Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Oil Drum Thread pt. 2

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

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby SamInNebraska » Mon 26 Aug 2013, 12:33:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'I') think he is referring to data from the IEA 2008 report.


I know he is.

Chapter 9, Figure 9.10, Page 218.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')The IEA uses that and other sets of data to come up with the 2010 report, which confirms "Hubbert's concept." This was explained to him in another thread, but he didn't respond.


Whether he did or did not, but it is unlikely they confirmed "Hubbert's concept", whatever you might mean by that. Or he does. But if they did, it doesn't seem likely that the result would show growing oil production, or flat oil production, spanning decades. Which it does.

I recommend both of you wait until the newest WEO 2013 release, and see if you think it confirms "Hubbert's concept" or not. It should be fun watching the two of your wrassle over that one.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')In short, there's no need to come up with a "competing" cost/supply curve because the IEA already shows, following their own curve and an assessment of resources, that oil and gas production will increase by only 9 pct during the next two decades, and only if various conditions are met. I explained this several times in this thread and in two others.


Explain all you'd like, as John says. All he has to do is wave around a cost/supply curve, nobody is required to like your way of representing how it works in the future any better than IEAs. He can make up how it gets used just like you can, and it becomes a he-said she-said over how fast it gets converted from resource to reserve, and how much does it cost. It is all pretty simple from that perspective. But his point is that you can't refute it, and he is right about that, from a resource perspective. Everything else is debating the econommics of recovery, surface access, NOCs, who owns what, etc etc. None of those are geologically constrained by Hubbert's idea.

This type of analysis, bottom up like the EIA and IEA do, is extremely difficult to do, but ultimately much better of a basis than what TOD has specialized in over the years.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')Aleklett questioned part of the production level, i.e., crude oil production on fields yet to be found, etc., and argues that this part of production, which essentially leads to the 9-pct increase, may be based on maximum depletion rates. A study was shared in another thread, and John didn't respond to that, either.


Why would anyone who knows something about resources and the geosciences ever pay any attention to what Aleklett thinks on the topic? You happen to know how many oil fields he has found? His work experience in drilling, completions, design or reserve estimations of oil and gas resources? And more important, if the topic is TOD, if his methods of fitting time series data are no different than TOD why wouldn't his results garner the same level of disdain that TODs has?

Aways back, JohnA made some references to people who do this thing for a living, were doing it before Aleklett got involved, are the originators and scientists who have studied this topic since the days Hubbert was involved, some even worked with him, and the people who were his supervisors. Those people are conspicuous by their absence on your peak oil reports list, as well as anything you post on the topic. Why might that be? Why does anything an economist or physics professor have to say on aggregate oil production data have relevance? Because they decided to study it one afternoon? Pretty thin reference when there are so many more qualified out there.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')Thus, even the best-case scenario for the IEA is based on conditions that will be difficult to meet. Read the 2010 report for more details and my comments in this forum on the matter.
[/quote][/quote]

Why would I read the 2010 when the WEO 2013 is due out here in a few months? Between 2010 and 2013, according to Pops, they apparently acquired themselves an actual resource expert, so I would think there would be all sorts of new and cool things in there, if such a person were indeed hired.
SamInNebraska
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun 14 Oct 2012, 23:05:58
Top

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 27 Aug 2013, 01:53:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')I recommend we start with the basic terminology. Here is a Hubbertian decline. Reversed. We can ask Westexas why he didn't see this inflection point coming, Texas production decline based on a Hubbert concept being one of his babies.


Image

It is my supposition that because TOD missed the boat on the inflection points using a top down analysis, they are now subject to a level of derision which Sam claims is noticeable at professional gatherings. Feel free to dispute, and discuss.


Why are you looking only at Texas oil production from 1985 to the present? Why not look at US crude oil production from 1945 to the present?

Also, my understanding of "reversed" is that you have a return to oil production level at peak, and an increase after that.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 27 Aug 2013, 02:01:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
Not until you learn to read. I've already explained who was referencing the 2010 report, and who was not. Let us not try and confuse them.



Wrong. You did not read Hubbert's report, and failed big time in your misinterpretation of that. You didn't read the 2010 report, either, even though it was referred to in the ABC interview which you didn't view as well. Finally, you insisted on a study that questioned the crude oil production scenario given in the 2010 report, and when that was presented to you...guess what happened?

So much for me learning how to read.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
No, I don't understand why you don't provide a supply/cost curve in rebuttal to that provided by the IEA. I assume, for better or worse, that you simply can't find one, and therefore can't provide anything to refute their earlier cost/supply curve, regardless of whether or not they used it after that point.



Wrong again. The IEA 2010 report referred to three conditions needed to make the scenario it offered possible, and that's given its supply/cost curve. The only other reference to such a curve was in in its discussion concerning coal production.

In short, there is no need for a "competing" supply/cost curve, because given its own curve, the IEA argues that we will see only a 9-pct increase in oil and gas produced worldwide during the next two decades, which won't be enough if demand during the last three decades increased by an average of 2 pct a year.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')I would be willing to bet they will publish one again sometime in the future, regardless of what they then utilize from the resource base to populate their future supply scenarios.


That won't surprise me.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 27 Aug 2013, 02:04:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
We have also discussed the quality of what you bring up. And yes, the EIA and IEA are exactly using general economic principles to show how future price and supply works. Ask them, I dare you.


The 2010 report argues that the scenario presented in the ABC crude oil feature will be possible through major government intervention and coordination, and likely reaching maximum depletion rates. Those are not "general economic principles." See for yourself by reading the 2010 report.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 27 Aug 2013, 02:14:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SamInNebraska', '
')I know he is.

Chapter 9, Figure 9.10, Page 218.



The discussion involves the 2010 report.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Whether he did or did not, but it is unlikely they confirmed "Hubbert's concept", whatever you might mean by that. Or he does. But if they did, it doesn't seem likely that the result would show growing oil production, or flat oil production, spanning decades. Which it does.



They did. See the 2010 report for details.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
I recommend both of you wait until the newest WEO 2013 release, and see if you think it confirms "Hubbert's concept" or not. It should be fun watching the two of your wrassle over that one.



You should probably help him out.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Explain all you'd like, as John says. All he has to do is wave around a cost/supply curve, nobody is required to like your way of representing how it works in the future any better than IEAs. He can make up how it gets used just like you can, and it becomes a he-said she-said over how fast it gets converted from resource to reserve, and how much does it cost. It is all pretty simple from that perspective. But his point is that you can't refute it, and he is right about that, from a resource perspective. Everything else is debating the econommics of recovery, surface access, NOCs, who owns what, etc etc. None of those are geologically constrained by Hubbert's idea.

This type of analysis, bottom up like the EIA and IEA do, is extremely difficult to do, but ultimately much better of a basis than what TOD has specialized in over the years.



The problem is that there is no need for a "competing" curve. See the 2010 report for details.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Why would anyone who knows something about resources and the geosciences ever pay any attention to what Aleklett thinks on the topic? You happen to know how many oil fields he has found? His work experience in drilling, completions, design or reserve estimations of oil and gas resources? And more important, if the topic is TOD, if his methods of fitting time series data are no different than TOD why wouldn't his results garner the same level of disdain that TODs has?



I don't know, but feel free to criticize the study he presented, which you will find linked in another thread. You will a comment by Rockman about that and no response from John.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Aways back, JohnA made some references to people who do this thing for a living, were doing it before Aleklett got involved, are the originators and scientists who have studied this topic since the days Hubbert was involved, some even worked with him, and the people who were his supervisors. Those people are conspicuous by their absence on your peak oil reports list, as well as anything you post on the topic. Why might that be? Why does anything an economist or physics professor have to say on aggregate oil production data have relevance? Because they decided to study it one afternoon? Pretty thin reference when there are so many more qualified out there.



As I said, feel free to mention other reports, and they'll be included in the list. That's all there is to it.

Also, as much as I appreciate an intellectual exercise involving the history of peak oil studies, I'd rather look at the ones that are more recent.

Finally, you are aware that your final arguments challenge what John says. After all, he refers to "general economic principles."

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
Why would I read the 2010 when the WEO 2013 is due out here in a few months? Between 2010 and 2013, according to Pops, they apparently acquired themselves an actual resource expert, so I would think there would be all sorts of new and cool things in there, if such a person were indeed hired.

So much for the need to look for people "since the days Hubbert was involved," as you can't even bother to read what was published only a few years ago.

Well, that's it. I'll let you and John "wrassle" with each other on this one. Finally, I'll have to put both of your accounts in my ignore list, as I am wasting my time have to deal with the errors and contradictions found in your messages and in John's.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5651
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland
Top

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby John_A » Tue 27 Aug 2013, 09:47:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')Why are you looking only at Texas oil production from 1985 to the present? Why not look at US crude oil production from 1945 to the present?


We can look at whatever production you wish. I choose this one because Texas is a favorite example of Westexas in trying to show what a Hubbert decline looks like. It has since become what a Hubbert decline REVERSAL looks like.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby John_A » Tue 27 Aug 2013, 09:58:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
Not until you learn to read. I've already explained who was referencing the 2010 report, and who was not. Let us not try and confuse them.



Wrong. You did not read Hubbert's report, and failed big time in your misinterpretation of that.


Okay, I am done. While some might find it interesting to play whack a mole with bad ideas, we need to pick a starting point and keep this simple.

This comment of yours works as well as any.

Here is Hubbert's report, the one in which he predicted peak oil in the US around when it happened.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006- ... ssil-fuels

Pick a single thing thing I've said, or even a single thing you THINK I've said, or implied, which shows I misunderstand anything written in this report. Just one. And then tell me, or use one of your "gee I forgot all the actual experts" reports, and reference a page, or chapter, or SOMETHING to back up (or not) what you claim I don't understand. You don't have to of course, and in some cases you will be better off, I am perfectly willing to consider rational, self generated ideas as to why you think I don't understand Hubbert's report.

If the mods like they can split this off so we don't disturb the conversation about why TOD is going belly up.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 21:16:36
Top

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby SamInNebraska » Tue 27 Aug 2013, 22:15:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SamInNebraska', '
')I know he is.

Chapter 9, Figure 9.10, Page 218.



The discussion involves the 2010 report.


Your part of it apparently. But not JohnAs, as I have already explained and referenced to you. :-D

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')Finally, I'll have to put both of your accounts in my ignore list, as I am wasting my time have to deal with the errors and contradictions found in your messages and in John's.


Fleeing the battlefield is highly recommended when sorely pressed by opposing forces, if only to live and fight again another day. You appear to have chosen a quite reasonable moment to do this.

In some ways, TOD is reacting the same way, fleeing the battlefield in the face of reality and some really bad calls and top down methods. Normally for youngsters I recommend a degree in geology or some form of oil field engineering, a few decades of experience using it, and then it becomes much more difficult to be led astray in what some might consider a classic pump and dump scheme on any particulalr resource fear meme. Not sure this advice would apply to TOD as they are an organization rather than an individual, but depending on your youth such advice might be of value to you.
SamInNebraska
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun 14 Oct 2012, 23:05:58
Top

Robert Rapier: Sleepwalking Into The Next Oil Crisis

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 24 Mar 2018, 20:23:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
One school of thought is that future oil demand is set to decline because consumers will have better options. Many in this "peak demand" camp believe that the growth of electric vehicles will soon make oil obsolete. That's a relatively painless view of the future and is consistent with much of our past experience. Old technologies are frequently replaced by newer, better, and cheaper technologies. I have written previously on why I don't believe this version of future oil demand will unfold anytime soon. In a nutshell, if you "do the math," it becomes clear that it will be years before EVs can take a meaningful bite out of oil demand. Meanwhile, some organizations are sounding the alarm that rather than a peak demand scenario, we may soon face a peak supply scenario. Or at the least, the loss of global excess spare capacity. The last time


Robert Rapier: Sleepwalking Into The Next Oil Crisis
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 11018
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
Top

Re: What really killed The Oil Drum?

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 11:35:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SamInNebraska', '
')Just as a simple test, can you tell me the pages and author of the edited work by Meyer which contains the paper quantifying the resources, by field, how much etc etc, you mention within that work? The title wouldn't hurt either. If you can get that, I shall shut up and leave you alone, because you can count on two hands the number of people in the US who would know that work and having it sitting nearby.


AAPG Study in Geology #25, edited by Meyer, and the article I mentioned and you are asking about was written by Roadifer, Roy E., p. 3-24, Size Distribution of the World's Largest Known Oil and Tar Accumulations.

Every editor of TOD should have it sitting at their desk, the idea that someone could seriously expect to even begin understanding the topic of resource depletion without solid reference material strikes me as ludicrous.

From that same work, E.E. Angino, University of Kansas, Unconventional Recovery of Heavy Oil and Tar Sands,:

While these approaches are, at present, completely uneconomic and impractical, we cannot predict when the next technological breakthrough will occur that could make these concepts possible. I urge searching look down the corridors of the future. The only hold-back is our own timidity to consider "far-out" ideas.

Those ideas? CO2 recovery, mining techniques, using gases other than CO2 and steam, electrical methods, biological methods.

Imagine that, those wild and crazy guys back in the 80's who weren't scared of doing something different, and now, how many MILLIONS of barrels a day does Canada produce from these kinds of resources, in various ways? History lends perspective, it is a sin that people expound at length of how things can't happen when nothing more than a history lesson from 30 years ago will show how the same was once thought about <gasp!> horizontal drilling, frack the crap out of everything, technology changes the game, all the sorts of things Euan mentioned as he fled the scene.


Holy History Bat man. Two posters that appear to know something and use references to back it up.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 11018
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26
Top

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 13:56:25

Don't hardly hear of the rapid advances that were being made in the SAGD realm anymore.
Those guys were tearing up with additional laterals/placement protocol, using different solvents, starting the 'mini industry' of modular infrastructure buildout to widen the economic footprint of SAGD presence.

The above article didn't highlight how 92% +/- of existing hydrocarbons in unconventional production is presently being left behind.

Not for long.

The fact operators are drilling mile a day with 100% precise targeting, fracturing 60/80 stages with perf clusters 15 feet apart, containing the stimulated reservoir geometry with both near wellbore and far field diverters, using 200/400 mesh micro proppants to open up - ten times the area of previous previous attempts - micro fissures heretofore too small for #100 mesh ... all these things were virtually unknown a mere decade ago.

And the evolution continues ...
Supercritical gasses offer huge advantages over water as a fracturing fluid.
Ethane offers huge advantages in EOR in the shales.
The astounding amount if oil left in the ROZ may find attractive techniques arising from the intense efforts to maximize artificial lift in the tens of thousand of horizontal wells throughout the US.

The US?
How about China and Argentina continuing to advance their "shale revolution" despite logistical and political obstacles?
How about the expected breakthroughs when the Russians tackle the clay heavy Bazenhov.

Overcoming proppant crushing and embedment, particularly in the clays, is a huge hurdle in present fracturing.

Depletion may never sleep.
Human resourcefulness never takes a nap.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:09:47
Top

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 15:35:31

... And in a quick followup to the SAGD, solvent issue, one of the operators is pushing the term SASAGD for what they feel may be the future of this type of extraction, namely, Solvent Assisted Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage.

Best part is - get this - it may meet halfway with the Keep It In The Ground people.
With precise usage of effective solvents, the heavier asphaltenes may never be extracted along with the lighter viscosity oil.
That is, using optimal propane, butane and pentane mixes, the removed hydrocarbons may be pipeline ready oil ... simply not removing the heavier, undesirable stuff in the first place.

AKA, keeping it in the ground.

No naps for human ingenuity.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:09:47
Top

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 15:45:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coffeeguyzz', '.').. And in a quick followup to the SAGD, solvent issue, one of the operators is pushing the term SASAGD for what they feel may be the future of this type of extraction, namely, Solvent Assisted Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage.

Best part is - get this - it may meet halfway with the Keep It In The Ground people.
With precise usage of effective solvents, the heavier asphaltenes may never be extracted along with the lighter viscosity oil.
That is, using optimal propane, butane and pentane mixes, the removed hydrocarbons may be pipeline ready oil ... simply not removing the heavier, undesirable stuff in the first place.

AKA, keeping it in the ground.

No naps for human ingenuity.

Interesting, except I was under the impression we use the heavier components (i.e. from refining output) for things like asphalt.

Unless we find something radically different way to make roads, even after we stop burning much gas or diesel for personal transport, I don't see the demand for roads going away anytime soon.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 10142
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42
Location: Central KY
Top

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Thu 29 Mar 2018, 16:16:49

OS
Roads, roofing shingles and many other applications call for the heavies.
However, the value of virtually creating pipeline ready, lighter API at the well head (especially when the unimaginable size of this resource is considered) so far and away dwarfs other considerations as to not merit serious concern.

Again, I know almost nothing about what these guys are currently up to, but their stated goal - if achieved - is paradigm changing in the hydrocarbon world.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:09:47
Top

Re: THE Oil Drum Thread (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 30 Mar 2018, 11:38:46

To follow up on the caffeine man’s comment some folks don’t realize a major expense in producing the Alberta oil sands is the amount of expensive light oil/condensate the companies have to buy to make the pumpable dilbit: about 280 MILLION BBLS PER YEAR. And that only changes the gravity to the not so valuable 23 API: more light oil/condensate has to be purchased/added to get it up to 32 API.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron