[SumYunGai]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('harrisonlw', 'D')espite the thread being derailed slightly as people resort to ad hominem responses, I largely appreciate the replies. Peak for me does not mean scarcity or depletion. It means what it means to most other thinking members of this forum.

Basically, my view (and perhaps the accepted wisdom) is that:

1. Conventional oil has peaked
2. Unconventional oil is bridging the gap in demand
3. Unconventional oil will continue to bridge the gap and meet future demand
4. Prices will eventually rise to reflect the increase in demand and will enable further production of unconventional oil
5. Climate change will lead to much greater investment in renewable energy development
6. RE replaces oil before unconventional oil becomes prohibitively expensive.

Point 6 is easily the most contentious, and perhaps too cornucopian for this forum. I note that this ignores coal and gas but this is an oil forum after all. In any case, peak oil's ramifications of collapse and wars and famine are dead to me because this issue will play out over decades and we will slowly adapt.

Perhaps this is too optimistic or wilfully ignorant...

[regardingpo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('regardingpo', '
')It's no wonder no-one on this site can stand you, you seem to only be interested in feuding with people.

[regardingpo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('harrisonlw', '
')6. RE replaces oil before unconventional oil becomes prohibitively expensive.

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SumYunGai', '
')Well, you'll have to work that bit out for yourself. In the meantime, as to your numbered contentions, above, here is how your so called "accepted wisdom" actually stacks up against reality:

1. True
2. Only temporarily true
3. False because this would require much higher oil prices (see #4)
4. False because oil use can no longer provide sufficient energy to the economy to support high oil prices (see Etp)
5. Impossible since the economy is about to collapse, and it would make no difference anyway
6. Impossible since unconventional oil is ALREADY prohibitively expensive, and renewable energy never really had the potential to replace oil in the first place

[ROCKMAN]

A bit unsure of the implications:

3. Unconventional oil will continue to bridge the gap and meet future demand

Is the "gap" being bridged the difference between domestic production and consumption? If so that gap was reduced somewhat by production from unconventional reservoirs but given we still import almost 3 BILLION BBLS of oil per year a huge gap remains.

4. Prices will eventually rise to reflect the increase in demand and will enable further production of unconventional oil

Depends on how the major oil exporters respond. It the last two years the response to lower oil prices was to significantly increase export volumes by bringing excess capacity on line. By doing so it did stabilize prices but not seeing a significant price increase resulting from demand increases. But that's just today. We'll see what the dynamics are in a few years.

5. Climate change will lead to much greater investment in renewable energy development

Seems like most of the alt energy developments in the last 10 years were motivated more by economics then environmental concerns. Again Texas wind power is a perfect example. And now with lower oil prices and continued low NG and coal prices some of the financial incentive has been lost.

6. RE replaces oil before unconventional oil becomes prohibitively expensive.

Seems like a chicken/egg predicament: unconventional reservoir development requires high oil prices. High oil prices encourage RE development. Low prices inhibit unconventional development but also reduces the financial incentive of much of the RE. Those low oil prices also has negative effects on conservation efforts as indicated by the increase in motor fuel consumption as well as the boom in truck sales.

Much of the expectations for RE seems to hinge on the majority of consumers "doing the right thing". Towards that end there has been a lot more verbal support then actual action. And, again, much of the actions actually taken appear more motivated by economics then morality.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')uch of the expectations for RE seems to hinge on the majority of consumers "doing the right thing". Towards that end there has been a lot more verbal support then actual action. And, again, much of the actions actually taken appear more motivated by economics then morality.

[ROCKMAN]

Doc - "...the only way it happened was through incentives and favorable tax rules." Which is exactly why I keep bringing up the Texas world class wind power development. I can guarantee we wouldn't have one wind turbine in the entire state were it not for those incentives AND direct financial contributions by the tax payers. And we wouldn't be building the largest CO2 sequestration project in the ENTIRE WORLD if the feds et al weren't chipping in hundreds of $millions.

It might not sound nice but neither was ever going to happen here "for the sake of the children". Most other folks just don't have the guts to admit it. LOL. But at least we have politicians that recognized the value of both efforts and pushed them forward.

[ennui2]

It's really cultural/generational. The 20th century was a machine age as epitomized by the muscle-car. Only at the tail end did it enter into a consumer-electronics age, initially the province of geeks (and hence seen as a niche subculture). The 21st century is being branded as a gadget age, and all gadgets are seen as electronic, and mostly battery-powered, with people already used to daily charging rituals. Once people see all modern conveniences as being powered by electrons vs. fossil-fuels then the love-affair with fossil-fuels will fade. Won't change things like jet travel, but are still likely to reduce demand for oil.

[evilgenius]

There's a funny thing about debt, it locks the debtor into a certain valuation of the currency with which the debt has been incurred. When prices go down, those not indebted can simply adjust their cost structures by paying lower wages or deciding to delay projects or somesuch things. Countries like Venezuela, that have committed in the way they have to high prices, or frackers who have invested heavily in expensive extraction and owe for it, can go bankrupt or fight a seemingly losing struggle. If they are lucky they can refinance. Even that won't take away from the original principal owed, though. To do so, if they could, would also raise the risk that refinance has somewhat done, of deflation, which further threatens to skewer the debtors. Who knows, maybe the higher prices will come back? They could do, with a resurgent global economy or a dovetailing of energy supply. The point is that it isn't just oil prices that are important when considering whether things will change, currency values and indebtedness are very important too. These things are very hard to predict. Many have risked, and either made or lost, their reputations doing so.

