ShcShc11 0 #1 July 24, 2012 http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2012/07/24/1094111/is-peak-oil-dead/#comments http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/02/peak-oil-we-we-wrong Interest articles on peak oil. Easy oil may be gone, but all the talk about peak oil may have been exaggerated. QuoteSome of us made vague predictions, others were more specific. In all cases we were wrong. In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010. In 2003 the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes said he was "99% confident" that peak oil would occur in 2004. In 2004, the Texas tycoon T Boone Pickens predicted that "never again will we pump more than 82m barrels" per day of liquid fuels. (Average daily supply in May 2012 was 91m.) In 2005 the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that "Saudi Arabia … cannot materially grow its oil production". (Since then its output has risen from 9m barrels a day to 10m, and it has another 1.5m in spare capacity.) Cheers! Shc Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #2 July 25, 2012 I'd say that world-wide, it's pretty f'in' flat at this point. at some point it certainly will go down. http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=oil&graph=productionquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #3 July 25, 2012 The concept of peak oil as I understood it was when it becomes increasingly more difficult and costly to pump the oil out of the ground and has nothing to do with the quantity of oil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ShcShc11 0 #4 July 25, 2012 QuoteThe concept of peak oil as I understood it was when it becomes increasingly more difficult and costly to pump the oil out of the ground and has nothing to do with the quantity of oil. That's easy oil. Peak Oil is purely production and quantity Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andrewwhyte 1 #5 July 25, 2012 Nonetheless peak oil is tied to technology. New advances in both exploration and extraction are shifting the supply curve at all price levels. How long that will continue to be true is anyone's guess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 July 25, 2012 Just so I'm clear, when you squeeze all the blood out of the turnip, how much is left? An infinite amount?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #7 July 25, 2012 > Is the concept of "peak oil" dead? Nope. The EROEI* of oil is still dropping. Once it gets close to 1:1 other fuels will simply be more economical. Call that "peak oil" if you like - it will represent a peak of production that we won't return to. We will never run out of oil. We will just run out of economically viable oil. EROEIs: Oil, 1990: 35 Oil, 2007: 12 Shale oil, 2012: 5 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #8 July 25, 2012 QuoteI'd say that world-wide, it's pretty f'in' flat at this point. It was 'flat' from 1990-1995 before it climbed over 8% to 2011 levels. Quoteat some point it certainly will go down. Brilliant analysis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #9 July 25, 2012 QuoteQuoteI'd say that world-wide, it's pretty f'in' flat at this point. It was 'flat' from 1990-1995 before it climbed over 8% to 2011 levels. Quoteat some point it certainly will go down. Brilliant analysis So, you're saying it's not true? That it's possible to always produce more each year forever? Riiight. If you look at the link I provided, you'll see that while there was a slight increase in 2011 it's been almost completely flat since 2005 and that it had dipped in 2009. If anyone thinks it's an unlimited resource, I have a perpetual motion machine I'd like you to look at.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #10 July 25, 2012 An article from 2009. Is Peak Oil Real? A List of Countries Past Peak QuoteOnly 14 out of 54 oil producing countries and regions in the world continue to increase production, while 30 are definitely past their production peak, and the remaining 10 appear to have flat or declining production [1]. Put another way, peak oil is real in 61% of the oil producing world when weighted by production. Since 2008 capped a record run for oil prices, most countries and oil companies were trying all-out to increase production. While a handful of producers (think Iraq) might be limited by above-ground factors, the majority of producers simply couldn't do any better in 2008 [2]. I doubt its gotten any better in the last 3 years.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfzombie 3 #11 July 25, 2012 now i may not be an expert, but i did sleep at a holiday inn express last night...but seriously, i watched a show called journey to the center of the earth with my son and it taught me something which may be relevant. the way the earth made oil may suggest that it can make more. they say it takes millions of years, but it has been going on for millions, right? and who's to say it won't continue? harder to get for sure, but still there. and maybe not being produced as fast as we consume it, but who really knows for sure? it's all a guess, basically. i'm much more worried about the government as far as worry goes. i don't really until people start shooting at me or maybe rocket attacks. other than that, if nobody's dying, it's all ok.http://kitswv.