Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on June 13, 2015
Peak Oilists are the new Flat Earthers
Apparently it is necessary to point out that Peak Oil doctrine is still wrong.
Ronald Bailey explains Hubbert’s Peak Refuted: Peak Oil Theory Still Wrong. He points out an author who has written multiple books defending Peak Oil.
I just checked Amazon and can find four books from the mentioned author, written in 2001, 2005, 2008, and 2010. All are selling well. Not great, but okay. I’m astounded that so many people still believe that foolishness.
Article gives some info I’ve not seen before:
As I have explained earlier geologist M. King Hubbert famously predicted in 1956 that U.S. domestic oil production in the lower 48 states would peak around 1970 and begin to decline. In 1969 Hubbert predicted that world oil production would peak around 2000.
Yes. The ol’ gig of my precisely calculated, ironclad calculation of the date of disaster is totally wrong so I will just fine tune my calculations and pick another date.
Usually we see that with false-doctrine-advocating religious “teachers” who have calculated the exact date Jesus will return. That is in spite of the Bible verse saying no one, not even Jesus when he was on the earth, knows when that would happen. Those teachers, however, are smarter than the bible. When the world is still here the day after their precisely calculated date, they quickly make another calculation.
Dr. Hubbert and his disciples are in good company.
(Is that ridicule? Yes. Well deserved too. Sometimes making fun of the foolishness of an idea is the best way to illustrate its foolishness.)
Here’s a superb explanation of Peak Oil doctrine from the article:
Hubbert argued that oil production grows until half the recoverable resources in a field have been extracted, after which production falls off at essentially the same rate at which it expanded. This theory suggests a bell-shaped curve rising from first discovery to peak and descending to depletion.
Article points out that author’s books continue the revisionism habit by calculating new dates of the always-soon-to-arrive afternoon we will finally hit Peak Oil.
In one book, anyone who disagrees is labeled a “flat-earther.”
With rapidly rising oil production, article asks:
Who’s a flat-earther now?
Author introduces a phrase I’ve not seen before, but which fits well:
Peak oilists
Flat-earther is also a good description for the Peak Oil disciples.
6/10 – Say Anything Blog – Who Are the Flat Earthers Now? – Article pointed me to the one I just discussed. Thanks, Mr. Port!
The production surge in North Dakota of the last five or so years is merely the latest in a long string of proofs that Peak Oil is false.
Article rephrases the comments I’ve seen so many times, especially from Prof Mark Perry. Mr. Port’s comment:
But our understanding of the world is always evolving, and we should never underestimate the ability of humanity to invent, innovate, and adapt.
The ignorance proudly on display by commenters show another reason it is still necessary to point out that Peak Oil is completely, totally false. There are still lots of true believers.
Oh, two more articles that blow apart core components of Peak Oil doctrine:
6/10 – Yahoo Finance – U.S. Ousts Russia as Top World Oil, Gas Producer in BP Data – Data from BP shows that the U.S. is world’s biggest producer of hydrocarbons, surpassing Russia for the first time.
Most of that oil production is from fields that were technologically untouchable two decades ago. There was no one on the planet that had any possible idea on how to get the stuff out of the ground. Yet today shale oil and shale gas has moved the US past Russia in output.
5/27 – Rigzone – Norway Has More Oil than a Decade Ago – The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate announced that the country has more recoverable oil now than it did 10 years ago.
New fields have been discovered, existing fields have been explored and proved recoverable, reservoirs understood better, development solutions improved, and drainage strategies optimized.
I don’t know (and won’t bother to look up) how much oil Norway has pulled out of the ground, but they have more that is economically and technologically recoverable today than a decade ago.
Let me make that point again, since so many people hold to the false doctrine of Peak Oil: in spite of all the oil Norway has produced, they have more technologically and economically recoverable oil today than they did 10 years ago.
