me make something clear again. Peak oil is real. It is taught in geology 101 and is used everyday within the field itself -- you cannot be hired by an oil drilling company as a petroleum engineer if you do not understand peak oil, because you would be cutting into their profits.

 

What is up for debate is whether or not the peak of global "conventional" oil is really a that bad of a thing. Do we have enough shell or tar sands? Can we convert coal? Can we convert to hydrogen? And then maybe, when will the actual peak be? One interesting point is that when America peaked, we drastically reduced oil consumption, so this might happen again when the world peaks.

 

To be honest I don't even have an opinion about a lot of these questions. It's probably not going to be a good thing, but you just never know what's going to happen. We could turn everything around, I just think this is highly unlikely. The only thing that we do know, and we know this on a matter-of-fact basis, is that the peak of conventional oil will happen. And I would argue that we should probably do something about this (especially sense I live in the US!).

 

 

Btw your little reference is a straw man because peak oil does not mean we "run out of oil" per say. The United States did peak as an oil producing nation. This is a fact. The old reserves still being underground that you were talking about early, which honestly is the only valid argument you've ever had, might explain the fact that the US produces slightly more oil today then is predicted by just the mathematics. We're only talking about a small margin here though, and still right in line with the science is the fact that we have never surpassed peak production levels -- production levels have done nothing but decrease sense the peak in the US. This is echoed in the north sea, in Russia... in any country today that has already passed their peak.

[Pangloss]

pangloss between the years of 1970 and 1975 (the big opec years) oil by the barrel hit $80 per barrel (US inflation adjusted) which is higher than it was back when katrina hit, the idea that suddenly US oil companies stopped getting new oil during this time due to changing economics is absurd in light of the fact that the price of oil was at its highest in the years when US oil production had flatlined and begun to decline.

 

you really are saying that oil companies packed up and stopped investing in the US just as the price of oil quadrupled, and most of the oil producing nations ofthe world ceased shipping oil to the US.

 

No, I'm saying that when that stopped being the case they capped the wells and bought overseas. Again, that's exactly what your statistics show. When oil was selling at its highest price, domestic production was at its highest. When oil declined in price, so did domestic production. And before the "peak", when oil was less expensive, US production was not yet at its zenith.

 

 

 

That is a very extraordinary claim, especialy in light of the fact that this massive withdrawal took place almost exactly when a guy ignorant of any of the events of the 1960's and 70's predicted almost 20 years earlier (and to a very similar curve that he predicted).

 

Wait... so now you're saying that failing to be devoted to peak oil theory equates to ignorance of science? And you don't think THAT's an extraordinary claim?

[Pangloss]

That's actually an interesting idea. I've never heard this anywhere else before though. However, it does appear to contradict the data that we have. Sense prices are higher now, you'd think that America would be producing more.

 

Well as I understand it they are in the process of doing exactly that -- increasing production. Just last year a massive increase was announced for Prudhoe Bay (yes, I know it's only a drop in the bucket). But as jonathan33 pointed out, refineries effectively cap the maximum throughput of the domestic system. It takes *decades* to bring new capacity online and increase the bandwidth of the sytem, thanks to environmental regulations and so forth.

 

He has absolutely no proof that the majority of the planet still has undiscovered oil -- all I am asking for is a reference.

 

You can't prove a negative. The question is how we could possibly know that the majority of the oil ISN'T untapped. Given the size of the earth that would seem to be a logical question. Geology has answers, but they're consistently proven wrong over time as new discoveries come from areas supposedly incapable of producing oil. The logical conclusion from this chain of events is NOT that we know that the majority of the oil is untapped, but that we DON'T know that it is NOT. I.E. this is a clear and consistent weakness in peak oil theory.

 

 

Let me make something clear again. Peak oil is real. It is taught in geology 101 and is used everyday within the field itself -- you cannot be hired by an oil drilling company as a petroleum engineer if you do not understand peak oil, because you would be cutting into their profits.

 

Sure. Climatology is real also. But I don't see any weathermen forecasting accurately more than 3 days in advance. There is a big difference between talking about the economics of individual oil wells and the future of civilization.

 

 

What is up for debate is whether or not the peak of global "conventional" oil is really a that bad of a thing. Do we have enough shell or tar sands? Can we convert coal? Can we convert to hydrogen? And then maybe, when will the actual peak be? One interesting point is that when America peaked, we drastically reduced oil consumption, so this might happen again when the world peaks.

 

Right. I concur wholeheartedly.

[CPL.Luke]

Pangloss you're pricing timeline is way off, take a look at the timeline for inflation adjusted prices, and then look at US oil production.

 

 

 

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

 

actually it looks like that graph had its peak cut off around 1980 where prices hit $90 per barrel, heres what appears to be a better graph from a worse source

 

http://trendlines.ca/price%20per%20barrel%20infl%20adj%201970-2005%20cotd.gif

 

^note that the graph originates from chartoftheday.com

[Pangloss]

CPL.Luke, I don't understand how that rebuts my earlier response. You'll have to be specific.

 

 

Other than that, I have no problem with what he actually argues (so far anyway, I’m not going to waste my brain space reading his book.) When the price is right and technology improves we actually can increase production, which I have already discussed. It’s called “reserve growth” or EOR (Enhanced Oil Recovery). I already referred to this concept in the quotes from the GAO report. He’s created a straw man that vastly oversimplifies the issues to sell a book. I’m glad that you saw he had an agenda.

 

Yes, he clearly does. I wonder if that agenda causes him to distort his interpretation of facts, thereby damaging his credibility. I've heard that can happen sometimes.

 

 

Pangloss, I agree that we cannot know the exact final figure at this point, but I disagree that this means we cannot guesstimate, within a few years wiggle room, when worldwide peak oil will hit.

 

Sure, you can guesstimate all you want.

 

 

Peakniks: "What we do know about the depletion rates of 54 nations passed their peak, and the projects coming online over the next 5 to 10 years, is enough to cause us great concern."

Critics: "But what we don't know may save us, so don't worry about what you do know.

 

Sure, if the reasoning is correct. If it's off, then who gets left holding the bag? The Peaknik, who shrugs and wanders off to the next politically correct bandwagon, or the taxpayer, trying to figure out why their hard-earned money was spent on something completely unnecessary?

 

But like I said, you're entitled to your opinion.

 

 

I like the broken bottle analogy (have you posted that before? I don't think I've seen it here). Of course, whether or not it accurately reflects reality is another question. Analogies don't turn opinions into facts.

[CPL.Luke]

pangloss thepoint is that the price rose dramatically between 1970 and 1980 and then began to decline

 

to argue that US production peaked in 1971 due to it not being economical to pump the oil out anymore is ludicrous, the price sky-rocketed to almost 5 times what it was when production began to decline, why in god's name would production decline during a time of all time high prices, and the prices didn't return to their normal level until 1985 or so.

[1veedo]

If a president ever makes that speak, I know of a few stocks I'd like to short sell

 

Actually, if peak oil ever makes the news within the next couple years, you could easily make a lot of money.