Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

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

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby Gmark » Sat 24 Jul 2021, 15:44:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gmark', '
')
I agree. The energy industry evolved completely from people trying to make money, and as things tighten in the future, I expect oodles of cash will be thrown at nuclear, geothermal electric, kerogen extraction, wind, solar, and ideas we haven't even thought of yet. Lots of that cash will be wasted, but that financial motivation might lead to something significant.

It's just a race now, to see if they can find some combination of technologies that will keep the air conditioner running before the lights go out.

So you're just discounting all green energy? And batteries?

There are a LOT of improvements being made over time in terms of relative cost and efficiency, even if it will be decades before green energy can run most of the A/C, for example.

So why are the lights "going out" and are you saying that will happen real soon, or someday, or something in between? (I believe in slow decline vs. the instadoom so many preach on this site. And I think much of the decline can be managed over time by having a smaller population IF people will wake up enough over time to accept that reality. What China has done recently re its rules for having children is not a good sign in the short term, of course.)


No, I'm not discounting green energy at all. Significant and valuable progress has been made. And old technology is much more efficient now.

But we have a long way to go. Where I live, wind power provides about 20% of the electricity. Solar isn't a very good option here, so wind has to increase, and storage technology has to develop.

Some people think oil production has peaked, others think there's another decade or more before the peak is reached.

But I think that just like investors threw money at Shale Oil, and most lost money in that, I think the same will happen with other technologies. Investment money isn't flowing into solar as much as it needs to, and maybe they don't think there's enough return, so they're looking for other technologies that will be the 'next big thing'.

And from the news, you can see that some investment funds think that MSR nuclear, or Geothermal electric, or other infant technologies could be a next big thing. These groups are hoping to have something by 2030. Maybe.

The WSJ story yesterday on the iron-air battery storage developed by Form Energy could also be a next big thing. I'm kind of hopeful for that since they seem to think they'll be operational by 2025 and that's a short enough timeline that we won't have to wait long to see if this technology has legs.

The progress made here isn't getting to the third world very quickly, and that's a concern. They are already facing lights going out.

I don't think it will be a collapse either, but I think it will be messy.
Gmark
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri 23 Jul 2021, 22:11:08
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby mustang19 » Sat 24 Jul 2021, 17:30:52

Pops, your post is silly and just further refuted your point. Your filter argument simply means the diminishing returns happen faster. Only the first few inches of insulation matter and the rest is irrelevant, it's obvious you don't believe anything you're saying.

Now ban me.
mustang19
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby Pops » Sat 24 Jul 2021, 17:51:52

I tracked down Laherrere's latest from the ASPO France site

Image

His quote:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he peak of conventional (excluding extra-heavy oil) crude oil is past = 2019



Just to guide on the plot,
the Red line is EIA All Liquids,
The green and Light blue are Hubert Linearizations of an URR of 3500 and 3000GB respectively (LESS x-heavy and LTO)
The purple line is 2500Gb URR less x & LTO which seems to be his mark.

This is a good read if for nothing else but his typical rant over how much BS is reported as 1-2-3p reserves, what is counted and what isn't.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby Pops » Sat 24 Jul 2021, 18:01:14

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he latest EIA data I can find says that fracking in the USA produced 2.67 billion barrels of petroleum and natural gas liquids in 2020. Watching the URR number doesn't seem to help much as every time the price dips the number plummets because it is based on economically recoverable oil.


Only companies under SEC rules must report 1P provable (economical) reserves. Every year they change, because every year more are proven to be workable. But, everyone else just makes them up. You'll remember the fight of the paper barrels where each OPEC producer doubled their reserves overnight and hasn't revised them in decades. The reason is their reserves determine their quota. and of course they aren't audited.