97 Comments on "Peak Oilists are the new Flat Earthers"
Plantagenet on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 12:24 pm
Just because we are currently in an oil glut is no reason to discount peak oil. Yes, Hubbert’s predictions of a US peak in 1970 and a global peak oil production max occurring in 2000 are wrong, but the concept is still valid. At some point global oil production will peak and decline.
Jimmy on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 12:43 pm
Peak Oil is not a theory. It’s an observation. Obviously this douche bag never took a physics course.
sugarseam on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 12:44 pm
this kind of arrogant douche-baggery begs for response… You all should flood his empty, science-free trolling blog with comments.
hiruitnguyse on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 12:54 pm
Mmmmmmkay, let me work on this. For peak oil to be a fallacy, the earth would need to be infinite, and this could be accomplished if it were a flat plane extending infinitely. Sounds like a nonsequitur.
I wonder if the author is a follower of Lord Stephen Christs hollow earth theory, that would also debunk peak oil if the earth were a hollow sphere extending infinitely into space with just the sun and stars located in the open center….
sigh…..
hiruitnguyse on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 12:58 pm
From the same dude:
Oil Patch
I’ve been paying attention to the astounding boom in oil production in North Dakota for well over a year. My interest level is sky-high because my son and his new bride are living in the middle of the boom.
The opportunities are astounding. Wal-Mart is advertising $17 an hour for entry-level cashiers. None of the retail stores in town can keep staff.
If you want to work and work hard (everybody is working lots of overtime), there is work to be had.
However….
The price of admission is steep.
It is sort of like the gold rush.
Housing is scarce and expensive.
Lots of employers don’t bother with all the niceties of employment law.
Safety corners get cut.
But on the other hand, guys are going there, working for a few months or a year, pocketing more spare cash in the bank than they could have after working years at home, then going back home. (The newcomers are overwhelmingly men.)
Guys who have run out of opportunities at home are going to Williston and finding jobs very plentiful.
On the other hand…
You may be living out of your car.
You may pay a fortune for a tiny room.
You may be working tons and tons of overtime.
There are long lines to get fast food.
Wal-Mart leaves pallets of stuff on the floor because it sells so fast, it’s not worth the time to stock the shelves.
But there is tremendous opportunity.
The Bakken frontier in North Dakota is wide open. The Eagle Ford frontier in Texas is wide open. Other energy frontiers are starting to open.
hiruitnguyse on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 12:59 pm
Methinks the son and new bride will probably be thumbing their way about town on the bus and looking for banana peels in the dumpster out behind the former Wal-mart in less than 5 years (boy that was way too optimistic).
hiruitnguyse on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 1:01 pm
Seriously, this site needs to open a side box titled “Comedy” for these type posts.
hiruitnguyse on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 1:05 pm
I just checked amazon and found a copy of Robert Gunthers “Astrolabes of the World” priced at $450.00
It is not selling well either, although the instrument enabled great advances in navigation and exploration.
Oh My!
Kinda reminds me of the articles showing how Arctic Ice has grown exponentially since the summer of one year, to the winter of the next.
hiruitnguyse on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 1:17 pm
More (Faith Based???) pabulum from Old Bird Above (Prayse Jeebus, Bress is oly name):
What are a few of the changes today that impact the faith-based nonprofit community? Barna Group has a few ideas.
David Kinnaman had a great article in the Winter 2010 issue of Outcomes from Christian Leadership Alliance.
He describes what he calls the ‘new context’ that is already in place. One of them is the fade in popularity amongst younger people of high visibility leaders. He graphs the positive public opinion of a variety of secular and religious leaders. Great charts – check them out in the article.
Two things jump out at me. First, the leaders in the faith community that have been around a long time (Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, James Dobson) have a high positive opinion amongst those aged 65+. That drops off with each younger age reaching surprising low-level of positive opinion amongst those aged 18-26.
Second thing that jumps out from eyeballing the graphs is based on comparing the positive-opinion-curve for 9 secular people to the graphs of 9 faith community leaders. Eight of the faith-community leaders have lower positive opinions amongst all age levels than all but one of the secular names.
