We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

[Mega]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...il-we-we-wrong

For me, he is a fool.
The "new" oil is BLOODY hard to get & process.....he doesn't look what type of oils (Tar sands is NOT light sweet crude). He fails to discuss the FALL of oil production from manture fields (Brent shut last month). I don't trust Saudi at all, i suspect the SOR IS getting tapped & the oil thrown on to the market....

Also, if he right......why in a DEPRESSION is oil $85...........Not $25?
Mike

[Shakespear]

Re: We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

Yes Mike, this guy is a fruitcake.

Economic downturn, hell lets just say it, Economic Disaster has delayed testing the production limits relative to consumption but that does not change the story underground. The cheap oil is gone, we are not finding giant fields, and the canary in the coal mine, we are going after shale. Shale is the "close to zero" source of HC. So unless some miracle happens or consumption is cut 50 %, his words are just that, words.

[*T*]

Re: We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

I suppose 85 is the new 35.

[mooncliff]

Re: We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

Well, Monbiot was really good because he asked the head of the IEA whether they had actually audited the largest 900 fields in the world, and the answer was "No". Monbiot was in shock, as was I.

Now, a single study seems to have convinced him that there is no problem with supply. Hmmm...
Of course there are huge amounts of oil, if you are willing to pay $1,000 a barrel.
But the question is, how much oil is there 10, 20, 30 years into the future at say $100 a barrel.
And of course, we must take into account the typical behavior of Pemex, which said that there was no problem with Cantarell until it collapsed in just a few short years.
When exactly and what amount exactly is coming online? And why does the study think that? What is the EROEI on what they are talking about?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...oil-this-time/
Changing your mind in view of new information is not a problem. Most people have the opposite problem. They cannot admit they are wrong, cannot evaluate new information, use motivated reasoning to confabulate why their original position is true, and on and on. This drives me absolutely stark raving mad.
I have shed thousands of mistaken ideas because I find it emotionally rewarding. LOL.

My guess is in about five years Monbiot will ask "Hey, where the hell is all the oil you promised?"

[Shakespear]

Re: We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

The Green Line ($$$) explains it all.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LcYID5zhKZ...Field+Size.jpg

[mooncliff]

Re: We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

YIKES!

So we have many more wells in many more fields, each producing tiny fractions of what was the case 60 years ago... and the EROEI goes down down down.

[cbr]

Re: We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

I dont know. People have loudly proclaimed the end of the hydrocarbon era ever since the turn of the century. The 19th century. It is now clear that the world is awash in hydrocarbons for decades based on current reserves and technologies. That success rate chart is probably not accurate. No one drills dry holes anymore.


Bottom line, drilling for hudrocarbons is less speculative than ever.

[Raz]

Re: We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

It makes no difference how much crude oil is left in the earth's crust. There could be 10,000 times the amount we've already removed and it still makes no difference.
The only thing that matters is how many btus does it require to extract a btu of crude oil that remains in the earth's crust.

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

It makes no difference how much crude oil is left in the earth's crust. There could be 10,000 times the amount we've already removed and it still makes no difference.
The only thing that matters is how many btus does it require to extract a btu of crude oil that remains in the earth's crust.

why is that the important metric? It seems to me that the important thing to watch is how many Dollars it takes to extract a Dollars worth of gasoline. For instance what if it required the equivalent of 100 barrels of oil to extract 1 marginal barrel of oil, but that barrel sold for enough money justify removing 102 barrels of oil from the ground? This situation may already be the case in Saudi Arabia where it is alleged that the Saudis are using superheated steam to extract oil that uses more BTUs than is contained in the oil that they are extracting.

[NCR85]

Re: We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

Monbiot says he was wrong on peak oil but the crisis is undeniable

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...?newsfeed=true

Tech Talk - New Energy Report from Harvard Makes Unsupportable Assumptions

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9292

See also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEFS2...ure=plpp_video

At 19:00, projections for unconventional oil in pessimistic, base and optimistic case scenario.

[BadJuju]

Re: We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

I am of the opinion that large amounts of our consumption can be reduced without major economic impacts. Around 70% of oil consumption in the US is for transportation. 2/3rds of that is in the form of gasoline. There is a lot of room for conservation and as prices rise, people will adapt.

http://www.ecoseed.org/politics/1510...us-year-report

This in spite of the fact that the real financial crisis has not even begun. I imagine there will be a sharp curtailment in resource consumption across the board in the forthcoming years. Just my own opinion, but as someone that has made these adaptations already, I think it is quite likely others will as well. I just happen to be ahead of the curve.

edit: I also wish to add that I absolutely detest the sight of urban sprawl and the ridiculous need for consumption that drives American society. Every time I see a freakin' SUV, massive truck, or sprawling neighborhoods in the middle of nowhere, I feel livid. I want to see those two things collapse. While I hate the fact that people will suffer for it, there really should have been more foresight. They will just have to bite the bullet and give up their lives of excess. If that means having to abandon their 4000 sq ft McMansion and three SUVs, so be it.

[vt]

Re: We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

I don't want to be herded into a city with poor schools, crime, bad air, crowding, and nothing green to look at.

We need to have transportation that gets high mileage with natural gas as a fuel, many more nuclear plants, and less need to work in central business districts. With the internet why can't we have most of the population work from home, and close by telecommuting locations?

As EJ suggests, rebuild the transportation, energy, and communications infrastructure. TECI will revitalize the economy and lead to new industries.

[BadJuju]

Re: We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

I don't want to be herded into a city with poor schools, crime, bad air, crowding, and nothing green to look at.

We need to have transportation that gets high mileage with natural gas as a fuel, many more nuclear plants, and less need to work in central business districts. With the internet why can't we have most of the population work from home, and close by telecommuting locations?

As EJ suggests, rebuild the transportation, energy, and communications infrastructure. TECI will revitalize the economy and lead to new industries.

Perhaps we are different in that regard, then. I love cities and abhor the blight we have forced upon the world around us in our desire to spread out as much as possible. Cities are simply far, far more energy efficient than other forms of habitation. Far more sustainable in the face of dwindling resources and space. Nevertheless, that does not mean cities have to be polluted, although crowding might certainly be an issue. And alas, I am not sure crime is really much worse in cities than it is in suburban and rural areas. I greatly appreciate the natural world, which is one reason why I push for the decline of suburbia. Suburbs encroach upon nature and destroy it.

I do agree with your second sentence greatly. People need to get away from their gas hogs, major energy sources like nuclear power need to be developed, and we need to stop shuttling people off to do work that could easily be done remotely.

[c1ue]

Re: We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

The only thing that matters is how many btus does it require to extract a btu of crude oil that remains in the earth's crust.

That's not strictly true. If the BTUs used to extract crude oil were derived from flare off natural gas, EROEI goes down but the price doesn't necessarily go up.

Secondly the reality is that at $100/barrel, oil is still cheaper than milk and is close to bottled water. Because it is so damn cheap, oil is almost certainly used for all sorts of low ROI purposes.

As its price goes up, a lot of those low ROI purposes go away.

Ultimately so long as any kind of economic benefit can be obtained, we'll still find ways to get and supply oil so long as the price - a function of ROI - can justify it.

Europe has already demonstrated that $8/gallon is supportable - that's at least $200/barrel.

[BadJuju]

Re: We are "Wrong" on peek oil..

Europe has already demonstrated that $8/gallon is supportable - that's at least $200/barrel.

Some might argue that it would be impossible for the US to operate as Europe does because of its infrastructure; however, with an increase in prices, American lifestyles would adjust. More and more people would forego moving away. There would be more urban migration. Downsizing vehicle use and transitioning towards lighter, more efficient transportation. While it might not duplicate Europe, it could come much closer than it is now. There really is tremendous room for cutting out a lot of things.