Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")
- Thread starter Bernie_Gunther
- Start date
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Cars dont think.
"Shale oil" is a liquid hydrocarbon. It is in fact (unlike most unconventionals) pretty good as a source of crude oil, often coming in pretty high API. However the original prediction was for a specific geology and specific mineral product from that geology. Those predictions are looking very much like they have or have nearly arrived (some spare capacity in Saudi and possible Iraq might up production). Shale oil is a rather limited resource at current prices, mostly dependent on two trends, the Bakken and the Eagle Ford. There is still a bit of a mix with some small, more conventionally permeable reservoirs availble but most of the increased production seems to come from hydrofracking tight reservoirs with a good mix of liquid\gas.
This is not going to produce 10 million barrels a day, and may have little more than a 50% increase left in it. If this is the case then it will only stave off depletion of conventional oil for a year or two more. Who knows eh?
But this is likely the last alarm bell to ring before depletion become obvious.
Happy driving.
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
The same way 'refinery gain' is 'more oil'.
What is `refinery gain`? Oil production has risen, that's it. Trying to say certain types of oil don't count is stupid, there are hundreds of grades of oil all over the world. Doesn't mean peak oil isn't real, doesn't influence it one way or the other.
tbtommyb
Well-Known Member
EIA numbers. Peak is here.
You posted this elsewhere but I don't see how this shows peak.
Supply has fallen since January 2012, but it's increased since January 2009 and increased massively since January 2002.
Or we currently at a peak like January 2011 or at the bottom of a climb like January 2009?
That graph tells us nothing of the future.
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
where?
There are two places left where there can be substantial increase in crude oil production. Saudi with its purported 1.5 million barrels a day spare capacity and Iraq with whatever it can scrape together.
80% of world 'oil' supply is conventional crude. When that goes into decline some unconventional oil will become economic and hold off the EIA total liquids figures from declining for a while but not forever.
The C&C numbers show a decade of stagnation of crude and condensate production. Strip out US tight oil sources and it shows decline. US tight oil is close to maxing out. Other unconventional sources are dubious. We are close to peak.
Do you have any magical fields outwith Saudi and Iraq that will cover for declining oil production elsewhere?
"Magical". 
I mean, the Russian/Canadian Arctic, offshore Brazil, more in the GoM, more offshore west Africa, the horn, Libya, Algeria, all over the FSU...it goes on...there is a load of the world that hasn't even been shot yet, let alone properly explored.
You might notice this, as the world is increasing production at the same time as replacing declining output at what, 4pc/yr or so. That is a lot of oil to bring on, each year.
See you peakies - and believe me I know this movement inside out god help me - don't get it, mainly as they are politically right wing - Colin Campbell etc - or part of the ecological movement, which I think is right wing as well. You don't get why there is a peak/plateau, whatever you want to call it, forming now/this century/whenever...and in my view there is, just for clarity.
A peak in production in liquid hydrocarbons isn't a result of a lack of liquid/tar/shale et al hydrocarbons.
It is about politics and its subset, economics. Leave all these graphs/maps behind and understand how powerful the politics and economics are.
I mean, the Russian/Canadian Arctic, offshore Brazil, more in the GoM, more offshore west Africa, the horn, Libya, Algeria, all over the FSU...it goes on...there is a load of the world that hasn't even been shot yet, let alone properly explored.You might notice this, as the world is increasing production at the same time as replacing declining output at what, 4pc/yr or so. That is a lot of oil to bring on, each year.
See you peakies - and believe me I know this movement inside out god help me - don't get it, mainly as they are politically right wing - Colin Campbell etc - or part of the ecological movement, which I think is right wing as well. You don't get why there is a peak/plateau, whatever you want to call it, forming now/this century/whenever...and in my view there is, just for clarity.
A peak in production in liquid hydrocarbons isn't a result of a lack of liquid/tar/shale et al hydrocarbons.
It is about politics and its subset, economics. Leave all these graphs/maps behind and understand how powerful the politics and economics are.