[ROCKMAN]

pstarr - "so everything is consumption?" Yes: if you buy the oil and take it off the market it gets tagged as "consumption". Doesn't matter is you store it or refine it. Let me answer your question with a question: if you put 10 million bbls of oil into storage and then sold it 6 months later would you say the US just produced 10 million bbls? Given those 19 mikllion bbls were counted as production when thee cxcxame out the well heads wouldn't that be misleading? So yes: every bbl of oil purchased by everyone is " consumed" regardless of what they do with it. If one doesn't understand that the entire dynamic will be very confusing.

"Oil transiting the Alaska pipeline has already been sold to the refinery. Not in storage". Excellent point? You've learned well, grasshopper. LOL. Which is why one needs to look very closely at what's someone means when they say " oil storage". In many cases that will include oil in transit as well as oil sitting in tanks at a refinery today that will be cracked tomorrow. Often called "working volume" or "working storage" IOW it isn'tnlong term storage like the SPR. There is no such single metric as "oil storage"...there Are different categories of " oil storage". One needs to know exactly what category is being noted before one interprets its meaning.

"Where do THOSE consumers hide their oil?" Not hidden at all. Lots stored in the greatly expanded tank farm in Cushing, OK. for fun go online and find those companies that rent storage space there. Also note that a lot if storage at Cushing is owned by "blenders". Almost no oil in the US is refined exactly as it is when it comes out of tghe weell head. US refineries are optimized to crack a very narrow range: 32 to 34 API gravity oil.

So again another source of confusion: over a year a blender buys 59 million bbls, blends it and then sells it to a Chevron refinery. So that 50 million bbls is counted as "production" when it's sold to the blender, and while sitting in their tanks at Cushing are counted in someone's "storage oil" ledger, and then shipped via pipeline to Chevron during which time it might be counted as "storage oil" by someone. And then it ends up sitting in tanks at the Chevron refinery where it us again counted as "storage oil" by some regulatory agencies. IOW those 50 million bbls could be counted numerous times in different stats.

"You just described peak oil. The only oil sold is legacy at $15/bbl. No new oil." Most bean counters classify "new oil" as "legacy" production after the well has been producing only 6 months. IOW almost all the oil being produced today is legacy oil according to folks like the EIA.

Well, the oil storage dynamic should be as clear as mud now. LOL.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('regardingpo', '
')Planty - glut Obama Cheers!

[ennui2]

This is what final capitulation looks like.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/15/politics/ ... ed-states/

If even Trump can capitulate, then there's hope for those still clinging to outmoded PO narratives.

[onlooker]

My two cents as others can speak more authoritatively on this subject is the following. First, oil depletion is a physical reality. Second, easy to access conventional Oil does seem to have reached a peak. What this means is both the US and world will be getting less bang for buck as more energy is being utilized to access energy. I do not foresee an adequate or comprehensive transition for our modern Industrial civilization to Renewable energy. Both because of time/energy/resource constrains and also because Renewable sources cannot provide enough energy. Finally, while civilization may hobble along for quite some time with progressively less energy , environmental concerns seem to be outpacing energy ones with regard to the threat they pose to the majority if not all humans on this planet.

[SumYunGai]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'F')inally, while civilization may hobble along for quite some time with progressively less energy...

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('harrisonlw', 'D')espite the thread being derailed slightly as people resort to ad hominem responses, I largely appreciate the replies. Peak for me does not mean scarcity or depletion. It means what it means to most other thinking members of this forum.

[onlooker]

Sum thanks for the reply. I would explain my point. When I speak of Civilization, I use a general flexible definition and limited in scope for except for a few rich countries, the rest will experience as you said not just further economic impoverishment but severe die off from water and food shortages , disease, combined with an end to Globalization due to energy shortages. The rich countries of necessity will downsize and that includes our debt based economic system. Read about ideas coming from Europe for a resource/asset based Economy. Also, because I have no doubt we will be using coal/natural gas to maintain our modernity. Time scale well actually quite short maybe these few countries will hobble along for 20 years or so longer. After that the combination of Ecological devastation and Energy scarcity will doom any semblance of modernity and impulse further die off of humans

[killJOY]

Yes.

As a movement, a phenomenon, and a prediction, it is quite dead.

1. The predictions were not just wrong, they were exactly wrong. That means the assumptions upon which the predictions were based must be revisited and, perhaps, abandoned.

2. Peak oil's poster boy, the United States, has performed in a way that is the exact opposite of what every single peak oil advocate described. No one saw it coming, not one. If they were wrong about this, what else are they wrong about?

3. Everyone overlooked "shale oil," "tight light oil," whatever you want to call it. Look through the indices of every book about peak oil written before 2010 and you will not find a single reference to it. Therefore, in a sense the peak oilers didn't even know what "oil" meant. This is a scandalously incorrect premise. What is oil? Who the fuck knows. Maybe kerogen will be considered oil one day.

Everyone now wants to know what the future will bring, now that the ruins of the peak oil movement have been carted to the dump.

The answer is: No one knows. I suspect more of the same, though, with heightened horrors inflicted on us from climate instability.

[SumYunGai]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'S')um thanks for the reply. I would explain my point. When I speak of Civilization, I use a general flexible definition and limited in scope for except for a few rich countries, the rest will experience as you said not just further economic impoverishment but severe die off from water and food shortages , disease, combined with an end to Globalization due to energy shortages.

[onlooker]

To be honest I have not read that paper you cited. From your outline this makes compelling sense. I am not confident of my forecast, it may work out the way you say especially given that our Economy has integrated into globalization so much. Perhaps, my faith lies in the ability to transition quickly to a Command Economy as we sort of did during WWII. Also because unlike many places we in the US have a more favorable resource to population ratio. All quite tenuous but gotta keep some faith alive. I realize all this is assuming the ability to maintain social order, that is not a given