[Ludi]

I'll believe in that oil when it is on the market. Until then, it is just a speculation.

[Oil-Finder]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')ily, your article is from the North Dakota state web site. You don't imagine that the state might have a vested interest in attracting speculative investment?

[Oil-Finder]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')o high prices trump thermodynamics huh? You sound like an economist. But you call yourself an oil professional?
So are you in the oil business. Exploration? Development?

[Oil-Finder]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I')'ll believe in that oil when it is on the market. Until then, it is just a speculation.

[Oil-Finder]

As I've shown in many links, the oil from the Bakken is not "gunk," it is high quality, light sweet crude. You do not need to tell me about EROEI, I know all about it. What if the EROEI of the Bakken is as high as the stuff in Alaska? Or Texas? I have an idea for another thread on EROEI, which I intend to start in the near future.

[TheDude]

What matters most is flow rates. There could be trillions of barrels in the Bakken but if you can only extract 100kbs/day it ain't gonna matter much. Like you said there's only one way to find out, by drilling. Trying to find some more data on this. Came across this hilarious remark at TOD:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t seems we are trying to knit a parachute while skydiving.
Theoretically, it can be done. In skydiving there is a saying, "If you are going to be stupid, you better be tough."

[Oil-Finder]

@TheDude-I already mentioned the Elm Coulee field above. It's not even in the best spot of the Bakken, which is in North Dakota (focused on the area around Williston).

In the Saskatchewan thread I already made a rough calculation that ND and MT are already drilling ~200K bpd from the Bakken. Plus, there is a ton of recent investment and activity there which is *just* starting up, so production rates will certainly go up. This is all in its infancy.

[FireJack]

I think Richard Heinberg said it best, even if some super giant oil field was found in the US it would solve the least of our problems. The oceans are dying, the world is being deforested at a stupendous rate, and 99% of the world population is hell bent on consuming more and more and more. More fucking oil, electric cars, solar panels, and super batteries are not going to solve the real problems we are going to be facing in the future.
All your posts tell me one thing oil-finder, your interested in the easy non-negotiable american way of life, but its over. All the oil in the world ain't going to save it.

[Mechler]

Hey, that's cool. Let's keep this party going as long as we can. I'm not ready to get off the merry-go-round yet anyway. But, like everyone else, I'll believe it when I see it.

As you can see, Oil-Finder, a lot of people here don't want there to be a solution to PO because our current way of life is so wasteful and destructive. The prevalent attitude is probably "The sooner it ends, the better". Can't say that I can blame them.

It would be great if we find more oil here and use it to power down in an orderly fashion. Unfortunately, we'll use every last drop driving over the edge of the cliff. Sorry for going off topic.

[Oil-Finder]

FireJack, your response only confirms what I've already observed and noted on another thread here: Many - if not most - peak oil theorists advocate the theory not because they think we might be factually running out of oil, but because they actually want us to run out of oil! This is why so many peak oil theorists get all upset when I tell them about 300 barrels of oil in the Bakken, or 70 billion barrels offshore Brazil, or 60 billion barrels around the Falklands . . . it worries them that there *really is* a lot of oil left, and that we might actually use it. So then they go into denial and come up with all kinds of excuses why we might not be able to extract much of it, why its too expensive, or some other reason.

This is dishonest: You're advocating a theory because you believe it will be a means to another end, not because you actually believe in the theory itself. I have no problem with people who come right out and say they don't want us to use more oil, no matter how much is left. At least they're honest! I do however, have a problem with people who use peak oil theory as a guise for another belief. I actually know a guy on another forum who's religious and subscribes to peak oil theory because he believes it will usher in the Apocalypse and the Second Coming!

[Valdemar]

What's wrong with the theory? You seem to totally misunderstand the basic premise of peak oil, which makes me question your claim to have been reading this site for years (were you reading just thread titles?). And hey, if you're going to point out "But Valdemar, Peak Oil is when we've used HALF our global oil reserves!" I'm just going to laugh at such semantics whoring. Kind've like pointing out the plane is crashing because the engines have failed, not because the wings have fallen off. That's super fantastico.

Reservese do not matter. Production does. This has already been stated repeatedly. You can show me the Bakken field's 100 TRILLION barrel reserves for all I care. It doesn't mean anything if it cannot be brought to sale in anything resembling miraculously quick. That means a couple of years in the current situation.

So bully for Brazil and North Dakota. I'm sure the knowledge that they're sitting on a few hundred billion bucks worth of dino-juice is a great comfort as their economies crash and burn thanks to energy bottlenecks. The limiting factor is the weakest link is the biggest problem.

So, show me how we can get flow rates on the order of at least several million barrels a day within this decade, or accept that you've done nothing but try and psychoanalyse a bunch of people you don't even know on a site you clearly don't understand.

[Oil-Finder]

@Valdemar, Are you telling me that they can "never" produce a sufficient rate of oil out of the Bakken? Or from Brazil? How do you know this? "Within this decade" would mean within two years, since it's almost 2008. Ummm . . . first of all, OPEC is not going to run out of oil within the next two years. Second, read The Oil Drum's megaprojects page. Heck, even they now acknowledge these new megaprojects will add more capacity over the next couple years than even Petroleum Review claimed:

Third, you've got other developments such as Iraqi oil production reaching pre-war levels. In the medium term there is plenty of additional supply coming online to bide time before places like Brazil and the Bakken can significantly ramp up production.

[Valdemar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '@')Valdemar, Are you telling me that they can "never" produce a sufficient rate of oil out of the Bakken? Or from Brazil? How do you know this?

[Oil-Finder]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', 'C')an't prove a negative and I never stated anything of the sort. I want you to give me evidence that they can and soon.

[Valdemar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', 'I') never said they (Brazil and Bakken) could ramp up production "soon" so you're asking me to prove something I never claimed. I said, "In the medium term there is plenty of additional supply coming online to bide time before places like Brazil and the Bakken can significantly ramp up production," the implication being, of course, that it will take longer for Brazil and the Bakken to ramp up production.

[Oil-Finder]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Valdemar', 'L')onger being? I know what you said, which is why I asked for verification of your claims.

[TheDude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Oil-Finder', '@')Valdemar, Are you telling me that they can "never" produce a sufficient rate of oil out of the Bakken? Or from Brazil? How do you know this? "Within this decade" would mean within two years, since it's almost 2008. Ummm . . . first of all, OPEC is not going to run out of oil within the next two years. Second, read The Oil Drum's megaprojects page. Heck, even they now acknowledge these new megaprojects will add more capacity over the next couple years than even Petroleum Review claimed

[FireJack]

Was just trying to point out that even if we see enormous production gains it won't matter, it would inevitably speed up resource depletion. A continuous drop in oil production would probably make it worse as we would be burning more coal and many environmental controls would be dropped in order to keep the economy going. Its lose lose either way really.

Resource depletion isn't some sort of belief that I need a guise for. I guess if you consider it some sort of belief that will never be a problem then thats fine, it doesn't really matter at this point. Rather than arguing with people like you I wish people would just ignore you.

Yes okay were going to produce lots of oil for everyone and everything is going to be all right. Were all deluded that oil production is going to drop soon and that were depleting resources unsustainably and bad things are going to happen while in reality the economy's going to keep growing and everyone will be fine. There can you stop posting here now, can people stop arguing with him.