This has been gone over before. You're hungry and walk up to a fruit tree."Magical".
You might notice this, as the world is increasing production at the same time as replacing declining output at what, 4pc/yr or so. That is a lot of oil to bring on, each year.
It's easy to pick them off the low hanging branches or the floor.
To get to higher will need a ladder. And with that you can get to half the fruit.
For the rest you'll need a cherry picker. Or to cut down the tree.
Energy returned on energy invested.
Sure thing. Most easy oil has gone/been found, maybe not in the m-east but most other places. But that will just be a function of the price, as the price rises, the less easy stuff is economical. As I'm sure you know. I mean the north sea or the GoM that's not `easy` bubbling to the surface Iraqi/Texan oil...
BP's Tiber field in the GoM - drilled by Deepwater Horizon immediately before it blew up - is 35,055ft. 3bn bl.
Peak oil/plateau oil is about human politics (and its subset economics) not changing the energy mix fast enough, about vested interests, inertia, confusion, profiteering, political structures etc etc etc
BP's Tiber field in the GoM - drilled by Deepwater Horizon immediately before it blew up - is 35,055ft. 3bn bl.
Peak oil/plateau oil is about human politics (and its subset economics) not changing the energy mix fast enough, about vested interests, inertia, confusion, profiteering, political structures etc etc etc
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
And also, critically, thermodynamics.
Sure it's not that big. That's not the point I was making at all though. Get your blinkers off and read what I wrote.
I was saying established areas for oil - N Sea, GoM - were previously regarded as difficult places to extract. Now it's standard.
That isn't the real problem, the real problem is politics. The peak/plateau is political.
I was saying established areas for oil - N Sea, GoM - were previously regarded as difficult places to extract. Now it's standard.
That isn't the real problem, the real problem is politics. The peak/plateau is political.
elbows
Well-Known Member
I expect that claim will be tested to destruction. The political and economic will to ensure continued supply of fossil fuels is very high indeed. Certainly political situations arise which temporarily disrupt specific sources, e.g. the end of the graph posted earlier is influenced by sanctions against Iran and the mess in Libya. Unlike in decades gone by, there is now some political will to transition, but it's limited by the practical realities of transition, e.g. doing so at a pace and on a scale that serves our demand needs has numerous practical hurdles.
So I really think you need to expand on exactly what you mean.
As for peak oil theorists being right wing, thats a grotesque oversimplification. Certainly there are several environmental, malthusian etc stances which are right wing in several ways. But that hardly reflects the whole picture. Especially here on u75 where such stances are often viewed with suspicion and receive the attention and exposure they deserve. But a glance back at this thread over the years reveals a multitude of other stances that really aren't right wing at all.
Personally I'm pretty much done bothering to discuss stuff at this stage. I'm not so interested in trying to convince people of what I believe to be the reality, and unlike some I feel no need to apply a high degree of certainty when talking about the exact timing of peak and decline. If it doesn't happen for a long time then whatever, fine, what I am concerned with is what happens under such conditions. I believe there will be something for almost every political & economic position in the scary new world that a peak and decline of fossil fuels would unleash. Stuff for authoritarians, stuff for libertarians, stuff for people that believe in the state and those that don't. Stuff for those who love technology and progress, and for those that have a dream of a more 'natural' form of living. Stuff for those who want the world to be very large again, and for communities to return to being a local phenomenon, and for those who'd rather think on a global level. And by stuff I mean both a new justification for their beliefs, fresh impetus to act, or simply the end of the current status quo presenting new opportunities for parts of the political spectrum that have long been off-limits.
Perhaps if I were a right-winger or the sort of environmentalist that appears to have contempt for the quantity of humans currently living on the planet, I could carry on talking a lot about the subject these days. But I'm not, I'm on the left, and it strikes me that an insufficient number of my peers are buying into imminent peak oil at the moment. I want to know how they will adapt to such possible new realities once they have emerged and are harder to deny. I'm sure there will still be some who have different ideas about whether the tail is wagging the dog or vice versa (which is partly why I'm asking you to explain your comments about politics/economics), and frankly I'm underwhelmed by how little the obvious and hard to deny end of the era of cheap oil has had on left-wing thought thus far. But given the consequences are not trivial, I'm sure that will have to change at some point. i.e. when shit can't be written off as malthusian fantasies or the sorts of political agendas people have become used to being suspicious about (e.g. the latest excuse as to why 'we can't afford to do this any more' and must slash safety nets & services people care about).
Last edited:
free spirit
more tea vicar?
EIA numbers. Peak is here.
My strong suspicion would be that a significant proportion of that decline in the none shale oil since early 2011 is actually as a direct result of the reduction in demand from the USA for imported oil due to their preference for US shale oil, which has in large part been driven by the drill baby drill, use it or lose it legislation that's forced the companies to extract from fields even when there might have been an economic case to wait for higher prices.
That and OPEC regulating supply to maintain the relatively high, but relatively stable prices that suit them all very well.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Official US stats have their oil imports peaking around 2005/06:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MTTIMUS1&f=M
In any case the wobbly demand side of the equation has been in play for quite a number of years now, with demand destruction in Europe in the wake of the financial crisis one of the most obviously graphable phenomenon on that side of things. This year the talk seems to be of demand from China not growing as quickly as previously forecast.
We won't achieve a consensus at this stage as to which tail is wagging the dog, too many to choose from and many have a preconcieved favourite. The plateau (or suggestion of one) phase is inevitably contentious, and only a sustained, notable decline that goes against the interests of the controlling parties is likely to change opinions in a big way.
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
What major production is happening in the Canadian Arctic now? As for the Russian Arctic what are we talking Shtokman? That is a gas field."Magical".
Very expensive, near the bottom of of the oil window and under 2km of salt plus another 3 klicks of rock.
Bits and bobs in the very low billion barrel range like Jack2. Ten years on and still not pumping oil.
Deep and very expensive.
The other side of the Brazil discoveries. Most of the new stuff coming online is deep and offshore, expensive, difficult to pump in quantities but has brought OPEC its last ever member, Angola. But even there OPEC cannot fulfil its production quotas.
Libya and Algeria. You are talking shite.
Naming some regions where there is oil exploration is not the same thing as coming up with enough oil to make up for the 3-6% depletion on existing fields forecast by the IEA.
Yes fucktard, reading Marx (or Hayek) to an oil field will make it produce more oil.
Who needs data and facts. 
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
Geology.
You might know that if you were wallowing in magical political thinking.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
To put some figures on that.
Non shale production has fallen by about 1.8 mb/d since early 2011.
US imports have fallen by 1.64 mb/d since early 2011.
The replacement of US imports from the rest of the world with US shale oil therefore account for almost all of the reduction in production from other sources, ie it's a demand led fall not a supply led fall in production.
If OPEC and friends had carried on production at early 2011 levels despite the dramatic increase in US shale oil production this would have led to a glut of oil on the market and a consequent dramatic fall in prices, which would then have made US shale oil uneconomic, shale companies would have gone bust or shut up shop, supply would have reduced and prices would have shot back up etc. None of which would have been beneficial for anyone, so it makes sense to just reduce the supply to accomodate the US shale oil and maintain the prices at a relatively stable level that could sustain the necessary level of production for coming years.
ferrelhadley
There is no love between us anymore.
So why then did Saudi turn the taps on on Manifa as soon as it was completed?
Core minus Iran is up. This is Saudi still having some heft to act as swing producer plus Iraq.
This is largely new projects in North Kuwait, the long heralded Manifa (heavy crude, low API stuff they never used to worry about) and offcourse the steady recovery of Iraq to Saddam levels
Core OPEC is going full guns, periphery OPEC is having production issues.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Too neat. Certainly a big consideration by producers as always, but individual country data tells a far more complicated story.
Looking at OPEC, I don't think their quotas have changed for some years. And the turmoil in Libya and the situation with sanctions against Iran are a very large part of the story in the 2011+ timeframe. Others had to increase production to compensate.
Just scroll through the graphs on the following page. 2009 shows up vividly as an example of sudden cuts in supply to deal with the demand picture. No way 2011 onwards is that clearcut.
http://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-crude-oil-production-charts/
elbows
Well-Known Member
I just noticed the Guardian were going on about this again recently.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ar/28/global-market-shock-oil-crash-2015-peak
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ar/28/global-market-shock-oil-crash-2015-peak
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
That's an excellent post. However, I wonder who you mean about others on the left who don't buy into peak oil. For me at least it is one of the heads on the hydra whose other head is climate change. Happily both heads are killed (or at least maimed) by the same sword - by moving away from burning fossil fuels. I see people on the right primarily - the types like Osborne who are desperate for the likes of fracking to continue the already unsustainable business as usual - as the ones not facing up to these realities.
What can happen on here, and certainly happens with me, is that you have to refute the malthusians and their distortions. That doesn't involve denial of either peak oil or climate change, though.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Cheers. I won't name any names. But I'm mostly talking about people who are otherwise pretty active on political threads on u75, but have rarely engaged with this one. Some of them are more than willing to engage with and pick apart malthusians on other threads, or expose the other wanky aspects of green politics, but I'm left none the wiser as to what odds they attach to peak oil in our lifetimes, how they think it will affect politics and society, etc. This isn't supposed to downplay how much I value the contributions of those who do join in here. It's just another expression of my frustration that despite peak oil things looking like they were gradually going mainstream in the latter half of last decade, it didn't quite happened and has left several important aspects of my life and worldview somewhat estranged for now.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Resource depletion and environmental destruction aren't exclusive to capitalist economies though. The common factor behind these is growing population. Our refusal / inability as a species to face up to this has led us into the dead end in which we now find ourselves.
Last edited:
Yes fucktard, reading Marx (or Hayek) to an oil field will make it produce more oil.
Hahahah. Calm down mate.
LBJ - Well I'm not sure the centre-left give a shit about supply constraints/peaks/plateaus. A lot of the mass media says `what happened to peak oil` etc etc and that is generally accepted. I think one of the reasons is - as we see on this thread - the focus by a lot of peakers on geology. That kind of peak hasn't been forthcoming - there is more oil on the market - and in a large part that is because of the US and shale oil/gas.
As you can see when you challenge peak people about that assumption they get pretty angry. That - imo - is because they downplay the role of political/economic influence. It is weird they get so mad.
As I said it's obvious that certain areas have peaked. The US, north sea and so on. Very correct. But as i said again transitions to move away from liquid transport fuels to other sorts of transport fuel could have been taken decades ago. It hasn't happened due to politics, not geology. Due to vested interests, inertia, profiteering as I've already said, many more short term political choices as well. Instead the politics of the age - notably the tension between long term energy planning for a growing population and quarterly results announcements/government needs today - mean we have become very stuck with oil. But there are a lot of hydrocarbons still in the ground, tar sands, the Arctic and so on. (Russia has fucked bringing on stream Russian Arctic crude, but they've finally started producing this year. When they get it right there is a shit load just sitting there, its why they allowed foreign companies in to work there, Exxon, BP etc etc...madness though, digging up the Arctic to get oil.)
So the result of the peak/plateau is going to be one dominated by the concerns of the political establishment. If that establishment stays the same then the poor are fucked - they already are, only 18pc of people in the US without a car have a full time job - poor countries are fucked, rural communities are quite fucked. So basically imo there needs to be a much much stronger commitment to renewable energy forms and an enormous rapid advance in switching away from liquid transport fuels. At the moment the only engine doing that is cost, hence the poor are fucked, they are switching away from liquid transport fuels as they can't afford them.
It's not a radical view, De Margerie says the world will never produce more than 95-97mn b/d, IHS sees an "undulating plateau"...
The confusion between gross and net is as terminal as it is widespread.
Similar threads
- Poll
