[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', 'R')GR said $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')upposition: 2003 Hirsch report purposely ignores enough ready to go mitigation of Peak Oil procedures/technologies/current events which, when added into his modeling, completely negate the effect of Peak Oil itself.

Any takers?

[seahorse2]

RGR,

You began by attacking the Hirsch report, so limit any debate to that issue to keep it controllable.

Also, do you have a link to the previous 1987 Hirsch report you referred to? If you could post it or tell us where it can be found, it would be appreciated.

[seahorse2]

I would suggest that RGR start the debate with the 3 biggest "mistakes" made by Hirsch in his 2005 report. Develope and stick to those issues, then move on to others if necessary.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', 'R')GR,

You began by attacking the Hirsch report, so limit any debate to that issue to keep it controllable.

Also, do you have a link to the previous 1987 Hirsch report you referred to? If you could post it or tell us where it can be found, it would be appreciated.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse2', 'I') would suggest that RGR start the debate with the 3 biggest "mistakes" made by Hirsch in his 2005 report. Develope and stick to those issues, then move on to others if necessary.

[seahorse]

Okay RGR, we won't debate Hirsch's "mistakes", we will debate the "three biggest things Hirsch ignored." Now that we have the debate title down, please, RGR, start the debate with the three biggest items you feel are ignored by Hirsch in his 2005 report.

I would also ask everyone else to please refrain and allow RGR and Neopo to debate. It helps keep the issues focused so that the debate doesn't get sidetracked or "hijacked" in internet terminology. One caveat, if there is an obvious factual mistake in either position, I think it would be fair to attach a report, data base etc to point out a factual mistake without any comment.

[jeezlouise]

I've been watching RGR and Lorenzo et al debating the Doomers on this board for a couple of months now and it all seems kinda silly to me. I don't know for sure either way if we're "all gonna die" or if we'll see (or rather, not see) a seamless transition to biofuels or whatever... but what ever happened to "better safe than sorry"? Does it not make sense to do at least some basic preperations for a possible collapse scenario? Get to know plants and buy a gun. Nothing wrong with that. Seems to me that if the Doomers are wrong, well, nothing really happens... but if RGR is wrong, then a lot of people could die, including those who sided with him and chose to do nothing.

[seahorse]

jeez, you're correct that all that spending sure helps the economy. However, back to the debate, we're waiting on RGR to list his three points.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')nce again ReserveGrowthDroolz turned-tail and run.

oh excuse me. He did drag out the ethanol scam. . . sort of (in his own weasly way)

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ReserveGrowthRulz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')nce again ReserveGrowthDroolz turned-tail and run.

oh excuse me. He did drag out the ethanol scam. . . sort of (in his own weasly way)

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('seahorse', 'j')eez, you're correct that all that spending sure helps the economy. However, back to the debate, we're waiting on RGR to list his three points.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

This assumes I haven't been banned by morning of course. Apparently noticing when people can't tell the difference between resources and reserves is against the code of conduct or something.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

BooBoo #1

Hirsch report discounts ethanol out of production out of hand, and then says in the appendix that two current cellulose ethanol projects could replace some 17% of total United States gasoline usage without affecting food supply, using any current farmland, and at a premium of perhaps $0.10/gal over gasoline. ( subsection B, paragraph 2, Page 87 ). I'm not going further into this one, its his decision to both ignore ethanol and then quantify how good it can get without using farmland and assigning a price premium to the product, don't like 17% US gasoline replacement? Take it up with him. I figured this was obvious until the Doomers came out of the woodwork denying it.

BooBoo #2

Prediction of enhanced recovery results. Subsection B, starting on pg 38. Says IOR is possible, has been going on for awhile, and builds it into his model.

Completely and thoroughly misses the size and refuses to guess beyond some carnac knowledge. Why? Because, and I quote, "It is not possible to estimate what IOR techniques or processes might be applied to a specific reservoir with detailed knowledge of that reservoir."

For those who are Peakers and do something else for a living, this means YOU.

So lets refer to an expert on individual fields, techniques and processes shall we?

Nansen G. Saleri, Manager, Reservoir Management, Saudi Aramco. "Technology Tomorrow", JPT, April 2006.

What does Mr Saleri think, him being both an insider and in a unique position to know alot more than Hirsch?

"A 10% INCREMENTAL recovery ( change in IOR ) translates to about 1.4 TRILLION barrels of recoverable resources, roughly an additional 50-year supply of global crude oil consumption at current rates."

Thank you Mr Saleri, now we know why Hirsch, when he estimates only 3 mbpd additional production from EOR ( a subset of IOR activities ), has so severely underestimated the mitigating size of IOR, something obvious to those of us who.....<say it again RGR!>....do this for a living.

And BooBoo #3 in the all encompassing Hirsch report? Lets go after the very concept of his Peak oil logic shall we? Not all the other manufactured ones throughout the years by others, but the specific Hirsch 2005 DOE report. I reference...subsection E, Paragraph 3, Page 12(?)referring to Figure ll-1.

