We are at the peak in world oil production...

Take a look at the data presented here:

"How much oil growth do we need to support world GDP growth?"

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/07/18/how-much-oil-growth-do-we-need-to-support-world-gdp-growth/

Again, the call for efficiency doesn't counter peak oil but supports the argument. Put simply, the need to use less oil becomes important when there's less oil available. The point has nothing to do with collapse or religious beliefs.

Sorry, I did not. Perhaps you can share a link here.

Why are you changing the subject? Stick to wells and shale oil, which is part of the point you are raising:

"U.S. Shale-Oil Boom May Not Last as Fracking Wells Lack Staying Power"

http://www.businessweek.com/article...not-last-as-fracking-wells-lack-staying-power

Production from wells decline by 60-70 pct in the first year, and thousands have to be dug each year to maintain production. More details in the article.

Again, you're changing the subject and now resorting to personal insults. See the previous article I just shared.

Again, you're not contradicting my arguments. You've just confirmed that oil production per capita peaked in 1979, and that our response to that is becoming more efficient.

Obviously, there's no difference, as you used the same phrase twice. But for the EIA, there are differences between conventional and unconventional production:

http://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.cfm?id=u

One should also consider energy returns, decline rates, etc. More details are given here:

"Guest Post: About That Shale Oil & Gas Miracle"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-07/guest-post-about-shale-oil-gas-miracle

That's why, as pointed out by the IEA, shale oil will peak after a few years.

Again, Hubbert did not argue that U.S. oil production would peak in 1950 because he wrote his report in 1956. The rest of my arguments are proven in my previous post.

No, I did not. Even the attachment you shared was not written by me.

Again, I am not one of the "original" members of LATOC. I joined the forum years after it was formed.

Also, the information I've been sharing are not promotional materials but data from the EIA and reports from the IEA. There are more reports involved, and they are listed in the site I shared earlier.

Why not focus on the content of the article, i.e., production for the major players dropping? If you have contrary evidence, feel free to share it.

 

I don't recall old reports looking at capex, etc. Also, why is this point important? Shouldn't you be trying to counter the new arguments raised by the IEA and others?

Also, I don't see anything in the reports that refer to the end of the world.

Finally, I did not give any predictions at LATOC.

I am referring his peak theory, which he discussed in the 1950s:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory#Hubbert.27s_theory

Again, in 1976 Hubbert argued that crude oil production would peak in 1995 + 10 years. See the video shared earlier.

In 2010, the IEA confirmed that. See an article about that shared earlier.

Again, the theory was proposed in 1956. See the two wiki entries shared earlier, as well as one of the references which links to Hubbert's report.

Hubbert predicted that U.S. crude oil production would peak between 1965 and 1975. It peaked in 1970. See EIA data for details.

In 1976, Hubbert stated in a television interview that global crude oil production would peak in 1995 + 10 years, or 2005.

In 2010, the IEA confirmed that crude oil production peaked in 2006. See the IEA 2010 report for details:

http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,27324,en.html

 

Perhaps you miss the point. Producing as much as you consume is neither independence nor self-sufficient if China can come in and buy up all that oil. The game is rigged so that no matter how much we produce, there is no American-consumption priority. It isn't like milk where we consume what we consume and then dispose of the extra product globally. The game is completely rigged. Those tar sands won't be producing for the US either--Canada is selling the oil to Latin America and Korea.

 

This is an important aspect which most people ignore, which unless the US government nationalizes the entire US oil industry, oil suppliers will sell their oil products to the highest bidder. Since Americans seem to implode when gas prices average $4+/gallon, what will happen when it reaches $5-$6/gallon and higher? Others around the world are already accustomed to higher fuel prices, and others will probably pay higher prices, while in the US higher prices will cause inflation and a reduction in consumption of non-fossil fuel products/services, etc. and we will be whining like babies when this happens. If China will pay $200/barrel and the US will only pay $120/barrel...who will the US oil be sold to?

Forget about peak oil arguments and prepare for much higher fuel prices when demand drives up the cost of oil beyond that point at which Americans are comfortable...

 

LATOC, as claimed by its founder, was full of religious psycho cases with daddy issues....what information would you gather from such a forum? Worse yet, the owner who exposed the inside of the peak oil cult as just the sort of zealots many suspected, also thought uranium was a fossil fuel.

