by TonyPrep » Mon 21 Dec 2009, 04:18:00
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'T')he supply of produced gas in America has fully recovered to the peak of over 30 years ago
Nope. Not the supply. For example, if gas is flared off, that doesn't get added to supply. If cleaning removes some of the gas, that removed gas doesn't get added to the supply. If some of the gas is returned to the production process, in order to produce more, then that operationally used gas doesn't become part of the supply. So, no, I meant what I meant. To put it in the way you did would be a lie and I'm not prone to such lies.
Supply has also trended down since March, so that previous peak may never be exceeded.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'A')mazing what differing conclusions can be drawn from the same graphs.
Indeed it is. A graph that shows actual supply not recovering to the previous peak can be interpreted by some as the actual supply having recovered to the previous peak. That is truly amazing.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'N')et energy is, as mentioned previously, a criteria ignored by those doing the actual production of natural gas in America.
I didn't say it wasn't. I was talking about the supply of gas to the end user.
by shortonsense » Mon 21 Dec 2009, 10:08:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'T')he supply of produced gas in America has fully recovered to the peak of over 30 years ago
Nope. Not the supply. For example, if gas is flared off, that doesn't get added to supply.
Sure its part of supply....its part of the flared supply. Its part of the lineless supplied, its part of the compression supply. Limiting your definition of supply to "only gas delivered to an industrial or residential burner tip" is not the total supply.
And I'm not sure it matters....one number is higher than the last peak, one slightly lower. Good enough for hobbyist work, lets not forget Tony, NEITHER of those graphs are possible according to peak theory.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'N')et energy is, as mentioned previously, a criteria ignored by those doing the actual production of natural gas in America.
I didn't say it wasn't. I was talking about the supply of gas to the end user.
by mcgowanjm » Mon 21 Dec 2009, 12:25:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')Sure its part of supply....its part of the flared supply. Its part of the lineless supplied, its part of the compression supply. Limiting your definition of supply to "only gas delivered to an industrial or residential burner tip" is not the total supply.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '
')And I'm not sure it matters....one number is higher than the last peak, one slightly lower. Good enough for hobbyist work, lets not forget Tony, NEITHER of those graphs are possible according to peak theory.
The total supply is irrelevant to drillers. They want their
fixed costs back in three years. And that depends on the price
of the day. Below $6.75, not doable. See EROEI for details.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'N')et energy is, as mentioned previously, a criteria ignored by those doing the actual production of natural gas in America.
I didn't say it wasn't. I was talking about the supply of gas to the end user.
by shortonsense » Mon 21 Dec 2009, 15:07:23
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mcgowanjm', '
')The total supply is irrelevant to drillers. They want their
fixed costs back in three years.
Please reference your appropriate industry experience which allows you to make this statement.
Prudhoe Bays discovery well was in 1968. The field first produced in 1978.
Could you please explain, in light of your statement, why they decided to EVER produce a field which certainly, under NO circumstances, meets your 3 year criteria. Could it be because...no such criteria exists?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mcgowanjm', '
')And yes, you're right here. Americans don't care about EROEI,
but wonder why they have no health insurance and their
mortgage is doubling next month.
Good thing mortgages and health insurance are not the topic of the thread.
by shortonsense » Mon 21 Dec 2009, 15:21:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'P')eaking natural resources display similar production curves, whether it be phosphate, natural gas, liquid petroleum, etc. a consequence of similar dynamics.
Please defend this statement in light of production rates of oil and natural gas in the United States. One peaked, and declined. One peaked, and declined....and began a multi decade rate increase to peak yet again.
I am assuming that when you say "similar", you mean something within the realm of our current reality of course.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '
')The low-hanging fruit has been picked. The rest might as well rot on the ground or burn up the pretty sky.
The rest? Prudhoe Bay has never been low hanging fruit, and it has certainly been picked. The Orinoco heavy oil is low hanging fruit, and for its size, has not been picked at all. Are there any other incorrect generalizations I can help you clear up?
by shortonsense » Mon 21 Dec 2009, 20:24:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'N')EITHER of those graphs are possible according to peak theory.
That's your belief, and an odd one at that. I've never thought that extraction of finite resources would exactly fit a smooth idealised curve, and I doubt even Hubbert thought that.
Are you aware of any of Hubberts work where he envisioned, wrote about, commented on or derived an equation for a bimodal distribution to describe the production rate of any finite resource? I certainly am not familiar with any such work and would be grateful if you could provide such a reference, it would perhaps solve some of the issues presented in my "Shorts Argument Thread" as well.
by shortonsense » Tue 22 Dec 2009, 00:06:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'N')EITHER of those graphs are possible according to peak theory.
I don't know what you think "peak theory" is but your comment is utterly pointless as I doubt anyone here assumes a smooth curve up or down.
I was trying to be specific. Do you have any pertinent references from Hubbert suggesting that he thought a multi peak profile was appropriate for any resource, anywhere, at any time?
I have no doubt that any given profile isn't guarenteed to be "smooth" however you might define that, but the natural gas production profile in the US has nothing to do with smooth, or not smooth, but multi peaked.
And as I have explained in the argument thread, it is critically important to the topic, versus "utterly pointless". But we can talk about that in the appropriate thread if you wish.
Here the topic is the 100 years of natural gas we have in America. How's New Zealand? You guys have a decent 100 year supply socked away like we do?
by shortonsense » Tue 22 Dec 2009, 10:03:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', 'I') have no doubt that any given profile isn't guarenteed to be "smooth" however you might define that, but the natural gas production profile in the US has nothing to do with smooth, or not smooth, but multi peaked.
Any data that represents real world extraction will have multiple peaks.
Let alone Hubbert never saying this, do you have any reference where anyone else has claimed that a multi modal profile is the expected result of production of a finite resource?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '
')I'm not denying that US natural dry gas production got close to its 1970's peak, in March this year and exhibited a long upward trend to get there, but I doubt that any "peak theory" would prohibit multiple peaks, hence my comment that your comment was completely pointless. It was no doubt made to be mocking of others.
Then you misunderstand my intent. I simply want to know where the originator of the theory said anything remotely resembling what you are claiming in his stead.
Hubbert said natural gas production in the US would peak back in the 70's. It did. Hubbert did not say that the production decline would be reversed a decade later to achieve, or nearly achieve, a peak of the same size as the original nearly 40 years after the first one. It strikes me that this claim would literally stand the peak oil theory on its head by doing away with the very relevance of any peak, at any time, being meaningful.
If multi modal peaks are expected, as you appear to be claiming, then peak conventional in 2005 or peak all liquids in 2008 is completely irrelevant, we can just wait around another decade, or two, or three, or four, until the next one arrives, and continue happily on our way to ever higher production rates.