After explaining ALL about how reserves REALLY aren't what they are, and are usually bigger, and how...<wait for it>...Subsection B, starting on Page 11, Paragraph 3...."Specialists who estimate reserves use a great deal of judgement". In other words...amateurs, again, need not apply, what does Mr Hirsch use as a fundemental piece of explaining Peak? Why...a reserve discovery graph of course. Except he doesn't "grow" the reserves to what they will be, he doesn't "grow" the past reserves to show their actual size at some future time ( easy enough for him to do in the US considering the age based USGS models provided free of charge to anyone who might want to play with them, available nearly a decade ago ) he presents a straight forward reserves graph without even reflecting the point he just made a page or two earlier that these reserve estimates aren't what they appear to be, and are actually quite larger through time, and any graph which shows new reserve numbers BY DEFINITION is showing the smallest number possible, if its even close to being a real time number. Sorry Mr Hirsch, might I recommend a few papers on reserve growth for reference for the NEXT time you write a report?
Hubberts from 1967 would be a good place to start for those just getting up to speed on the reserve growth size issue.

I would also give Mr Hirsch more credit than perhaps I have in the past, while reviewing his 2005 report I noticed it has alot less of the "energy crisis galore" tone that his 1987 paper did. He cages his language alot better and actually doesn't do the Doomer "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!" routine in this one, actually mentions how things can be mitigated, what potential exists for mitigation ( within the scope of what he is looking at and/or familiar with apparently ) and how the US can come out as top dog of the heap when the transition occurs and afterwards.

Definitely not a Doomer cheerleader some would have us beleive. But hardly a seminal work...looks like a standard DOE contract report to me, done fast, rehashs older work as much as possible, simple modeling and no data beyond what is readily available through government publications to begin with, no value added component really. I could point out half a dozen others spanning the last 30 years without effort. So...rather than referring to it as "silly", perhaps "inconsequential" would be a better descriptor?

[azreal60]

As you say it's not available on the internet, suggestions for an offline place to find the 1987 report so we might contrast the two? It's kinda hard to judge the quality of your analysis without having the reference you make mention too many times.

I guess I have an issue with anyone saying any report is 100 percent accurate. I don't use the hirsch report alot in my arguements, even though I'm told it's very effective, because I haven't read it yet. Somewhat due to lazyness, but also due to busyness. So, if I have a place to get the 1987 report, and someone wants to post a link to the 2005 report, I will happily plow thru both and give you my take and or try to either agree with or refute your arguments.

Couple of notes about your post. Did you mean to say Without detailed knowledge of the reservoir? Instead of with? Doesn't make much sense like you have it.

While I agree that going to a person who actually does it is a good idea normally, that assumes that person is under the freedom to actually tell the truth. If saying the truth was going to severely hurt his countries business, would a premire candiate of his countrys most important business lie? I would argue it's almost his duty to do so, as to do otherwise would be to severely injure his country. I have actually seen Mr saleri speak on cspan just a bit ago. He struck me as extremely opptimistic, almost cheerleader like. I listened and he really didn't seem to think there where any issues technology couldn't bring undercontrol. What bothered me about it is he offered no specifics of the tech in question, simply said technology will solve this. I would have been more comforted had he actually mentioned something that was going to do the mitigation he talked about.

I can't comment about the last point without further research, and the ethanol point I still think is more a ploy to get the farm vote than anything else. But I'm willing to listen otherwise if someone can provide some numbers that don't come from a cheerleader for the industry. No offense RGR, but alot of your quotes and numbers come from people who Have to be cheerful, if they don't, their companys stock goes down quite a bit at the first honest truth. It's easy to say doomers do this and that, but by ignoring the opposite end of the spectrum doing the same thing, then that's intellectually dishonest. Something I would like to avoid when debating such a serious topic as peak oil.

[NEOPO]

3 points are fine.

I suppose I will take on #2.

BooBoo #2

Prediction of enhanced recovery results. Subsection B, starting on pg 38. Says IOR is possible, has been going on for awhile, and builds it into his model.

Completely and thoroughly misses the size and refuses to guess beyond some carnac knowledge. Why? Because, and I quote, "It is not possible to estimate what IOR techniques or processes might be applied to a specific reservoir with detailed knowledge of that reservoir."

For those who are Peakers and do something else for a living, this means YOU.

So lets refer to an expert on individual fields, techniques and processes shall we?

Nansen G. Saleri, Manager, Reservoir Management, Saudi Aramco. "Technology Tomorrow", JPT, April 2006.

What does Mr Saleri think, him being both an insider and in a unique position to know alot more than Hirsch?

"A 10% INCREMENTAL recovery ( change in IOR ) translates to about 1.4 TRILLION barrels of recoverable resources, roughly an additional 50-year supply of global crude oil consumption at current rates."

Thank you Mr Saleri, now we know why Hirsch, when he estimates only 3 mbpd additional production from EOR ( a subset of IOR activities ), has so severely underestimated the mitigating size of IOR, something obvious to those of us who.....<say it again RGR!>....do this for a living.

