[Econ101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'W')hats your point? They dont want the liability of predicting where the money is.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'A')nd what about the steam engine used to originally pound the bit? What about the rotating bit? What about seismic technology,diesel electric generators, hydraulics, etc. are they all symptoms of peak oil?

[ROCKMAN]

Pops - And then there's the obvious: "What about the rotating bit? What about seismic technology,diesel electric generators, hydraulics, etc. are they all symptoms of peak oil?". All of which, and much more, existed when oil was selling for $25/bbl in the late 90's as well as the knowledge that the Bakken and shales contained many billions of technically recoverable oil.

And yet we didn't see a drilling boom back then. Their production growth didn't kick in until oil prices rose high enough. And why did oil prices jump up? I'll leave it to you to teach that pig to roller skate. You're welcome. LOL.

[Econ101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'P')ops - And then there's the obvious: "What about the rotating bit? What about seismic technology,diesel electric generators, hydraulics, etc. are they all symptoms of peak oil?". All of which, and much more, existed when oil was selling for $25/bbl in the late 90's as well as the knowledge that the Bakken and shales contained many billions of technically recoverable oil.

And yet we didn't see a drilling boom back then. Their production growth didn't kick in until oil prices rose high enough. And why did oil prices jump up? I'll leave it to you to teach that pig to roller skate. You're welcome. LOL.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', '
')
And what about the steam engine used to originally pound the bit? What about the rotating bit? What about seismic technology,diesel electric generators, hydraulics, etc. are they all symptoms of peak oil?

Did ralfy look at the oil production chart for North Dakota. Shales you know, but still a straight up production chart for the past 5 yrs is powerful eveidence when you are arguing the shales dont scale, wouldnt you say?

[Econ101]

I haven't posted in a few days, probably been 2 - 4 million brls produced in ND and 10-20 more producering wells on line. With each well predicted to produce between 600-700,000 barrels what is the decline curve? What is total expected production? What does it matter, take a look at this:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '(')Phys.org) —In the ongoing saga of Andrea Rossi's energy catalyzer (E-Cat) that promises clean, cheap power for the world, the latest events continue to bring as many questions as answers. Several scientists have performed supposedly independent tests of two E-Cat prototypes under controlled conditions and using high-precision instrumentation. In a paper posted at arXiv.org, the researchers write that, even by the most conservative of measurements, the E-Cat produces excess heat with a resulting energy density that is at least 1 order of magnitude—and possibly several—higher than any other conventional energy source, including gasoline.

[SeaGypsy]

ECAT is believed in by about 1% of posters here, given breathing space due to their persistence. Most us here would happily wager on it being hokum.

[Econ101]

The e-cat has more scientific credibility than climate change. Many here also believe in the notion of peak oil and have defined it many ways, depending on circumstances.

The issue of peak oil is of course dead except in the realm of the futurists like Alvin Toffler, who himself has now lived long enough to see how his early visions were nonesense and have required reinterpretation.

This will leave a void that could be filled with anger. Others could be driven to absurd leaps in logic. Cause and effect will have no meaning. Millions upon millions of barrels of oil will pour out of North Dakota. The Russian Arctic production will begin to flow down the Alaska Pipeline. Oil prices will accommodate prosperity as research science advances past the e-cat to solar or wind maybe?

Allow me to claify:

The thing about solar and wind is their expense. I believe, based on the huge output of the e-cat as reported on physics.org, the "hidden" input everyone seems to think is there, would, when netted against output make it cheaper and more efficient than solar or wind is now.

After having failed to define peak oil into existance, there may be, without a real breakthrough, a rush to the e-cat by peak oilers looking for a way, any way, to defeat oil.

The rest of us will laud the ingenuity of our petroleum engineers, the hardware, the software, the talent. Thousands of families will live in security and all of us will have the energy we need. The web site will celebrate that.

[Econ101]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Econ101', 'T')he e-cat has more scientific credibility than climate change. . .

The web site will celebrate that.

[AirlinePilot]

Im all for optimism! My problem is that I cannot get by a few very large and telling facts.

Namely that Global net Exports are DOWN despite all the oil that you claim is going to save us. The trend is for that to continue.

Actual production of Crude oil is on a statistical plateau and has been for nearly 5 years. This despite a doubling in price TWICE in the last 9-10 years. Never before in the history of oil production has this particular set up occurred. It means something and it still looks to me like we need to see how this goes for another few years before we start the party.

