To be serious. I don't think you should question something that has been observed by geologists in the past. Why do you question the stuff that has been observed?
PeakOil is You
Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil
Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil
by Comp_Lex » Wed 31 Jan 2007, 16:10:01
Oil_rocks, do you work for CERA?
To be serious. I don't think you should question something that has been observed by geologists in the past. Why do you question the stuff that has been observed?
To be serious. I don't think you should question something that has been observed by geologists in the past. Why do you question the stuff that has been observed?
-
Comp_Lex - Peat
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Wed 02 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil
by clueless » Wed 31 Jan 2007, 16:19:50
Because conducting fruitless baseless arguements in an anonymous forum about a subject that scares him probably gives him s sense of power about a subject he is utterly powerless about.
Watching the good ole US of A and it's "Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet" attitude be relegated to a less than third world existence would make anybody from the "generation of entitlement" shake in their shoes.
I mean hey - Dr. Robert Hirsch who has over 30 years studying the energy business doesn't stand a chance against the likes of a reknowned expert like Oil_rocks right ???
As a matter of fact, the US will be much more chaotic because the whole nation has been built on having $1 per gallon gasoline. I am sure Oil_rocks background in computer programming (probably a non-degreed hacker) qualifes him to debate the experts.
Maybe another one of Oil_Rocks hobbies is urban planning and he's just not telling us.
Oil_Rocks - Care to elaborate ???
Watching the good ole US of A and it's "Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet" attitude be relegated to a less than third world existence would make anybody from the "generation of entitlement" shake in their shoes.
I mean hey - Dr. Robert Hirsch who has over 30 years studying the energy business doesn't stand a chance against the likes of a reknowned expert like Oil_rocks right ???
As a matter of fact, the US will be much more chaotic because the whole nation has been built on having $1 per gallon gasoline. I am sure Oil_rocks background in computer programming (probably a non-degreed hacker) qualifes him to debate the experts.
Maybe another one of Oil_Rocks hobbies is urban planning and he's just not telling us.
Oil_Rocks - Care to elaborate ???
Last edited by clueless on Wed 31 Jan 2007, 17:46:53, edited 1 time in total.
-
clueless - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Just the right place
Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil
by TonyPrep » Wed 31 Jan 2007, 16:56:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('oil_rocks', 'T')onyPrep, i'm not exactly sure what you are trying to argue with this post. I've re-read both my quotes several times and they are completely consistant yet you seem to be trying to say that i have changed position. let me try for a 3rd time to say the exact same thing i said two times before and maybe it will make sense to you:
I was merely pointing out that a single oil field has a finite amount of oil and once you tap it, the cost for extracting the oil does not change much as the oil gets pumped out. does that make sense? There may be a large cost in setting up all the drilling equipment, but once the oil starts pumping, then it continues to pump. i'm not sure why this concept is so hard to understand. and this concept is what the hubbert curve is based on, you just add in the fact that it works its way down to a trickle as it starts to run out. maybe i could draw a picture for you.
I didn't think it would be so difficult to understand. You have now changed your mind again. The point I was making was that you claimed that the first drop of oil from a field costs roughly the same as the last drop to be extracted. When called on this twice, you said that you never said this, claiming that this was what Hubbert believed. Now you are reverting back to your original position, that the last drop of oil, extracted from a field, costs roughly the same as the first drop from that field. I and others have pointed out that this is an incorrect assumption. However, if you can provide links to supporting data, then you can prove that you're right. Unfortunately, so far, you haven't provided any supporting data, that I've noticed. Since your assumptions, throughout this thread, appear to be counter to common wisdom here then I don't know how you can expect us to accept what you say without supporting data.I was merely pointing out that a single oil field has a finite amount of oil and once you tap it, the cost for extracting the oil does not change much as the oil gets pumped out. does that make sense? There may be a large cost in setting up all the drilling equipment, but once the oil starts pumping, then it continues to pump. i'm not sure why this concept is so hard to understand. and this concept is what the hubbert curve is based on, you just add in the fact that it works its way down to a trickle as it starts to run out. maybe i could draw a picture for you.
-
TonyPrep - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2842
- Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil
by oil_rocks » Wed 31 Jan 2007, 18:09:09
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', ' ')Unfortunately, so far, you haven't provided any supporting data, that I've noticed. Since your assumptions, throughout this thread, appear to be counter to common wisdom here then I don't know how you can expect us to accept what you say without supporting data.
ok, allow me to demonstraight the science behind my beliefs...
If you've ever seen the hubbert curve (which i'm sure most of you have) you might notice that it is basically a typical bell curve. Which is great, because of its simplicity. Its really a very simple concept and just shows how the oil extraction starts slow, builds up and then slows down again as the resource starts running out. I think we are on the same page so far.
now let me take it a step further. Because the hubbert curve is designed to show a very simple principle, it is safe to say that the curve itself does not take into account complex social issues like... i dunno, for example union labor strikes, terrorist attacks, nuclear war etc. Now keep in mind, I am not trying to say that it should take those into account, I am merely starting what to most people would be an obvious fact. I think most of us here would agree the curve itself does not take into account those things.
Going one step further... the curve is so simple and basic (which again is good) that it obviously does not show any upticks for new technology or upticks for discovering any new deposits. its just a curve. I may have lost a few of you with that comment, but i think most people who look at the curve and understand it would agree that the curve itself is not meant to refect those variable. once again, its just a simple curve.
Now we get to the fun part... So if i was to chart the world's depleting oil supply and start with the hubbert curve, but then factor in a few things like possibly discovering new deposits and new technologies, conservation, higher prices etc I would end up with a curve that would be similar to the hubbert curve but not identical. it might be a little flatter as man's efforts to counter the depletion would certainly have some effect on it. even if its very small. once again i think a lot of people would agree that the actual curve would not be a, exact duplication of the hubbert curve. So if the hubbert curve is "A" and the actual curve is "B" then it would be safe to say the A <> B (A is not equal to B). -- that is the science part.
Now when i see people come up with the graph that they think will be the "actual" depletion of the world's oil supplies and it is an exact replica of the hubbert curve, then i have to say, "Wait a second, something does not at up." This new "actual" graph "C" is supposed to be the real "actual" Graph "B". therefore we know B=C. So if B=C and A <>B then therefore A could not possible be = to C, but this person is claiming it is. -- that's more science.
So my only point is that after you factor in all the variable, you still end up with a hubbert type curve, but it will be stretched out much further. And if modern science tells us we have 50 years worth of oil left with current known and tapped deposits, that after you factor in things like unknown deposits, untapped deposits, new technologies, conservation, then the final graph should, by definition be > 50 years. so when people say, "no even after adding those variable in, we are still at 50 years, or somehow even less than 50 years, i have to say, "wait a second. something doesn't add up".
-
oil_rocks - Peat
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Fri 26 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil
by clueless » Wed 31 Jan 2007, 18:14:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')o my only point is that after you factor in all the variable,
If there are variables how would you factor anything in ? The only way one can make any reasonable prediction is to look at established trends.
Would you please answer the question ? This getting really boring.
-
clueless - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: Tue 13 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Just the right place
Re: Sorry, No such thing as Peak Oil
by Comp_Lex » Wed 31 Jan 2007, 18:26:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ecause the hubbert curve is designed to show a very simple principle, it is safe to say that the curve itself does not take into account complex social issues like... i dunno...
Do "complex social issues" change the URR?
-
Comp_Lex - Peat
- Posts: 116
- Joined: Wed 02 Nov 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: The Netherlands
