$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('hornofhubris', 'T')he graph clearly shows the dramatic rise in other liquids. Does
this include ethanol? With 25% of US corn crop fermented and
distilled into ethanol to burn in motor vehicles I am unconvinced.
If this is the case let's have the discussion on petroleum using
only petroleum fuels and not add in biofuels or coal to liquids
to hide the fundamental baseline of petroleum only production.
PeakOil is You
Near-Term Peak an Illusion?
Re: Near-Term Peak an Illusion?
by mkwin » Sun 13 Apr 2008, 19:20:52
The bottom figure is conventional crude oil only and hit a new high of 74.47 million. It seems this is driving the new recent highs in production and, as I displayed in my previous post, lots of the new supply capacity will deliver conventional oil.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e are still very much in a period where temporary manipulations
of unsustainable factors can move the graph line around such
as to prevent a clear enough set of data to interpret.
I would not call new supply a temporary manipulation. As FreddyH pointed out, 5 out of the last 6 data points have shown a new all-time high in production. The current decline rate appears to be about 3 million barrels per day per year. Adding 15 million barrels per day of new capacity over the next two years when it will only take 6 million barrels to replace declines in existing fields is not a temporary manipulation. Realistically, there will be delays and it takes some time before a new field reaches peak flow but the amount of oil scheduled to come online is pretty staggering.
-
mkwin - Tar Sands
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Fri 01 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Re: Near-Term Peak an Illusion?
by alokin » Mon 14 Apr 2008, 00:08:15
The Hubbert's peak is a model and like every model it cannot predict the future. this post is great! We all ask us this question over and over and we know that we never ever can answer it.
Yesterday I had a discussion with a German guy and he stated that peak oil won't exist at least not in near term because as oil is getting more expensive people simply will drive less, buy less and save more.
There is something to be said for it, as more than half the car trips are not necessary - you could live close to your work, walk your kids to school, go to the holidays in the mountains nearby. Same with the stuff you have at home: you don't need a mobile phone a plasma screen and an electric knife. Nobody would really suffer not having all this things, unless the people loosing their jobs.
If the US and Europe would use, say, 30% less crude the Chinese and Indians still would have a lot of economic growth, however they would not be able to sell so much nonsense.
I think we should consider the different sorts of all liquids separated. As for biofuels I cannot imagine that this goes on as it destabilize the world too much. And you may not be able to fill your tank with their food.
As for the tar sands first the oil price must be over ??? (Iread $40 but is this true?) to make this economically viable. Second aren't they run out of water??
Are the tar sands the thin line over the conventional crude or is it the thick under other liquids?
Another thought: maybe "they" want another Great Depression. It would bring the oil demand down while the prices may still be up and "they" will always find ways to stay rich while you suffer.
Yesterday I had a discussion with a German guy and he stated that peak oil won't exist at least not in near term because as oil is getting more expensive people simply will drive less, buy less and save more.
There is something to be said for it, as more than half the car trips are not necessary - you could live close to your work, walk your kids to school, go to the holidays in the mountains nearby. Same with the stuff you have at home: you don't need a mobile phone a plasma screen and an electric knife. Nobody would really suffer not having all this things, unless the people loosing their jobs.
If the US and Europe would use, say, 30% less crude the Chinese and Indians still would have a lot of economic growth, however they would not be able to sell so much nonsense.
I think we should consider the different sorts of all liquids separated. As for biofuels I cannot imagine that this goes on as it destabilize the world too much. And you may not be able to fill your tank with their food.
As for the tar sands first the oil price must be over ??? (Iread $40 but is this true?) to make this economically viable. Second aren't they run out of water??
Are the tar sands the thin line over the conventional crude or is it the thick under other liquids?
Another thought: maybe "they" want another Great Depression. It would bring the oil demand down while the prices may still be up and "they" will always find ways to stay rich while you suffer.
-
alokin - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1255
- Joined: Fri 24 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
22 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests