[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', '.')
the military Navies of the world worked on the problem , encountering great difficulties
until the British First Sea lord Fisher could confidently convert the Royal Navy to oil from around 1905

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dorlomin', 'S')ome as of yet unidentified sudden technological boom happened to allow fracking and tar sand development. But the insinuation (as once more there is no honesty about the position) is that in some way the price is not a big factor.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')Your entire mention of price has been a red herring, diverting attention from new production records (the actual topic of this thread!), thus you've been worthy of mockery

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'Y')our entire mention of price has been a red herring, diverting attention from new production records

[Cloud9]

Pops there can be no peak for an optimist. It goes against their hard wiring.

[rockdoc123]

I'm not sure what the source of all the vitriol aimed at OF2 is. If you actually bothered to read what he has written it isn't a lot different than what a number of folks here are ranting about.
First lets be clear the actual definition of Peak Oil relates to the point at which the maximum production rate has been reached. Occasionally it is mentioned that this generally is equated to the point at which half of all oil which can be produced has been produced but that particular statement is true only if all fields were not subject to other pressures (economic, regulatory etc) that govern rates of economic recovery, which has never been the case. OF2 is pointing to the rate of oil production, and strictly speaking given that the rate has increased, by definition we cannot as yet reached peak as long as all of the produced volumes are interchangeable in the market place. Pstarr makes a reasonable point that because the products are used for various items and have various efficiency with respect to those products it is somewhat misleading to be lumping them all together, point being that producing 100% light oil would give you more of X than producing 50% light oil and 50% other liquids. However until it can be determined the exact fraction of how various hydrocarbons are used in the market place this statement also can be misleading as the liquids can now offset use of oil for various products.
In any event in the simplest approach price is not an issue. I say this because whatever the price is it is the actual rate of production that determines whether Peak has been reached. In practice, as I've said on numerous occasions, price becomes a controlling factor on Peak height and shape but it is not the only controlling factor.
Back not that long ago when oil collapsed down to less than $20/bbl oil companies were in huge trouble and we saw massive layoffs, consolidation etc. But also what happened was companies became more cost conscious and hence looked for inefficiencies in their business that could be eliminated so that these companies could become more profitable. Strictly speaking the low price should have dropped production to all time lows and they should have stayed there but a combination of improved cost control, technological efficiency and ever increasing demand saw oil production continue to rise. The rapidly increasing demand and the fact the Saudis had done nothing to improve upon their spare capacity prior to 2005 (megaprojects) saw prices rise to $140/bbl for a short period of time as demand outpaced supply. Such a high price would theoretically have resulted in more and more high cost oil coming on stream but the price/demand relationship intervened and prices collapsed back down the $60 range for a short period of time.
Strictly speaking it is geology that dictates how much oil could theoretically be produced without constraints. Price, demand and technological advancement determine the actual peak level and whether or not it is a sharp single peak, several peaks or a flat plateau. Mixing up the idea of EROEI in this discussion is quite misleading as it does not in anyway govern the decisions that are made with regards to whether wells are drilled nor production increased or decreased. If there is demand for a certain product and the price insures that providing that product to the market will generate positive economics it will happen. EROEI has no influence on Peak, but economics do.
Also one point OF2 made which is precisely correct is that yes the technology for fraccing has been around since the sixties (I remember doing light fracs into vertical wells to improve gas recovery from tight sandstones back in the seventies) but it was never at the level of technology or understanding of managing deployment inefficiencies that it could have been used to the extent it is now. The technology necessary to first plan the fracs and then execute them is much more complex now with multi-laterals, numerous stages of fracs etc. As well it was only through application of a "manufacturing process" view to conducting fracs that costs could be brought down to the level necessary to make the business profitable. It was a combination of higher prices combined with innovative approach that lead to the business being successful. As price drops companies will become more and more cost conscious and will develop better ways of doing things. There is, of course a limit and once price drops to a certain level drilling stops, production declines and eventually demand pushes the price back up.
The system has to have limits as imposed ultimately by geology and in a shorter time frame by the maximum commodity price that the world can live with.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc123', 'I')'m not sure what the source of all the vitriol aimed at OF2 is. If you actually bothered to read what he has written it isn't a lot different than what a number of folks here are ranting about.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')on't agree with that, at all. Nope. Not right.

Wrong.

[sparky]

.
Rockdoc123 , Excellent summary
numbers are numbers , the demand is constrained by price in an assymetrical manner
more influence on the up than down
price control the exploration rate also in a non linear fashion , but more on the down than up

Extraction of a developed field is pretty much price insensitive
the operator tend to pump everything it can
either the price is high and they want to cash in or the price is down but their running costs are always small enough to still generate a ( slimer ) profit .

up to the first oil shock back in the early 70ies , demand was overwhelmingly dominant
I believe we have reached a point when demand /supply are bouncing off each other
creating a see saw patern due to the time lag , price move fast , demand more slowly
exploration and development slower still .
in control theory it's a three degrees system also called chaotic ,
and yes it is unstable within it's price boundaries
never worth zero never worth more than ~twenty man /day wages

The point of this site is much more to have an explorative discution as to reinforce one belief
if we can cover all subjet here , the members will be better prepare to have good arguments
to offer to others at large

P.S. Dolormin , you are right about 1912 but Fisher was a great man like Rickover
what is it about Navy men ?

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', 'P').S. Dolormin , you are right about 1912 but Fisher was a great man like Rickover
what is it about Navy men ?

[sparky]

.
this is getting Soooo off topic but I can't resist
switching from Coal to Oil had some influence on Imperial policy
coaling stations spread all over the world shores became less important militarily
while the need to secure the Mesopotamian oil fields became vital
the result was the creation of the Anglo Persian oil company latter named British Petroleum

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sparky', '.')
this is getting Soooo off topic but I can't resist
switching from Coal to Oil had some influence on Imperial policy
coaling stations spread all over the world shores became less important militarily
while the need to secure the Mesopotamian oil fields became vital
the result was the creation of the Anglo Persian oil company latter named British Petroleum

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc123', 'I')n any event in the simplest approach price is not an issue. I say this because whatever the price is it is the actual rate of production that determines whether Peak has been reached.

[seahorse3]

I'm not sure but wonder at what point that these new things we are turning into gasoline are so different from "oil" that its akin to comparing oil to coal. Although they publish info on all liquids, there is so much disagreement on what is oil that it seems we are really not talking about oil at all anymore. How is oil shale or the tar sands more similar to "conventional crude" than coal, which can also be turned into oil? It seems that's the biggest issue on these new records to me.

In the end, I've never put a lot of time into trying to understand the definitions of oil or "all liquids", bc I'm a consumer, layman, and just try to understand the macro picture. So, the "optimists" here are correct that we are producing more, whatever "more" is, but it doesn't appear to me we are producing enough to keep it the economy "growing" under the old growth models - leaving all the politicians and classic economist on the MSM scratching their heads for economic solutions to an energy problem restrained by geology. We are producing enough to standstill, plateau, but we need a more liquid fuels at a cheaper price to grow. I could be completely wrong, but that's how it appears to me at this time.

[rockdoc123]

It's all about the hydrocarbon chains, methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane etc. Various oils will have various amounts of these elements in them, when you create liquids from gas or liquids from coal you end up with something that resembles diesel and not conventional oil. Oil sand production is generally lacking the lighter ends entirely. Biodegraded oils can be missing both the light ends and waxes which are in the C30 range. I think it is safe to say there is not something that is a magical formula that is "oil", it is quite variable.
I also think it is somewhat misleading to equate GTL or CTL with "liquid production" simply because this is really a refinery process. To that extent it would be appropriate to include it in refined products as diesel. Liquids from shale are however different as they are produced as liquids at the wellhead (as oil or liquids from gas are) and thus should be categorized along with produced oil in the category total liquid production. Because they all have different makeup the refinery products are different as well.

[meemoe_uk]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('meemoe_uk', 'T')his evidences what I say about the IEA making 2 contradictory statements, their figures say peak oil hasn't happened yet, yet they will publish assertions of peak oil being 4 years ago. Still waiting for Pops to get back to me on that one.

[dorlomin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('meemoe_uk', '
')If you think it's too expensive, why not do use your own muscle power to do the work your oil usually does for you? You'll be working at 0.4 cents an hour. Good luck to you there competing with the oil industry using your back.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('meemoe_uk', 'I')f you think it's too expensive, why not do use your own muscle power to do the work your oil usually does for you? You'll be working at 0.4 cents an hour. Good luck to you there competing with the oil industry using your back.