You have made it pretty easy for me or anyone else actually by pinning your #2 point on one person.
Are you sure you would not wish to include some others who might be harder to discredit???

Mr. Saleri is being used by many to discredit not only Hirsch but Simmons as well.

It seems that you are missing something very substantial in your calculations.

In their own words they believe they can produce "10,12 and even 15 MBPD for the next 50 years" but they will not say how much of it is sour vs. sweet - heavy vs. light and why the hell not offer it up now so the world has a 5mbpd buffer instead of the thin wafer we currently skate about on.

No need to answer - its heavy sour and no one wants it because it is worth less and cost more to refine and you do not get the same amount of gasoline, lower density and on and on and ALL of these things point to peak.

If they have so much then why not allow outside confirmation?

The world might rejoice and the price go down thereby avoiding all these nasty alternatives which some people believe will be bad for future oil sales.

Now we know what they think they can do but what needs to be done??

By some estimates we will need an additional 40 mbpd by 2025.
Someone said we will need to find "8 saudi arabias" to meet demand but I believe that was also accounting for increasing depletion rates elsewhere which we wont even consider at this time.

100 bb 260 bb 410 bb hell lets say 900bb and we will use mark to market accounting to get loans for the company and our stock will shoot the moon and everyone will love us....until the truth comes out that is.
Then we can look back and make comparisons of Enron versus SA.

10% change in IOR = 1.4 trillion barrels - well then tell me why the U.S. and everyone else is not experiencing this through all this new applied technology?

10% of what?!?!!? 100bb/260bb/410bb or hell lets say 10% of the 900bb they say they "could" ultimately recover.

Someone probably wrote a paper saying that SA might have 900 BB so of course they must!!!

If I did not know any better I would think that all this technology could improve recovery above 100% yet that is not possible is it

It is new/old technology that leads to higher depletion rates and thats what we can expect from SA in the future.

I wonder how long Mr. Saleri would be employed if he did not say what his masters wish to hear.

After reading alot of this mans words I feel very comfortable labeling him a cornocopian if he actually believes what he is saying that is and if not then he is a very high paid liar.

You continue to believe SA and I will continue to believe that these bastards are liars for many more reasons then what can openly be discussed in this forum or perhaps even within the confines of the USA.

Some of us know how to read between the lines - when our prez said that we would lower our dependence of middle east oil by blah blah percentage by blah blah timeframe then he means we have no choice and I bet we have no choice because the oil will simply not be available.

I do not do my PO homework that much anymore as I am more into learning about sustainability and alternatives all the while trying to moniter the po situation and make my plans yet I do remember an ex-saudi oil chief stating quite the opposite as Mr Saleri.

If I found that article(s) would reading it just as easily sway you in the other direction?

While searching for the one I wanted I found this one in particular:
Doubts raised on Saudi vow for more oil

Wow... it seems that SA wants to up its reserves because a
"study" done by the overly optomistic USGS suggested they have more then they realize.

No squeeky new car smelling science/technology needed - just a study - much like the Hirsch report but probably with alot more agenda and alot less fact.

The more I think about it the more I wonder why I am spending my time explaining any of this to anyone and the more I wonder why people like yourself even bother - on a peakoil site no less.

Yeah someone explain that to me - unless these people are simply in denial it just does not make sense unless perhaps they are on the PAYROLL!!!

Good luck and good night.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', ' ')Hirsch says ethanol is not "cost competitive." That is his basic premise stated on page 44 of the study. That simple fact explains why he discounts it and refuses to include ethanol in his mitigation analysis. It is not a mitigation. It is a wastes of time and money.

[NEOPO]

He says it isn't cost competitive in an environment of $25/BBL. He also doesn't say it is a"waste" of anything, just that he is not including it. Except for the exceptions which he lists in the Appendix. The exceptions, as noted, have a size potential of 17% of total US gasoline supply. So while his model doesn't include it, he doesn't "discount it" by any means, and he even puts a price on it, $0.10/gal more than gasoline. Try and keep up PStarr, this isn't hard and we're all working from the same report.

How far can you drive on a bushel of corn?

As I have stated before - I would like to believe that these people are somewhat middle of the road if not a little biased toward the idea that we will keep driving indefinately.

1.56 gallon of ethanol = 1 gallon of gasoline equivilent thus to be comparable ethanol would have to cost 33+% less to even begin to = gasoline.
According to optomistic TPTB estimates Ethanol has an EROEI of 1.3 - 1.6 to 1.
There is a great difference between 30-1 , 20-1 , 10-1 and 1.6 to 1.
Its a new era and cheap oil is over.

We will be just fine - if we are wrong - if you and those you admire are wrong - we are fucked.

Wisen up or Go away please.

Now answer my fucking question and explain to me why you even bother with peakoil.com unless you are on someones fucking payroll!!!

Answer this or I personally will never respond to any of your shit again....... nuh nuh nuh!!!! buh bye