Laherrere
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')il reserves are reported following different classifications in use (JHL 2007)
US: all energy companies listed on the US stock market are obliged by the SEC to
report only proved reserves (1P), assumed to be the minimum (reasonable certainty if
deterministic or 90% probability if probabilistic); these reserves are audited.
OPEC: because quotas depend upon reserves, OPEC members report proved reserves
(1P), which is their national wish (of course non-audited).
Former Soviet Union: ABC1 (Khalimov 1979) reports maximum theoretical
recovery, being equal to proven plus probable plus possible (3P).
Rest of the world: SPE/WPC (1997) regulations report reserves as proven plus
probable (2P), close to the mean value or a probability of 50%. Oil companies use SPE 2P
reserves to decide the development of their fields, but they are obliged to report only SEC 1P
reserves!


But as he says, you have to make a guess at the ultimate if you're going to make a forecast. He's still sticking to the linearization, which really about all there is.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby mustang19 » Sat 24 Jul 2021, 18:07:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he latest EIA data I can find says that fracking in the USA produced 2.67 billion barrels of petroleum and natural gas liquids in 2020. Watching the URR number doesn't seem to help much as every time the price dips the number plummets because it is based on economically recoverable oil.


Only companies under SEC rules must report 1P provable (economical) reserves. Every year they change, because every year more are proven to be workable. But, everyone else just makes them up. You'll remember the fight of the paper barrels where each OPEC producer doubled their reserves overnight and hasn't revised them in decades. The reason is their reserves determine their quota. and of course they aren't audited.

Laherrere
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')il reserves are reported following different classifications in use (JHL 2007)
US: all energy companies listed on the US stock market are obliged by the SEC to
report only proved reserves (1P), assumed to be the minimum (reasonable certainty if
deterministic or 90% probability if probabilistic); these reserves are audited.
OPEC: because quotas depend upon reserves, OPEC members report proved reserves
(1P), which is their national wish (of course non-audited).
Former Soviet Union: ABC1 (Khalimov 1979) reports maximum theoretical
recovery, being equal to proven plus probable plus possible (3P).
Rest of the world: SPE/WPC (1997) regulations report reserves as proven plus
probable (2P), close to the mean value or a probability of 50%. Oil companies use SPE 2P
reserves to decide the development of their fields, but they are obliged to report only SEC 1P
reserves!


But as he says, you have to make a guess at the ultimate if you're going to make a forecast. He's still sticking to the linearization, which really about all there is.


The oil reserves are well known, they follow the hubbert curve closely, that is not in debate. The exact timing of the peak is the question.

This is a more or less redundant thread because there isn't meaningful debate over what oil reserves are, only whether people will die now or it will keep being pushed back.
mustang19
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby Pops » Sat 24 Jul 2021, 18:08:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gmark', 'B')ut we have a long way to go. Where I live, wind power provides about 20% of the electricity. Solar isn't a very good option here, so wind has to increase, and storage technology has to develop.
I don't think it will be a collapse either, but I think it will be messy.

Hi Gmark.
Not sure how long you've been around this stuff but I was reviewing an old post by Murphy at Do The Math this morning, It's about what he called the energy trap, about how hard it could be to transition after decline sets in. We are a little ahead of the curve because of GW but not by much. Check it out if you like
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby Gmark » Sat 24 Jul 2021, 18:19:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gmark', 'B')ut we have a long way to go. Where I live, wind power provides about 20% of the electricity. Solar isn't a very good option here, so wind has to increase, and storage technology has to develop.
I don't think it will be a collapse either, but I think it will be messy.

Hi Gmark.
Not sure how long you've been around this stuff but I was reviewing an old post by Murphy at Do The Math this morning, It's about what he called the energy trap, about how hard it could be to transition after decline sets in. We are a little ahead of the curve because of GW but not by much. Check it out if you like
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/


Hah! I was walking around earlier trying to remember Tom's last name who did the Do the Math blog. I discovered it a few years ago, and it was terrific. His case for the energy trap made a lot of sense to me.
Gmark
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri 23 Jul 2021, 22:11:08
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby mustang19 » Sat 24 Jul 2021, 18:31:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Gmark', 'B')ut we have a long way to go. Where I live, wind power provides about 20% of the electricity. Solar isn't a very good option here, so wind has to increase, and storage technology has to develop.
I don't think it will be a collapse either, but I think it will be messy.

