We are at the peak in world oil production...

Meanwhile, in exhibit 57A in our case that peak is here already, here's Russian exports down 5.5% since 2011:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2...e-oil-exports-declined-by-5-5-in-last-2-years

Russia is at its 2nd and last oil peak. The easy oil is gone. The FSU export peak comes ahead of the production peak. Some oil importers can manage a 2-3% decline rate for some time. But watch out for those export decline rates when the many small green fields can no longer offset decline rates of legacy brown fields running at -4% pa and local demand still growing.​

 

Grow a brain and learn to use footnotes. There is a reason why you don't know this kind of stuff, you don't WANT to.

It isn't my industry any more than it is yours. I just know far more about it than you do, is all.

Monday and Tuesday of this week I was at the EIA Energy Conference in Washington DC. You know...learnin stuff. Where were you? Being confused on how to figure out footnotes.You should try getting involved with the people who actually study this stuff, they show up in a room, talk about cool stuff, and every single one of them knows how to find footnoted references.

Fly away Jiggsy, fly away. Wait another year, maybe the newest levels of oil production will have declined by 10,000 bbl/day and you can proclaim victory...yet again.

 

Ah peak oil yet another one of the finge theories that liberals get behind because it is convenient. Yes the left is all for consensus science when it helps them advance their agenda like AGW. But lets look at all the consensus science that they don't believe.

Peak oil is not a problem.
GM food is safe.
Immunizations are safe.
Hormone treated food is safe.
DDT isn't dangerous to wildlife.
Vegan diets aren't health.
etc. etc. etc.

When you look in scope at all the fringe trash science that liberals believe without question you quickly see that their claims of "scientific consensus" is nothing more than self serving bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Jiggs Casey, Nov 30, 2010.

"Peak oil refers to the maximum global extraction and production rate of light crude oil, which we have reached (2005-200."

Wiki on peak oil, note that it does not say anything about light crude oil.

"Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production is expected to enter terminal decline."

Note that Wiki knows that peak oil is not defined by its density, nor the impurities in the oil, of which there are many, and in nearly all oils.

Also note the following in Wiki, as compared to Jiggs "Don't Know Nuttin Boutz Oilz" Casey.

"Global production of oil fell from a high point in 2005 at 74 mb/d, but has since rebounded setting new records in both 2011 and 2012."

So much for Jiggs "Don't know nuttin bout nuttin" Casey and his claims of when peak oil happened. It is quite obvious to anyone with access to google that global peak oil happened in 1979....oops....sorry...that was one of those OLD peak oils, much like the one Jiggs is advertising now.

For those with an interest, the original Hubbert paper determining that peak oil in the US would happen in one year or another is here:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-03-08/nuclear-energy-and-fossil-fuels

It should be noted that Hubbert did not group oils by density or impurities either, that his estimates of world oil production and US natural gas production were disasters, and the paper itself was a treatise on nuclear as a solution, and the abundance of fissionables available to power mankind for millennium. According to the rules of the peak oil religion, you only A) use the information you like B) discredit the same author's ideas when they aren't the ideas you like, while ignoring the hysterical hypocrisy contained in just such action.

Appropriate levels of giggling can now ensue.

 

I don't think that the world is at peak oil production. I mean maybe at the current level of extraction but there's quite alot of it around.

When I was working for a rig manager he had said that Centrica/BP (forgot which) had found some new wells in the North Sea which were pretty substantial.

And of course there's always Russia with it's vast untapped natural resources including oil.

Anyway if there is a problem with oil supplies I'm willing to bet that it's not to do with a lack of black gold.

 

"Quite alot" was defined at the EIA Energy Conference last week by Dr. Don Gautier, head of the USGS World Energy Project, as "quite mind boggling". When the scientists use words like that, you know the peak oil religion is going to have a problem rounding up gullible converts in the near future.

It isn't. Only those looking for a Rapture excuse based in oil or those who can't add up the publicly available resource estimates published by all sorts of organizations even try with a straight face anymore. In exercises involving modeling of global oil resources and supply, political risks are more dominate in pricing and availability scenarios than the ridiculous claims of McPeaksters.

 

I agree with you that we are not living in the time of peak oil production.
As for the "McPeaksters" I really think that it's a case of Occam's Razor unless it can be proven otherwise.

I was speculating that IF there was a problem then it would not be with the resource but the market itself.
And besides IF peak oil was a actual occurrence then I'm pretty sure that we can find other sources or we could just take the bus to work instead he he.

 

I didn't say that. I have only been noting that A) peak has happened before B) will continue to be declared by those who can't learn from past mistakes and C) and may be happening now, or at some time in the future.

My opinion on the topic is more that it doesn't matter, one way or another.

No one disputes peak oil in the sense of a maximum production rate, the McPeaksters just use that as a strawman to fence against, them not being able to fight the real points. The issue is more one of the fear mongering that McPeaksters try and generate, sometimes for eco reasons, some are survivalists, some are just looking for any reason to trigger some personal Rapture scenario.

 

Whoops. Sorry about that.

 

S'all right. People often sort of figure that an issue has two sides, I am a firm believer in understanding not only the sides but the grey area, and my devils's advocate system of analysis is often mistaken for an opposing viewpoint. Once upon a time I was paid to do the science to come up with the answer I could prove. Now I am paid to understand all the science on a topic, and offer a professional opinion on quality, value, what is implied or neglected, how it can be improved if it can be improved, and then offer up the most informed opinion possible on hopefully one powerpoint slide.

 

Todays lesson in Jiggsy ignorance. Observe...Jiggsy on Jan-13,2010, his response to a rather average question, and Jiggsy goes right for the church approved, and wrong, answer.

Fairly well documented means, "the church tells us everything is in terminal decline and if it does something else, shuck and jive and make stuff up".

Also please observe that when the happy parrot McJiggster made this claim, he neglected to even LOOK at US oil production because, as was known at the time, and known even BETTER now, it was not in terminal decline. Sorry Jiggsy, no cookie for your BS today.


Ladies and Gentlemen, Jiggsy well documented fact of terminal decline. Otherwise known as non-terminal decline, and actual incline instead.

 

Todays Jiggs Casey example of ignorance. Ladies and Gentlemen, I provide you with...oil....which is not oil!!

Jiggsy, circa Jan 13,2010.

Now, Jiggsy knowing nothing about geology, he apparently first thinks that the Bakken "contains" oil shale. Not quite sure what that means, the Bakken is a geologic formation, it consists of shale as well as other types of rock (particularly the Middle Member), and what the Bakken is, is primarily a source rock for the Williston Basin. As a source rock, it contains various types of organic matter which, upon application of temperature, turns into oil! Not synthetic anything, but good old fashioned bubbling crude, looks like the stuff on the left here:



Refined into gasoline like hell won't have it as well, but then Jiggsy doesn't know any more about refinery processes than he does geology, so don't be alarmed sports fans. As far as the environmental damage, well, certainly drilling a well does involve...drilling a well. As for the claims of environmental damage, well, lets just say it doesn't have the consequences that some who know nothing about this industry want to spoon feed to the gullible.

 

Well, right off the bat, you're flat wrong. Because the consensus is that peak is real and quite a problem. $100+ brent prices being just the loudest among dozens of pieces of evidence asserting that the peak argument is over, and the denialists lost badly. Ooops. Price kinda matters. And no amount of drilling for junk-grade "oil" is gonna change that.

here's the former Secretary of Defense and Energy in 2010:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7083

Two years ago in addressing ASPO in Cork, Ireland, I argued that the peakists had won the intellectual argument, except for some minor details about precise timing, but that by and large everyone recognized that there were limits on our capacity to increase the production of crude oil as we have steadily since World War Two.

[I also argued] that peakists were no longer a beleaguered minority, that they had won, and that consequently they should be gracious in victory.

There’s an old spiritual that is relevant here. The walls of those who doubted the peak seemed to be impregnable. Nonetheless, you marched around the walls seven times and then blew the trumpets and the walls of Jericho came tumbling down.
​

As for the rest of your laughable strawman, I'm pretty sure 1) most liberals DO agree with them, or 2) the positions you list are in fact NOT the consensus at all.

But, good job making up a bunch of partisan nonsense. You've quickly reduced yourself to the pay-no-mind cheerleader fringe of this discussion. Good talk.

 

In other words, you're not really sure what you're trying to convey, so you keep it vague and hope I give up. That's what I thought, being the dishonest intellectual that you are.

If that were the case, you'd acknowledge the role that global crude price plays in all of this. You don't, because for all your technical "know-how," you have absolutely no idea that "growth" can not be decoupled from energy consumption.

In terms of the overall equation here, I have lapped you on the knowledge department 3 or 4 times over already.

It's not that I didn't know how to find it, ball-bag. It's your level of coyness in actually saying what you're trying to say. You sourced someone who acknowledges peak oil is now, and you wanted to be tricky with what you're were trying to spin.

Ha! Nope. ... I'm not going anywhere, o' great industry fraud. Whereas your bungled "no problem" narrative grew boring last time, you're so much more of a lying clown now. You beg for accountability. But what should we expect from someone who introduced himself over at USMB as someone who "can be a real dick"?