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wayneflorida 0 #12 July 25, 2012 Who cares. When the oil runs out we will have cold fusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #13 July 25, 2012 >and who's to say it won't continue? It will. But it makes oil so slowly that it's not useful for our purposes. > and maybe not being produced as fast as we consume it That's the issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #14 July 26, 2012 Quote>and who's to say it won't continue? It will. But it makes oil so slowly that it's not useful for our purposes. > and maybe not being produced as fast as we consume it That's the issue. Do you remember when the world was running out of wood to burn? Remember when the world was running out of whale oil for lighting? I just wished we had a government program to save us from those calamities. The world would be a much better place if we had restricted the burning of trees and rationed whale oil after we had reached "peak (whale) oil. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,173 #15 July 26, 2012 >Do you remember when the world was running out of wood to burn? No. > Remember when the world was running out of whale oil for lighting? No. But I understand that electricity was a pretty good replacement for that. Are you going to come out against electricity next? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #16 July 26, 2012 Quote Who cares. When the oil runs out we will have cold fusion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #17 July 26, 2012 QuoteI doubt its gotten any better in the last 3 years. Or much worse according to the graph. Checkout the ethanol stats: http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?product=ethanol&graph=production Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #18 July 27, 2012 Quote>Do you remember when the world was running out of wood to burn? >No. Then ring the bell, class is in session! The massive production of charcoal (at its height employing hundreds of thousands) was a major cause of deforestation, especially in Central Europe. The increasing scarcity of easily harvested wood was a major factor for the switch to the fossil fuel equivalents, mainly coal and brown coal for industrial use. > Remember when the world was running out of whale oil for lighting? >No. But I understand that electricity was a pretty good replacement for that. Sit down class is not over! Whale oil was supplanted by kerosene which was replaced by natural gas and THEN we got to electricity. all accomplished without government intervention. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,173 #19 July 27, 2012 >The massive production of charcoal (at its height employing hundreds of thousands) > was a major cause of deforestation, especially in Central Europe. The increasing >scarcity of easily harvested wood was a major factor for the switch to the fossil fuel >equivalents, mainly coal and brown coal for industrial use. Yep. The advantages of new sources of energy (cleaner, easier, cheaper) won against the environmental damage (deforestation) caused by using wood. Sound familiar? >Whale oil was supplanted by kerosene which was replaced by natural gas and THEN >we got to electricity. all accomplished without government intervention. You must have cut class that day! Before a certain government act, most farms and rural communities in the US had 32 volt power, generated by windmills. Sears sold a lot of 32 volt appliances - washing machines, lights, saws, grinders etc. What was the government act that brought utility power to most of the US? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #20 July 27, 2012 Quote Before a certain government act, most farms and rural communities in the US had 32 volt power, generated by windmills. Sears sold a lot of 32 volt appliances - washing machines, lights, saws, grinders etc. Those communities and farms were self sustaining and GASP! green. Power companies wanted to sell them power, but it wasn't profitable enough to build the infrastructure to support them. So they used their lobbyists to get the government to pay for it. Phone, cable, and high speed Internet companies have all used similar tactics. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites brenthutch 444 #21 July 27, 2012 Quote>The massive production of charcoal (at its height employing hundreds of thousands) > was a major cause of deforestation, especially in Central Europe. The increasing >scarcity of easily harvested wood was a major factor for the switch to the fossil fuel >equivalents, mainly coal and brown coal for industrial use. Yep. The advantages of new sources of energy (cleaner, easier, cheaper) won against the environmental damage (deforestation) caused by using wood. You mean cheaper vs. more expensive. Environmental and labor concerns were inconsequential, (not a lot of tree huggers or unions in the early industrial age). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,173 #22 July 27, 2012 >You mean cheaper vs. more expensive. Environmental and labor concerns were >inconsequential Back to school for you! Early on in the US, steamboat companies got fuel by just cutting down trees along the banks of rivers. There were plenty of trees! No one worried about the environmental impact. And it was super cheap. Then rivers started to flood more often. Entire communities washed away when the forests that once lined their banks were reduced to stumps. Water supplies became contaminated by all the mud and debris. So in 1911 Congress passed the Weeks Act. It restricted where people could cut down trees and allowed the US to set aside land to protect watersheds and riverbanks. It was followed by the Clarke–McNary Act of 1924 which expanded its protections. Those riverboat companies screamed bloody murder, of course. Activist politicians trying to put hardworking rivermen out of business! Naturalist fools put useless forests above the welfare of Americans! (sounding familiar yet?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Remster 30 #23 July 27, 2012 QuoteThose riverboat companies screamed bloody murder And rightly they should! Look what it did to the riverboat industry! Just last week, I tried to find a riverboat ride from Tucson to Phoenix, and, you won't believe it: no company offering that service was left!Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,173 #19 July 27, 2012 >The massive production of charcoal (at its height employing hundreds of thousands) > was a major cause of deforestation, especially in Central Europe. The increasing >scarcity of easily harvested wood was a major factor for the switch to the fossil fuel >equivalents, mainly coal and brown coal for industrial use. Yep. The advantages of new sources of energy (cleaner, easier, cheaper) won against the environmental damage (deforestation) caused by using wood. Sound familiar? >Whale oil was supplanted by kerosene which was replaced by natural gas and THEN >we got to electricity. all accomplished without government intervention. You must have cut class that day! Before a certain government act, most farms and rural communities in the US had 32 volt power, generated by windmills. Sears sold a lot of 32 volt appliances - washing machines, lights, saws, grinders etc. What was the government act that brought utility power to most of the US? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #20 July 27, 2012 Quote Before a certain government act, most farms and rural communities in the US had 32 volt power, generated by windmills. Sears sold a lot of 32 volt appliances - washing machines, lights, saws, grinders etc. Those communities and farms were self sustaining and GASP! green. Power companies wanted to sell them power, but it wasn't profitable enough to build the infrastructure to support them. So they used their lobbyists to get the government to pay for it. Phone, cable, and high speed Internet companies have all used similar tactics. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #21 July 27, 2012 Quote>The massive production of charcoal (at its height employing hundreds of thousands) > was a major cause of deforestation, especially in Central Europe. The increasing >scarcity of easily harvested wood was a major factor for the switch to the fossil fuel >equivalents, mainly coal and brown coal for industrial use. Yep. The advantages of new sources of energy (cleaner, easier, cheaper) won against the environmental damage (deforestation) caused by using wood. You mean cheaper vs. more expensive. Environmental and labor concerns were inconsequential, (not a lot of tree huggers or unions in the early industrial age). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,173 #22 July 27, 2012 >You mean cheaper vs. more expensive. Environmental and labor concerns were >inconsequential Back to school for you! Early on in the US, steamboat companies got fuel by just cutting down trees along the banks of rivers. There were plenty of trees! No one worried about the environmental impact. And it was super cheap. Then rivers started to flood more often. Entire communities washed away when the forests that once lined their banks were reduced to stumps. Water supplies became contaminated by all the mud and debris. So in 1911 Congress passed the Weeks Act. It restricted where people could cut down trees and allowed the US to set aside land to protect watersheds and riverbanks. It was followed by the Clarke–McNary Act of 1924 which expanded its protections. Those riverboat companies screamed bloody murder, of course. Activist politicians trying to put hardworking rivermen out of business! Naturalist fools put useless forests above the welfare of Americans! (sounding familiar yet?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Remster 30 #23 July 27, 2012 QuoteThose riverboat companies screamed bloody murder And rightly they should! Look what it did to the riverboat industry! Just last week, I tried to find a riverboat ride from Tucson to Phoenix, and, you won't believe it: no company offering that service was left!Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
billvon 3,173 #22 July 27, 2012 >You mean cheaper vs. more expensive. Environmental and labor concerns were >inconsequential Back to school for you! Early on in the US, steamboat companies got fuel by just cutting down trees along the banks of rivers. There were plenty of trees! No one worried about the environmental impact. And it was super cheap. Then rivers started to flood more often. Entire communities washed away when the forests that once lined their banks were reduced to stumps. Water supplies became contaminated by all the mud and debris. So in 1911 Congress passed the Weeks Act. It restricted where people could cut down trees and allowed the US to set aside land to protect watersheds and riverbanks. It was followed by the Clarke–McNary Act of 1924 which expanded its protections. Those riverboat companies screamed bloody murder, of course. Activist politicians trying to put hardworking rivermen out of business! Naturalist fools put useless forests above the welfare of Americans! (sounding familiar yet?) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #23 July 27, 2012 QuoteThose riverboat companies screamed bloody murder And rightly they should! Look what it did to the riverboat industry! Just last week, I tried to find a riverboat ride from Tucson to Phoenix, and, you won't believe it: no company offering that service was left!Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