Hi Gmark.
Not sure how long you've been around this stuff but I was reviewing an old post by Murphy at Do The Math this morning, It's about what he called the energy trap, about how hard it could be to transition after decline sets in. We are a little ahead of the curve because of GW but not by much. Check it out if you like
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/


Wind is a dying industry. They are decommissioning.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.instit ... -huge/amp/

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Decommissioning is the process of removing all wind turbines and returning the land to its original condition. » Modern wind farms are designed to operate for at least 25 to 30 years, during which time they are carefully managed and maintained


A bizarre statement. But true nonetheless.

World wind capacity grew from 20gw in 2000 to 600. Turbines grew from 750 kw to 5 mw over that period. Thus the number of turbines only increased 4x.

https://energycentral.com/news/retiring ... nobody-has

>As wind turbine manufacturing has improved, the length of warranties on these products has decreased dramatically and today the terms of most cover between five and 10 years.

Wind farms are at the end of their "useful" (the bubble popped) life. Even the turbines built in 2016 are at the end.

https://www.windpowermonthly.com/articl ... st-uk-36bn

> One of the world’s first offshore wind sites — Ørsted’s 11-turbine demonstration project, Vindeby — was dismantled in September 2017, after 27 years of operation.

So if global wind capacity is growing at a flat 50gw since 2012, with 2/3 of that turbine upgrades, and there's a 27 year lag then the ~10gw growth in the early 2000s being retired in 2030 will wipe out any wind growth. Total capacity will then start falling 20% a year if it doesn't stagnate. Even next near retirements will offset 10% of capacity growth and that fraction will grow by a third annually.

So wind decommissioning is the new fad you should obsess over because it's growing faster than the actual industry.
mustang19
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby AdamB » Sat 24 Jul 2021, 22:07:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')But as he says, you have to make a guess at the ultimate if you're going to make a forecast. He's still sticking to the linearization, which really about all there is.


Guess indeed. I've always found it interesting, why guess at the answer when Colin and Laherrere had the old PC database to start with? All the discrete reservoir technical information they ever needed is there. I was using the same version as they were back in the 90's, sure it has been updated down through the years but the database structure still had was what needed to do the simple stuff.

And no, linearization is what you do when you CAN'T do anything else.
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: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby Pops » Sun 25 Jul 2021, 08:51:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', 'G')uess indeed. I've always found it interesting, why guess at the answer when Colin and Laherrere had the old PC database to start with?

In the June 21 article JL writes:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '-')Past known reserves and production
World 2P crude oil less extra-heavy oil reserves are estimating using Petroconsultants
backdated after several corrections
-removing Orinoco discoveries 215 Gb from 1936 to 1939
-correcting ABC1 of former USSR (called wrongly 2P) into 2P
-correcting OPEC overestimations (coming from the OPEC quotas battle 1985-1989) after 2005
The plot of world annual discoveries and production for the period 1900-2020

Image

Figure 3: world annual crude oil less XH discoveries and production

Image


That second chart is instructive.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 25 Jul 2021, 15:32:49

That story in the WSJ. is interesting. $20/ KWH of storage seems workable if they can actually do it. Also 150 hours duration would last a utility through a week of bad weather.
As to oil being $50/bl in 2035 0r 2050 I very much doubt that. Inflation alone by then will reduce the value of a dollar to the point where today's $50 oil will be $100 or more and if it actually becomes scarce and difficult to produce the oil then remaining will bring a premium price
We can and probably will stop using it to propel cars and trucks or as a heat source for heating buildings or industrial processes but aircraft and the petrochemical industries will still use and demand oil at whatever price they can get it.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 25 Jul 2021, 15:51:58

