by FatherOfTwo » Mon 21 Dec 2015, 20:13:01
Hey gang, long time no semi-anonymous internet chat.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')The downside is those methods require oil 2- 3 times as high as the current price to develop. Plus each LTO well has a low initial production amount and steep decline - like 40-50% the first years— they are instant strippers after a couple of good years. (reminds me of a few girls I've,,,, nevermind)
IMO, the upshot is another year or 3 of fairly low then rising price as the glut clears.
Then we get to see who is left standing when the price gets back up into fracking territory.
The upshot is the cheap oil has peaked but not begun decline, so for now all appears peachy.
In my opinion that's a pretty accurate overview of the current state of the oil market and the players within it, and it's also a not unrealistic prediction of what the future may hold
provided nothing else changes. Implied within Pops statement of "for now all appears peachy" is the inference it won't stay that way. (Correct me if that inference isn't accurate) However I think one important factor is going to have a big impact on how things play out:
Are we as a society beginning to address the problem(s)? Does the Paris Agreement, and the overall general softening of opinion by many governments and corporations towards the idea of carbon taxes, (or other methods of reducing carbon emissions) mean we will finally address climate change and as a result Peak Oil's effects will be greatly mitigated?
Seriously addressing our carbon output means capitalism (which barring major social upheaval is entrenched for the foreseeable future) will finally begin to address its biggest systemic weakness - that all too often the very real external costs, be they societal or ecological, are ignored. Leaving more fossil fuels in the ground will necessarily impact supply and demand of oil, thus impacting the rates of decline and the degree of nastiness of Peak Oil. When you add in that we've demonstrated we're pretty adept at getting more reserves moved from possible to probable to proven (albeit at high cost), then I think Peak Oil's possible impacts are muted even more.
So I personally remain optimistic (as opposed to my gloom and doom view of 10+ years ago). I concede that even with significant social change and technical advancement it's still not going to be pretty, and that there will be real, long lasting, negative impacts, but that we will not spiral into an abyss of Peak Oil doom.