[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdTheNad', 'O')nce oil has peaked, if population continues to rise the amount of oil per person reduces.

[Anvil]

1. Declining oil production will kill many billions of humans as well as the parasitic system it has created.
We will all probably die.
2. Declining oil production is happening right now making peak oil a cheap side show, detracting value of the real issues we all seem to be unable to accept.

Let us all now collectively stick our heads in the sand and pray to the oil gods, that these facts had never made the light of day.

[ROCKMAN]

Anvil – “We will all probably die.” Probably? I’ll bet you lunch that it’s a certainty.

“…pray to the oil gods”: Your sins are forgiven (except for buying that electric car)…go in peace, my child. LOL.

I’m pretty sure that many folks see the “light of day” regardless of where they have their heads stuck. In general I don’t think a lack of knowledge is as much of a problem as is the drive by self-interest.

[SeaGypsy]

No we just need to listen to whoever Rune is listening to! (Or drink a bucket of Koolaid)

[JV153]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', 'P')ops, sorry to hijack your thread. Feel free to split this discussion into a separate thread.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Expatriot', 'P')oint is, while the HD may have an extremely low FF input, it, like all other electrical production, has a FF input.

Windfarms and PV stations are so FF dependent so as to be laughable "nonFF" sources of electricity.

I hear tell that some wind farms actually burn electricity keeping the turbines spinning in low wind situations because the shafts will deform if they come to rest.

POer cornucopian fantasy includes cherry picking one of the few installations with a relatively small FF input.

Go figure out how much oil you need to burn to dig, purify, burn, and store U. Then let me know what % of nuclear is indirect oil. Same for PV.

[Pops]

I moved the "I disagree with everything" discussion to a new thread:
post1171496.html#p1171496

[dashster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('spot5050', 'A') suggestion for basic fact no. 11;

Short-termism
11. Humans think short-term.

We have labels for previous generations eg. "stone-age man" and "iron-age man". Future generations will call us "hydrocarbon-age man".

[lasseter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kildred590', '
')
First of all, you need to consider that conventional oil extraction peaked in 2005, so we have already past peak oil.

This is basically an economic argument.

[ROCKMAN]

L - "...because the oil used to make new oil is not available to power our society." That's a good point. I can't quantify the magnitude but it isn't as big as some might think. But still a valid observation. And there are other factors reducing the net. One is the well known ELM factor. For instance how much oil the Saudi's produce isn't important...how much they export is. Along those same lines the next important question is how much of that net Saudi production (as well as from other exporters) will reach the open market. China (and some other players) have been tying up future oil production via long term contracts, direction ownership of in-ground reserves and refinery JV's.

Even in a world with more oil production then ever before the competition for what's out there is intense. The world has a thirst for energy far greater than whatever could be supplied. And some folks wonder why oil is bouncing around $100/bbl while we're producing so much. IMHO this is the reality of the PO world...not some date on a calendar.

[Lore]

Pop's synopsis of the situation is still pretty solid.

Here is some recent thinking over at WUWT, in a guest post by Willis Eschenbach. Willis should probably concentrate on his usual shtick of climate change denial, but sometimes he just can't resist the occasional foray into the threat of Peak Oil on BAU. Denial runs pretty deep over there and it's telling that P.O. should be so closely tied to the idea of climate change. Pop's top ten with links would be the perfect rebuttal although I'm sure not many people there would accept those facts.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]M. King Meets the EIA

Dramatis Personae:

The “EIA” is the US Energy Information Agency, the US agency in charge of data about energy production, consumption, and use. It has just released its January 2014 Short Term Energy Report, with current and projected oil production figures.

And “M. King” is Marion King Hubbert, the man who famously predicted in 1956 that US annual oil production would peak in 1970, and after that it would gradually decrease.

So why is the King meeting the EIA? Figure 1 shows why.
——–
Insert Figure 1. US crude oil production. Data from 1965 to 2013, projections for 2014 and 2015. As is customary, “crude oil production” includes what are called “natural gas liquids”. Data from the BP Statistical Review of World Energy and the EIA.
____

Now me, I see that as a testament to human ingenuity, as fantastic news for the planet, and as another example of the futility of betting against said ingenuity. As my dear dad used to say, “Imagination is free.”