I cannot yet join you in the optimism camp because to me, those two facts coupled with some other evidence do not support any argument other than one purely based on FAITH. I need to see the facts, and claiming that the Bakken Boom is "it" just doesn't cut it in the fact department.

Facts are one thing, FAITH is another. We should all hold ourselves to higher standards than faith here.

[ROCKMAN]

AP – I’ve figured out what your problem is: you just can’t handle simplicity. We are producing more oil in the US today than in recent years. That's all that matters. It doesn’t matter how much oil the rest of the world is producing. it doesn't that matter that even with our increased production we still import a large % of our oil consumption. It doesn’t matter how much more oil the exporters are consuming internally every year. It doesn’t matter how much oil China is removing from the market place by either buying it in the ground or tying it up in refinery JV’s. It doesn’t matter if a lot of Canadian oil sands production is refined in BC with the products shipped to other countries. It doesn’t matter if the US spends another $trillion or two trying to stabilize the ME oil exporting region. And above all else it doesn’t matter what the price of oil may be and its effect on our economy.

Good grief, man…focus…FOCUS! All it requires is some simple faith.

[AirlinePilot]

Ahhh...I see what you did there.

[ROCKMAN]

AP - As even a blind man should be able to see the simplicity of my logic. But he probably won't, will he? LOL

Trying not to hurt my arm patting myself on the back, but once I started focusing on the big picture of the net results of the POD it became easier to weigh the significance of individual components. It's not that increased US oil production isn't a factor but just one of numerous elements of the POD. You can bake a cookie without sugar in it but it typically won't be very satifying. But you can't bake a good cookie with nothing but sugar in it. You get the blend right and you got something to brag about. What I see in the future is the increasing inability of the US economy to get the right blend.

[sparky]

.
As I understand the cornucopia argument ( maybe )
each depletion lead to a new level of price
allowing access to poorer or harder fields but of greater quantities
the ability to dig being cheaper than the exhaustion of resources would drive price

IE one can make a buck even with crap fossil carbon as long as the demand is there

True the world deposit of hard to get or hard to process black stuff are truly impressive
but to increase extraction it would require very substantial hardware expenses
pretty much as an ongoing rate of more gear deployed to get the same amount

[Pops]

Sparky, that is the peaker argument too.

The only difference is the corny sees increasing price as inconsequential while the peaker sees it as very consequential.

[ROCKMAN]

Pops – Exactly. I’ve just about lost all patience with the simplistic view that the US oil production rate is all there is to the PO story. They must ignore all the other aspects of the POD in order to sound credible. And IMHO that relegates them to white noise status. I’m willing to discuss/debate petroleum geology with any of them IF they are willing to at least acknowledge the POD. If not I see them as nothing more than static on the radio.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', ' ')I’m willing to discuss/debate petroleum geology with any of them IF they are willing to at least acknowledge the POD. If not I see them as nothing more than static on the radio.

[agramante]

Yes and no, John. We have a much better understanding of oil itself and geology now than we did 100+ years ago. It would be foolish to assume that we know everything--learning more is, after all, why we continue to do science--and there have been some dead ends in research, since refuted by different results or better interpretations. But 100 years ago we didn't have a coherent understanding of the earth's crust. Wegener's hypothesis of continental drift was brand-new in 1912, and was rejected because it was poorly developed. It wasn't until the 50's and 60's that we gained enough data to assimilate Wegener's theory into the theory of plate tectonics as we know it. And that affected (or completely remade) almost all fields of geology. At this point, not too much of the planet hasn't been prospected, mostly except for those parts covered in ice. We certainly can't say that we know everything about earth--not even close--but our knowledge is a whole lot more mature now than it was 100 years ago. Along with that development in the whole field of geology has come development in petroleum exploration. I'm not as well-versed in this--I'm not an exploration geologist--but even while the old oilmen were pretty good at finding productive strata, our better tools and better knowledge of geological processes have made exploration into more difficult areas--mostly, ultra-deep water--feasible. So I think overall, we're in a much better position now than a century ago to make predictions on future oil production, particularly when the peak-and-decline phenomenon has been so well demonstrated in the US. But in the absence of reliable production and reserve data for most of the world, we can't compute accurate production curves so we're reduced to economic observations. But I think our physical understanding of the realities of peak oil are undeniably improved over one hundred years ago.