$100 barrel of oil, here we come….

[OwnerOfCalifornia]

The essence of the Peak Oil issue is production rate. Once you have gone to secondary and tertiary recovery methods (i.e. ‘technology’), the field is played out and flow rates are forever diminished. Hence, you are post peak. Or if you believe Matt Simmons, you are merely applying a ‘super-straw’ and making the problem worse. Managing the tail in this way solves nothing for a world that demands 86M barrels today and even more tomorrow.

For me, the PO debate plays out very simply:

Pessimists: facts, data, more facts, more data.
Optimists: Golly we’re smart and we’ll figure it out. We have Technology(tm)!
Pessimists: more facts, data, reality.

It’s already been said, but The Oil Drum is the best energy blog in the world.

[OwnerOfCalifornia]

The essence of the Peak Oil issue is production rate. Once you have gone to secondary and tertiary recovery methods (i.e. ‘technology’), the field is played out and flow rates are forever diminished. Hence, you are post peak. Or if you believe Matt Simmons, you are merely applying a ‘super-straw’ and making the problem worse. Managing the tail in this way solves nothing for a world that demands 86M barrels today and even more tomorrow.

For me, the PO debate plays out very simply:

Pessimists: facts, data, more facts, more data.
Optimists: Golly we’re smart and we’ll figure it out. We have Technology(tm)!
Pessimists: more facts, data, reality.

It’s already been said, but The Oil Drum is the best energy blog in the world.

[OwnerOfCalifornia]

The essence of the Peak Oil issue is production rate. Once you have gone to secondary and tertiary recovery methods (i.e. ‘technology’), the field is played out and flow rates are forever diminished. Hence, you are post peak. Or if you believe Matt Simmons, you are merely applying a ‘super-straw’ and making the problem worse. Managing the tail in this way solves nothing for a world that demands 86M barrels today and even more tomorrow.

For me, the PO debate plays out very simply:

Pessimists: facts, data, more facts, more data.
Optimists: Golly we’re smart and we’ll figure it out. We have Technology(tm)!
Pessimists: more facts, data, reality.

It’s already been said, but The Oil Drum is the best energy blog in the world.

[OwnerOfCalifornia]

The essence of the Peak Oil issue is production rate. Once you have gone to secondary and tertiary recovery methods (i.e. ‘technology’), the field is played out and flow rates are forever diminished. Hence, you are post peak. Or if you believe Matt Simmons, you are merely applying a ‘super-straw’ and making the problem worse. Managing the tail in this way solves nothing for a world that demands 86M barrels today and even more tomorrow.

For me, the PO debate plays out very simply:

Pessimists: facts, data, more facts, more data.
Optimists: Golly we’re smart and we’ll figure it out. We have Technology(tm)!
Pessimists: more facts, data, reality.

It’s already been said, but The Oil Drum is the best energy blog in the world.

[Arraya]

I think the Religiousity usually comes in the form of people thinking they have an entitlement to a smooth transition from one energy source to another, therefore not preparing except by the invisable hand of the free market(talk about a religion). Kind of like homeowners always expecting there home to appreciate.

“Two economists find themselves locked in a basement. They’re not sure what time it is, because it’s dark and they can’t read their watches. They think it’s nearly dinner time, cause they’re starting to feel hungry. But they’re not worried; they are not starting to panic – because they know that their demand will create sandwiches for them!”

Yes, wells extract at different rates and there are various facotrs involved in pulling it out of the ground. Still any given region peaks and declines. Us in 1970, Northslope 1999, Cantrell in 2004. That is not in dispute. It is the when that is…

“argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995”

I love the “cry Wolf” argument. Wasn’t the wolf real in the end.

As far as the un-conventional oils. EROEI-Energy returned on energy invested. When it takes on barrel of oil to extract one. Not really much good is it.

There are always equal and opposite Phds on both sides of any controversial issue but one side usually makes more sense.

IMO The ills of the 20th century hyper-captialism comsumption orgy are coming to fruition in the form of our geological limits limits and nobody is paying attention. We are like a world of 2 yr olds. It looks like the battle of the “rightness” of our current economic model and geological limits is starting. I’m putting my money on the limits..

Take your blue pill and get back in the matrix everybody…

[Arraya]

I think the Religiousity usually comes in the form of people thinking they have an entitlement to a smooth transition from one energy source to another, therefore not preparing except by the invisable hand of the free market(talk about a religion). Kind of like homeowners always expecting there home to appreciate.

“Two economists find themselves locked in a basement. They’re not sure what time it is, because it’s dark and they can’t read their watches. They think it’s nearly dinner time, cause they’re starting to feel hungry. But they’re not worried; they are not starting to panic – because they know that their demand will create sandwiches for them!”

