Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Peak oil theory debunked (merged) Pt. 3

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby peripato » Thu 24 Jan 2013, 10:21:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Beery1', 'T')hose areas are not the whole of the Bakken. It's a straw man to suggest they are. I never said anything about the entire Bakken. I'm only talking about the oil stats website that I posted a link to.

Which was a link to production from the Bakken formation located in North Dakota.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Beery1', 'I') just noticed the Bakken took a bit of a hit in November:

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/his ... lstats.pdf

Then the analysis I linked to here also discussed the future number of wells in the Bakken formation located in North Dakota:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he carrying capacity of the North Dakota Bakken is established above at 38,980 wells.

Notice it did not say Montana, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Just "North Dakota." In other words, the geographic extent and geologic formation you were referring to was the exact same geographic extent and geologic formation the analysis I linked to was referring to.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Beery1', 'I') wonder why it is that the corny brigade are so desperate to change the discussion to the whole Bakken when we are not talking about that?

I wonder why it is the doomer brigade is so desperate to ignore reality that they cannot even realize that "the North Dakota Bakken" = "the North Dakota Bakken" when they read two separate sets of data.

I think the real issue is not the number of potential wells that may be drilled, but the number of *rigs* required to bring the oil to the surface. Some of the rosier projections around of a tripling of production would require thousands of additional rigs, even more so if you account for declines in existing well production. So technically Oily is right, as the current installed rig base would not run out of well sites any time soon - the status quo being preserved.
"Don’t panic, Wall St. is safe!"
User avatar
peripato
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Tue 03 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Reality
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby Dybbuk » Thu 24 Jan 2013, 20:35:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Beery1', 'I') wonder why it is that the corny brigade are so desperate to change the discussion to the whole Bakken when we are not talking about that?

I wonder why it is the doomer brigade is so desperate to ignore reality that they cannot even realize that "the North Dakota Bakken" = "the North Dakota Bakken" when they read two separate sets of data.


I'm wondering why the cornies and doomers are so fixated on this Bakken data. What's the big deal about it, in the grand scheme of things? Whatever happens in the Bakken won't make a huge difference in the ultimate outcome of the long-term energy situation.

Unless, of course, this situation is a proxy for similar situations that will occur all over the world in the coming decades. Is the point that Bakken will demonstrate the viability of tight shale extractions? Is it representative enough of the typical field to do so?
Dybbuk
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri 28 Dec 2012, 19:31:37
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby peripato » Thu 24 Jan 2013, 21:49:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dybbuk', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Beery1', 'I') wonder why it is that the corny brigade are so desperate to change the discussion to the whole Bakken when we are not talking about that?

I wonder why it is the doomer brigade is so desperate to ignore reality that they cannot even realize that "the North Dakota Bakken" = "the North Dakota Bakken" when they read two separate sets of data.


I'm wondering why the cornies and doomers are so fixated on this Bakken data. What's the big deal about it, in the grand scheme of things? Whatever happens in the Bakken won't make a huge difference in the ultimate outcome of the long-term energy situation.

Unless, of course, this situation is a proxy for similar situations that will occur all over the world in the coming decades. Is the point that Bakken will demonstrate the viability of tight shale extractions? Is it representative enough of the typical field to do so?

My understanding of the situation is this;

Annual depletion for conventional oilfields in existence is about 4 mbs. So enough oil has to be produced every year, plus a little more for growth in demand, to help keep pace. Over the next 25 years it's been estimated that the world will require the equivalent of 5 new Saudi Arabia's to keep up with depletion and the projected growth in demand.

Again my understanding is that shale oil plays typically require lots of wells to produce any meaningful quantities. Lots of wells means lots of rigs to drill those wells. The U.S. rig base accounts for nearly 2/3rds of all the rigs in existence and about 1300 of these are in oil plays like the Bakken, Eagle Ford, etc.

The questions you need to ask yourself are;

*How likely is it that we can find the equivalent of 5 new Saudi Arabia's in the next 25 years?
*How many tight oil plays might constitute part of that equivalent?
*How likely is it that many thousands of more rigs (tens of thousands perhaps, as the Bakken and Eagle Ford plays will be getting very tired by then and will need even more rigs to drill even more wells to account for depletion) will be available to make it worthwhile - in a business as usual environment?

Of course you also need to ask yourself how likely is business as usual to continue for another 25 years, given the economic, environmental and resource limits already impinging on the world?
"Don’t panic, Wall St. is safe!"
User avatar
peripato
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Tue 03 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Reality
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Fri 25 Jan 2013, 02:36:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'T')he script that unfolds is rarely ever as one predicts. The underlying cause of an overcrowded planet with unsustainable consumption levels and tightening resources is as relevant today as it was 50 years ago when first discussed. The fact that dire predictions have been proven wrong does not disprove the underlying cause. You can't help but smile when those that dispute peak oil point to all the non conventional fossil fuels now emerging to disprove the theory, the very emergence of these "new" energy sources actually being one of the clear proofs of the diminishing resource base. The continued rising costs of energy will during this century have a profound affect on the options each of us will have in the choices we make.

Peak Oil never was about the collapse within a short time of our modern society. It has always been about confronting the need of long term mitigation and the consequences if we ignore this.

JD, get out of your silly sandbox of vindication discrediting those who predicted short term collapse. Doing this makes you as obsolete as those you are discrediting.

How about using your belief in the resiliency of modern humans to solve these problems in a constructive way toward the challenges ahead?


It's so interesting to wander back to peakoil.com every now and then and see what's going on, especially as someone who was quite captivated and emotionally overwhelmed when first introduced to the peakoil topic. Seeing a thread by JD definitely caught my eye, even all (to date) 17 pages of it. However most of the thread has in typical peakoil.com style wandered severely off of topic, which if everyone will recall, is JD's claim that he was right - peakoil was and still remains a farce.

If my memory recalls from JD's posts years ago, he wouldn't dispute the basics of oil depletion. Without putting words in his mouth I think he would instead dispute that we will know how that depletion will play out - e.g. looking exactly like Hubbert's bell curve. And it is constructive to remember that if you were to distill this site to one simple concept, it was that the Hubbert curve is what it's all about. We're at the peak of production, it's 100% confirmed to be all downhill from here, and for many that means run for the damn hills. JD would probably also dispute that it is a foregone conclusion that we will never solve the energy issues that oil depletion presents us. And I think what he hated most was the constant barrage of doomers who refused, for whatever reason, to see beyond the doomers black tinted glasses. So I at least understand some of the gloating.

All that said in JD's defense, I believe the post quoted above by Ibon provides the proper 30,000 ft view. The much larger issues are the now globally entrenched economic paradigm of never ending growth at all costs and the associated insatiable appetite for the earth's resources. Until the costs that the environment bears stop being externalized by our economies, we'll be in much deeper shit than peakoil could ever present us. Everyone here should be worried not that we're about to run out of oil, rather that we have far too much of it and other fossil fuels remaining. We're already at a 30% (and counting) increase of CO2 in the atmosphere... CO2 that we know is from us as the isotope signatures exactly match that of fossil carbon. It is also not in dispute that CO2 increases the energy captured by the atmosphere, which although there are many feedback mechanisms at play, generally leads to warming.

One point I disagree with Ibon on - "Peak Oil never was about the collapse within a short time of our modern society. It has always been about confronting the need of long term mitigation and the consequences if we ignore this. "

On this site at least, that was always the takeaway that I had - PeakOil is about collapse, and soon. So if the goal is instead to confront our much larger issues and mitigate, then we need to refocus and to some extent, forget about PeakOil. In all fairness, perhaps this website is not the place for that. :)
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby copious.abundance » Fri 25 Jan 2013, 03:11:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', 'I') think the real issue is not the number of potential wells that may be drilled, but the number of *rigs* required to bring the oil to the surface. Some of the rosier projections around of a tripling of production would require thousands of additional rigs, even more so if you account for declines in existing well production.

No, not really. Most projections of needed rigs to produce the output levels I linked to above involve something like 200 or 250 rigs at any given time. These days they're drilling 4 or 5 wells from a single pad, thus making drilling a lot quicker and rig use a lot more efficient. It's not a huge number needed. Right now I think there's something like 180 rigs in ND, for reference.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby peripato » Fri 25 Jan 2013, 04:53:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', 'I') think the real issue is not the number of potential wells that may be drilled, but the number of *rigs* required to bring the oil to the surface. Some of the rosier projections around of a tripling of production would require thousands of additional rigs, even more so if you account for declines in existing well production.

No, not really. Most projections of needed rigs to produce the output levels I linked to above involve something like 200 or 250 rigs at any given time. These days they're drilling 4 or 5 wells from a single pad, thus making drilling a lot quicker and rig use a lot more efficient. It's not a huge number needed. Right now I think there's something like 180 rigs in ND, for reference.

That's for long saturation times ranging from 2035 to 2065, depending on the amount of oil produced daily (from 1 to 2 mbs p/d), according to the figures quoted in your post? Which may be fair enough. But some of the more outrageous propaganda of the last few months implies that the U.S. will outdo even Saudi Arabia by 2020, through pumping more than 3 mbs a day extra and most of that from tight oil. This would imply a lot of additional rigs, thousands more, to get the job done I'd imagine in such a short space of time.
"Don’t panic, Wall St. is safe!"
User avatar
peripato
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Tue 03 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Reality
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby SamInNebraska » Fri 25 Jan 2013, 08:53:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dybbuk', '
')
I'm wondering why the cornies and doomers are so fixated on this Bakken data. What's the big deal about it, in the grand scheme of things? Whatever happens in the Bakken won't make a huge difference in the ultimate outcome of the long-term energy situation.


That would depend on whether or not it can be duplicated in shale formations throughout the world. If it can, it can make a huge difference. If it can't, then maybe it just makes a difference in the most important part of the world.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dybbuk', '
') Is the point that Bakken will demonstrate the viability of tight shale extractions? Is it representative enough of the typical field to do so?


It isn't typical. But the technology making it possible could potentially make lots of untypical formations viable.
SamInNebraska
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun 14 Oct 2012, 23:05:58
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby copious.abundance » Fri 25 Jan 2013, 23:44:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', 'T')hat's for long saturation times ranging from 2035 to 2065, depending on the amount of oil produced daily (from 1 to 2 mbs p/d), according to the figures quoted in your post? Which may be fair enough. But some of the more outrageous propaganda of the last few months implies that the U.S. will outdo even Saudi Arabia by 2020, through pumping more than 3 mbs a day extra and most of that from tight oil. This would imply a lot of additional rigs, thousands more, to get the job done I'd imagine in such a short space of time.

In the entire US? Yes, undoubtedly thousands of rigs would be needed, especially with so many of these plays popping up. But not in North Dakota alone.
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby peripato » Sat 26 Jan 2013, 01:11:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('peripato', 'T')hat's for long saturation times ranging from 2035 to 2065, depending on the amount of oil produced daily (from 1 to 2 mbs p/d), according to the figures quoted in your post? Which may be fair enough. But some of the more outrageous propaganda of the last few months implies that the U.S. will outdo even Saudi Arabia by 2020, through pumping more than 3 mbs a day extra and most of that from tight oil. This would imply a lot of additional rigs, thousands more, to get the job done I'd imagine in such a short space of time.

In the entire US? Yes, undoubtedly thousands of rigs would be needed, especially with so many of these plays popping up. But not in North Dakota alone.

Yes, you're right - not in North Dakota alone. :)
"Don’t panic, Wall St. is safe!"
User avatar
peripato
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1335
Joined: Tue 03 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Reality
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby Econ101 » Tue 29 Jan 2013, 11:52:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Dybbuk', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'A')merican oil production dropped in the 1970s because of politics not any real physical shortage


Questions:
1. If "politics" supposedly disrupted energy production in the past, what's to stop it from doing so in the future? From what I've read, your viewpoint is that a die-off is next to impossible, because market forces will prevent it. OR, is your view that IF a die-off happens, it will be the fault of politics? If so, that's not very comforting, considering how politics seems to dictate everything these days, and there's no sign of that stopping anytime soon.
2. A lot of the sniping back and forth around here can be essentially be summed up as "my prediction will beat up your prediction". I haven't quite figured out what your prediction is, Econ101, except a general notion that "everything will be OK". Do you think that there will never be a "physical shortage" of oil? Will oil production never peak? Will it go to 100M barrels a day, then 150M, then 200M? Or will we be able to scale renewables up enough to substitute for them? Or will we find massive efficiency so that we don't need as much energy? Or will we invent some magical new energy source? Or will fertility drop enough to shrink the world population, so that less energy is needed? Humor us with specifics.


1) I dont know what you mean by a die-off. Will there be future calamity? yes. Will there be future energy problems? Yes. Will populations change? yes. Do any of these changes foretell any kind of end time scenario? Do any require vast government intervetion with the resulting reduced liberties, higher taxes and fewer resources to fix? No, they dont need fixing. Thats the nature of life.

2) There are lots of cases of oil in the form of a raw material being in short supply above ground. There is no meaningful shortage under the ground and nothing but opinion that claims there is. Producers have history on their side. Sure the sun will burn out some day, its just like a glass of water, but its not going to burn out in a time frame that matters. Same with oil. The meaningful rational information we have looking forward indicates our future is no worse than our past. Our use of oil will fall within the parameters of the available supply which is growing unevenly but on an upward trend line, but most importantly, as in the past, will satisfy our needs.