Let me rephrase that: Across all age spans (18-26, 27-45, 46-64, 65+) Britney Spears has higher positive opinion ratings than Robertson, Dobson, Franklin Graham, Osteen, Warren, Colson, Hybels, and Andy Stanley.
hiruitnguyse on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 1:20 pm
Funny thing is, I am 51, and had never heard of most of those dipsticks listed myself…..had to goog them.
Jeebus equation once again:
E = 1/J
hiruitnguyse on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 1:43 pm
Norway has more oil than a decade ago:
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=57&aid=6&cid=NO,&syid=2000&eyid=2015&unit=BB
rockman on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 1:44 pm
“Hubbert’s predictions of a US peak in 1970…” I’ll assume almost everyone here knows this is wrong. The recent boom came close but didn’t set a new peak. And if it had Hubbert still would have predicted correctly. Specifically what Hubbert predicted was the peaking of those trends that had been undergoing development for decades. None of the recent increase in oil production came from those trends. He also specifically pointed out that undiscovered trends, such as Deep Water GOM, weren’t part of his analysis. Likewise his prediction of global peak was also based upon only the known trends.
But that doesn’t stop folks from misrepresenting his work. One make the same prediction for the current NEW trends: US shales, DS GOM, the various “stans”, etc. But to be as accurate as Hubbert one needs to wait until the majority of those trends have been developed. Not to take anything away from his efforts but that’s the primary reason Hubbert was so accurate.
apneaman on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 2:07 pm
The Fed Is Funneling the Investing Herd Off a Cliff
http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.ca/2015/06/the-fed-is-funneling-investing-herd-off.html?utm_content=buffer114ae&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
drwater on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 2:12 pm
I find it interesting to see that Whiting Petroleum’s stock is now below where it was in 2010 and even part of 2008. They were the earlybirds in the Baaken and can’t consistently make money there. That has to tell you something.
hiruitnguyse on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 2:18 pm
Apeneaman, here are 2 stocks that my broker was trying to shove me into (as I was steadily unbanking every penny be measured degrees):
ANR, WLT.
Set the chart for 2 years.
shortonoil on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 4:05 pm
“So long as oil is used as a source of energy, when
the energy cost of recovering a barrel of oil becomes
greater than the energy content of the oil, production
will cease no matter what the monetary price may
be.” (M. King Hubbert)
Hubbert was a petro-geologist, and an engineer. He understood the inevitability of entropy production that had to be occurring with petroleum production. He understood that a time must come when petroleum could no longer act as an energy source, and on that day its production would cease. That was in 1956. and still most people can not understand what he was talking about. It is amazing how much ignorance can follow genius.
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Apneaman on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 4:34 pm
Untold billions have been spent on propaganda to discredit Hubbert, The Limits to Growth and anyone who points out the obvious. They spend it because it works. Just look at all the true believers who simply will not come to terms with change. Money well spent.
joe on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 4:37 pm
Hmm, not sure the fraking revolution will be so great. Simply put if/when it happens, energy will be so cheap it’s gonna be low profit, that’s more or less the issue today, and that’s before the ‘revolution’.
It’s easy to understand the frenzy around fraking, it’s a new gold rush, a new dot com. The EPA statement on water was a garunteed outcome, even if it was wrong, the US policy is energy independence, that means escaping ME oil. Water is always going to come second to geopolitical/economic policies. Look guys it’s not hard. Strip out tight oil and peak oil is here. Tight oil is not going to replace easy oil, merely keep us all addicted to oil while the west shares the oil with China and India who between them promise to drink oil for decades. Easy oil is still going to peak, when it does we move into a high cost of energy regime, and that’s it, peak oil, probobly not mad max, but certainly a more carefully managed and lower profit system.
GregT on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 4:53 pm
“Easy oil is still going to peak, when it does we move into a high cost of energy regime, and that’s it, peak oil, probobly not mad max, but certainly a more carefully managed and lower profit system.”
Easy oil already did peak Joe. What do you call the price rise from $25/bbl to $147/bbl? We tried replacing cheap oil with expensive oil subsidized with every trick in the economists’ book. It hasn’t changed anything, only kicked the can down the road a little bit farther.
In the meantime, a finite resource continues to deplete, as the planet warms up…..
Sindre Sorhus on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 5:02 pm
Just a comment on the story that Norway has more recoverable oil now than it did 10 years ago.
This might be true, but it is mainly due to one big find (Johan Sverdrup) and an increase in “undiscovered resources”. They have gone up from 1160 million SM3 in 2005 to 1265 million SM3 in 2014 despite having produced 965 million SM3 during the same timeperiod. A lot of the increased recovery from oil fields has been aided by high oil prices. Now that prices are lower this may change. Also reserves are down 35 % since 2005 (allthough expected to rise some next year)
Plantagenet on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 5:23 pm
The claim that “untold billions have been spent on propaganda to discredit Hubbert” is silly.
There is no need for propaganda. Clearly global oil production did not peak in 2000 as Hubert claimed it would. Thats not propaganda—thats a simple fact.
Similarly, Hubbert’s claims of a US peak in 1970 are very close to being falsified. According to the EIA, US oil production will exceed the 1970 oil production rate this year.
Plantagenet on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 5:31 pm
Hubert’s basic premise is that oil production can be defined by a “bell-shaped’ curve, which displays a well-defined “peak.” According to Hubbert, the peak marks the production of half of the available oil, so once the peak is reached oil production inevitably declines. Its basically a simple mathematical model. But is that mathematical model valid?
No.
Clearly US oil production is NOT following a Hubbert curve. Yes, there was a peak in 1970, but oil production has not inexorably declined since then. US oil production has surged in the last fews and may well surpass 1970 levels this year.
Hubert’s model has failed to describe the actual pattern of US oil production.
Apneaman on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 5:38 pm
Sure Planty, all those think tanks and buying up the media are for thinking and sharing. All that education, yet you’re still so fucking stupid. You’re proof of propaganda’s effectiveness.
Hedges describes the gutting of your country as well as anyone and similar knife work has been ongoing in the rest of the former democracies as well.
Talk by Chris Hedges author of “The Wages of Rebellion: The Moral Imperative of Revolt” recorded June 8, 2015 at Town Hall Seattle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZQJSCt9Qa4
GregT on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 5:56 pm
“Similarly, Hubbert’s claims of a US peak in 1970 are very close to being falsified.”
That’s not what Hubbert claimed at all planter, and you know it. I have already provided you a link to his report.
Fucking idiot.
Davy on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 6:17 pm
The Planter said “US oil production has surged in the last fews and may well surpass 1970 levels this year.” “May Well” “?” Planter, that sounds too strong to me. I think you are reaching because you want it to be so. There is too much happening now that may well not allow production to surge above 1970 levels. That sounds better to me. The so called glut may well be nothing more than demand and supply growth destruction leading to uneconomic supply along with faltering demand parading as a traditional supply demand glut.
Nony on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 7:11 pm
Peakers have been very reluctant to face their failed predictions. This shows more the pattern of a political advocate than of an honest observer or scientist.
Nony on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 7:16 pm
Rockman, the caveat that you mention is not in his 1956 paper (if it is, cite the exact text).
Furthermore, if peaker predictions are so caveated what use are they? As cornies are already citing the possibility of new technology, new locations.
Furthermore, it is ironic that you simultaneously try to get Saint Hubbert off the hook for his failures (and on natgas they are massive) while downplaying shale development as not new technology but just a price reaction! Which is it?
Finally, the 1956 paper does mention EOR and increases in EOR, but downplays them. and it cites the example of multiple peaks in Illinois, but then says this is unlikely for the US. (patently wrong, so far, just based on shale to date).
GregT on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 7:18 pm
Hubbert was an honest observer, and scientist Nony. His predictions were correct. Anybody who ignores that is not being honest.
GregT on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 7:22 pm
I have already cited Hubbert’s 1956 paper on these forums 3 times now Nony.
You are making yourself look like a fool.
Davy on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 7:47 pm
NOo said “As cornies are already citing the possibility of new technology, new locations.”
Davy says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mskw4-tUibI
Makati1 on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 7:54 pm
Are we talking real petroleum or are we talking ‘liquids’ that burn? Hubbert was totally correct in the quote Shortonoil posted. NET energy is the defining term in describing ‘peak oil’. We passed the NET energy peak years ago. We are now approaching that point where oil will be a net loss of energy per barrel, just as we are approaching the same NET energy limits on coal mining and use.
Apneaman on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 8:01 pm
Poor little Nony – looking for love in all the wrong places.
Plantagenet on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 8:49 pm
@apneaman
Your potty mouth is dribbling over. Please close your mouth and flush before it makes a mess.
Apneaman on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 9:00 pm
Toss my salad plant.
Apneaman on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 9:01 pm
Author and financial expert Jeff Rubin says the carbon bubble is already bursting. Governments and mainstream media will hardly tell you. But the markets are already heading for the exits away from such stranded fossil assets. The stock values of companies in the mega-polluting Canadian Tar Sands have fallen by 70%. Coal company stocks are collapsing, down 90 percent.
http://www.ecoshock.info/2015/06/the-carbon-bubble-bursts.html
GregT on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 9:01 pm
Fuck off Claudia.
GregT on Sat, 13th Jun 2015 9:02 pm
What a fucking brainless moron.
joe on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 1:51 am
Most people confuse hubbert bell curve with the more complex energy market. They think if it can run a car, its oil. Cheap energy is simply x-btu at y-price. Turned into kinetic energy or heat to do work. Thats the equation. Thats the one to watch. The real trick is enticing billions of people to want all the modern conveniences of life. Money is the real oil.
stevenj on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 2:37 am
When Hubert predicted the peak he did so on the expected oil consumption growth but when the 1970s oil crises occurred that hugely changed that use profile.
I wonder with hindsight of that and re-doing the calc just how far it would be extended. Probably pretty close.
meld on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 3:40 am
The louder the insanity the closer the bubble is to bursting.
Cloud9 on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 6:38 am
A few simple observations: The cheapest plays are developed first. Wells do deplete over time. New discoveries are not replacing what is being pumped. Higher prices support marginal systems of extraction. Higher prices tend to coincide with economic down turns. Economic down turns tend to induce governments to exponentially expand debt and money printing. Exponential money printing inevitably collapses the currency being printed. Our empire has built one of the most complex far reaching and fragile systems ever imagined. And finally, all empires have a shelf life. The man who said we are at the end of history was a fool.
All of this is beyond my poor powers to add or detract. My best efforts to get me and mine out of the way of systemic collapse are puny at best. So, I will hide and watch and do the best I can.
Boat on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 7:07 am
Cloud9,.New discoveries are not replacing what is being pumped…
Fracking showed that there is plenty of oil. Alot of fracking just needs a higher price…or does it….The shale industry has been pretty resilient.
Interesting stuff, even though horizontal drilling has been around a long time in 2005 about 5-6% of wells used the tech. Now horizontal drilling use is up to 80% of the wells drilled.
As fracking goes mainstream the companies will continue to drive costs down and yes the rest of the world has a lot of oil that can be fracked.
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 9:42 am
Shale gas has been amazingly resilient to low prices in terms of volume growth. However, gas is just more plentiful and flows easier intrinsically.
Yeah a few companies overextended themselves and paid the price, but who cares. What I care about as a consumer is the end result (production volumes and price impact). Little Shumpeterian creative destruction is good for capitalism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Schumpeter
Oil shale is a little different since it is affected by world price, but even here, think you will see an equilibrirum (some production drop, but not all). And you have the Bakken and the EF to thank for gas being at 2.50 instead of 4.50. (Rock will be along to say it’s not 1.50, but this is simple sophistry to not acknowledge the improved status for consumers.)
Davy on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 9:55 am
NOo creative destruction at this point is descent. Get a grip and rub the sleep out of your hungover eyes and see the writing on the wall.
Look at the NOo and the big words “sophistry” how is that any different than your deceptive cornucopian financial alchemy?
It is funny how you can switch from NOo to Marm so flawlessly. Duel personalities are like that.
marmico on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 10:05 am
Such “strawman” prattle from some prepper who is clueless about his oil intensity. Davy-Doomer creates fuck all with his oil consumption.
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 10:22 am
hush, you, Marmie. I want this alter ego to be in charge right now.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xipmnr_fight-club-ending_shortfilms
BobInget on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 11:16 am
Part of coming to terms with oil sands, shale has to be those two are hurricane proof.
In the old days a GOM hurricane was always good for a dollar rise in oil prices.
Today’s best place to watch for tropical storms;
http://spaghettimodels.com/
there are too many ads because the site is good.
shortonoil on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 11:56 am
The amount of oil that remains to be extracted at any point in time is the result of the amount that has already been removed. Hubbert was very well aware of that situation. As oil is extracted the process becomes more, and more energy intensive. Wells get deeper, viscosity increases, and most of all water cut increases. This process continues until it takes all of the energy in a unit of oil to produce it. When that point is reached oil has been reduced to a feedstock material; or black goo in a barrel. It has lost all of its capacity to power the economy. It is no longer worth taking out of the ground.
Claims of vast quantities of an oil resource are a straw man’s argument. How much oil remains that “could” be extracted is irrelevant; it is the amount of oil that “will” be extracted that is the critical value. That is far less than the total resource. The overwhelming majority of shale falls into the not worth taking out of the ground category; the energy expense to remove it is not justified by the energy it returns to the economy.
The shale industry is trying desperately to convince people that this simple lesson in physics 101 does not apply to them. They are attempting to persuade people that vast deposits of shale oil insures their success; it doesn’t. They are attempting to convince people that new technology will circumvent the laws of physics; it won’t! The shale industry is an energy negative process that is building debt faster than it is producing product. There can be no doubt about its ultimate conclusion. The only doubt is about who it will be taking down with it!
http://www.thehillsgroup.org/
Nony on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 12:11 pm
Short, depletion moves the cost curve to the left, true. but also knowledge moves it to the right. This is the fight that has been raging in the petroleum extraction industry for at least 100 years. You can’t ignore one side (peakers) or the other (cornies). You need to acknowledge both and then look at the specifics to see which is winning.
http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~kcobb/energy/Readings/Watkins.pdf
“Three decades beyond 1973, oil reserves increased by
80% even though production has continually increased.
There has been less, not more, reliance on OPEC.
Indicators of resource scarcity do not provide evidence
that oil has been becoming scarcer.15 Instead, new plays,
more intense development of existing plays, allied with cost
saving and innovative technology, have offset resource
depletion. In short, Nature as Scrooge has to date met its
match in Knowledge’s Lady Bountiful.
Can this stand-off between knowledge and depletion
over the past 30 years be assumed to continue? Will supply
always be plentiful? That is more than anyone could
pretend to know. Some day the balance may shift. The
great majority of giant conventional fields—many would
say all—may well have been found. Perhaps, the impact on
oil demand of economic development, especially in Asia
(India and China), is a harbinger. This degree of
uncertainty encourages agnosticism about whether technology
and new knowledge will continue to keep the forces
of depletion at bay.16 At the same time, a generous
‘backstop’ of non-conventional oil supplies (oil sands,
heavy oils, oil shales) looms once returns become
sufficiently attractive.”
GregT on Sun, 14th Jun 2015 12:50 pm
Nony,
Even if we removed usery from the equation, ending the necessity for infinite exponential growth, and moved to a steady state economy, we still couldn’t continue to burn fossil fuels anyway.
So what is your point?