Peak oil is not a myth

41 Comments on "Peak oil is not a myth"

Northwest Resident on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 5:10 pm 



Buying time, dudes. That’s all fracking and unconventional oil production is doing these days — just buying time. Anybody with half a brain that isn’t totally absorbed in the inner world of their own private bubble can see that, whether they admit it to themselves or not. A shortfall in global energy needs is just around the corner, and you better be ready for it.

Nony on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 5:44 pm 



1. Tight oil may be a bubble…but tight gas has some serious legs.

2. The article does not make clear that chemically, tight oil is light sweet crude. I have seen a lot of frequent commenters confusing this and assuming that Bakken oil MUST be low quality. Probably since that was the meme in the doomer community based on sands: ‘yeah, some last gasp oil will be generated, but it will be low quality’.

Bakken oil for instance is almost kissing cousins with WTI and if anything a teensy bit “better”. (I think EF oil is a little more variable.) See here (LLS, is a sweet Louisiana grade, WTI is “West Texas Intermediate”, a reference grade for decades):

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/images/798/89779/Bryden-Tab-01.jpg

So…yes, it is a pain to get out and requires high price to mine it, but it’s NOT low quality.

Nony on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 5:47 pm 



BTW, the comment about liquids is one that I agree with. I think it makes more sense to separate that. (Same thing with natural gas and the whole barrel of oil equivalent game). Liquids in particular are in a glut in the US and are starting to move towards trading like natural gas (ethane has already moved in this direction and is increasingly being dumped into gas itself).

Northwest Resident on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 6:01 pm 



Nony — “tight oil is light sweet crude”.

Nony — Just because it is “light sweet oil” doesn’t mean that it is all that good. Question: What percent of the liquids that are fracked out of the ground are “light sweet oil”, versus other low-demand liquids? I heard just 30% — what have you heard?

Let’s take a closer look at that “light sweet oil” — it is only useable after it has been put through intense multi-step chemical processes:

“The quality of the shale oils is highly variable. These oils can be high in solids with high melting point waxes. The light paraffinic nature of shale oils can lead to asphaltene destabilization when blended with heavier crudes. These compositional factors have resulted in cold preheat train fouling, desalter upsets, and fouling of hot preheat exchangers and furnaces. Problems in transportation and storage, finished-product quality, as well as refinery corrosion, have also been reported. Operational issues have led to cases of reduced throughput and crude unit shutdowns. The problems encountered with shale oil processing and possible prediction and control strategies will be presented.”

“Paraffin. The paraffin content of shale oil is one of the main properties that contributes to downstream problems from transportation and storage to refinery processing. Analyses of one batch of shale oil revealed paraffin chains containing well over 50 carbons. Similar paraffin analyses have been observed from multiple shale oils.”

“Due to the variation in solids loading and their paraffinic nature, processing shale oils in refinery operations offers several challenges. Problems can be found from the tank farm to the desalter, preheat exchangers and furnace, and increased corrosion in the CDU. In the refinery tank farm, entrained solids can agglomerate and rapidly settle, adding to the sludge layer in the tank bottoms. Waxes crystalize and settle or coat the tank walls, thus reducing storage capacity. Waxes will stabilize emulsions and suspend solids in the storage tanks, leading to slugs of sludge entering the CDU. Waxes will also coat the transfer piping, resulting in increased pressure drop and hydraulic restrictions.”

Finished fuels

“The quality of the finished fuels from refining shale oils has changed significantly. As the shale oils have higher light-ends content, one benefit is increased production of naphtha for gasoline, and stable diesel and jet distillates. These increased volumes can boost refinery margins. However, due to the chemical nature of these shale oil feeds, several challenges can be encountered. The streams are more paraffinic—thus, they suffer from poor pour and cloud-point properties. In addition, shale oils are lower in sulfur content, so the need for lubricity additives is anticipated. Effective additives can be used to improve all distillate stream properties. Conductivity can also be off-spec; a combination of lubricity/conductivity improvers can raise the quality of the distillate. To optimize chemical treatment program, testing on specific product streams is required and suitable product selection should be customized. Table 4 summarizes the main issues identified for different distillate cuts that a refiner can experience as well as chemical and mechanical solutions that can mitigate these challenges.”

http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/Article/3223989/Innovative-solutions-for-processing-shale-oils.html

felloffthepeak on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 6:11 pm 



I wonder how long the applied ductape can hold the system together. If people understood the gravity of the situation with energy and therefore food immediate panic would be the result. All evidence suggests that world leaders are well informed about the energy situation. Perhaps they feel it best not to alarm the servants or scare the horses.

Nony on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 6:26 pm 



Bakken oil is competitive at the refinery. See pages 23 to 25 of the Continental FEB2014 presentation.

http://investors.clr.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=197380&p=irol-presentations

The paper you cited also notes that increased amounts of diesel and gasoline can be made from shale oils. So, you have to watch out for the specifics of the oil…big deal, refineries have to do that any time they get new sources of oil in. That paper is definitely not saying stay away from shale oil. Just here’s some things to watch for and how to deal with them.

EF is a little more variable…

Nony on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 6:26 pm 



OK, much more variable. 🙂

Northwest Resident on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 6:43 pm 



Nony — It is good while it lasts, I guess. I’m sure they have to put the conventional crude oil through a lot of chemical processes before it becomes useable gas and other types of fuel too — so you’re right, big deal.

I just hate to see you so optimistic about the prospects of nonconventional oils and NG. I get the feeling that you look at those oil futures too often, you put too much faith in them, and that somebody needs to help you face reality. Just trying to help out.

shortonoil on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 6:58 pm 



“The shale gas reserves in Poland have been revised down from 187 trillion cubic feet (tcf) to 12–27 tcf: at best, a mere 14% of the original estimate. ”

The trend of reduced non-conventional reserves is, and will be an ongoing phenomena. To understand why this is true go to our site (http://www.thehillsgroup.org) and pull up from the right (page navigation box) Study Graphs. Then go to graph#16. Graph#16 is a plot of ERoEI vs $/barrel. The ERoEI curve shown is derived from the ETP model, the black dots are prices reported by the EIA for WTI between the years 1960-2009. As can be seen by the graph the price of crude has not only been a function of the “quantity” of reserve present but also the “quality” of the reserves (where ERoEI is used to measure quality).

When most non-conventional reserves were estimated the ERoEI of conventional crude was implied in their calculation (the other variable for price determination “quality” was ignored). This produced an inflated value of $/barrel for the reserve, thus a much higher extractable reserve than was actually present. Or, to be said in another way, the crude was not as valuable as first claimed. This will result in many (if not most) non-conventional reserves being downsized significantly over time.

(If you are a serious researcher involved in the study of the Petroleum Depletion Event, drop us a line and we will arrange to send to you a copy of our 57 page study on CD disc in PDF format. Please remember that we are a private organization, and have limited resources for such distribution.)

Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 7:03 pm 



@Nony: you talk up Tight natgas as having serious legs. While I have seen conflicting reports, I will accept this conclusion. @Rock mentions serious legs with tight natgas. We also know that globally the conventional gas reserves will peak latter than oil. Gas reserves are reported to be robust. The one problem with gas is the nature of the infrastructure needed to move it and produce it. We are talking incredible capex requirements if it is going to be expanded globally. The tight gas revolution has proceeded so well in the US because the infrastructure, organizations, and financing were available. We are already seeing the difficulties in the rest of the world expanding the tight gas. The same is true with conventional. I rarely hear about what a financial crisis will do to the equation. In the “lobby of plenty” it is generally assumed the economy is recovering, has recovered, or will recover if another crisis develops. I am seeing ever indication we are approaching a financial tipping point that recovery will not happen. With this strong contraction we will take energy production down along with all other economic growth. NatGas has serious legs but on a shaky base

rockman on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 7:07 pm 



Just to confuse matters. First, in the oil patch there is no such thing as “tight oil”. Never has been…never will be. Just a term someone made up. But we do have “tight formations” that produce oil. And in the oil patch “sweet” just means little or no sulfur. It might be sweet high quality Bakken or WTI. And it may be sweet Tuscaloosa crap that sells for a $40/bbl discount to WTI and is mostly used to make asphalt roads.

Essential what a bbl of any crude is worth is determined by what a refiner will pay for it. And that is determined, obviously, by what they can crack out of it. Which is why a refiner in eastern Canada is willing to pay more for a bbl of Eagle Ford oil plus the cost to ship it half way around the continent than a Texas refinery just 90 miles down the road is willing to pay.

Northwest Resident on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 7:13 pm 



“NatGas has serious legs but on a shaky base.”

Kind of like a talented and promising long distance runner trying to escape from the epicenter of a powerful earthquake, with deep fissures and chasms opening suddenly before him, with buildings crumbling and toppling on all sides and behind and before him, with debris flying through the air like swarms of deadly missiles all around, and the safety of a “no danger zone” nowhere in sight.

Nony on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 7:46 pm 



I won an argument on the Internet! Go me! Yeah! 😉

http://www.marriedtothesea.com/062610/first-place-at-internet.gif

GregT on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 10:28 pm 



“Buying time, dudes. That’s all fracking and unconventional oil production is doing these days — just buying time.”

Buying time for sure, but that’s not all it is doing. It is allowing us to go further into overshoot, and destroying more of the environment in the process. The environment that we will need to rely on more and more, for our future survival.

Nony on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 10:34 pm 



@Rock can explain it to you. NPV and discounted cash flows. Our current happiness is worth way more than a generation or two from now. That stuff gets discounted into nothingness. Go grasshopper, beat ant!

GregT on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 10:55 pm 



“Our current happiness is worth way more than a generation or two from now.”

More like a decade or two Nony, but who wants to think about THAT. Party like there’s no tomorrow…………………

Nony on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 11:00 pm 



woot. you Campbell/Simmonsites predicted bad things in 2008. We are beating you. Go hope, beat doom!

GregT on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 11:10 pm 



Bad things did happen in 2008, precisely when they were predicted to happen. Not a matter of hope vs doom, but hope vs reality.

shortonoil on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 11:32 pm 



“Buying time, dudes. That’s all fracking and unconventional oil production is doing these days — just buying time.”

Buying time, and not much of that! Those Price,Cost curves are coming together real fast. As condensate wells age, and their pressure falls their output gets lighter and lighter. The heavies condense out first leaving the gases methane, ethane, and propane at the tail end. You aren’t going to drill many $8.5 million Bakken wells selling ethane! The US salvation (if you can call being one peanut butter sandwich away from starvation – salvation) will be her stripper wells. She has 500,000 of them pumping out 2 to 10 barrels per day; has been for decades, and probably will be for decades to come. But dropping from 20 barrels per year per person to 1.25 b/yr/person is going to be one rough ride.

We are working on how an organization can best position themselves to survive such an occurrence. But if someone tries to sell you the Twelve Step Method for future prosperity; file it under Snake Oil.

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

Tom S on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 11:41 pm 



GregT:

“Bad things did happen in 2008, precisely when they were predicted to happen. Not a matter of hope vs doom, but hope vs reality.”

What? Peak oilers were predicting that oil of all kinds (including unconventional oil) would peak in 2005 and start declining immediately thereafter at 2-3% per year. They also predicted that there would be a prompt collapse of industrial civilization, an end to international trade, permanent worldwide electrical blackouts, food shortages, a “natural gas cliff”, and a “die off” until world population rapidly returned to its pre-FF 2 billion. I could go on and on.

I don’t think peak oilers are in a position to lecture anyone about “reality”. Their predictions have been drastically wrong, over and over again, year in and year out. Their predictions and their understanding of the world has been worse than almost anyone else’s, and certainly far worse than if you had just asked a random person in the street.

I’m not meaning to be rude, but it’s incorrect to pretend that peak oiler predictions have just been right on, all this time.

-Tom S

Davy, Hermann, MO on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 11:44 pm 



@Nony
Well, NPV is not always the most desirable to Human nature. Some men work their entire life for something higher than themselves. This work may involve deprivation without reward. In fact the reward is the stoic sacrifice for that which is higher, better, and closer to the truth. I would agree in general happiness now is worth more than latter but not in the higher plane of spirit.

Plantagenet on Thu, 20th Feb 2014 11:57 pm 



Obama says we have a 100 year supply of NG, and he’s just offered 8 billion in federal loan guarantees to build new nukes in the U.S.

Looks like the energy party is going to go on a little bit longer, thank you very much.

GregT on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 1:04 am 



Well Tom S,

I don’t remember hearing any predictions of a timeline for the decline of unconventionals, (at least not in 2005) although I do remember conventionals being predicted to decline in the 3-5 % per year rate, after reaching an undulating plateau. The ‘prompt’ collapse of industrial civilization I guess, all depends on how one defines ‘prompt’. From a historical perspective, a decade or two, is an extremely short period of time. Perhaps ‘rapid’ would be a better way to describe what is occurring for you? I’m not really sure what terminology you would prefer?

The collapse of industrial civilization, an end to international trade, a “natural gas cliff”, and a “die off” are all going to happen eventually. It is only a matter of time. There are many, very well researched, peer reviewed papers on these subjects. A quick search on the ‘net’ should be able to keep you busy reading all about them, for at least a few months or so. If you don’t like to read, you could always try a little bit of common sense.

Permanent worldwide electrical blackouts, I doubt will happen for a few decades, simply because of the fact that much of the infrastructure should be around for a little while longer. There have been many large blackouts around the globe in recent years, however, and anyone who has been following the industry lately, should be aware of the problems faced globally, even at present. Food shortages and declines in production , I shouldn’t need to go into here with you, I’m sure that you must follow the news? OR you do buy food right?

The random person on the street has about as much clue, as a brick. The truth of our situation is not being spoon fed to them, like all of the other information that they are injected with daily. Critical thinking doesn’t jibe well with Dancing With the Stars, the SuperBowl, or Oprah Winfrey.

Then there are people like you Tom S, that are scared of the the truth. They hang out on internet forums, shouting out repeatedly, you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong, without any sense of logic or any attempts to understand what is occurring around them. They wouldn’t be wasting their time, unless they believed that there was some truth to what the people were telling them. Basic psychology Tom S. As transparent as glass. Textbook state of denial.

Tom S on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 1:07 am 



Here’s a blast to the past. I looked at the articles posted on The Oil Drum from 8 years ago today (Feb 2006), right when the peak oil movement was really picking up steam. Here’s something posted by Stuart Saniford, which compares peak oil to the dieoff from the Black Death in medieval Europe:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/31/224039/752

The article is intended as an optimistic counter to the more doomerish thinking then prevalent within peak oil circles. The author is intending to be optimistic. He says: “suburbs will be abandoned, large numbers of people will begin working in agriculture, passenger railroads will be rebuilt, life will become much more local. Perhaps significant numbers will die… But that is a long way from Olduvai. As in the Black Death, there is no reason to believe that we will inevitably lose our basic institutions.”.

However, most of the commenters were far more pessimistic. Most insisted that peak oil would lead to outright collapse of civilization and would be worse than the Black Death.

Luis de Sousa, who was one of the most prominent peak oilers back then, chimed in: “I think we’re now on the Highway to Olduvai Gorge, but there are a few exits before we get there. Some of those exits (all?) will require population reduction.”.

-Tom S

GregT on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 1:23 am 



Tom S,

I don’t see timeline for the ‘prediction’ in the article that you linked?

Why don’t you tell me, how you think the world would look without access to affordable oil. Or maybe even simpler, what the city that you live in, would look like.

Nony on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 1:29 am 



TOD is dead…and reading the old articles and comments is a hoot.

Nony on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 1:30 am 



Fracking>>peak oil.

WOOT!

Northwest Resident on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 1:54 am 



Tom S — You don’t read enough financial news. If you did, you would realize that the global economy is many trillions in debt and the only thing keeping a worldwide economic collapse of epic proportions from happening is the vast amounts of “QE” money they are pumping. There is not enough oil/energy to support growth in our world anymore, all we can do is desperately try to maintain barrels per day production, and that is ALL that fracking and unconventionals are doing. Top strategic planners in the U.S. Military have produced detailed documentation of the fact that the world will face an energy “shortfall” — as soon as 2015 — with dire consequences for world security. You can read all about it in the J.O.E. of 2010 — just search for it. The world today is on thin, brittle ice and any number of events could set of a chain reaction that leads ultimately to collapse. And you’re digging back into articles that speculated it would happen in 2008-or-so and saying just because it didn’t happen then that everything is wonderful? You demonstrate how clueless you are, and I say that with all due respect. I encourage you to hang out here, read the articles and comments, keep an open mind, ask questions and debate CURRENT facts. Reality is knocking on the door for you, Tom S — don’t let that knock go unanswered.

rockman on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 1:56 am 



Tom – “Peak oilers were predicting that oil of all kinds (including unconventional oil) would peak in 2005”. Absolutely false. Some did… some didn’t. Just as there were foolish conucopians that predicted oil down to $50/bbl or less. Should I paint you with the same broad brush? Or maybe you did you make such a prediction.

I suppose it would only be fair to lump you in with those ignorants since you seem to hold with such logic.

BTW, if you’re not familiar, not only have I never predicted “collapse” when that PO date rolls around I’ve never considered that date to be of any significance.

Tom S on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 3:46 am 



rockman:

“Absolutely false. Some did… some didn’t.”

I think that 2005 was a typical date predicted for peak oil. A few peak oilers thought it would be earlier, and a few later, but the median date was around 2005. If I recall, the most optimistic peak oiler estimate from that era, was Campbell’s paper from 2002 which showed a peak around 2005, then a plateau lasting until 2010, then yearly declines.

I was guessing that oil would peak around 2006 but would decline much more slowly than peak oilers were expecting. I was guessing a decline of 1%/year or less. I was surprised that oil production continued to increase (albeit very slowly), and by the rise of fracking.

It’s OK to be wrong about future oil production. Apparently, oil production is hard to predict, because few people have gotten it right. Global oil production has not followed any simple curve. As you pointed out, some people on the other side of things (Lynch, Yergin, etc) have also been quite incorrect about future oil production and prices.

“BTW, if you’re not familiar, not only have I never predicted “collapse” when that PO date rolls around I’ve never considered that date to be of any significance.”

You may not have, but lots of people did.

Of course there are different people in the peak oil community. Some of them have predicted different things. If you go back and read through what people were saying circa 2006, in the PO community, you’ll find there was a range of opinion.

Even within the thought leaders of the group, opinions differed. Insofar as I can tell, Jean Laherrere (one of the two authors of the seminal paper for Scientific American) never had any sympathy for collapse predictions. Also, Deffeyes briefly joined the collapse movement and said we would be “back in the stone age” fairly soon, but he quickly backed away from those predictions. Also, I don’t think Kjell Aleklett believes in collapse.

That said, there was a large subgroup of people predicting imminent collapse. Their predictions were _extremely_ wrong, and their reasons were clearly mistaken. What’s worse, they respond to the failure of their predictions, by just predicting the same things, over and over again. Furthermore, their confidence appears undiminished.

Best,
-Tom S

GregT on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 4:02 am 



Tom S,

What is your point exactly? That the predications of the dates were wrong, or that the predictions of the consequences were wrong?

ted on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 4:54 am 



I wish Tom S was right….Noony or whatever his name is…I love my fat cushy life….Unlike Rock I see lots of wars over oil….but wait we don’t fight wars for oil……

MKohnen on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 6:04 am 



I think cornucopians are amusing and here’s why.

When my granny was 41 and pregnant with my dad, her doctor told her she would never live through the birthing process. Granny didn’t die during child birth. At this point, I can hear the cornucopians, “Ha, that stupid doctor was wrong! Granny’s gonna live forever!” Granny went on to prove many other doctors wrong when they predicted her demise, but at 95, Granny died!

Moral? Just because some doctors predictions about timing are wrong doesn’t mean Granny isn’t going to die … or something like that.

Northwest Resident on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 6:20 am 



Tom S — You’re trying to prove peak oil is a non-issue by digging up what predictions some people did or didn’t make more than 10 years ago. Why don’t you just look around, gather facts as they exist today, and try to understand why it is still a pressing issue, much more so than ten years ago.

Here’s what Richard Miller says about people like you:

“The charge that—because all previous estimates have been wrong, therefore all future estimates are going to be wrong as well—is just ludicrous and completely unscientific. I can’t be bothered to listen to that anymore.”

He’s telling you that you are ludicrous and completely unscientific. I’m starting to agree with him. Read the whole article here and see if you can shake yourself out of that thick blanket of deniability that you’ve wrapped yourself in.

http://peakoil.com/generalideas/peak-is-dead-and-the-future-of-oil-supply

rockman on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 12:30 pm 



Tom – “That said, there was a large subgroup of people predicting imminent collapse.” But that isn’t what you said. You made a categorical statement about all peak oilers that was clearly false. You picked your words. But now you’ve modified which is fine IMHO. There were also many peak oilers that didn’t predict collapse.

You make a good point about your surprise over the uptick from frac’ng. But do you understand why you and many others on both sides of the PO fence didn’t see it coming? As I’ve bored some here before: any prediction about future oil rates and PO timing in worthless unless it includes a price assumption as support. I’m sure you don’t think we would have seen the surge in US production had oil stayed in the $30/bbl range, would you?

I also gather that that like many on both sides of the issue you attach some significance to the date of PO. So unfortunately I’ll have to lump you in with all the folks who don’t understand the POD…Peak Oil Dynamic. That’s what impacts us and every oil consumer on the planet…not some date on a colander. Exactly how good do you really feel about the surge in US oil production? Are you pleased that the oil bill for American consumers has gone up more than 300% in the last ten years? Are you pleased that the US is importing less oil then we were 10 years ago but are sending more $’s overseas for that smaller amount of oil then we were when we were importing much more?

Collapse is an absolutely meaningless word IMHO. It has no definition other then what one makes up in their own imagination. Has the world’s economy collapsed as a result of the POD? Remember that due to the POD the world is producing more oil today than ever before…good times since we have reached PO yet? But the POD also has the world spending almost $2 TRILLION MORE PER YEAR today than it was 10 years ago. I would call it a global economic collapse, again because it’s a useless term. But do you consider these good times for the global economy? IOW better now than 10 years ago when the world was producing less oil but paying much less for it?

rockman on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 12:33 pm 



Greg – “Unlike Rock I see lots of wars over oil”. Where the heck does that come from? Perhaps you haven’t caught any of my comments about those shiny mental boxes coming thru Dover. If you don’t understand that reference just search “graves registration service”. Trust me: it won’t make your day.

shortonoil on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 12:54 pm 



Early researchers of the the Petroleum Depletion Event, like Hubbert, the EIA, Campbell, and Laherrere produced mathematical models to describe what was taking place. The reason that they relied on models was because there never was, nor will there ever be a truly accurate count of world petroleum production. 48,000 oil fields, and 26 billion barrels per year simply overwhelms any ones capacity to do the job. Added to the sheer magnitude problem of determining world petroleum production was that a lot of world production reporting depends on the “honor” system, and we know that a significant number of those reporting are outright lying about their numbers.

To compensate for the lack of accurate data Hubbert’s cumulative distribution function, a logistic function, was the most widely adopted analytical method. We go into extreme detail in our study as to how the logistic distribution was developed and applied to petroleum production. One event that added ammunition to the promoters that all these engineers and mathematicians who were working on the problem were full of hot air, and that the burger flipping, La La Land people were the ones who were correct was the Peak Error. Hubbert’s function predicts that the inflection point of the distribution (the Peak) should have occurred in 2001. It didn’t, it occurred in 2005. As it turns out the error occurred because of a mathematical discrepancy that could only have been identified in retrospect. The distribution is not a pure logistic function, it is slightly skewed.

For those who cling to the myth that life is a “tip toe through the tulips” and “all the world is beautiful” it is the accumulation of a century of wealth created from rich petroleum reserves that keeps our civilization from melting down into a puddle of poverty and anarchy. We are now eating our seed corn. As the women at Bloomberg describes the global recover for the 900th time, and our cities continue their spiral into bankruptcy the Petroleum Depletion Event resumes its on going carnage. If you have a mathematical or engineering background go to our site and get a copy of our study. If you don’t know what’s coming, you can’t prepare for it!

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

Tom S on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 3:52 pm 



Rockman:

“You made a categorical statement about all peak oilers that was clearly false. You picked your words.”

Perhaps I should have picked my words more carefully. I meant that various peak oilers predicted those things, not that they were all in unanimous agreement.

“As I’ve bored some here before: any prediction about future oil rates and PO timing in worthless unless it includes a price assumption as support.”

Apparently that’s true. However it implies that what Colin Campbell etc were saying all along was incorrect. Campbell and others always explicitly denied that more oil would be available at higher prices. They included no provision for price in any of their diagrams of future oil production. Campbell famously claimed that people who believed more oil would be available at higher prices, believed in essence that demand magically puts more oil in the ground. He attributed this belief to economists.

I had guessed that higher prices would lead to greater extraction relative to what would have been, which would slow the rate of decline, and lead to decline rates of less than 1% per year after the peak. I was surprised that production kept growing absolutely.

“I also gather that that like many on both sides of the issue you attach some significance to the date of PO.”

I attach little significance to it. I have always thought that oil depletion would cause an extremely gradual, 80+ year transition to electric transportation and other alternatives to oil, maybe with one or two recessions. I think there are obvious substitutes for all uses of oil, and the economy will transition to them when the time is right. Of course, the alternatives to oil are all modestly worse in some regards, otherwise we’d be doing them already.

“Collapse is an absolutely meaningless word IMHO. It has no definition other then what one makes up in their own imagination.”

Collapse is a meaningful term, in my opinion, although it’s somewhat vague.

However, the peak oilers who predicted collapse, were fairly specific about what they meant, and what they expected to happen. They expected the transportation infrastructure to implode and cease functioning. They expected permanent electric blackouts, limited food availability, an end to international trade, die offs, de-industrialization, re-skilling, and so on. Usually they described those things in fairly vivid terms. I think it was precise enough to determine if those things have occurred.

-Tom S

GregT on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 4:18 pm 



rockman,

“Greg – “Unlike Rock I see lots of wars over oil”. Where the heck does that come from?”

Not me rock, Ted said this.

GregT on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 4:41 pm 



Tom S,

‘However, the peak oilers who predicted collapse, were fairly specific about what they meant, and what they expected to happen. They expected the transportation infrastructure to implode and cease functioning. They expected permanent electric blackouts, limited food availability, an end to international trade, die offs, de-industrialization, re-skilling, and so on. Usually they described those things in fairly vivid terms. I think it was precise enough to determine if those things have occurred.”

If you have been lurking here, you may have noted that many discussions have been focused not on IF the above will occur, but rather WHEN they will occur, to what degree they will occur, and what solutions might be available, if any. We are all very concerned about the future, and these subjects are not being taken lightly.

If you believe that the above will not occur, please explain what your solutions would be, how you see them being implemented, by whom, and where the energy and finances will come from.

Davy, Hermann, MO on Fri, 21st Feb 2014 5:01 pm 



Now, I am not going to compete with the big boys here on this subject. I just want to remind people of where we were and where we are now. We can “Monday morning quarterback” and criticizes from a position of hindsight. Then we can argue semantics all day long. Let us acknowledge early peakers from that place and time starting a decade ago. At that time the early fathers of our current understanding of Peak Oil put forth significant thought on the subject. For many it was a “Eureka moment” like when Archimedes realized the principle of buoyancy while taking a bath. These moment were sensational. The implications of this synthesis of Hubert, the then realities in the field and scientific research brought forth more sensational thinking. The implications of this new lease on life to an older theory were profound. I studied Hubert in 1985. It had a big impact on a then young college student. Then again in 2000 I started serious research into what I was seeing was a clear resource and climate crisis on the horizon. In 2005 I started following the financial bubble and by extension peak oil. I lived 2008 like it was the end. I made serious concrete and large changes to my life. We know what happened it was a “doomer dud”. If any of you discount 2008 then you may be an expert on Peak oil but you don’t have a grasp of what was a near complete breakdown in our economic system. A few bad moves around the “Lehman moment” and or a few other black swans and we would be toast now. These days it is treated as just another correction. I am trying to say you “all” may be right here to a varying degree but lets us acknowledge our early peak oil fathers. If some made bad predictions so be it. We are doing that right here right now. Kunstler, Orlov, The arch druid, many financial bogs and so many more are constantly predicting and refining those predictions. Is that worse than no predictions? It is our nature to live in the future. Humans cannot help predicting the future.