3) We may very well invent some magical new energy source but we dont have to. We have all we need of the usual stuff. As in the past, the future will provide for our needs.

I have no predicition but I have a concern about the hysterical and seemingly blind belief by many that we are doomed. Because there is little or no real support for the positions radical enviros or peak oil people take I have to wonder why they believe like they do? I dont have to look much further than the MSM and their service to the left as they pursue any and all policies that will provide more central control of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and more imprtantly the wealth of the nation. Do you want it in the hands of government or private enterprise?
Econ101
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat 01 Sep 2012, 07:47:56
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby SamInNebraska » Thu 31 Jan 2013, 14:28:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'N')o one claimed there is a shortage under the ground. That is not what peak oil is about. It is about production rates, not resources, OOIP or reserves.


I could have missed something, but Hubbert used resources and reserves in his calculations to create a peak oil profile. So why should they now be excluded from the concept?
SamInNebraska
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun 14 Oct 2012, 23:05:58
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby Econ101 » Sat 02 Feb 2013, 07:58:24

You are correct peak oil is not about shortages under ground. We have all we will ever need. Peak oil is about politics, power and will. There is no credible evidence of any shortages except those caused by politics as the politicians scramble for control and the resources. I know many of you can't grasp that because your unionized lefty teacher told you different. 8)
Econ101
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat 01 Sep 2012, 07:47:56
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby Econ101 » Sat 02 Feb 2013, 08:11:26

Hubbert was a crack pot that got nothing right. He had no concept of how much oil there is. Even with oil gushing out of the ground in quantities here-to-fore thought impossible and with no end in sight some people still cling to the flat earth view of peak oil.
Econ101
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat 01 Sep 2012, 07:47:56
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby Econ101 » Sat 02 Feb 2013, 08:20:02

If graphs and stuff are so meaningful to some, ie pisstar, why are the graphs pointing straight up never extrapolated into the future but any graph pointing down is? Those wells in North Dakota will produce at least 50 million barrels/section no matter which direction the graphs point. Any idea how many sections are involved? I don't have one either but there are thousands and thousands of them.
Econ101
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat 01 Sep 2012, 07:47:56
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby dorlomin » Sat 02 Feb 2013, 14:45:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'Y')ou are correct peak oil is not about shortages under ground. We have all we will ever need. Peak oil is about politics, power and will.
Argument by assertion.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') There is no credible evidence of any shortages except those caused by politics as the politicians scramble for control and the resources.
What does this even mean.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') know many of you can't grasp that because your unionized lefty teacher told you different. 8)
You come across as a school child who confuses wishes for facts and insults for wit.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby dorlomin » Sat 02 Feb 2013, 15:39:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'E')con101 is a most unimaginative troll whose witless arguments lack motivation. Pity us.

Their style is pretty much 'imitation press release'.
User avatar
dorlomin
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5193
Joined: Sun 05 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Peak Oil Debunked was right

Unread postby Dybbuk » Sun 03 Feb 2013, 10:52:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'E')con101 is a most unimaginative troll whose witless arguments lack motivation. Pity us.


It's actually because of the arguments of people like Econ101 that I started taking the peak oil issue seriously. Every anti-peak oil argument I've heard reminds me of trying to have a discussion with someone with extreme ADD; they pick out one (unrepresentative) half-sentence they hear and ramble endlessly in response to that, without hearing another word you say in response.

In this case, the anti-peak-oiler thinks that the argument is "We're running out of oil, NOW!!", proceeds to show some statistics that we're not running out of oil now, and concludes that there is nothing of interest to discuss in this area. This ignores that the topic is more about the what than the when.

Perhaps some doomers made a big mistake by predicting imminent collapse. But to say that the entire topic is moot because they were wrong, is like saying that we should ignore Christianity because of that preacher a year or two ago who thought he knew the exact date of the rapture. An even better analogy was the housing bubble; I remember my sister sneering at me around 2004-05 when I said that I thought the housing market was overpriced, her response was something like "that's what they've been saying for ten years now!".

Maybe for some people, the only thing that matters is right now, and if there are no oil "shortages" at this exact moment, then they're not interested in what might happen in the future. They're entitled to their "Power of Now", but everyone else should understand that the future may look very different.
Dybbuk
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri 28 Dec 2012, 19:31:37
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron