Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

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

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby eastbay » Tue 25 Aug 2009, 23:30:29

For those of you interested in this article and in exploring the ideas it contains, theoildrum has many dozens of well thought out counter arguments all of which taken together completely rebut this nonsense very thoroughly.

A formal theoildrum rebuttal is pending.
Got Dharma?

Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
User avatar
eastbay
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sat 18 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: One Mile From the Columbia River
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 25 Aug 2009, 23:42:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')1) The discovery trend claim is bogus because it does not include revisions over time of field size estimates.
2) Modern technology is not accelerating field declines through "super straw" technology and whatnot.
3) There is quite a bit more recoverable oil than the 2 triliion barrels claimed by peakers.


I'll just do a quick rebuttal here:


1. The discovery trend is very real. Giant fields are increasingly hard to find. Fewer large fields are discovered each decade. The data is very clear.

The revisions to field size are a red herring because the revisions typically do not substantially change the original discovery estimate. When they do, they often involve separate reservoir formations that technically are actually separate discoveries. For instance, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield here in Alaska has produced far more oil then was orginally cited at "discovery" but this is coming from new reservoir targets in the same stratigraphic pile.


2. Accelerating rates of field decline are occuring at Cantarell due to the modern gas injection technology used to drive production at the field. Its incontrovertible. The IEA has shown this is widespread phenomena, and its a reasonable assumption that similar rapid decines will occur at Ghawar when production peaks there.

3. Yes, of course there is more "oil" then the two trillion barrel estimate usually cited, but much of this is in tar sands and similar deposits that aren't conventional oil fields. The peak oil model doesn't deny that there are huge untapped aliquots of oil....it simply holds that the expense of recovering the oil from these unconventional sources will limit their exploitation to the point that they won't reverse the decline from peak production levels.
:)
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby shortonsense » Tue 25 Aug 2009, 23:43:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'F')or those of you interested in this article and in exploring the ideas it contains, theoildrum has many dozens of well thought out counter arguments all of which taken together completely rebut this nonsense very thoroughly.

A formal theoildrum rebuttal is pending.


Excellent.

And so the only people capable of handling rebuttal of common anti-peaker arguments are the experts at TOD? What is this place, chopped steak?
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 25 Aug 2009, 23:49:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'F')or those of you interested in this article and in exploring the ideas it contains, theoildrum has many dozens of well thought out counter arguments all of which taken together completely rebut this nonsense very thoroughly.

A formal theoildrum rebuttal is pending.


Excellent.

And so the only people capable of handling rebuttal of common anti-peaker arguments are the experts at TOD? What is this place, chopped steak?


I rebutted the 3 points in a post on this very page of the thread. I suggest you actually take a minute and read the posts here before you start flaming this site.
:roll:
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby eastbay » Wed 26 Aug 2009, 00:02:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')1) The discovery trend claim is bogus because it does not include revisions over time of field size estimates.
2) Modern technology is not accelerating field declines through "super straw" technology and whatnot.
3) There is quite a bit more recoverable oil than the 2 triliion barrels claimed by peakers.


I'll just do a quick rebuttal here:


1. The discovery trend is very real. Giant fields are increasingly hard to find. Fewer large fields are discovered each decade. The data is very clear.

The revisions to field size are a red herring because the revisions typically do not substantially change the original discovery estimate. When they do, they often involve separate reservoir formations that technically are actually separate discoveries. For instance, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield here in Alaska has produced far more oil then was orginally cited at "discovery" but this is coming from new reservoir targets in the same stratigraphic pile.


2. Accelerating rates of field decline are occuring at Cantarell due to the modern gas injection technology used to drive production at the field. Its incontrovertible. The IEA has shown this is widespread phenomena, and its a reasonable assumption that similar rapid decines will occur at Ghawar when production peaks there.

3. Yes, of course there is more "oil" then the two trillion barrel estimate usually cited, but much of this is in tar sands and similar deposits that aren't conventional oil fields. The peak oil model doesn't deny that there are huge untapped aliquots of oil....it simply holds that the expense of recovering the oil from these unconventional sources will limit their exploitation to the point that they won't reverse the decline from peak production levels.
:)



Excellent. That's what I'm talking about! Taking that cornie trash out in one shovelful. :)
Got Dharma?

Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
User avatar
eastbay
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7186
Joined: Sat 18 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: One Mile From the Columbia River
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby shortonsense » Wed 26 Aug 2009, 00:14:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')1) The discovery trend claim is bogus because it does not include revisions over time of field size estimates.
2) Modern technology is not accelerating field declines through "super straw" technology and whatnot.
3) There is quite a bit more recoverable oil than the 2 triliion barrels claimed by peakers.


I'll just do a quick rebuttal here:


Excellent.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')
1. The discovery trend is very real. Giant fields are increasingly hard to find. Fewer large fields are discovered each decade. The data is very clear.


Is it? Could you please reference any particular discovery graph which includes ALL recoverable oil discovered through time please? In particular, I am interested in how the Athabasca and Orinoco show up on such a graph, normally they are excluded, and you must admit, it is a bit suspicious.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')The revisions to field size are a red herring because the revisions typically do not substantially change the original discovery estimate. When they do, they often involve separate reservoir formations that technically are actually separate discoveries. For instance, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield here in Alaska has produced far more oil then was orginally cited at "discovery" but this is coming from new reservoir targets in the same stratigraphic pile.


That begs the question, did the opening of Prudhoe allow these other areas to develop? It often requires a white elephant to bring in all the hunters, and once the white elephant goes down, you've got all these hunters standing around, they might as well DO something, so they start collecting the smaller elephants and the birds and the deer...etc etc. It can be argued that the white elephant is the trigger for the rest, which makes it perfectly acceptable for the first 10 billion of Prudhoe to open up the smaller fields to development, just like having the pipelines there in north Alaska opens up the Prudhoe gas cap, as well as the coal bed methane and hydrate potential of that area.

And how do you explain this? Page 9, Figure 2A, Midway Sunset line

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b2172-h/b2172h508.pdf

Midway Sunset gets from 1 billion to 3.5 billion barrels of oil.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Planetagenet', '
')2. Accelerating rates of field decline are occuring at Cantarell due to the modern gas injection technology used to drive production at the field. Its incontrovertible. The IEA has shown this is widespread phenomena, and its a reasonable assumption that similar rapid decines will occur at Ghawar when production peaks there.


Ghawar is a bad example, according to JD its supposed to be empty, which means that its volumes were honestly adjusted upwards, and this was an accurate adjustment, not just an acceleration of its earlier estimate.

Cantarell though, that is interesting. Do you have any particular reference to its recoverable oil early in its life, versus later in its life to show that the estimates substantially stayed the same?

Certainly you can't make the statement that modern technology just pulled it out of the ground faster without 2 such estimates, from their respective time frames.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Planetagenet', '
')3. Yes, of course there is more "oil" then the two trillion barrel estimate usually cited, but much of this is in tar sands and similar deposits that aren't conventional oil fields. The peak oil model doesn't deny that there are huge untapped aliquots of oil....it simply holds that the expense of recovering the oil from these unconventional sources will limit their exploitation to the point that they won't reverse the decline from peak production levels.
:)

Lynch's point was that peakers limit their recoverable oil numbers to 2 trillion barrels. You have essentially allowed those volumes in, which means you are verifying his point, only using an argument about rate or expense to justify it. So can I take this one as a gimme to Lynch then?
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby shortonsense » Wed 26 Aug 2009, 00:16:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')I rebutted the 3 points in a post on this very page of the thread. I suggest you actually take a minute and read the posts here before you start flaming this site.
:roll:


I flamed nothing. I wondered why actual rebuttal would only be left to TOD.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 26 Aug 2009, 02:44:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Planetagenet', '
')3. Yes, of course there is more "oil" then the two trillion barrel estimate usually cited, but much of this is in tar sands and similar deposits that aren't conventional oil fields. The peak oil model doesn't deny that there are huge untapped aliquots of oil....it simply holds that the expense of recovering the oil from these unconventional sources will limit their exploitation to the point that they won't reverse the decline from peak production levels.
:)


Lynch's point was that peakers limit their recoverable oil numbers to 2 trillion barrels. You have essentially allowed those volumes in, which means you are verifying his point, only using an argument about rate or expense to justify it. So can I take this one as a gimme to Lynch then?


Lynch (and you) don't seem to know what the word "recoverable" means. Lets assume the ca. 2 trillion barrels estimate is right just for the sake of discussion......since only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the oil in a reservoir is actually recoverable, that means there were more ca. 4 trillion barrels of oil originally in the ground in known fields, but only ca. 2 trillion will be recovered.

Do you get it now? Of course there are more then 2 trillion barrels of oil in the ground, even without considering unconventional oil like the tar sands, but that oil can't be recovered.

The peak oil model isn't about the total amount of oil on earth....its about the recoverable amounts of oil.

If you want to imagine that new technologies will be developed and reservoirs will be "reworked" to recover 100% of the oil, or that immense projects will mine oil from the tar sands in Canada and elsewhere at rates sufficient to replace all the sweet oil being pumped now, you are welcome to that belief. I certainly hope it will happen. But I don't see any sign of new technologies that will do it.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby shortonsense » Wed 26 Aug 2009, 09:20:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')Lynch (and you) don't seem to know what the word "recoverable" means. Lets assume the ca. 2 trillion barrels estimate is right just for the sake of discussion......since only about 1/3 to 1/2 of the oil in a reservoir is actually recoverable, that means there were more ca. 4 trillion barrels of oil originally in the ground in known fields, but only ca. 2 trillion will be recovered.

Do you get it now? Of course there are more then 2 trillion barrels of oil in the ground, even without considering unconventional oil like the tar sands, but that oil can't be recovered.


The oil in Canada is being recovered as we speak, and while I agree with you that it might take awhile, those hundreds of billions of barrels, once produced and added to cumulative production, push global recoverable volumes right on through the 2 trillion bbl mark, and have been most certainly "recovered". And Saleri certainly has the experience and credentials to know what "recoverable" is, and his numbers far exceed 2 trillion as well.

Do you disagree with these concepts at the practical level or theoretical one, because either of them seems to verify Lynchs point.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Planetagenet', '
')The peak oil model isn't about the total amount of oil on earth....its about the recoverable amounts of oil.


Sure...and all information seems to indicate that Lynch is correct in his statement #3.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Planetagenet', '
')If you want to imagine that new technologies will be developed and reservoirs will be "reworked" to recover 100% of the oil, or that immense projects will mine oil from the tar sands in Canada and elsewhere at rates sufficient to replace all the sweet oil being pumped now, you are welcome to that belief. I certainly hope it will happen. But I don't see any sign of new technologies that will do it.


I would say that the 1 million / day + already rolling out of Canada would be proof enough that it is happening, and obviously JD's accounting for Ghawar volumes is another example of the same.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 26 Aug 2009, 13:18:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')I would say that the 1 million / day + already rolling out of Canada would be proof enough that it is happening


Of course its happening. But you don't seem to understand what it means.

The fact that people are desperate enough to mine tar sands is clear proof that the cheap and easy oil is gone.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby mcgowanjm » Wed 26 Aug 2009, 13:44:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('eastbay', 'F')or those of you interested in this article and in exploring the ideas it contains, theoildrum has many dozens of well thought out counter arguments all of which taken together completely rebut this nonsense very thoroughly.

A formal theoildrum rebuttal is pending.


Excellent.

And so the only people capable of handling rebuttal of common anti-peaker arguments are the experts at TOD? What is this place, chopped steak?


This place: :mrgreen:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')
And given the fact that a bunch of "speculators" took an absolute beating when the market turned last summer, you'd think that speculation would be a little cool right now.

Hey OF2 - speculated up to 71 today.

I wish you were my neighbor.

In about 10 years you'd be driving your donkey cart past my place and I'd yell, "oil's at 790 Dan," and you'd yell back to me, plowing my fields with draft horses, "it's all speculation."



-DantesPeak
mcgowanjm
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2455
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby shortonsense » Wed 26 Aug 2009, 14:18:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')I would say that the 1 million / day + already rolling out of Canada would be proof enough that it is happening


Of course its happening. But you don't seem to understand what it means.


We aren't discussing what I believe, we are discussing the factual basis for the words written by Lynch. So far, all of his statements appear to have a basis in facts that even someone like an average amateur can find, which means his article isn't just the ramblings of another ignorant cornocopian.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby shortonsense » Wed 26 Aug 2009, 20:01:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')
Lynch does seem to be ignorant of some basic facts. For instance he wrote:

Rising water contents and lower oil contents in an oil field like Ghawar are a sign that water injection is causing the water-oil interface to rise to the point that some production wells are now drawing from below the interface. It is a cause for concern. If the trend continues and water yields continue to increase at Ghawar then oil production will drop, i.e. Ghawar will have peaked.


So....when water cut peaked in 1999, Ghawar peaked as well, and we've all just missed it for the past decade?

http://www.searchanddiscovery.net/docum ... ges/17.htm
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby Serial_Worrier » Wed 26 Aug 2009, 20:08:10

Typical cornucopians. They cite how successful the Alberta Tar Sands are in terms of daily production, but fail to cite the unique environmental devastation caused. Bottom line is, out of sight, out of mind. Who cares if we kill a few million caribou and birds? All that matters is soccer mom's SUV is gassed up and ready for a night on the town! :cry:
User avatar
Serial_Worrier
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1549
Joined: Thu 05 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby JJ » Wed 26 Aug 2009, 20:26:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JJ', 'T')aking on the world's toughest energy challenges."

I like the New York Times for many reasons. However, on the subject of peak oil it is blinded by loyalty to one of its principal advertisers.


Could you please reference the email, letter, or evidence that an advertiser of the NYT contacted said NYT and demanded that a long time proponent of non peak oil consequences be forced to write an Op-Ed for them, as a condition of their advertising dollars continuing to go to the paper?

Just any proof beyond random speculation on your part will suffice. A link to an email perhaps, letter, canceled check with "Get Lynch To Write Or Else" made out to the NYT or any of its editors, something along those lines would be fine.


SOS, that snip was taken from the letters following the oil drum rebutal. Those were not my words. So if that is *random speculation*, it is random speculation on someones part, but not mine.
User avatar
JJ
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Tue 07 Aug 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 26 Aug 2009, 20:36:39

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '.')...when water cut peaked in 1999....



Your assertion that the water cut "peaked" at Ghawar in 1999 is complete BS. You assume the water cut is lower today then it was then, but your link is to a few years worth of production data ending in 2003. Its old data from a five-year- old AAPG presentation. It doesn't show what you think it shows.

link to all the old Ghawar data from AAPG presentation

Check out your calender....its 2009 now. At ca. 5 million barrels per day, Ghawar has produced more then 15 billion barrels of oil since 1999 when you claim that the water cut peaked.

15 billion barrels of oil is a lot of oil to take out of a reservoir....Theres a good chance some things have changed at Ghawar since 1999. One of the most likely things is that the amount of water being produced with oil has increased as the secondary recovery process continues year after year.
:roll:
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26765
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby shortonsense » Wed 26 Aug 2009, 20:42:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Serial_Worrier', 'T')ypical cornucopians. They cite how successful the Alberta Tar Sands are in terms of daily production, but fail to cite the unique environmental devastation caused. Bottom line is, out of sight, out of mind. Who cares if we kill a few million caribou and birds? All that matters is soccer mom's SUV is gassed up and ready for a night on the town! :cry:


Objections to the ascent of man through the use of fossil fuels has been common for many decades now. At the end of the day, energy use tends to trump the seals and caribou and humpback chub and whatever other little critter might get wiped out by man, its just the way we DO things. No connotation of good or bad in this statement, just a recognition of reality.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: News Flash! Peak Oil has been canceled!

Unread postby shortonsense » Wed 26 Aug 2009, 20:44:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JJ', '
')SOS, that snip was taken from the letters following the oil drum rebutal. Those were not my words. So if that is *random speculation*, it is random speculation on someones part, but not mine.


Thanks for the clarification. I made it through no more than a few of the comments and noticed that most were simply attacking the message rather than refuting the points, I didn't see the "advertising $$ means there must be a conspiracy!" angle in my scanning.
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests



cron