[Talk is cheap too! Everybody's got ideas, but it takes money and resources to put them into some kind of action... "Lore"]


I don’t really have much more to say about this great news, other than I see it as a huge opportunity for the poor. The implications are clear. Cheap energy is the salvation of the poor, and this can only be good news for them … not to mention good news for the rest of us as well.

[Of course the oil is neither cheap nor plentiful. Throwing up just the US production stats says little about how the poor people on the rest of the planet will fare. ..."Lore"]

Best regards,

w.

PS—Folks, don’t bother telling me it is “unconventional oil”. That is a meaningless distinction, invented by supporters of Hubbert’s peak oil theory, to try to salvage Hubberts moribund claims. For example, when fracking was done in vertical wells for fifty years, it was counted as “conventional oil” … but now that the drilling is done horizontally, suddenly fracking produces “unconventional oil”. And given that for many centuries oil was collected from surface seeps, in historical terms all modern oil production is “unconventional”. See my post Conventional Wisdom, Unconventional Oil for a full discussion.

PPS—If you disagree with something that I or someone else said, please QUOTE EXACTLY WHAT THE PERSON SAID in the comment where you discuss your objections. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been attacked over things that I never said … so quote it if you want to discuss it. I’m going to get more hard-headed on this one, I’m tired of picking spitballs off the wall. I’m happy to defend my words if I know which ones you are talking about … but I can’t defend your interpretation of my words. Quote it or lose it.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/11/m ... s-the-eia/

[ROCKMAN]

Lore - A slow Sunday morning so I'll jump in and correct some of his statements. "...Hubbert, the man who famously predicted in 1956 that US annual oil production would peak in 1970, and after that it would gradually decrease." Rather irritating how often folks either don't understand his work or intentionally misrepresent it. Hubert did not predict US production "would gradually decrease". What he predicted was that the oil trends he based his analysis upon would reach peak production in 1971 and then gradually decrease. And that prediction has proven to be very correct. Deep Water GOM oil and the oil shales were not part of the population he based his stats on. And not to take anything away from his work he did make that projection rather late in the life of the trends he studied. Consider doing the same projection for the Eagle Ford or Deep Water trends of the GOM and Brazil. That would be a tad challenging today. But consider doing so 30 years from today. Which is exactly what Hubbert did: his stat was based on US oil trends that began developing 30 years before his projection. And that is what almost every person who refers to Hubbert's work misses: he wasn't predicting production from future trends...just from those rather mature trends he based his work on.

"...when fracking was done in vertical wells for fifty years, it was counted as “conventional oil” … but now that the drilling is done horizontally, suddenly fracking produces “unconventional oil". He is free to make up all the definitions he wants. But it doesn't change the way the folks in the oil patch who actually explore for oil define the dynamics. Despite all the confusion there is no such thing as "unconventional oil" for us. There are conventional and unconventional RESERVOIRS. In general a conventional RESERVOIR produces from interconnected pore spaces. Unconventional RESERVOIRS generally produce from fracture porosity for the most part and not the primary porosity seen in conventional RESERVOIRS. So no: vertical wells fractured fifty years ago were completed in unconventional RESERVOIRS. And those wells produced oil from unconventional reservoirs...not unconventional oil. And as far as the oil patch is concerned the current shale plays are producing oil (not unconventional oil) from unconventional reservoirs. The "conventional" portion of "conventional reservoir" specifically refers to how the well is completed...not the nature of the reservoir. Shooting holes in the casing and flowing oil out is a "conventional" completion. Shooting holes in the casing and pumping in a few hundred thousands pound of sand to fracture the reservoir is an "unconventional completion". And many unconventional completions done fifty years ago (and being done today) were not in fractured shale reservoirs. In fact most frac jobs done in the early days were in limestone reservoirs and not shales.

OK...I know that is a rather geogeek point. But if such yahoos are allowed to make up definitions just to further their agenda the conversation will only become more confusing IMHO.

[Lore]

Thanks Rockman, the first point was caught by a smart cookie in the comments section there. Maybe you could educate them on the rest? Although I'm sure your facts won't jive with the belief of a lot of the faithful there. Of course WUWT is not known for fact checking, or admitting to the truth when caught on promoting bogus information.

[ROCKMAN]

Lore - I'll try to bounce over soon. I try to not hold such matters against most folks. Just about everyone gets their info from a blog and/or MSM. And those sources almost always have some or much of it wrong. Even a lot of geonerds don't keep matters in the correct context because they seldom go back to the source. Obviously what irritates me is when I sense someone, regardless of which side of the fence they're on, is intentionally using straw man argument. It's already difficult for many to appreciate the technicalities. Lies and misdirection aren’t going to help.

I was reading a report just last night that consistently used "conventional oil". But it's easy to understand why: that takes up a lot less space than "oil produced from a conventional reservoir using conventional drilling and completion methods". But the problem becomes serious when they start classifying Deep Water production as unconventional because of the water depths. Those reservoirs out there are just a conventional as the big onshore fields developed in the 50's. Obviously what isn't conventional is the water depth but that doesn't make it unconventional oil. And then add that some of the larger US onshore fields decades ago were from unconventional reservoirs.

Which goes full circle to the rant I always have trouble resisting: this is not a new age of "unconventional oil" nor a new age of shale production or a new age of horizontal drilling or a new age of frac'ng. It's a new age of sustained (so far) record high oil prices. If folks truly understood what driving the dynamics today they might be making more appropriate actions to prepare for the future. Like most geologists I learned a hard lesson early in my career: don’t over promise. Because even if you make a good well but it falls far short of your prediction management won’t be happy. And then consider how they’ll feel if it’s a dry hole.

[lasseter]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', ' ')It's a new age of sustained (so far) record high oil prices. If folks truly understood what driving the dynamics today they might be making more appropriate actions to prepare for the future.

[StarvingLion]

"If folks truly understood what driving the dynamics today they might be making more appropriate actions to prepare for the future."

The appropriate action around here is the 'Teepee Lifestyle'. It never occurs to these "rugged individualists" that they will simply be run off the land. There is no means of resistance to the Capital Machine. The bleeping Machine couldn't care less about the dynamics of peak oil or the so-called climate change.

[StarvingLion]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lasseter', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', ' ')It's a new age of sustained (so far) record high oil prices. If folks truly understood what driving the dynamics today they might be making more appropriate actions to prepare for the future.

[AgentR11]

Yall discount my comments about bicycles and scooters; this though, you're gonna have a hard time with.

http://www.indianagazette.com/news/reg- ... ,20419259/

At 84 mpg; you're talking a price point of over $15 (US 2014)/gallon before price of fuel becomes intrinsically more costly for commuting than it currently is. The most important feature though, is that not only is the commuter mileage high, but that the vehicle is cheap, enclosed, and has A/C; which are the basic requirements for getting a middle aged suit wearer from the suburbs into downtown.

Game, set, match, for the fast doomers ascribing to "The End of Suburbia". Adaptation is possible after all.

Doesn't change the slow doom though, and to an extent, helps guarantee the slow doom.. There might be oil that can't be economically produced at $120(US2014)/bbl; but $600(US2014)/bbl... You could probably produce at the North Pole in winter at that price. So don't read this as a corny post; this is doom on steroids; Hansenites should look at that vehicle and gasp in horror.

[AgentR11]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('StarvingLion', 'T')he appropriate action around here is the 'Teepee Lifestyle'. It never occurs to these "rugged individualists" that they will simply be run off the land. There is no means of resistance to the Capital Machine. The bleeping Machine couldn't care less about the dynamics of peak oil or the so-called climate change.

[StarvingLion]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AgentR11', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('StarvingLion', 'T')he appropriate action around here is the 'Teepee Lifestyle'. It never occurs to these "rugged individualists" that they will simply be run off the land. There is no means of resistance to the Capital Machine. The bleeping Machine couldn't care less about the dynamics of peak oil or the so-called climate change.

[AgentR11]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('StarvingLion', 'A')nd what makes you think you have the right to "push a broom at a warehouse for a few hours". You're not making that decision, now are you?