LOL...

 

Also note the dip***t relying on Wikipedia as the end-all, be-all of assertion. LOL

Also note that I didn't say "defined as," but "refers to" -- a subtle deviation, which basically suggests: "for all intents and purposes, the discussion of peak oil is talking about the most affordable and efficient version of the energy source."

But PP-RGR, being the overly-literal, semantics-addled tool that he is, needs to raise an objection so he can maintain his charade.

"New records" by way of extra-expensive junk oil that returns no where near the same BTUs or EROEI, and continues to result in an increase in Brent and WTI price.

Changing the definition of crude the way you industry snake-oil salesmen and business leaders prefer doesn't change the fact that this kind of cost increase is absolutely not sustainable, even for privileged (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)-bags in gated communities who aren't yet feeling the pinch.

And back here in reality, if mankind could increase the production of much less expensive C+C, it would have. It hasn't, because it can't. Hasn't much since 2005, in fact. The 1979 straw man refers to man-made production bottlenecks and conflicts. This one here in the 21st century refers to geology and economics. And the conclusions of those are already in.

You lost. You're just trying to save face, because you're a perpetual liar.

Cool story. Please come over to theoildrum and try to pass that horse**** off. It's not fair that only I get to enjoy your complete ignorance.

NG isn't oil, doesn't provide anywhere near the same uses as oil, and certainly doesn't power the world's fleet of 900 million combustion engine-driven vehicles. Apples to oranges much? As for "fissionables," if they were so abundant, we'd be actually making nuke plants. There's a limit to uranium too, and Thorium is the "energy source of the future... and always will be."

Distorting Hubbert's thesis based on your own straw men is akin to doing the same of Malthus. Fundamentally, they're both correct - infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet. When you have to resort to a more-expensive (or drastically less versatile) substitute, you're not really fixing the very delicate energy:economy symbiosis. You're harming it.

Hubbert was correct about U.S. production, and despite the (very temporary) shale uptick, we'll never get back to our 1970-71 peak in domestic production. That is, unless your heroes change the definition of "all liquids" to include water, or something. Wouldn't surprise me.

Project much? This is PRECISELY what you denial cultist try and pass off.

 

There's a lot of coal too, if you include low-grade stuff like peat/lignite in that definition.

But to suggest there's "quite a lot" of 15:1+ EROEI light crude up against out 90 million barrel per day appetite is pure hubris.

OK, quantify that then. How much? Where? Because the North Sea has been in steep decline overall for some time now. Pointing to a few modest pockets here and there doesn't atone for the documented slow death of the region's production as a whole.

A couple pages ago, I showed a study that asserts Russian exports are down 5.5% in just two years. That's not by choice.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. The data, and the declarations by everyone from our own Pentagon to the IEA to Virgin Group says strikingly otherwise.

But, at least you're congenial about it, ... unlike PP, who essentially approaches this debate like this kid:

 

"Mind-boggling amounts" at what price, genius? When you answer that question, you'll possess a crumb of credibility here.

Pointing to a "Eleventy trillion barrels" some 50 miles under sub-salt formations doesn't do the global engine much good. (nuance required, though you possess absolutely none)

 

Yes, surely it will all be that easy. The bus.

Meanwhile, the world -- melting down due to rising prices of everything oil-related (most especially food) -- tells a different story. One that shows, time and time again, that high oil prices are completely unsustainable for a world economy desperately dependent on cheap energy.

 

by your definition of the term, sure. ... but then, straw men are your main arsenal.

C+C has barely moved for 8 years. ... You don't resort to producing far-more-expensive junk oil and then pretend the economics of the equation remain the same. Dumbass.

Again, if they could continue producing ever-more of the good stuff, they would. They can't. And the world is suffering badly as a result.

Ooops. You continue to suck at this.

When C+C production returns to pre-2004 growth levels, you may have something.

Increasing tight oil production, however, doesn't do much for your retarded "no problem" argument, a fact you've been brought face-to-face with some two dozen times now, and run from.

And here above the clearest indication that you have absolutely no idea what you're really talking about.

If you had even a meager understanding of how oil price affects global demand (and thus, the health of the global economy), you wouldn't suffer from such a mental blockage regarding every aspect of this exchange.

Instead, you're either "mind-bogglingly" stupid, or the biggest liar on this board.

Again: Project much?

Modern industrial societies can not maintain growth without ever-greater consumption. They can't have greater consumption at elevated price levels. If only rich jaggovs can "comfortably" afford the price, you're going to have global chaos. Oh wait, we already are!!!