Yes, we should be conserving it for critical applications. Let alone CC.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18651
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby mustang19 » Sun 25 Jul 2021, 16:26:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', 'T')hat story in the WSJ. is interesting. $20/ KWH of storage seems workable if they can actually do it. Also 150 hours duration would last a utility through a week of bad weather.
As to oil being $50/bl in 2035 0r 2050 I very much doubt that. Inflation alone by then will reduce the value of a dollar to the point where today's $50 oil will be $100 or more and if it actually becomes scarce and difficult to produce the oil then remaining will bring a premium price
We can and probably will stop using it to propel cars and trucks or as a heat source for heating buildings or industrial processes but aircraft and the petrochemical industries will still use and demand oil at whatever price they can get it.


They're actually decommissioning wind on a vast scale

https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw ... uid=469956

Germany could be facing a gigawatt-scale “decommissioning wave” in its onshore wind sector.

//

Wind has been growing at a slowing rate since 2012, with a blip in 2020 so it's irrelevant.
mustang19
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 25 Jul 2021, 17:12:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mustang19', '
')
They're actually decommissioning wind on a vast scale

https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw ... uid=469956

Germany could be facing a gigawatt-scale “decommissioning wave” in its onshore wind sector.

//

Wind has been growing at a slowing rate since 2012, with a blip in 2020 so it's irrelevant.

The Biden's administration push for renewables has not started yet so last years trends do not portray the future here in the USA.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby mustang19 » Sun 25 Jul 2021, 17:38:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mustang19', '
')
They're actually decommissioning wind on a vast scale

https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw ... uid=469956

Germany could be facing a gigawatt-scale “decommissioning wave” in its onshore wind sector.

//

Wind has been growing at a slowing rate since 2012, with a blip in 2020 so it's irrelevant.

The Biden's administration push for renewables has not started yet so last years trends do not portray the future here in the USA.


It's impossible, Texas has an official policy of scrapping wind.

The only reason to support libs is if you have obsolete information. Reality is that the industry was declining for years and you're just defending this old scam whose time has passed. Your argument is you not reading your own data.
mustang19
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 06 Nov 2020, 20:43:52
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 25 Jul 2021, 17:42:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')In the June 21 article JL writes:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '-')Past known reserves and production
World 2P crude oil less extra-heavy oil reserves are estimating using Petroconsultants
backdated after several corrections
-removing Orinoco discoveries 215 Gb from 1936 to 1939
-correcting ABC1 of former USSR (called wrongly 2P) into 2P
-correcting OPEC overestimations (coming from the OPEC quotas battle 1985-1989) after 2005
The plot of world annual discoveries and production for the period 1900-2020


Damn. I want a geoscience job that allows me to change/erase/exclude/include just things I want in order to reach the conclusion I want. Requiring ones research conclusions to be based on reality and all, what a drag. :-D
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: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby Pops » Mon 26 Jul 2021, 08:06:20

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', 'D')amn. I want a geoscience job that allows me to change/erase/exclude/include just things I want in order to reach the conclusion I want. Requiring ones research conclusions to be based on reality and all, what a drag. :-D

Those estimates aren't "geoscience", more like geopolitical stock pumping. LOL
What does "geoscience" have to do with swallowing every pronouncement made by whatever oil company/country shill as gospel?

The problem of forecasting is not just that it is hard to know what's down there, it's that all the people who have the best information don't always have the same objectives as society at large.

I mentioned the Energy Trap idea, basically once decline sets in it will be harder to transition away from fossils — because it will take lots of fossil energy to transition. IOW, a manhattan project not in secret but one that out in the open syphoning off energy while everyone is waiting in gas lines.

