[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hat nonsense, rockteacherofthefrosh. Your continual point is that failing discoveries mean little, because all past reserve estimates were short . . . so we don't really need new oil. But the paper you quote to defend that position says that peak will occur before 2020. That paper almost a decade old. Today is 2018 1/2.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'Y')our beloved paper also concluded that peak oil is here. Sorry for you. No chance to round out the CV.

sad

[Sys1]

From this chart, peak conventional oil was in 2011 at 86mbpd.
https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1920&bih=947&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=m3w8W4m7EMi7UYnlt_AL&q=conventional+oil+collapse+global&oq=conventional+oil+collapse+global&gs_l=img.3...49622.50518.0.50709.7.7.0.0.0.0.74.377.7.7.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.0.0....0.CINPSkOLvKs#imgrc=XeVxkwZnkPq76M:
Shorter Link http://www.resilience.org/wp-content/up ... .png?w=650
For the dirty and hard to get oil, we don't know, as total liquid production is still growing. But!
But actually, with process like coal's liquefaction, total peak oil is quite pointless to get how close we are from energy cliff.
But we are certain that :
- We are more and more dependant on unconventional oil, around 15% in 2015 from the same chart. Unconventional production collapses far faster than conventional, it means that those 15% still growing in proportion to all production are weak and need to be replaced fast in order just to maintain production... and we are supposed to increase it forever, thanks to growth paradigm.
- For the moment, conventional oil production decreases slowly, but as unconventional techniques are now applyed on conventional oil rigs, aka water injection, there are some serious chances that the decrease will at a certain point looks like a Seneca cliff .

[rockdoc123]

As has been pointed out many times here there is no such thing as "conventional oil". There are conventional and unconventional reservoirs and there is a wide range of oil viscosities that complicate matters. Much of the LTO being produced from basin centres in the US currently is almost identical, both from a chemical and rheologic perspective to Brent and other oils like Bonny Light. There is low gravity oil with low viscosity that produces on its own energy and there is low gravity oil with high viscosity that needs energy inputs (heat, chemicals etc).
Trying to separate out the two is at best a mug's game, especially since included in that so-called "conventional peak" is oil produced from many reservoirs that would be considered unconventional (eg: Austin Chalk, Deep Basin Fields in Alberta, oil produced from fractured basement in Egypt, SE Asia and FSU). IT is easy to take out production from oil sands in Canada and Venezuela and production of LTO in US from shale basins but there are is lot of historical production that is actually from unconventional reservoirs but lumped in as being conventional.
There is really no reason to separate the two. The actual cost/bbl to produce LTO in the US is cheaper than much of the worlds offshore oil that is considered conventional. Refineries in the US actually require the oil sands production so they can blend with lighter oils to get to refinery specs. Contrary to popular belief held on this site the world did not suddenly switch to chasing heavy oil because we were running out of light oil. Companies were full on drilling in the various oil sands areas of Canada (McMurray, Cold Lake, Wabasca etc) in the mid-1970's.
The bottom line is Outcast_searcher is correct, one has to look at total oil production, there is no rational reason to try and subdivide it when talking about Peak Oil, especially when the produced hydrocarbons are essentially fungible (when blended) as far as refineries are concerned.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc123', 'A')s has been pointed out many times here there is no such thing as "conventional oil". There are conventional and unconventional reservoirs....

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') hope this explanation helps and you get the meaning now?

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')So yes, the oil that comes out of the source rock called Permian is fine oil. It's just that the entire oil production system is quite unconventional.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'c')rocdoc can't win the agreement based on facts, so he looks for nits to pick. His suggestion that "unconventional oil" doesn't refer to oil from unconventional reservoirs but instead means the oil is peculiar in some way is totally illogical and inconsistent with the context of the discussion.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Bakken is tertiary/quandary play in an old oil region. Oil production in the Williston Basin began in earnest in the early 1950's, and many fields underwent tertiary production for decades. Thus final production in the Bakken formation (part of the underlying source structure) is most certainly a final production event, whether one describes it as Tertiary ver 2.0 or Quandary ver 1.0 is beside the point. The Bakken represents the final final production in a subsection of entire Williston structure.

[onlooker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]The U.S. shale oil industry hailed as a “revolution” has burned through a quarter trillion dollars more than it has brought in over the last decade. It has been a money-losing endeavor of epic proportions.

[onlooker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') Two-thirds of U.S. oil producers failed to live within their means in the second quarter, even as oil rose above $70 a barrel. Collectively, 50 major U.S. oil companies reported in their second-quarter results that they have spent $2 billion more than they took in, according to an analysis of free cash flow by FactSet.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ') Two-thirds of U.S. oil producers failed to live within their means in the second quarter, even as oil rose above $70 a barrel. Collectively, 50 major U.S. oil companies reported in their second-quarter results that they have spent $2 billion more than they took in, according to an analysis of free cash flow by FactSet.

[onlooker]

What profits? My two links are clear that some serious hemorrhaging of money is occurring in the Shale Industry

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'W')hat profits? My two links are clear that some serious hemorrhaging of money is occurring in the Shale Industry

[ROCKMAN]

Onlooker - “50 major U.S. oil companies reported in their second-quarter results that they have spent $2 billion more than they took in…”. FYI this has always been the case during “good times”. Rarely does a well recover 100% of its cost within the first 12 months let alone any of its profit margin. Think about: when have you ever made an investment that recovered 100% of the principal within 1 year? Or even 2 or 3 years? I would give my left nut for a CD that paid 10% interest…wouldn’t you? Think about it again: you invest $10,000 in a CD and expect $10,000 interest paid back to you in 12 month? So a company spends $5 million drilling a well and should expect a net revenue of $5 million the first year? A good well might take 2 to 3 years to net $5 million. And that would yield a very nice rate of return.

So in good times when there are ample economic prospects to drill they borrow money (especially when loan rate are relatively low as they are now) to drill. If you could get a 15% CD and borrow the money at 8% wouldn’t you borrow as much as you could? And even though you net 7% you still wouldn’t recover 100% of the loan in 1 year, would you? Or even 2 or 3 years?

Folks hyping that statistic are only exposing their ignorance of the real business world.