Back here in reality: We're merely trying to avoid killing the global economy (and the ecosystem) that your team seems bent on continuing. We do so by fighting liars like you who trudge forward with the only thing you ultimately know how to do: Increase share price and maintain bottom-line rationalization.

Shale oil and gas drillers are losing their shirts. So to pretend there's "plenty" because of this front-loaded industry "revolution" is no more than one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on modern societies. And people like PP here are the main propagandists of this lie.

 

And the waves just keep crashing upon the shore of denialist island:

Shale gas won't stop peak oil, but could create an economic crisis
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jun/21/shale-gas-peak-oil-economic-crisis
Overinflated industry claims could pull the rug out from optimistic growth forecasts within just five years

One internal EIA document said oil companies had exaggerated "the appearance of shale gas well profitability" by highlighting performance only from the best wells, and using overly optimistic models for productivity projections over decades. The NYT reported that the EIA often "relies on research from outside consultants with ties to the industry."​

... frauds like PP, no doubt.... anyhoo, moving on:

A report released in March by the Berlin-based Energy Watch Group (EWG), a group of European scientists, undertook a comprehensive assessment of the availability and production rates for global oil and gas production, concluding that:

"... world oil production has not increased anymore but has entered a plateau since about 2005."
​

Crude oil production was "already in slight decline since about 2008." This is consistent with the EWG's earlier finding that global conventional oil production had peaked in 2006 - as subsequently corroborated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2010.​

They must all be lying, and engaged in some grand conspiracy. ... But, don't worry. It's the shale boom to the rescue!!!!

The new report predicts that far from growing inexorably, "light tight oil production in the USA will peak between 2015 and 2017, followed by a steep decline", while shale gas production will most likely peak in 2015. ​

Ouch. Well, that doesn't line up with the denialist church's teachings. What next?

Consequently, global gas prices are likely to increase rather than follow the initial US trend. In the meantime, conventional oil production will continue declining, dropping as much as 40 per cent by 2030. The upshot is that the US "will not become a net oil exporter."​

LOL.... Fail.

geologist David Hughes, who worked for 32 years as a research manager at the Geological Survey of Canada, analysed US production data for 65,000 wells from 31 shale plays using a database widely used in industry and government. While acknowledging that shale has dramatically reversed "the long-standing decline of US oil and gas production", this can only:

"... provide a temporary reprieve from having to deal with the real problems: fossil fuels are finite, and production of new fossil fuel resources tends to be increasingly expensive and environmentally damaging."​

Despite accounting for nearly 40 per cent of US natural gas production, shale gas production has "been on a plateau since December 2011 - 80 per cent of shale gas production comes from five plays", some of which are already in decline. ... Price is critically important but not considered in these estimates. Only a small portion [of total estimated resources], likely less than 5-10 per cent will be recoverable at a low price...​

Gosh, that stubborn price thing again is killing investment! If only this were like the 1870s, when we could just get more buffalo by pouring more money into scouts and gunz!!!!



Ah well, fellow denialists. Let's just do what we always do and pretend the sustainability movement are the real "crazies," while ignoring the data from international entities and world economic reports. Just keep maintaining the big conspiracy narrative long enough for it to not matter anymore, and we'll die rich. To hell with our grandchildren.

 

let other countries drill baby drill, when they run out we have our own as reserve

 

This is how the market works. As a resource is depleted it becomes more expensive and alternatives become viable.

The future is bright for energy. It's difficult to predict when fusion reactors will be viable because we're a few breakthroughs away, and it's hard to put a time limit on such factors, but I find it hard to imagine that it won't come in our lifetimes.

Besides that, renewable energies such as solar are presenting a decentralized option. My grandparents never pay a power bill as they get more than enough output from the solar they have.

[hr][/hr]

So sure, oil's on a downward slope, but the left should be ecstatic about this - oil production/use is a massive polluter. The alternatives that will rise are all low-pollution.

 

Already answered parrot. Do try and keep up. This cost of supply graphic is from the IEA.

View attachment 20462

 

Is anyone but me surprised that only a faith based parrot would think that the rest of us are DUMB enough to confuse peak oil with SHALE GAS?

 

Of course they do. Only some head in the sand halfwit can't see the day when people like me, with solar panels on the roof being used to fuel their EVs aren't part of a distributed generation system which doesn't give much of a rat's behind about what those morons firmly marching ahead into their 1940's.

The future for energy isn't just bright, it is blinding, and it is a requirement, we aren't talking about whether or not the world will end because no one wants 8 track tapes any more, but electricity and transport fuels. Things which certainly aren't going to just fall by the wayside because some religion sends forth parrots to claim it must be true.

Will rise? Sounds like your grandparents and I are already marching into a low pollution future, claims of the end of worlders be damned.