[thuja]

JD- your thesis is that because we have been plateauing for two years, and we haven't experienced a grave recession yet- that therefore there will be no "serious" ramifications for a world that starts to decline in oil production?

Seriously? Do you disagree with the Hirsch report completely then?

[Twilight]

You don't think economic impacts might be lagging?

We are on the plateau... all is good.

We roll off... all is good.

Then it isn't.

[Oil-Finder]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '
')I'd like to see a detailed analysis of the Bakken formation's potential.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thuja', 'J')D- your thesis is that because we have been plateauing for two years, and we haven't experienced a grave recession yet- that therefore there will be no "serious" ramifications for a world that starts to decline in oil production?

Seriously? Do you disagree with the Hirsch report completely then?

[thuja]

Sorry- I didn't mean the mitigation steps that Hirsch outlines...I meant the likely outcomes if major changes are not made well in advance of any peak (he posits 20 years for smmooth transition).

You are saying that even though we are at plateau and most likely starting to decline slowly, that we can have a smooth transition without "serious problems."

What I am suggesting is that we are only starting to see the nasty outcome of a peak in oil- and we are only two years into a plateau. We are seeing record gas prices, 100$/barrel oil, rapidly rising cost of food and now the likelihood of recession (compounded by numerous other factors). And this is just 2 years of "plateauing".

So serious problem...yes I would say that indeed the plateauing of oil production is already showing up as a "serious problem." I think if you asked most people they would say that high energy costs and constraints are a "serious" problem.

It seems strange and illogical that someone with the depth of understanding that you have would not see that this is a "serious problem"....baffling.

[thuja]

JD: There is no need for any "crash program" or other governmental intervention to mitigate the problem.

You believe that governments should do nothing about this issue. Does that mean you oppose incentivizing alternatives, tax breaks for efficiency and governmental promotion of conservation?

I have problems with many ideas for mitigation- ethanol being one of the worst mitigation ideas...CTL another. But saying these things are bad and therefore governments should do nothing is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. There are things that can be done that are smart. Raising the CAFE standards...switching to flourescents...these are two good things in the recent energy bill...along with a host of bad things...

Yes high prices for oil will stimulate growth in alternatives and efficiency/conservation. But these can be aided by judicious governmental support to promote dramatic change before the crisis deepens to a level that is beyond simply "serious".

[joewp]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')My thesis is that the world will smoothly transition to alternatives based on market forces. While there may be a minor recession or two due to snags in the transition, there will be no major economic dislocations or great depression etc. Growth will continue without growth in oil, just like it has the last 3 years.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thuja', 'I')t seems strange and illogical that someone with the depth of understanding that you have would not see that this is a "serious problem"....baffling.

[JohnDenver]

duplicate post

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Twilight', 'Y')ou don't think economic impacts might be lagging?

[wisconsin_cur]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '
')
You know... oil is absolutely essential to producing and moving every part of the modern world, and economic growth is impossible without growth in oil. And yet, in the last few years, the world has been growing at a rapid clip, without any growth in oil. That seems to be a contradiction, and I'm not sure that "lag" is an adequate explanation. What was the mechanism of the lag? How was growth fueled during the lag, if there was no growth in oil? How can factories/businesses which need oil to function continue to grow for 2.5 years after growth in oil stops? It's like saying a person continued to grow for 2.5 years after they stopped breathing because there was a "lag".

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '[')My thesis is that the world will smoothly transition to alternatives based on market forces. While there may be a minor recession or two due to snags in the transition, there will be no major economic dislocations or great depression etc. Growth will continue without growth in oil, just like it has the last 3 years.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('joewp', 'L')et him be surprised when his thesis turns to shit. Let him wonder why "market forces" are forcing him to cut back on everything except very meager food supplies, if he can even afford that.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'A') three year lag? Isn't that a little long for economic variables?

[TheDude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'d like to see a detailed analysis of the Bakken formation's potential.

[OilmanChoke]

Errr, happened on here and find it quite interesting. Quick disclosure: I am an independent oilman from the technical side.

First: This topic "DO You Want It To Occur" is exactly the right question. Why would you WANT this to occur unless you are bigoted against hydrocarbons?

Second: Clearly, the world needs as much energy as it can lay its hands on. Hydrocarbons, today the dominant player, will continue to play an important role in the future at some level. We should encourage whatever alternatives there are that have the opportunity to be economically attractive.

Third: We should not hobble any one economic energy supply in favor for another. Politicians and their hacks will NOT define the new technologies... Scientists and investors will. Humans cannot afford to be bigots in this game.

Fourth: Energy technology advancement will also take place in the hydrocarbon arena, where the resource base is huge in non-conventional plays, including clathrates. It is not just a solar.wind.tide paradigms.

Let the most fundamentally economic win. Also, at what point is a supply base considered "sustainable"? 100 years? 300 years? 500 years? Forecasting 100 years into the future is a fools game, it seems to me. No wonder "non-profit" foundations that want to perfect society from the malevolence of mankind and politicians enjoy doing it so much.

By the way, I was the source for the Bakken versus State Waters post. Bakken wells are all over the place. I just drilled a dry Bakken well. Like all reservoirs, they have a log normal per well productivity distribution. That is why this is a "statistical play". They also decline. The 3 wells example was meant to illustrate how you can get an obscene amount of mezzanine financing with relatively little cash flow and a great acreage position, and how you shouldn't let the idea of your finacing costs being higher than your IRR per well get in the way. Your goal is to drill as many wells as you can in your acreage to define the maximum number of proven undeveloped locations... and no more. The PUDS have a significant value and will dwarf your proven producing reserves in value when flipped to someone with lower costs of capital. Here are the links to the posts that set up the Bakken post, and a follow up on divestiture of assets in a Bakken-like play. That these plays are being opened up all around us is no fluke. We are truly finding world class oilfields and gasfields "hidden" within our existing basins in rocks we thought wouldn't produce economically. There are several basins we know have a hydrocarbon system that have never had good reservoir rocks we are evaluating as an industry right now. Domestic new field discoveries are in the "b"illions of barrels again, just like in the 1950's. Of course, these wells aren't Saudi Arabia good or Iran good, but they sure as hell are $60+ dollars per barrel good.

http://openchoke.blogs.com/open_choke/2 ... il_bu.html

http://openchoke.blogs.com/open_choke/2 ... _bu_1.html

http://openchoke.blogs.com/open_choke/2 ... d-gas.html

[camefromthecorn]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lighthouse', 'w')hy would anyone want peakoil to happen? Just think at all the hardship which will come when we reach the peak.

Unfortunately its not important what we want.

I't will happen regardless if we want it or not ...

[skyemoor]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')
2. The author/authors state "The methods used by Price to determine the amount of hydrocarbons generated by the Bakken are different from the traditional petroleum geochemical practices and are under dispute."

[OilmanChoke]

I am unclear about the "disaster" scenarios... and the theme that "we haven't planned for after oil and gas".

There is a lot of energy available at higher energy prices. Our "dependence" on oil or gas is based on low cost, and terrific low loss delivery mechanisms.

[skyemoor]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilmanChoke', ' ')I am an independent oilman from the technical side.

First: This topic "DO You Want It To Occur" is exactly the right question. Why would you WANT this to occur unless you are bigoted against hydrocarbons?