Yes, wells extract at different rates and there are various facotrs involved in pulling it out of the ground. Still any given region peaks and declines. Us in 1970, Northslope 1999, Cantrell in 2004. That is not in dispute. It is the when that is…

“argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995”

I love the “cry Wolf” argument. Wasn’t the wolf real in the end.

As far as the un-conventional oils. EROEI-Energy returned on energy invested. When it takes on barrel of oil to extract one. Not really much good is it.

There are always equal and opposite Phds on both sides of any controversial issue but one side usually makes more sense.

IMO The ills of the 20th century hyper-captialism comsumption orgy are coming to fruition in the form of our geological limits limits and nobody is paying attention. We are like a world of 2 yr olds. It looks like the battle of the “rightness” of our current economic model and geological limits is starting. I’m putting my money on the limits..

Take your blue pill and get back in the matrix everybody…

[Arraya]

I think the Religiousity usually comes in the form of people thinking they have an entitlement to a smooth transition from one energy source to another, therefore not preparing except by the invisable hand of the free market(talk about a religion). Kind of like homeowners always expecting there home to appreciate.

“Two economists find themselves locked in a basement. They’re not sure what time it is, because it’s dark and they can’t read their watches. They think it’s nearly dinner time, cause they’re starting to feel hungry. But they’re not worried; they are not starting to panic – because they know that their demand will create sandwiches for them!”

Yes, wells extract at different rates and there are various facotrs involved in pulling it out of the ground. Still any given region peaks and declines. Us in 1970, Northslope 1999, Cantrell in 2004. That is not in dispute. It is the when that is…

“argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995”

I love the “cry Wolf” argument. Wasn’t the wolf real in the end.

As far as the un-conventional oils. EROEI-Energy returned on energy invested. When it takes on barrel of oil to extract one. Not really much good is it.

There are always equal and opposite Phds on both sides of any controversial issue but one side usually makes more sense.

IMO The ills of the 20th century hyper-captialism comsumption orgy are coming to fruition in the form of our geological limits limits and nobody is paying attention. We are like a world of 2 yr olds. It looks like the battle of the “rightness” of our current economic model and geological limits is starting. I’m putting my money on the limits..

Take your blue pill and get back in the matrix everybody…

[Arraya]

I think the Religiousity usually comes in the form of people thinking they have an entitlement to a smooth transition from one energy source to another, therefore not preparing except by the invisable hand of the free market(talk about a religion). Kind of like homeowners always expecting there home to appreciate.

“Two economists find themselves locked in a basement. They’re not sure what time it is, because it’s dark and they can’t read their watches. They think it’s nearly dinner time, cause they’re starting to feel hungry. But they’re not worried; they are not starting to panic – because they know that their demand will create sandwiches for them!”

Yes, wells extract at different rates and there are various facotrs involved in pulling it out of the ground. Still any given region peaks and declines. Us in 1970, Northslope 1999, Cantrell in 2004. That is not in dispute. It is the when that is…

“argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995”

I love the “cry Wolf” argument. Wasn’t the wolf real in the end.

As far as the un-conventional oils. EROEI-Energy returned on energy invested. When it takes on barrel of oil to extract one. Not really much good is it.

There are always equal and opposite Phds on both sides of any controversial issue but one side usually makes more sense.

IMO The ills of the 20th century hyper-captialism comsumption orgy are coming to fruition in the form of our geological limits limits and nobody is paying attention. We are like a world of 2 yr olds. It looks like the battle of the “rightness” of our current economic model and geological limits is starting. I’m putting my money on the limits..

Take your blue pill and get back in the matrix everybody…

[Anonymous]

What hasn’t been addressed here, with regard to higher oil prices making oil shale and sands economically feasible, is energy return on investment. Currently, the oil extraction methods waste a heck of a lot of oil and water just to extract the oil from the sands/tar. I don’t know the exact ratio, but I think the energy ROI is something like 1.2:1, and that’s not counting all the water that gets polluted to do this.

Is it really worth extracting the oil if it is not energy efficient to do so? What if we use natural gas to heat up the oil sands, basically burning a clean high-energy resource for a dirtier and less energy-efficient one?

[Anonymous]

What hasn’t been addressed here, with regard to higher oil prices making oil shale and sands economically feasible, is energy return on investment. Currently, the oil extraction methods waste a heck of a lot of oil and water just to extract the oil from the sands/tar. I don’t know the exact ratio, but I think the energy ROI is something like 1.2:1, and that’s not counting all the water that gets polluted to do this.

Is it really worth extracting the oil if it is not energy efficient to do so? What if we use natural gas to heat up the oil sands, basically burning a clean high-energy resource for a dirtier and less energy-efficient one?

[Anonymous]

What hasn’t been addressed here, with regard to higher oil prices making oil shale and sands economically feasible, is energy return on investment. Currently, the oil extraction methods waste a heck of a lot of oil and water just to extract the oil from the sands/tar. I don’t know the exact ratio, but I think the energy ROI is something like 1.2:1, and that’s not counting all the water that gets polluted to do this.

Is it really worth extracting the oil if it is not energy efficient to do so? What if we use natural gas to heat up the oil sands, basically burning a clean high-energy resource for a dirtier and less energy-efficient one?

[Anonymous]

What hasn’t been addressed here, with regard to higher oil prices making oil shale and sands economically feasible, is energy return on investment. Currently, the oil extraction methods waste a heck of a lot of oil and water just to extract the oil from the sands/tar. I don’t know the exact ratio, but I think the energy ROI is something like 1.2:1, and that’s not counting all the water that gets polluted to do this.

Is it really worth extracting the oil if it is not energy efficient to do so? What if we use natural gas to heat up the oil sands, basically burning a clean high-energy resource for a dirtier and less energy-efficient one?

[one_muggle]

So why has production been essentially flat for three years while oil has gone from $30 to $94 (according to you this increase in prices should have caused production to increase)
That’s 0% increase in production
300% increase in price
Seems that your argument is missing something

Ugh. The price increase makes it more attractive to extract more expensive oil– but the time/cost of new wells is high. For sure, if prices stay high, production will keep increasing–not forever, I never said that, but for now.
BTW, if you want to see the impact of high oil prices, look at exploration companies like Dawson Geo and OYOG, they have been doing quadruple the business of the previous five years.

As far as missing something-I think you are missing something, data:
Daily production (thous. barrel per day)
2002: 74496
2006: 81663

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2007/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/oil_section_2007.pdf

Last time for my original point, before getting bogged down in explaining things I never said–many people throw around the Hubbert Peak to predict the end of oil. It is not, and was never the purpose of the Hubbert Peak. It was based on the ability to extract cheap oil, written by an employee of an oil company, showing that the US was running out of cheap oil, thus encouraging more international exploration. We (the world) will run out of cheap oil way, way, way before we run out of oil that is cheaper to extract than the energy it costs.
Yes, the price will rise, and the economic consequences could be severe, but we are not about to run out of oil–possibly we are on the cusp of running out of cheap oil.

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

So why has production been essentially flat for three years while oil has gone from $30 to $94 (according to you this increase in prices should have caused production to increase)
That’s 0% increase in production
300% increase in price
Seems that your argument is missing something

Ugh. The price increase makes it more attractive to extract more expensive oil– but the time/cost of new wells is high. For sure, if prices stay high, production will keep increasing–not forever, I never said that, but for now.
BTW, if you want to see the impact of high oil prices, look at exploration companies like Dawson Geo and OYOG, they have been doing quadruple the business of the previous five years.

As far as missing something-I think you are missing something, data:
Daily production (thous. barrel per day)
2002: 74496
2006: 81663

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2007/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/oil_section_2007.pdf

Last time for my original point, before getting bogged down in explaining things I never said–many people throw around the Hubbert Peak to predict the end of oil. It is not, and was never the purpose of the Hubbert Peak. It was based on the ability to extract cheap oil, written by an employee of an oil company, showing that the US was running out of cheap oil, thus encouraging more international exploration. We (the world) will run out of cheap oil way, way, way before we run out of oil that is cheaper to extract than the energy it costs.
Yes, the price will rise, and the economic consequences could be severe, but we are not about to run out of oil–possibly we are on the cusp of running out of cheap oil.

-one muggle

[one_muggle]

So why has production been essentially flat for three years while oil has gone from $30 to $94 (according to you this increase in prices should have caused production to increase)
That’s 0% increase in production
300% increase in price
Seems that your argument is missing something

Ugh. The price increase makes it more attractive to extract more expensive oil– but the time/cost of new wells is high. For sure, if prices stay high, production will keep increasing–not forever, I never said that, but for now.
BTW, if you want to see the impact of high oil prices, look at exploration companies like Dawson Geo and OYOG, they have been doing quadruple the business of the previous five years.

As far as missing something-I think you are missing something, data:
Daily production (thous. barrel per day)
2002: 74496
2006: 81663

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_publications/statistical_energy_review_2007/STAGING/local_assets/downloads/pdf/oil_section_2007.pdf

Last time for my original point, before getting bogged down in explaining things I never said–many people throw around the Hubbert Peak to predict the end of oil. It is not, and was never the purpose of the Hubbert Peak. It was based on the ability to extract cheap oil, written by an employee of an oil company, showing that the US was running out of cheap oil, thus encouraging more international exploration. We (the world) will run out of cheap oil way, way, way before we run out of oil that is cheaper to extract than the energy it costs.
Yes, the price will rise, and the economic consequences could be severe, but we are not about to run out of oil–possibly we are on the cusp of running out of cheap oil.

-one muggle

[Author]

Posts