The way out of the energy trap is to transition before fossils decline. That is society's best interest.
Is it in the best interest of oil companies/countries bottom line to transition and leave all that profit in the ground?
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby Gmark » Mon 26 Jul 2021, 08:50:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vtsnowedin', 'T')hat story in the WSJ. is interesting. $20/ KWH of storage seems workable if they can actually do it. Also 150 hours duration would last a utility through a week of bad weather.
As to oil being $50/bl in 2035 0r 2050 I very much doubt that. Inflation alone by then will reduce the value of a dollar to the point where today's $50 oil will be $100 or more and if it actually becomes scarce and difficult to produce the oil then remaining will bring a premium price
We can and probably will stop using it to propel cars and trucks or as a heat source for heating buildings or industrial processes but aircraft and the petrochemical industries will still use and demand oil at whatever price they can get it.


I understand that the big question for iron-air batteries is the number of recharge cycles, and the earlier work on those had lots of difficulties. If Form Energy has made good progress on that, it could be a big deal soon to be copied by their competitors.

20 years ago, I was involved in an experimental wind project that used large AGM cells, and they had a lifetime of 2000 charge cycles at 20% depletion.

Last year, we considered converting one of our facilities to solar, and the suppliers were offering batteries with a lifetime of 10,000 charge cycles.

"the International Energy Agency says patents for energy storage inventions have grown four times faster than the rest of the technology sector, and are set to catalyse clean energy transitions around the world."
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-n ... ing-global
Last edited by Gmark on Mon 26 Jul 2021, 09:08:55, edited 1 time in total.
Gmark
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri 23 Jul 2021, 22:11:08
Top

Re: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 26 Jul 2021, 09:00:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('AdamB', 'D')amn. I want a geoscience job that allows me to change/erase/exclude/include just things I want in order to reach the conclusion I want. Requiring ones research conclusions to be based on reality and all, what a drag. :-D

Those estimates aren't "geoscience", more like geopolitical stock pumping. LOL


I agree that Lahherrere's estimates aren't related to the geosciences.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')What does "geoscience" have to do with swallowing every pronouncement made by whatever oil company/country shill as gospel?


It doesn't, if that is the only information Lahherrere uses.

I mentioned previously that they (Colin and Jean) once had the PetroConsultants database. Those who haven't used that information might not be familiar with its contents, but Colin and Lahherrere certainly should. And the technical information within it aren't oil company pronouncements, forward looking statements, stock claims or whatever else might get mistake for formation types and names, numbers, thickness, porosity, saturations, cumulative production and whatnot.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')The problem of forecasting is not just that it is hard to know what's down there, it's that all the people who have the best information don't always have the same objectives as society at large.


Exactly why I go round and round with Dennis over creating a stochastic framework for this type of work.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')Is it in the best interest of oil companies/countries bottom line to transition and leave all that profit in the ground?

Nope. We call this economic game, "What will the Saudi's do?". Think of it as musical chairs, played out by the large NOCs. No one wants to be the sucker with oil and gas still in the ground when that oil and gas is no longer worth anything. So, for any given price/supply/demand scenario...what do you do? Do you pump more now, or bet on higher prices later when constrictive fossil fuel policies drive prices even higher? DO prices go higher in that environment, or do they go lower as competition for market share increases? Can you continue to coordinate cartel output to maximize profit for everyone, and how do you react when the marginal barrel (that you have lost control of to the US) is in the mix, dampening out your own price/volume moves? This game isn't about free market behavior as much as it it cartel behavior at the end of the day, and the US (and to a lesser extent Canada) are the fly in the ointment.
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: Rystad: Not Enough Oil for >1.8º warming

Unread postby Gmark » Mon 26 Jul 2021, 09:18:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mustang19', '
')
They're actually decommissioning wind on a vast scale

https://disq.us/url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fw ... uid=469956

Germany could be facing a gigawatt-scale “decommissioning wave” in its onshore wind sector.

//

Wind has been growing at a slowing rate since 2012, with a blip in 2020 so it's irrelevant.


You did provide a source this time, but it's three years old. Did any of the doom-and-gloom happen?

China is leading the world in new wind projects now, with UK number two. I believe Germany is number eight.
Gmark
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri 23 Jul 2021, 22:11:08
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron