Are we runninng out of oil?q [Archive]

Mrick

19th January 2005, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by H3LL
This is an interesting link:

When will the joy ride end? (http://www.aspencore.org/Fossil/joy_ride.html)

IMHO it is not "running out of oil" that is the problem, it is "running out of CHEAP oil".

PS - Can we bury in a tar-pit the first person to mention GW after this statement?

Which is one of the key reasons for the Iraq invasion. The reason there was no "exit plan" was we didn't intend to exit. We intended to stay and establish military basis.

It is also one of the key reasons we don't invade Saudi Arabia. They have been in a business relationship with us since Roosevelt. We protect the Royal Family even though the regime is awful.

That was the whole reason for Osama. Osama was one our guys - a CIA asset. But basing in Saudi Arabia offended his religion, as does the character of the Royal Family and their tie to the United States.

It isn't any accident that those running the nation come from the oil industry and the defense industry. We will be defending pipelines for a long time.

imho,
Mrick

dano

1st February 2005, 11:29 AM

Running out of "cheap" oil is the same as running out oil, for all practical purposes, and the supply is indeed running short. Do a search on "Hubbert's Peak" to learn more.

We will begin to see the effects of this in our lifetime, or certainly our children's. As oil supplies get shorter the pirce goes up. Not enough people understand the devastating impact this will have on world economies. There's a three-pronged train wreck in the works: We're passing the peak of global oil reserves, which means the price of oil only goes up and up and up from here on out (I'm speaking long term, years and decades), the global population is continuing to grow exponentially (though there are some studies which believe this may be slowing, it's tricky), creating further demands on our resources, and some third world type cultures with huge populations are emulating the U.S lifestyle, so that the existing population is dramatically increasing it's energy demands, most notably China and India. This all bodes BIG trouble. Note that I have not even mentioned environmental damage and global warming issues.

It's easy to dismiss some proposed scenarios as doomsday nonsense, but the fact is increasing energy demands and a shrinking supply of cheap petroleum are a disastorous combination that will have a profound effect on people's lifestyles. We got just a little taste of this in this country in the 1970's. Remember the gas lines and the ensuing chaos, even violence, for what was a temporary, artificial shortage? Stay tuned. More to come.

There are technological and lifestyle solutions to this problem than can be developed, and many good people are working them at present, but the sad fact is no real action will occur until the crisis is upon us. It's been that way more or less throughout human history.

fenster

20th February 2005, 07:27 AM

-the price of oil will indeed go higher, I believe, moreso if China's hot economy doesn't implode; but remember that as the US$goes down (I believe it will over the next few years), oil becomes cheaper (relatively) for other countries. Just be thankful that oil isn't traded in Euros!

Giambattista

25th February 2005, 03:53 AM

What I find particularly amusing is that the peak oil myth tends to be a favorite of the same people who eat up the global warming myth. They insist both that we soon won't have any fuel and that we'll manage to destroy the planet with fuel emissions!

Here's a tip folks, you won't get anywhere with 'critical thinking' until you stop the 'loser thinking'.

AWPrime

25th February 2005, 06:49 AM

Thinking of might go wrong is a part of critical thinking.

Giambattista

25th February 2005, 04:07 PM

Don't know what that means, but gibberish isn't critical thinking, either.

Part of the problem of the oil debate is that much of the vernacular is stuck in 200-year old science. You will still find references of 'fossil fuel' being stored 'solar energy', which means all the oil we pull out of the ground is supposedly mass that the sun spat all over the earth. That is preposterous considering we have known for at least a half century that the amount of mass that is added to the earth from the sun from plant photosynthesis is miniscule. There is no 'solar energy' trapped in oil. If oil even is a fossil fuel and not aboiotically formed, then the plants that have become oil used sunlight as a catalyst to reform energy in soil constituents into carbon.

Rob Lister

25th February 2005, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Giambattista
Don't know what that means, but gibberish isn't critical thinking, either.

Part of the problem of the oil debate is that much of the vernacular is stuck in 200-year old science. You will still find references of 'fossil fuel' being stored 'solar energy', which means all the oil we pull out of the ground is supposedly mass that the sun spat all over the earth. That is preposterous considering we have known for at least a half century that the amount of mass that is added to the earth from the sun from plant photosynthesis is miniscule. There is no 'solar energy' trapped in oil. If oil even is a fossil fuel and not aboiotically formed, then the plants that have become oil used sunlight as a catalyst to reform energy in soil constituents into carbon.

Your second paragraph confirms your first. It was, so far as I can tell, gibberish. Perhaps you worded it incorrectly but your first paragraph still applies. The energy contained in oil (the hydrocarbon bond) was formed through a chain of events beginning with the sun. But like you said, this assumes there is not an aboiotical explanation for oil but I don't think that's too big an assumption.

Giambattista

27th February 2005, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Your second paragraph confirms your first. It was, so far as I can tell, gibberish. Perhaps you worded it incorrectly but your first paragraph still applies. The energy contained in oil (the hydrocarbon bond) was formed through a chain of events beginning with the sun.

I debunked a claim that hydrocarbons contain 'stored solar energy', and you are beating the 'formed through a chain of events' strawman. (granted the 'stored solar energy' claim is a red herring I introduced in the peak oil debate simply to demonstrate how poor general knowledge on these subjects is). Even of the solar energy that a plant absorbs, a very small amount is used, the rest is waste product the plant expells as hot water vapor. There is an infintessimal amount of stored energy (mass) from the sun in a plant. If you want to envision physics working differently than it does, there's plenty of woo-woo forums for you to hang out on, no need to clutter up this board.

Giambattista

27th February 2005, 04:45 PM

Might as well shoot down another peak oil canard while I'm here. Peak oil enthusiasts will often claim that while we won't run out of oil, it will just get more and more expensive as it costs more and more to extract it from reserves that are harder to get at. These people are showing their utter incompetance to understand capitalist economy, or much of anything. The greater the investment in oil-wel superfields, the cheaper the oil is to extract. It's not rocket science, it's the way Wal-mart and every other growth-oriented capital operation cuts cost - by increasing volume. The debt on the infrastructure only has to be serviced. The main reason the cost of oil is double what it was a decade ago is because the middle eastern countries sitting on huge reserves haven't been allowing oil companies to invest in superfields to keep up with demand.

Another amusing thing is that peak oil enthusiasts will often cite the fact that authorites want oil companies to more accurately project their reserves. Because when an oil company says it has 500 million barrels in reserve, they're often talking about oil they don't plan on ever extracting. Peak oil fanatics intrepret this as a dastardly over-inflation of the actual amount of oil available to consumers, designed to fool us all into thinking there is plenty of oil left! But there is. If an oil company knows about 500 million barrels it doesn't ever intend on extracting, then it must be happily extracting what it does intend on extracting, right? And if that supply is ever jeopardized, maybe they will consider going after that hard-to-get 500 million barrel reserve. But why should they even care now, when there is enough easy-to-reach oil to last the planet another 200 years at the least?

Then of course there's also the fact that when the price of oil goes up, people use less, and switch to other energy. The fact that only environmental concerns, not economic, are driving the hybrid-car industry should demonstrate to anyone with half a brain that there is no immediate shortage of oil on the horizon - if there were, oil companies would be driving the hybrid-car industry, not environmentalists.

AWPrime

28th February 2005, 12:52 AM

Giambattista, you have spoken like a true economist. Like most economist, they don't understand concepts like: 'maximum rate of extraction' or 'finite resource'.

The greater the investment in oil-wel superfields, the cheaper the oil is to extract.
And how faster it runs out. Next to this problem is that humanity is running out of superfields.

Question: If investments increase oil-production, then why has the oil-porduction of the USA peaked several decades ago?

ps. The hybrid-car industry, is a dead end for peakoil because hydrogen isn't a power-resource only a power storage medium.

Giambattista

28th February 2005, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime
Giambattista, you have spoken like a true economist.

thanks, I couldn't ask for a better compliment!

Oil production peaked in USA just as Hubbert was able to predict because millions of holes had been drilled all over the lower 48 so it was pretty damn easy for him to plot, no crystal balls or dowsing rods required, and there wasn't a whole lot of oil under USA to begin with. Under the middle east there appears to be a lot more oil than was ever under USA, but oil companies have either not been permitted or have been waiting for political climates to cool down before bothering to survey it. Afghanistan itself will probably end up fueling the world for 300 years. China is finally in the position of being able to invest capital in oilfields and they are finding tons of it wherever they bother to look (http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=25935060&brk=1). You just don't have a clue. It's amusing to watch losers gripe and grumble about booming economies that show no signs of cooling off. They have to dream up wild doomsday senarios. Why not make it easy on yourself and put your faith in karma, the choice of millions of grumbling losers worldwide!

ps. Your ps was gibberish.

AWPrime

28th February 2005, 02:24 AM

Those places in the middle east have been surveyed. And the global discovered amount of found oil is falling.

And don't put to much faith in 'proven' oil reserves untill a third party comforms it. Because the amount of reserves dictates how much oil may be shipped. And lets not forget Shell.
Probably an even more interesting number would be the "reserves of high quality oil", namely, the good stuff that can be easily turned into fuel.

ps. You do know the difference between powersource and storage?

AWPrime

28th February 2005, 02:31 AM

Another point is that oil and natural gas does not exist in commercial quantities outside of sedimentary basins. So you just can't expect to find them anywhere.

The error many economists make is that they always convert everything into money. And then take money as their bases for predictions. Its not money that that runs the economy its energy and labor! And when energy becomes more expensive it will slow or even reduce the economy.

Giambattista

28th February 2005, 02:32 AM

You are obviously very devoted to your delusions. If you are interested in life-coaching sessions at an introductory rate of $50/hr, contact me privately. Have a nice day!

AWPrime

28th February 2005, 02:38 AM

As a wise man ones said: attack the message not the messager.

Giambattista

28th February 2005, 02:50 AM

I am not attacking you and I am satisfied that I have debunked Peak Oil. My offer for life-coaching is sincere, granted no one has yet ever taken me up on the offer after I've debunked their delusions in an online forum.

AWPrime

28th February 2005, 02:54 AM

Then where are your counterarguments and numbers?

Giambattista

28th February 2005, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
I am satisfied that I have debunked Peak Oil.

Actually..

A few articles:

http://www.williambowles.info/oil/no_oil.html

http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2004/05/were_not_runnin.html

http://www.frbatlanta.org/invoke.cfm?objectid=AB4F965E-E58D-4568-BCA4889D6E63C374&method=display

Some facts:

Over the last 25 years, known reserves of oil have increased by almost 70 percent, to the point where if all new exploration for oil and gas were to stop tomorrow, the wells would not run dry for at least the next 47 years

- Source: Petroconsultants, op.cit., p.6; Note: For Reserves/Production Ratio for1997, Total Oil Equivalent-of the major Reserves estimates: Of Oil & Gas Journal, World Oil, and US Geological Survey, Petroconsultants is the most conservative.

* *

According to the US Geological Survey: "Identified Reserves include proven reserves and may also include additional petroleum that could be added through field growth through field extensions, revisions of reserve estimates, additions of new pools, and applications of new recovery techniques. Proven reserves are the identified resource whose existence, quantity, and commercial producibility are demonstrated by geologic evidence and supported by engineering measurements." Cited in Masters, C.D., D.H. Root, and R.M. Turner, "World Conventional Crude Oil and Natural Gas: Identified Reserves, Undiscovered Resources and Futures," US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey Open File Report 98-468, August 1998, FINAL DRAFT.

* *

There is general consensus that current conventional reserves of oil are in the area of 1,000 billion barrels

Source: Oil & Gas Journal, "How Perceptions Have Changed of World Oil, Gas Resources" February 23, 1998, pp. 77-79.

* *

Ok, now I'm satisfied.

AWPrime

28th February 2005, 03:41 AM

http://asponews.org/HTML/Newsletter50.html#C487

It is understood from preliminary estimates that the total world discovery of oil in 2004 was about 7 Gb, of which perhaps 2 Gb were in deepwater finds. Less than half was found in fields with reserves of greater than 100 Mb. Furthermore, the cost of exploration has been exceeding the net present value of the discoveries in absolute terms.

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/archives/108/testimony/2004/hokethomas.htm

Total global consumption is approximately 80 million barrels per day.

80 * 365 = 29200 million barrels a year
which is 29 billion barrels a year.

Giambattista

28th February 2005, 03:48 AM

Still satisfied.

AWPrime

28th February 2005, 03:50 AM

Most of the remaining oil that you have stated is of low quality, and will have lower netto energy gain (EROEI).

And you seem to forget that oil demand is still increasing.

Rob Lister

28th February 2005, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
I debunked a claim that hydrocarbons contain 'stored solar energy', and you are beating the 'formed through a chain of events' strawman. (granted the 'stored solar energy' claim is a red herring I introduced in the peak oil debate simply to demonstrate how poor general knowledge on these subjects is). Even of the solar energy that a plant absorbs, a very small amount is used, the rest is waste product the plant expells as hot water vapor. There is an infintessimal amount of stored energy (mass) from the sun in a plant. If you want to envision physics working differently than it does, there's plenty of woo-woo forums for you to hang out on, no need to clutter up this board.

Yes, it was your red herring so I shall clutter on. Now, what energy was used to form the hydrocarbon bonds if not solar energy?

Giambattista

28th February 2005, 04:16 AM

If EROEI were a constant, it would be constantly declining as technology advances, but it isn't a constant since as the price of oil goes up, previously uneconomical fields are put back in operation. By the way the new breed of hybrid cars are not fuel cell storage vehicles they are vehicles using new technologies for more efficient use of kinetic energy. They will only contribute to the Jevons effect, though, so it's a good thing there's plenty of oil to go around for a long time to come. But in the long run, population and economic boom will bring more alternate energy online, people will stop being squeamish about nuclear reactors, and we'll all live happily ever after. Isn't that nice?

AWPrime

28th February 2005, 04:25 AM

What EROEI means to an economy: http://www.oilanalytics.org/netentop.html

Because the production of goods and services is a work process, economies with access to higher EROI fuel sources have greater potential for economic expansion and/or diversification

by Giambattista
By the way the new breed of hybrid cars are not fuel cell storage vehicles they are vehicles using new technologies for more efficient use of kinetic energy.
I know, but even those technologies have a hard time trying to catch up on Demand.

ps. So you think there will be no overshoot?

Giambattista

28th February 2005, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Yes, it was your red herring so I shall clutter on. Now, what energy was used to form the hydrocarbon bonds if not solar energy?

You are quite confused. Hydrocarbons are formed under pressure underground.

Giambattista

28th February 2005, 04:58 AM

ps. So you think there will be no overshoot?

I think that as always, when there is economic growth there will be opportunity for those in a position to take advantage of it to do so, and that those who wont be in a position to take advantage of it will not. In the future, in the civilized world, the rich will live better than they do today, and the poor will live better than they do today. That's been the trend for the past 500 years, (400 of which were not particularly dependant on oil) and I anticipate that trend to continue, with or without oil. And the time to switch to cheaper fuel source will be if and when a cheaper fuel source emerges.

AWPrime

28th February 2005, 05:26 AM

That is a big if. And even if a cheap solution if found will it be found in time, in large enough quantities and will it be usable in many applications?

Rob Lister

28th February 2005, 05:31 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
You are quite confused. Hydrocarbons are formed under pressure underground.

Fair enough. Out of what substance are they formed?

drkitten

28th February 2005, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
Even of the solar energy that a plant absorbs, a very small amount is used, the rest is waste product the plant expells as hot water vapor. There is an infintessimal amount of stored energy (mass) from the sun in a plant.

But this infinitesimal amount is still very substantial. How do you think a wood-burning stove keeps the house warm?

Giambattista

28th February 2005, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
That is a big if. And even if a cheap solution if found will it be found in time, in large enough quantities and will it be usable in many applications?

You're still devoted to your doomsday fantasies. "In time" for what? There is no disaster looming.

Giambattista

28th February 2005, 07:06 PM

Originally posted by new drkitten
But this infinitesimal amount is still very substantial. How do you think a wood-burning stove keeps the house warm?

Wood is formed from photosynthesis using carbon-dioxide and water to produce sugars. The energy of sunlight is used up (converted to the waste product of oxygen) in this process, not stored. In organic chemistry this is called a reaction. The energy released when combusting wood does not come from sunlight, it comes from the carbon in the wood and the gas it's combusting in, which in a wood-burning stove would be oxygen.

Giambattista

28th February 2005, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Fair enough. Out of what substance are they formed?

Hydrogen and carbon. The energy in the reaction is converted as heat. NOT STORED. Re-arranging molecular bonds does not store energy, it allows energy already in the molecules to be more easily accessed.

AWPrime

1st March 2005, 02:47 AM

AWPrime

1st March 2005, 02:49 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
You're still devoted to your doomsday fantasies. "In time" for what? There is no disaster looming.

Youre making the assumption that 'peak oil' will be bad for everyone.

But then there is also; 'peak water' and 'peak soil'.

Giambattista

1st March 2005, 06:02 AM

And then there's 'peak braincells' which you likely crested as a toddler.

drkitten

1st March 2005, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
Wood is formed from photosynthesis using carbon-dioxide and water to produce sugars. The energy of sunlight is used up (converted to the waste product of oxygen) in this process, not stored. In organic chemistry this is called a reaction.

And in a reputable organic chemistry class, this would be an "F."

The energy of sunlight is "used up"? "Converted to oxygen"? How do you expect to convert energy to matter in a chemical reaction? Is this where Einstein's famous formula comes in?

The energy released when combusting wood does not come from sunlight, it comes from the carbon in the wood and the gas it's combusting in, which in a wood-burning stove would be oxygen.

No. The energy released when combusting wood comes from the energy of sunlight, which is converted to potential (chemical) energy in the structure of the wood, specifically in the carbon/hydrogen bonds. More accurately, it takes energy to drive the process of extracting the oxygen from water and carbon dioxide and make the relatively pure carbon/hydrogen available. When recombined with oxygen, this separation energy is released. But the ultimate driving energy that permits this is sunlight.

So when you heat your house with wood, you're using stored sunlight. When you heat your house with coal, you're really heating your house with very very old wood, but the chemical energy in the carbon-carbon bonds is still stored sunlight.

Elsewhere, you wrote :

Re-arranging molecular bonds does not store energy, it allows energy already in the molecules to be more easily accessed.

This statement is simply wrong. I suggest you re-take your organic chemistry class.

AWPrime

1st March 2005, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Giambattista
And then there's 'peak braincells' which you likely crested as a toddler.

There you go again, attacking the messager instead of the message.

Modern farming intensive farming is causing soil erotion, this will reduce the amount of ariable land and with a rising population this could become a large problem.

Then there is the problem that the amount of drinkable water in the world is also reducing do too polution and overuse of underground 'lakes'.

A species will always try to seek the most outerlimits that it can use the available resources.

I rather see a soft bump instead of a hard crash when humanity reaches one of these limits.

drkitten

1st March 2005, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime

A species will always try to seek the most outerlimits that it can use the available resources.

I rather see a soft bump instead of a hard crash when humanity reaches one of these limits.

Well, yeah. That's the lesson behind Hubbert's Peak. As the the demand starts to hit the limits of the supply, the prices will rise, which will encourage more exploration/development (of whatever resource we're talking about -- oil, water, earth, shaving cream, Cadbury cream eggs, whatever). As prices rise, people will also start to look for other things that they can use as substititute goods (Perhaps malted milk balls instead of the cream eggs.) So the demand will drop slightly and the supply will increase slightly, extending the time until Doomsday a bit.

Unfortunately, the extension can't last forever. The statement by jmercer that "I'm not sure if we're running out of oil at this time or not. (And yes, I've read the studies, etc. ) However, all the projections that I've encountered are based on estimated known oil reservoirs. I believe that it may be possible that other substantial reservoirs exist (perhaps under the polar ice cap)." is short-term, wishful thinking. There's not any more oil being made, and eventually we will exhaust the natural oil supply of the planet (unless demand drops off to zero at some point).

Similarly, Giambattista's statement that "The greater the investment in oil-wel superfields, the cheaper the oil is to extract. It's not rocket science, it's the way Wal-mart and every other growth-oriented capital operation cuts cost - by increasing volume. " is economic gibberish. You can't extract resources that aren't there, irrespective of the volume. The oil fields that aren't cost effective to exploit today may eventually be cost-effective to exploit, but only when the cost of oil has already risen substantially, making the real cost per unit of energy substantially higher for the entire economy.

Giambattista

1st March 2005, 07:38 PM

Well I may have stated some things about organic chemistry incorrectly, but what you have stated is inconsistent. If energy can't be converted to matter with a chemical reaction, then sunlight can't be stored as energy in matter.

As for your attempt to debunk my claim about building more superfield to reduce the price of oil - it hinges on your claim that there isn't much oil left to extract. This is totally unproven and undemonstrable.

Furthermore, previously uneconomic oil fields are brought back online when the price of oil rises, but if it goes higher than $80 a barrel, TDP plants will be brought online which can CREATE oil for $80 using any organic substance, with turkey parts being the preferred feedstock.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

I still don't understand why you people aren't asking yourselves what you find so compelling about doomsday senarios. If it's an ad hominem when I ask you, then ask yourselves.

Brian the Snail

2nd March 2005, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
Well I may have stated some things about organic chemistry incorrectly, but what you have stated is inconsistent. If energy can't be converted to matter with a chemical reaction, then sunlight can't be stored as energy in matter.

Yes it can. It is "stored" as potential energy associated with the chemical bonds between the atoms.

So, to take the example here, photosythesis is endothermic in that the potential energy associated with the chemical bonds of the products (glucose and oxygen) is larger than the reactants (carbon dioxide and water), and so requires an input of energy (from sunlight) in order for the reaction to proceed.

The inverse process (combustion or respiration) is exothermic, in that the potential energy of the products (carbon dioxide and water) is smaller than that of the reactants (glucose and oxygen), so this chemical reaction releases energy. This energy comes from the rearrangement of the chemical bonds during the reaction, and derives ultimately from the energy from sunlight which was required during photosynthesis. So in this sense, sunlight was "stored as energy in matter."

Rob Lister

2nd March 2005, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
As for your attempt to debunk my claim about building more superfield to reduce the price of oil - it hinges on your claim that there isn't much oil left to extract. This is totally unproven and undemonstrable.

I, for one, don't necessarily believe there will be the gloom and doom some 'peak-oilists' claim there will be. But what you ask to be proven -- there's little or no undiscovered oil remaining -- is an almost impossible task. The onus should be upon you to prove the opposite.

Here's an exampe. You wrote in an earlier post
...Afghanistan itself will probably end up fueling the world for 300 years....

I wasn't aware there were vast oil reserves in Afghanistan. I know pipelines through Afghanistan have been discussed but only as a more viable means of developing the Caspian Sea reserves.

drkitten

2nd March 2005, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I, for one, don't necessarily believe there will be the gloom and doom some 'peak-oilists' claim there will be. But what you ask to be proven -- there's little or no undiscovered oil remaining -- is an almost impossible task. The onus should be upon you to prove the opposite.

Actually, I didn't claim that there is little or no oil remaining. I claimed there is a finite amount remaining. This would still be true if the earth's core were made of solidified petroleum instead of iron and nickel. As long as petroleum is no longer being made, we will eventually run out unless demand drops to zero. This is as close to mathematically proven as anything in the natural sciences can be.

But, as it happens, we've got very good models -- again, I urge you to check Hubbert's peak -- that are strongly suggestive that we've passed the peak of world oil discoveries, and that we've hit the point where additional exploration and the search for new fields has hit the point of diminishing returns. (One of the major pieces of evidence supporting this is the simple fact that oil exploration HAS, empirically, hit the point of diminishing returns -- the cost to find a new barrel of oil, or alternatively the cost to find a new field divided by the size of the new fields that are being found, has been increasing substantially for some time.)

From the ASPO newsletter previously cited:

Furthermore, the cost of exploration has been exceeding the net present value of the discoveries in absolute terms. This is however misleading because the tax regime provides an enormous subsidy to the international industry by allowing operating costs as a deduction against taxable income, which is high on the back of high oil price. In many countries, the oil companies are effectively spending 10c dollars. If they canâ€™t find more on such attractive terms, it does rather suggest that it is not there to find.

This isn't proof, but it's strong evidence. In particular, the mathematics and underlying theory of Hubbert's peak suggests, not that there is "little or no oil remaining," but that at the point of the peak (approximately now, or very recently), we've used exactly half of the world's total supply of oil. If you're expecting a doomsday scenario where all of the world's oil wells simultanesously run dry -- no one is predicting that. But seriousl, well-founded economic predictions suggest that after the peak, we'll see substantial and sustained rises in energy prices, which will have devastating economic effects. (For example, a simple 3% rise per year in the price of oil will have the effect of at least doubling world inflation rates.) More generally, the entire oil-based economy will not be able to sustain the sort of growth rates that the financial wallahs like to see. The resulting stock market "correction" is likely to produce a world-wide and long-lasting depression.

Against this, we have what I can only characterize as "wishful thinking" -- that somewhere (unspecified) are huge oil reserves just waiting to be tapped. I strongly suggest that the burden of proof is upon the people who insist that unicorns are somewhere out there in the Rocky Mountains and that the reason biologists haven't found them -- despite centuries of well-motivated exploration -- is that they haven't looked hard enough.

Rob Lister

2nd March 2005, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by new drkitten
Actually, I didn't claim that there is little or no oil remaining.

me thinks you are quoting the wrong post.

drkitten

2nd March 2005, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister

I wasn't aware there were vast oil reserves in Afghanistan. I know pipelines through Afghanistan have been discussed but only as a more viable means of developing the Caspian Sea reserves.

The Department of Energy (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html) estimates the oil reserves in Afghanistan at about 100 million barrels. They also estimate approximately 5 trilliion cubic feet of natural gas.

The United States alone consumes approximately 20 million barrels of oil per day. Far from being able to power the world for several hundred years, Afghanistan couldn't provide oil to the United States for a week. (The numbers for natural gas are a little better -- the world consumes about 2.5 cubic feet of natural gas per year. So Afghanistant could supply natural gas to the world until.... um, 2007.)

This is a good example of wishful thinking on the part of the "oh, the oil will never run out" people. The people who make it their business to know where the petrolem is say that, "yes, there is some in Afghanistan, but not a lot." What is it that you know about Afghanistan, Giambattista, that the Department of Energy does not?

Giambattista

3rd March 2005, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by new drkitten
The Department of Energy (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/afghan.html) estimates the oil reserves in Afghanistan at about 100 million barrels. They also estimate approximately 5 trilliion cubic feet of natural gas.
What is it that you know about Afghanistan, Giambattista, that the Department of Energy does not?

From the article you referenced:

"Outside of the North Afghan Platform, very limited oil and gas exploration has occurred."

The Department of Energy doesn't know, I don't know, and you don't know. But you're the only one pretending you do.

Giambattista

3rd March 2005, 04:44 AM

This isn't proof, but it's strong evidence. In particular, the mathematics and underlying theory of Hubbert's peak suggests, not that there is "little or no oil remaining," but that at the point of the peak (approximately now, or very recently), we've used exactly half of the world's total supply of oil. [/B]

That's nice. Did Hubbert have a crystal ball to predict this event in 1999?:

Iran makes massive $100 bln oil find
By Mehrdad Balali

TEHRAN, Sept 28 (Reuters) - Iran on Tuesday announced its biggest oil
find in 30 years, a giant 26-billion barrel field discovered as the
country drives to revive exploration activities and foreign firms
compete for big deals.

Was Hubbert able to figure into 'the mathematics' dozens of similar finds all over the world in the past 30 years? Was Hubbert able to predict that off-shore rigs would become as profitable and ubiquitous as they are today?

You're dealing with old, useless data. You might as well join the Flat Earth Society, since you're delibrately ignoring new information.

Giambattista

3rd March 2005, 05:00 AM

Wait, I can predict the reply from the peak oil cultists... 26 billion new barrels?! that'll only last us a year because the world burns 100 million barrels a day! Fact is, peak oil cultists will never be satisfied with headlines about the biggest oil find in Iran in 30 years. They wont be satisfied today, or next year when another 26 billion barrels are found somewhere. 30 years from now they'll still be claiming we'll hit that peak any day now... Even the twits at ASPO changed their tune from 1995 to 2010. Sound familiar? What do you want to bet Campbell has one of those Mayan calanders hanging in his office, and attended the last Harmonic Convergence?

Giambattista

3rd March 2005, 05:28 AM

From the ASPO newsletter previously cited:

This article completely debunks Colin Campbell's ASPO doomsday nuttery:

http://www.oilcrisis.com/Lynch/ (http://)

Are you guys even reading the links I'm posting?

Rob Lister

3rd March 2005, 05:37 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
Wait, I can predict the reply from the peak oil cultists... 26 billion new barrels?! that'll only last us a year because the world burns 100 million barrels a day! Fact is, peak oil cultists will never be satisfied with headlines about the biggest oil find in Iran in 30 years. They wont be satisfied today, or next year when another 26 billion barrels are found somewhere. 30 years from now they'll still be claiming we'll hit that peak any day now...

Just out of curiosity, Giambattista, with whom are you debating? It could be that your particular style of writing -- unnecessarily aggressive -- is confusing me. You seem...I don't know...angry?

Giambattista

3rd March 2005, 05:46 AM

Well Rob, you seem, I don't know... stupid?

I'm debating peak oil cultists. I was debating peak oil enthusiasts before I presented links that debunk peak oil doomsday nuttery. But since those links have been provided, remaining devotees promoting the peak oil myth are what I consider to be peak oil cultists.

Anyway, you're in great company, Rob. Sylvia Browne always pretends she can't figure out why Randi seems 'unnecessarily aggressive' toward her nonsense, too.

Giambattista

3rd March 2005, 06:04 AM

Just to give you an idea of how stupid Campbell's drum-beating is, here's a quote:

"Any short-term increase steepens subsequent decline."

He makes it sound like we're worse off when we do find oil! It's complete idiocy. What happens when all the short-term increases are plotted on a graph over 10 or 20 years and we find out it's been a long term increase? Well, Campbell doesn't have to respond to that. He's selling books, shmoozing with heads of state, and appearing in trendy Farenhype 911-type documentaries.

Rob Lister

3rd March 2005, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
Well Rob, you seem, I don't know... stupid?

I'm debating peak oil cultists. I was debating peak oil enthusiasts before I presented links that debunk peak oil doomsday nuttery. But since those links have been provided, remaining devotees promoting the peak oil myth are what I consider to be peak oil cultists.

I may indeed be stupid but you really haven't anwered my question. Whom, specifically, are you debating. Which of our forum members are you addressing and why don't you address them directly - by name. I ask because of your many sweeping generalities and constant arm waving have the effect of alienating even those that more or less support you overall position - namely me. Additionally, you make unsupported claims and put the onus of proving them wrong on others. The Afganistan issue is again a good example. You wrote, "Afghanistan itself will probably end up fueling the world for 300 years." Well, assuming I did my math correctly (which given my stupidity that is a big assumption), that equates that you think there are roughly 11 trillion barrels of undiscovered oil in Afganistan. That's quite the oil field, donchathink? Do you really believe that? Can you see how that unsupported position might be challenged by supporters and critics alike? Can you see how that might alienate supporters of your overall position?

Regards, I'm out of here.

Giambattista

3rd March 2005, 06:19 AM

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I may indeed be stupid but you really haven't anwered my question. Whom, specifically, are you debating. Which of our forum members are you addressing and why don't you address them directly - by name. I ask because of your many sweeping generalities and constant arm waving have the effect of alienating even those that more or less support you overall position - namely me.

I don't give a crap about 'alienating' you. Am I trying to get in your wallet? No. There are tens of thousands of believers in peak oil, and I could n't care less about whether you are or are not one of them.

Additionally, you make unsupported claims and put the onus of proving them wrong on others. The Afganistan issue is again a good example. You wrote, "Afghanistan itself will probably end up fueling the world for 300 years." Well, assuming I did my math correctly (which given my stupidity that is a big assumption), that equates that you think there are roughly 11 trillion barrels of undiscovered oil in Afganistan. That's quite the oil field, donchathink? Do you really believe that?

First of all, did I say all from one oil field? No i said all from one country. And did I say I had any valid data to back up my opinion? No, and unlike Peak Oil Cultists, I didn't present bogus data to back up my opinion, either. I didn't lie and claim afghanistan has already been thoroughly surveyed, as AWPrime did. I didn't claim that I used specially authoratative 'predictive' mathematics loaded with useless old data that I refuse to admit is old and useless, as New Drkitten did. And when exactly did I 'put the onus' on anyone to prove an opinion I readily admit is based on nothing but wishful thinking? On the other hand I have proven that peak oil is bunk. The figures are in, and peak oil is a turkey - not just a turkey in Afghanistan, but a worldwide turkey.

FYI, yeah, I was exaggerating, but at least I know when I'm exaggerating, unlike Peak Oil Cultists. In my opinion that much oil won't be found in afghanistan, but I think enough will to be yet another component that will make anyone with half a brain continue to ignore Peak Oil Cultists.

Can you see how that unsupported position might be challenged by supporters and critics alike? Can you see how that might alienate supporters of your overall position?

Can you see that focusing on what was clearly an exaggerated opinion that was not part of the debunking of the peak oil myth while ignoring the purveyors of the peak oil myth, the bogus data they are presenting, and the proof I've posted that peak oil is bunk isn't exactly an impressive demonstration of your critical thinking skills? Have you heard the term 'strawman' before?

Giambattista

3rd March 2005, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by new drkitten
(For example, a simple 3% rise per year in the price of oil will have the effect of at least doubling world inflation rates.)

Why do you think that? 3% per year is nothing. The price of oil has increased by 500% since 1998. Where's the economic apocalypse?

AWPrime

3rd March 2005, 08:45 AM

Giambattista,

Why do you continue to suggest that oil can be found everywhere?

And about those discoveries you mentioned:
- Are they light crude?
- Easy to get to?
- Have they been proven?

drkitten

3rd March 2005, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime
Giambattista,

Why do you continue to suggest that oil can be found everywhere?

Because he believes that oil is the same as hydrogen. Look at the level of chemical knowledge displayed above.

drkitten

3rd March 2005, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
From the article you referenced:

"Outside of the North Afghan Platform, very limited oil and gas exploration has occurred."

The Department of Energy doesn't know, I don't know, and you don't know. .

The Department of Energy doesn't know, but it's got good, well-reasoned guesses from experts whose business it is to estimate these kinds of things on the basis of the information that they do know.

Do you have any reason for assuming that there will be oil found outside the North Afghan Platform? No.

Does the Department of Energy? Probably. Not only do they have reason to assume that there will, but they also have the ability to estimate where, and how much, petroleum will be found in that area. That's why they presented estimated oll reserves. The DoE projections include what oil they expect to find when the rest of the country is explored as well.

So you're assuming (without reason), not only that there will be oil found elsewhere in Afghanistan, but also that the amount actually found will be almost unbelievably larger than the amount that the experts expect to find and have already factored into their predictions.

Let's go with your asnine statement about fueling the world for 300 years from Afghan oil for a minute. Using Lister's figures, that's 11 trillion barrels of oil. This site (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/EvanAbel.shtml) lists six different semi-authoritative references that the total world volume of proved reserves is about 1.5 trillion barrels. In 1993, the USGS estimated that approximately 0.5 trillion barrels of undiscovered oil remained world-wide. (They further estimated that there was one chance out of twenty -- 5% -- that as much as 945 billion (0.945 trillion) barrels remained to be discovered.)

In other words, the total amount of oil remaining on the planet, including undiscovered fields, is expected to be about 2 trillon barrels of oil. At a consumption rate of about 100 million barrels per day, that's 20,000 days worth of oil. Including the total amount of oil that the experts expect to exist but that hasn't yet been found. We also have about 1 chance in 20, according to the experts, of being able to find another 5,000 days worth of oil if we get really lucky. (And those projections don't factor in growth in world consumption.)

Where are you planning on looking that the experts haven't already considered?

Giambattista

3rd March 2005, 06:17 PM

Well I'm certainly not going to be trolled into responding to additional volleys of strawman beating. Anyone who wants to know whats up with Peak Oil Cultists can read Lynch's debunking of Campbell from the link I posted. The 'experts' that new drkitten keeps referring to is one man named Colin Campbell.

Giambattista

3rd March 2005, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by new drkitten
Because he believes that oil is the same as hydrogen. Look at the level of chemical knowledge displayed above.

I've never said I believe "that oil is the same as hydrogen", whatever that lie means. On the other hand, you have indicated that you believe that oil doesn't exist and never has, since you equated oil to unicorns. Anyway, the 'level of chemical knowledge displayed' is a better strawman to beat than the 300 year afghani-oil one that Rob Lister moved on to.

I've never taken a chemistry class outside of highschool, so I'm not exactly disturbed about getting my facts wrong about chemical bonds and stored solar energy. I used critical thinking effectively in reaching my conclusions about chemical bonds and stored energy, so if my conclusions are wrong, it's only because critical thinking isn't able to automatically produce a correct conclusion when it comes to science - that's why we have the scientific method which relies on experimentation. Rest assured, if I were to take an organic chemistry class I would repeat the information provided in the textbooks on tests, and save my more esoteric theories for post-graduate work.

Notice how easily I am able to recognize when I might be wrong? If I were desperately devoted to some kind of spiritual delusion, as Peak Oil Cultists are, that wouldn't be possible.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the thorough debunking of Peak Oil Nuttery I've provided here...

Giambattista

3rd March 2005, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by new drkitten
(One of the major pieces of evidence supporting this is the simple fact that oil exploration HAS, empirically, hit the point of diminishing returns -- the cost to find a new barrel of oil, or alternatively the cost to find a new field divided by the size of the new fields that are being found, has been increasing substantially for some time.)

Might as well debunk one more ridiculous canard while I'm here... The cost of finding, extracting, refining and transporting oil is directly tied to the cost of oil since oil is used to find, extract and transport oil. So for example, when oil hit an all time low of $10 a barrel in 1998, it was just as economical to find, extract, refine, and transport oil as it is today with oil at $50 a barrel. If the price of oil is down, it's cheap to find, extract, refine, and transport - but the product is worth that much less. If the price of oil is up, it's expensive to find, extract, refine and transport. But since the product is worth that much more, there is no difference in the economics. One of the many elements of B.S. The Peak Oil Myth relies on is pretending that the price of oil is always fixed - that there is a reliable financial equation pertaining to the cost of extracting a barrel of oil. What it all comes down to is that Colin Campbell, Grand Wizard of the Peak Oil Cult, wants people to believe that the bell curves he keeps producing by revising estimates so that his data always produces bell curves, are crystal balls. All must worship the bell curves! All estiimates must be tailor made to produce bell curves! Worship the bell curve, Peak Oil Cultists, it is your savior!

Campbell and his Peak Oil Cult would still be getting away with bell curve nonsense, too, if it weren't for their predictions consistently being wrong over the past two decades. And yet they still revise them to project bell curves. As Lynch points out, Campbell's bell curves were even wrong when used to plot the mature oil fields in north america, even though the data from north america is the most reliable available anywhere in the world.

http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/figure5.gif

http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/figure6.gif

"Additionally, the enormous error in countries like Canada and the United States, Figures 5 and Figure 6 , indicates the inability of this measure to produce accurate results. He argues that these are mature producing areas, where no more giants are to be found and cause surprise increases in oil production, and the oil field database he employs corrects for the conservative bias due to SEC reserve reporting requirements. Since the oil resources are thus so well-known, the production curve should be extremely accurate. Yet even without any giant field discoveries, both countries have outperformed his forecast far beyond levels conceivable to him. If this method doesn't work in mature regions with high-quality data, it is hardly likely to be reliable elsewhere" - Michael Lynch

Giambattista

3rd March 2005, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by new drkitten
The Department of Energy doesn't know, but it's got good, well-reasoned guesses from experts whose business it is to estimate these kinds of things on the basis of the information that they do know... Not only do they have reason to assume that there will, but they also have the ability to estimate where, and how much, petroleum will be found in that area. That's why they presented estimated oll reserves. The DoE projections include what oil they expect to find when the rest of the country is explored as well.

The Department of Energy has been consistently and predictably wrong in their under-estimation. Read it and weep:

http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/figure1.gif

Sure, they have the 'ability to estimate where and how much petroleum will be found', but the track record of their ability is comperable to Sylvia Browne's track record with her 'abilities'. And their 'guesses' are no more well-reasoned than Browne's. And guess what, Browne is in the business of making useless predictions, too. Do you think she wants anyone to put her out of business for being wrong all the time? Do you think the Department of Energy wants to be put out of business for being wrong all the time? Since the 'ability' hasn't been producing accurate data, maybe there's something wrong with the method?
By what method do you suppose the DOE estimates how much oil will be found in regions that haven't been surveyed? Even dowsers take the time to walk around to convince fools of their malarky... but DOE just spends tax money consulting with Petroconsultants, which, surprise, surprise, Campbell sits on the board of directors of. Somehow I take more pity on those who have been duped by dowsers than those who have been duped by Colin Campbell.

Giambattista

3rd March 2005, 07:15 PM

Dammit what the hell is the point of letting me mark up an IMG that won't display? I want to rub these sucker's faces in it but Randi's Family Values Christian-wannabe Forum won't let me. They don't mind pretending to let me, though! When is Randi going to hire some staff that aren't jagoffs?

AWPrime

4th March 2005, 02:52 AM

You seem to give plenty of your own strawmen.

Try to deny these statements:

- Oil is a finite resource.
- Nature isn't producing oil at the rate of human consumption.

If the two above statements are true, it would indicate that a peak will occur sometime in the future.

The only question is when?

drkitten

4th March 2005, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
The 'experts' that new drkitten keeps referring to is one man named Colin Campbell.

Yes, that's right. The Department of Energy is Colin Campell. So is the United States Geological Service, and the part of the Central Intelligence Agency that compiles the World Fact Book.

He's a very busy man, Mr. Campbell.

Stitch

7th March 2005, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
Might as well debunk one more ridiculous canard while I'm here... The cost of finding, extracting, refining and transporting oil is directly tied to the cost of oil since oil is used to find, extract and transport oil. So for example, when oil hit an all time low of $10 a barrel in 1998, it was just as economical to find, extract, refine, and transport oil as it is today with oil at $50 a barrel. If the price of oil is down, it's cheap to find, extract, refine, and transport - but the product is worth that much less. If the price of oil is up, it's expensive to find, extract, refine and transport. But since the product is worth that much more, there is no difference in the economics. One of the many elements of B.S. The Peak Oil Myth relies on is pretending that the price of oil is always fixed - that there is a reliable financial equation pertaining to the cost of extracting a barrel of oil. What it all comes down to is that Colin Campbell, Grand Wizard of the Peak Oil Cult, wants people to believe that the bell curves he keeps producing by revising estimates so that his data always produces bell curves, are crystal balls. All must worship the bell curves! All estiimates must be tailor made to produce bell curves! Worship the bell curve, Peak Oil Cultists, it is your savior!

Campbell and his Peak Oil Cult would still be getting away with bell curve nonsense, too, if it weren't for their predictions consistently being wrong over the past two decades. And yet they still revise them to project bell curves. As Lynch points out, Campbell's bell curves were even wrong when used to plot the mature oil fields in north america, even though the data from north america is the most reliable available anywhere in the world.

snip

Are you suggesting that the cost of extracting 1 barrel of oil where the oil is bubbling at the surface of the ground is the same as collectin it from a hole 100's of meters deep that has taken weeks / months to drill down to??

Stitch

7th March 2005, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
Dammit what the hell is the point of letting me mark up an IMG that won't display? I want to rub these sucker's faces in it but Randi's Family Values Christian-wannabe Forum won't let me. They don't mind pretending to let me, though! When is Randi going to hire some staff that aren't jagoffs?

IIRC the img tag needs to be lower case

http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/figure5.gif

http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/figure6.gif

ETA: Ahhh, I think it is against the rules in critical thinking, smilies are not allowed either!

Giambattista

8th March 2005, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Stitch
Are you suggesting that the cost of extracting 1 barrel of oil where the oil is bubbling at the surface of the ground is the same as collectin it from a hole 100's of meters deep that has taken weeks / months to drill down to??

No what I was said was that regardless of the price of oil, the economics in finding, extracting, and transporting oil remains constant. But oil that is difficult to extract will cost more to extract than oil that is cheaper to extract regardless of the price, just as oil that is difficult to transport will cost more to transport than oil that is cheaper to transport, and oil that is difficult to find will cost more to find than oil that is easy to find. But it's a mistake to assume that oil that is difficult to extract will necessarily cost more to an oil company than oil that is easy to extract because oil that is difficult to extract but easy to transport may end up costing less to oil companies than oil that is easy to extract but difficult to transport.

Giambattista

8th March 2005, 01:49 AM

Giambattista

8th March 2005, 02:03 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime
You seem to give plenty of your own strawmen.

Try to deny these statements:

- Oil is a finite resource.
- Nature isn't producing oil at the rate of human consumption.

There is no requirement to deny those statements in order to reject the Peak Oil myth. This can be somewhat analogous to the y2k bug. The y2k bug was real, just as oil being a finite resource is real. And if the y2k bug hadn't been taken somewhat seriously, perhaps some of the doomsday senarios circulating at the time would've occured. As it was, the rush to combat the y2k bug was overkill, as public panic caused far more money to be expended on y2k readiness than was necessary. The difference is the y2k bug was on a strict schedual, while the depletion of oil is not, and the bell-curves generated by Peak Oil cultists are not useful in predicting that schedule. If the world runs out of oil in 20 years, companies might be making wise investments if they start developing alternative energy sources. If the world runs out of oil in 100 years, companies investing in developing alternative energy sources today run the risk of going out of business before their products become viable.

AWPrime

8th March 2005, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
No what I was said was that regardless of the price of oil, the economics in finding, extracting, and transporting oil remains constant. But oil that is difficult to extract will cost more to extract than oil that is cheaper to extract regardless of the price, just as oil that is difficult to transport will cost more to transport than oil that is cheaper to transport, and oil that is difficult to find will cost more to find than oil that is easy to find. But it's a mistake to assume that oil that is difficult to extract will necessarily cost more to an oil company than oil that is easy to extract because oil that is difficult to extract but easy to transport may end up costing less to oil companies than oil that is easy to extract but difficult to transport.

That is a nice example of wobbly reasoning:
'The economics remain constant because other costs may be lower'

Which is pretty much BS. If fuel costs go up then the transport cost will go up as well, until it has reached a stable level.
And the assumption that oil that is hard to extract is easier too transport is unfounded.

AWPrime

8th March 2005, 04:02 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
There is no requirement to deny those statements in order to reject the Peak Oil myth.

Peak oil will happen because it means 'Peak Oil production'. So if it is an finite resource then there will be a time then the peak is reached.

Reserve fraud and new discoveries can only move the peak, not make it vanish.

Giambattista

8th March 2005, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime
That is a nice example of wobbly reasoning:
'The economics remain constant because other costs may be lower'

You have combined two of my claims to accurately depict neither. The first claim is that the economics of oil remain constant due to the fluctuation of the price of oil. The second claim is that the cost to extract oil is not always going to be the chief cost that represents the price of a barrel of oil on the market.

Which is pretty much BS. If fuel costs go up then the transport cost will go up as well, until it has reached a stable level.

I have no idea what you mean by a 'stable level', but my first claim is that if fuel costs go up then transport cost will go up as well. I have not said anything contrary to that. What I said is that all costs that oil companies incur to make their product go up in tandem with the value of the product being transported and extracted since it is the fuel that achieves extraction and transport. So it will always be impossible for a barrel of oil to be uneconomical to extract, right down to the last barrel, or at least, the last few hundred thousand. Economics will drive the shift to alternative fuel development.

And the assumption that oil that is hard to extract is easier too transport is unfounded.

This is another misrepresentation of my claim. I did not say that oil that is hard to extract is necessarily easier to transport, I said that sometimes that may be the case, and it is certainly not unfounded. If a patch of difficult-to-extract oil happens to be right at the end of a pipeline, it's going to be cheaper to transport than patch of easy-to-extract oil that has to be trucked or shipped. If you are not purposely obfuscating, then it appears that a description of a system with more than two operational variables is too complex for you to mentally model. Maybe that's one of the reasons you're so attracted to Peak Oil. On the surface it seems to provide some easy answers by ignoring most variables. Then again, you have admitted that you are devoted to a broader Malthusian paranoia. That kind of paranoia was a significant contributor to the rampant panic expansion of europeon colonialism in the 19th century and it's quite likely that Peak Oil paranoia may be contributing to the escalating political conflict and warfare we're seeing in oil producing regions in the world today. It's not a very nice delusion to contribute support to.

Giambattista

8th March 2005, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime
Peak oil will happen because it means 'Peak Oil production'. So if it is an finite resource then there will be a time then the peak is reached.

No Peak Oil won't occur because the bell curves are bogus. Peak Oil says that oil production will gradually decline on the other side of the peak. Oil production will continue to rise until there is no more oil, afterwhich it will drop sharply.

Reserve fraud and new discoveries can only move the peak, not make it vanish.

There is no such thing as 'reserve fraud'. Reporting of reserves in the manner it takes place is required by law by the SEC, but as you point out, it's a non-issue in Peak Oil anyway. It is only brought up in Peak Oil discussions to foster unfounded fear of corruption which makes Peak Oil cultists more paranoid and condusive to adopting an emotional attatchment to Peak Oil. New oil discoveries don't make the bell curve happen either, they just contribute to the rising slope of production.

If Peak Oil cultists ever want to be taken seriously they'll have to sever ties with Campbell and the Hubbert curve, but that seems unlikely because the bell curve is such an integral part of the Peak Oil mythology.

Dymanic

8th March 2005, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista

it's quite likely that Peak Oil paranoia may be contributing to the escalating political conflict and warfare we're seeing in oil producing regions in the world today. It's not a very nice delusion to contribute support to.
I've been content to lurk this thread up until now, but I think you've really crossed a line here. If you can support your position with facts, do so. (For instance, I'd be curious as to what evidence you might offer to support your assertion that 'bell curves are bogus'). But to imply that holding the opposing view constitutes some kind of moral transgression seems like a pathetically weak device.

Giambattista

8th March 2005, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Dymanic
I've been content to lurk this thread up until now, but I think you've really crossed a line here. If you can support your position with facts, do so. (For instance, I'd be curious as to what evidence you might offer to support your assertion that 'bell curves are bogus').

Well you haven't been following this thread very closely if you missed the graphs from Lynch's article. My assertion isn't that 'bell curves are bogus', my assertion is that the bell curves produced by the method that Hubbert's Peak Oil theory uses to produce bell curves are bogus. If I were allowed to post images perhaps you wouldn't be wasting my time right now.

But to imply that holding the opposing view constitutes some kind of moral transgression seems like a pathetically weak device.

It might be if that was the claim I made. Since I believe 'morals' are delusions as well I wouldn't make such a claim. My claim was that irrational doomsday and apocalyptic paranoia of the type I believe Peak Oil cultists promote has a long history of contributing to large scale destructive behavior via a crowd-madness phenomena. I would even argue that many incidents that have been historically attributed to greed, lust for power, or moral decay are more likely rooted in paranoid delusions, usually of the apocalyptic type.

This viewpoint is rather common in the skeptic community so if you are familiar with various themes in the skeptic community I'd be surprised if you haven't encountered it before reading this thread. You haven't just fallen off the turnip truck as it passed through Skepticville, have you?

Giambattista

8th March 2005, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by new drkitten
Yes, that's right. The Department of Energy is Colin Campell. So is the United States Geological Service, and the part of the Central Intelligence Agency that compiles the World Fact Book.

He's a very busy man, Mr. Campbell.

It's interesting that you have no trouble realizing that Hubbert was a solitary person who developed the Peak Oil theory, but can't fathom that Campbell is a solitary person who picked up the baton (the same year Hubbert died, coincidentally). These two men have been somewhat influential, but Peak Oil has been their show. And most of their influence has been on conspiracy theorists and paranoid environmentalists for whom Peak Oil is only a single component of a vast array of supporting delusions.

Neither the Department of Energy, the USGS or the CIA officially endorses Peak Oil, though there is no doubt that paranoid employees of those agencies believe it. The CIA especially, I'd imagine, as they often confuse paranoia for intelligence. While researching Peak Oil I found a presentation from a law enforcement beurocrat to his superiors who seemed to be chomping at the bit at the thought of widespread chaos caused by Peak Oil and the kind of measures he fantasized about needing to combat it. Are you familiar with the term 'self-fulfilling prophecy' or 'pygmalion effect'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_fulfilling_prophecy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_effect

AWPrime

8th March 2005, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
No Peak Oil won't occur because the bell curves are bogus. Peak Oil says that oil production will gradually decline on the other side of the peak. Oil production will continue to rise until there is no more oil, afterwhich it will drop sharply.
LOL

That would happen if all the oil was of equal quality and even easy to exploit.

Oil that yields less fuel and is harder to exploit will generaly be used last.

And unlike you might think there are physical limits in speed of which a field can be emptied, and the lesser quality fields can't be as fast exploited as the light sweet crude.

Don't ignore the variables. (wink)

AWPrime

8th March 2005, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
[B]Well you haven't been following this thread very closely if you missed the graphs from Lynch's article. My assertion isn't that 'bell curves are bogus', my assertion is that the bell curves produced by the method that Hubbert's Peak Oil theory uses to produce bell curves are bogus.
Yet, the US oil production is following the bell curve.

Giambattista

8th March 2005, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime
LOL

That would happen if all the oil was of equal quality and even easy to exploit.

Oil that yields less fuel and is harder to exploit will generaly be used last.

I agree, but up to the last drop of hard to extract oil, there will be no bell curves on the charts.

And unlike you might think there are physical limits in speed of which a field can be emptied, and the lesser quality fields can't be as fast exploited as the light sweet crude.

Why not? They pump up the pressure and the oil comes out. They lose oil when they pump up the pressure, but if they need to get that oil out they will. It doesn't really matter though because when the last of the oil is extracted, there won't even be a market for it because we'll all have switched to other means of power. The oil companies will have purchased the viable alternative fuel companies that will have developed by then. How do I know they will have developed by then? Because it'll be economically viable for them to do so by then, most likely long before then. As Lynch points out, when we switched from horses to automobiles, it wasn't because of a shortage of oats, it was because the automobile was more economical.

Giambattista

8th March 2005, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime
Yet, the US oil production is following the bell curve.

No it isn't. I'll post the link to the chart again. And do me a favor, please stare at it for as long as it takes for it to sink in before posting again. You are wasting my time.

http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/figure5.gif

AWPrime

8th March 2005, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
No it isn't. I'll post the link to the chart again. And do me a favor, please stare at it for as long as it takes for it to sink in before posting again. You are wasting my time.

http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/figure5.gif

I may look that way if you limit it the such a small timeperiode.

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/chartimages/d/d2oilprodusa.gif

Oil production will continue to rise until there is no more oil, afterwhich it will drop sharply.

Now both gif show a relative slow downward line, which contradics your statement (above).

AWPrime

8th March 2005, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista

Why not? They pump up the pressure and the oil comes out. They lose oil when they pump up the pressure, but if they need to get that oil out they will.
But not all of it will be recoved. When the energy cost-ratio becomes 1:1, the field will not be shutdown.

This will reached sooner when the oil is deeper and thicker.

It doesn't really matter though because when the last of the oil is extracted, there won't even be a market for it because we'll all have switched to other means of power.
I can agree with that. If the amount of produced oil becomes below the threshold, then some of the user will be forced to switch.

The oil companies will have purchased the viable alternative fuel companies that will have developed by then. How do I know they will have developed by then? Because it'll be economically viable for them to do so by then, most likely long before then. As Lynch points out, when we switched from horses to automobiles, it wasn't because of a shortage of oats, it was because the automobile was more economical.
That is a good point.

But I see the problem to be: the total amount of energy available.

Unless fusion energy becomes availble in mass or we become super effecient, I don't see how modern way of life will be contiuoed.

Giambattista

8th March 2005, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
I may look that way if you limit it the such a small timeperiode.

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/chartimages/d/d2oilprodusa.gif

Now both gif show a relative slow downward line, which contradics your statement (above).

Wolf's graph does not include off-shore oil production, which is the crux of Lynch's demonstration that Hubbert's bell curve is bogus. Wolf even has the audacity to state, on the page he presents the graph you posted (without accompanying link, which is disingenous on your part again wasting my time):

"For those who feel that science will provide the answer with new discoveries or improved methods of extraction, it may be wise to look at the USA (mainland) as an example. "

It may be even wiser to look at oil production in USA mainland + offshore (as Lynch's graph depicts). Wolf's argument here is that science won't provide new discoveries or improved methods of extraction because mainland production sort of looks like a bell curve and sort of complies to the Hubbert nonsense. But offshore production IS an example of new discoveries available due to improved methods of extraction so Wolf has to ignore it in order to maintain his Peak Oil delusions and the emotional investment he's made in it.

Giambattista

8th March 2005, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
But not all of it will be recoved. When the energy cost-ratio becomes 1:1, the field will not be shutdown.

This will reached sooner when the oil is deeper and thicker.

Oil fields are shut down and re-opened often, as the price of oil bounces up and down.

But I see the problem to be: the total amount of energy available.

Unless fusion energy becomes availble in mass or we become super effecient, I don't see how modern way of life will be contiuoed.

I don't see why fusion is required since fission already does a good job of generating power, though I suspect we'll even ditch it in the long run too. Consumption efficiency is always increasing, though not at the rate of consumption (and silly govt. public relations initiatives to promote turning off lights, using bicycles for short trips, etc are inconsequential emotional placebos). You just aren't factoring in the power of economics and the fact that energy is abundant on earth. Eventually huge windmill fields will be up, turbines will be pumping hydro energy out of ocean tides, geothermal energy will be exploited.. there is no lack of energy to be harnessed on earth. In the 1930s when they weren't pulling much oil out of the ground they weren't pulling much out because they didn't have much infrastructure to pull it out and the reason they didn't is because it would be uneconomical to build infrastructure beyond necessary capacity.

Giambattista

8th March 2005, 09:30 PM

Randi's fascist forums won't let me delete my own posts for some reason. Since I edited my previous post with additional information I had originally posted in this followup, I wanted to delete this followup. But apparently my access is denied. So we have a wasted message here thanks to the obnoxious paternalism of the forum handlers...

AWPrime

9th March 2005, 06:04 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
Oil fields are shut down and re-opened often, as the price of oil bounces up and down.
But it does follow general trends.

I don't see why fusion is required since fission already does a good job of generating power
Harmfull fission byproducts.

Eventually huge windmill fields will be up, turbines will be pumping hydro energy out of ocean tides, geothermal energy will be exploited..
I don't doubt that.

I only question if the infrastructure will be inplace intime and of sufficient powergeneration.

AWPrime

9th March 2005, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
It may be even wiser to look at oil production in USA mainland + offshore (as Lynch's graph depicts)[/B]
And if you look at lynch's graph it still show a slow downward line.

AWPrime

9th March 2005, 06:10 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
Randi's fascist forums won't let me delete my own posts for some reason. Since I edited my previous post with additional information I had originally posted in this followup, I wanted to delete this followup. But apparently my access is denied. So we have a wasted message here thanks to the obnoxious paternalism of the forum handlers...

Complain to the mods, leave the thread alone.

Giambattista

9th March 2005, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime

Harmfull fission byproducts.

So what? We're already using a lot of nuclear power. If worse comes to worse we can throw up a bunch of new plants and the hydrogen fuelcell technology to stick the energy into cars already exists.

I only question if the infrastructure will be inplace intime and of sufficient powergeneration.

And besides Campbell's debunked bell curve hoaxing, what makes you think infrastructure wont be in place 'in time'? You haven't provided any good reason to maintain your apocalyptic fantasy.

Giambattista

9th March 2005, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
Complain to the mods, leave the thread alone.

What are you accusing me of?

Giambattista

9th March 2005, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by AWPrime
leave the thread alone.

If I left this thread alone, Peak Oil wouldn't be debunked. I guess you'd have prefered that?

AWPrime

10th March 2005, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
If I left this thread alone, Peak Oil wouldn't be debunked. I guess you'd have prefered that?

No just your bitching at the forum/randi and all.

So what? We're already using a lot of nuclear power. If worse comes to worse we can throw up a bunch of new plants and the hydrogen fuelcell technology to stick the energy into cars already exists.

You do know that it takes time to create the needed infrastructure?

And besides Campbell's debunked bell curve hoaxing,
LOL, by keeping out the old data.

what makes you think infrastructure wont be in place 'in time'?
The Human resistence to a lower lifestyle.

This is probaly the reason that you hate Peak Oil theory.

Giambattista

10th March 2005, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime
No just your bitching at the forum/randi and all.

I wanted to delete a message, I did not want to bitch at anyone about not being allowed to delete a message. Since I was unable to delete the message, I could have either left it blank or complained about the fact that I couldn't delete it. I chose the latter and I feel comfortable with that choice. I think that the manner in which these forum are maintained is pathetic and I have no fear of saying so when I encounter the things that make it pathetic. I have no desire to complain to any moderators about anything. They obviously think they're doing a good job or they'd be doing it differently.

You do know that it takes time to create the needed infrastructure?

I know that if it needed to be done in a hurry it could be and it would be.

The Human resistence to a lower lifestyle.

This is probaly the reason that you hate Peak Oil theory.

I don't hate the Peak Oil nonsense any more than I hate superstitious nonsense. I'm just happy that I'm capable of figuring out that it's the same type of delusionary nonsense.

As for 'human resistence to a lower lifestyle', that sounds like something worth resisting.

AWPrime

10th March 2005, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
I know that if it needed to be done in a hurry it could be and it would be.

10-20 years are most estimations.

And I would not call that quick.

AWPrime

10th March 2005, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
Wolf's graph does not include off-shore oil production, which is the crux of Lynch's demonstration that Hubbert's bell curve is bogus.
And yet the bell curve is the best model for oil-field production.

As my posted gif showed that the US oil-production (excluding off-shore) follows a Bell curve.

It is proper to assume that the off-shore production will also follow a bell curve.

The Sum of these two bell-curves will still form a bell curve.

several predictions of when peak oil will accure:

Bakhitari ....... 2006-2007
Simmons ......... 2007-2009
Skrebowski ...... After 2007
Deffeyes ........ Before 2009
Goodstein ....... Before 2010
Campbell ........ Around 2010
World Energy Council After 2010
Laherrere ....... 2010-2020
EIA (Nominal).... 2016
CERA ............ After 2020
Shell ........... 2025 or later
Mike Lynch .......No Visible Peak

Giambattista

10th March 2005, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime
10-20 years are most estimations.

And I would not call that quick.

Quick enough, since there's no shortage of energy and power-plants of all kinds come online as they're needed. That's why I'm typing away on my computer and driving around for errands, which Hubbert said I wouldn't be doing 30 years ago, and Campbell said I wouldnt' be doing 15 years ago. I'm doing it now and I intend to keep doing it 15, and 30 years from now.

Giambattista

10th March 2005, 09:02 AM

AWPrime

10th March 2005, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
Quick enough, since there's no shortage of energy and power-plants of all kinds come online as they're needed. That's why I'm typing away on my computer and driving around for errands, which Hubbert said I wouldn't be doing 30 years ago, and Campbell said I wouldnt' be doing 15 years ago. I'm doing it now and I intend to keep doing it 15, and 30 years from now.

Where did you get THAT impression from?

Giambattista

11th March 2005, 01:15 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime
Where did you get THAT impression from?

By critically examining the ISSUE. I've debunked this JUNK six ways to sunday, but I never expected you to not continue CLINGING to it.

Giambattista

11th March 2005, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by AWPrime
And yet the bell curve is the best model for oil-field production.

It is not the 'best model' for anything. It is the accurate graphing of oil production from any type of well, on or off-shore.

As my posted gif showed that the US oil-production (excluding off-shore) follows a Bell curve.

It is proper to assume that the off-shore production will also follow a bell curve.

No. What would be proper, for a person who is not mentally helpless, would be to determine why the bell curve occurs when it does, before superstitiously deciding that bell curves will always occur.

The bell curve for a single oil well occurs because the oil company who owns the field ramps down production after the peak is reached while simultaneously ramping up production in another well that has not reached peak yet. In other words, the bell curve represents the lifetime of oil production when oil companies are operating 'business as usual'. Hypothetically, if an oil company were to be exploiting it's last oil well, and that oil well hit its peak, the company would suck the remaining oil out as fast as possible, and the bell curve would not occur. The bell curve only occurs because oil companies move on to more productive wells when they ramp down unproductive ones. The bell curve can show up for the entire US mainland production, because oil companies have ramped down US mainland production and ramped up production offshore and outside of USA. If mainland USA had been the only place that oil existed, the bell curve would not exist. If the bell curve turns up on offshore production, that'll only be an indication that the oil companies found plenty of easy oil to extract someplace else. So when you see a production bell curve appear anywhere, it means the industry is doing just fine.

The idea that if you add up all the bell curves of production that have already occured you can produce a prediction of one big bell curve for world oil production is an indication that you either don't know what the bell curves you're adding up even represent, or you're consciously trying to deceive people. In your case I'm quite sure it's the former, and in Campbell's case I'm inclined to believe it's the latter.

But there is one way in which world oil production could end up following a bell curve - if oil companies ramp down production of oil as they ramp up production of alternate fuel. But they can't do that without knowing where the peak is, which is impossible to predict.

several predictions of when peak oil will accure:

Bakhitari ....... 2006-2007
Simmons ......... 2007-2009
Skrebowski ...... After 2007
Deffeyes ........ Before 2009
Goodstein ....... Before 2010
Campbell ........ Around 2010
World Energy Council After 2010
Laherrere ....... 2010-2020
EIA (Nominal).... 2016
CERA ............ After 2020
Shell ........... 2025 or later
Mike Lynch .......No Visible Peak

Yep, Mike Lynch is the only one in that list who doesn't claim to know the unknowable. Why should anyone believe the prediction of Campbell and the other ASPO cronies you've listed when the dates of their predictions for the peak have come and gone twice in the past 15 years? They are exactly like psychics, moving the date of the event forward each time the previous date they predicted comes around and the event doesn't occur.

By the way, keep in mind that Campbell's peak oil fear mongering doesn't even predict chaos after the peak. It predicts a gradual slowdown of production, which means production would suddenly become a minor variable in driving up the cost of oil, where it had previously not been a factor at all. It would take decades for the gradual slowdown of production predicted by Peak Oil to quadruple the price of gas at the pump, at which point americans would be paying the same amount british people are already used to paying today - and as far as I know there's no chaos in Britain.

Inspite of Campbell's wife's cute nickname for him, "Mr. Doomsday", Campbell is playing both sides of the game. He wants the Chicken Littles such as yourself to promote Peak Oil out of fear that the sky is falling, because that is what it takes to get publicity for Peak Oil and allows him to get his views written up in newspapers and magazines. What he really wants is for most people reading those articles to take a more 'rational' approach by heeding his advice to invest in the Norwegian oil stocks he has already heavily invested in. Why do you suppose, after failing twice in the past 15 years with short 5-7 year predictions for the peak, Campbell didn't decide for his latest prediction to put the peak out a bit longer? Say, 10 or 15 years? Because that wouldn't get the articles written and the investors interested in Norwegian oil stocks...

Giambattista

11th March 2005, 03:44 AM

AWPrime

11th March 2005, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Giambattista
would be to determine why the bell curve occurs when it does, before superstitiously deciding that bell curves will always occur.
Extraction from a given field is influenced by policy choices and/or economics that can lead to a semi/non-bell curve.

But how is that going to happen all over the world? at the same time?

But there is one way in which world oil production could end up following a bell curve - if oil companies ramp down production of oil as they ramp up production of alternate fuel. But they can't do that without knowing where the peak is, which is impossible to predict.

---

Yep, Mike Lynch is the only one in that list who doesn't claim to know the unknowable.
Well the only sure way of knowing when the peak takes place is after the fact. But this is generaly useless.

Modelers try their best to make accurate predictions, and the smart ones know that their predictions aren't dogma.

It would take decades for the gradual slowdown of production predicted by Peak Oil to quadruple the price of gas at the pump, at which point americans would be paying the same amount british people are already used to paying today - and as far as I know there's no chaos in Britain.
That price difference is feed back in to the economy and some companies don't need to pay fuel taxes.

You're a bit Campbell obsessed and use a dogmatic representation of Peak Oil. You could do better.

AWPrime

11th March 2005, 11:55 AM

Now the problems with lynch:

His argument seems to stand on this:
1. The observed decline in the discovery curve (since 80s) is due to low prices which make it not worth to drill for oil.
2. Extraction from a field is influenced by non-physical factors.
3. Reserves are plentiful and continue to grow over time.
4. Trying to forecast a peak is too sensitive to modeler bias.

The counter-arguments.
1. It is only partially true, but.
- Discoveries has been declining since about the mid-60s.
- In general, the size of the discoveries are getting smaller.
- There is zero statistical correlation between prices and discoveries.
2.
- Hubbert model works extremely well in regions where politics have pretty minimal effects.
- The non-physical factors should balace out in global overview.
3. Reserves are finite.
4. They get more accurate over time. Deliberately not trying to predict possible problems is sticking your head in the sand. And the models get more accurate everytime.