How many AAPG national conventions did you attend to learn from USGS scientists, industry geologists, or other geoscience professionals? Which of the geoscience specialties is your degree in, to even understand the basics of discovery process modeling, reservoir dynamics or perhaps data analysis? How many calls to EIA analysts and resource experts did you make? What was the quality of the geoscience library available to you, that you might UNLEARN that uranium wasn't a fossil fuel?

Of what value is IEA if they contradict themselves, having previously declared global peak oil in 2006? What is your opinion on a organization that is forced to contradict itself within a matter of only a few short years? The latest EIA data also confirms stable production based on tight and shale oil production right on through 2040. Why don't you reference this information, if necessary I can reference the conference, date and time it was presented, why weren't you THERE learning something?

 

Not in their high resource case it doesn't. Why would you be selling only one scenario, the one you like, rather than understanding and mentioning the full level of uncertainty inherent in such types of projections?

True. It is about a malthusian based religion pimping fear to as many gullible people as they can find. Were you sent here by your church to try and find some converts?

The resource pyramid concept has been around longer than you have been alive. It has never been attached to religious fundamentalists who don't know anything about the oil and gas extraction industries until YOU decided to say it was. Hubbert certainly never said it, and unlike you, he DID have geoscience credentials. You don't get to assign his credibility to your religions ideas and hope folks don't notice, because the ones that have brains...will.

Why don't you just mosey on back to your pew in the church and nod vigorously with the other converts, bad ideas don't work near as well in an open environment where you can't ban those who do have industry experience.

 

Why do you reference an insurance actuary when the previous poster referenced actual experts? Are you aware that this particular actuary also predicted peak oil in 2008, and has been discredited in the same way as Colin Campbell, TOD, and the rest of the "all decline, all the time" crowd?

 

"may" not have staying power does not seem to negate the religious belief of those who said that increasing production from this type of resource was impossible. They have been discredited by their ignorance of the geosciences, why do you use them as references? Do you understand the concept of quality? And why Hubbert had it, and Gail does not?

Wells aren't "dug" anymore, we've been drilling for oil and gas for more than a century now, depending on when exactly you want to discuss the end of cable tool drilling. You do understand this don't you, with your extensive oilfield experience and what you garnered on the LATOC website?

Ignorant articles can't save you from the fact that you know nothing about this topic on your own, and are just a parrot like Jiggsy. Are you a bot? Have the ranks in the church gotten so thin nowadays that they can't even send in a shill for the religion in person?

But not confirmed by the high resource case of the EIA, otherwise known as "them who know the US better than them furriners". Is English even your first language?

Hubbert claimed that the US would peak in or before 1950 in 1938. Is there any reason you think his multiple guesses have any more validity than his catastrophic miss in world oil rate and time, or why he missed the US peak in natural gas production from the 1956 paper by hundreds of percent? You understand HUNDREDS of percent, yes? It is the number that happens when you DON'T get to claim you knew what was going on.

Were you on the religious psycho side, or the daddy issues side?

Contrary evidence? How about peak oil not happening when it was claimed? How about the place you LEARNED about peak oil, and what it was TEACHING you?

View attachment 27971

 

The world oil peak in 2006 that never happened? That isn't an argument, it is a discredited prediction. Reality is a wonderful counter to your churchs positions.

Nope. You claimed to LEARN from them. Can you name a single poster on that website that KNEW anything about the oil and gas industry? Had industry experience? And is this what you learned?

View attachment 27972

I am referring to his call for peak oil on or before 1950. Are you seriously implying that your research has been so poor on this topic that you don't even know about PRIOR predictions that didn't come true? What is your opinion on how many times peak oil can be claimed, and NOT come true, before people are allowed to giggle at the rapture time schedule of your religion?

The IEA can confirm all they'd like, the problem is that higher rates were achieved after 2010. The wonder of reality versus claims of the economists. Why do you like economists so much? They don't know any more about the geosciences than LATOC did.

The theory was not proposed in 1956. Are you a bot, or has your religious dogma not informed you of ANY of his prior work and claims?

Hubbert predicted that US oil production would peak in 1950 or earlier. In 1938. Why didn't you learn this from LATOC? Do you know what a library is? Are you a bot?

 

It is called a free market. Americans like that, and most people don't ignore it, they COUNT on it. Making the oil industry and efficient as the US government only guarantees a solid tripling in prices. Accompanied with less supply.

Those who drive EVs will be hooting and hollering over how smart they are compared to the normal American out buying monster trucks.

Already prepared. I say we all use domestically produced energy, screw stopping in at the extortion stores.

 

I suggest most people don't give any thought to oil and refineries, etc. as long as they can always find affordable fuel for their needs. I doubt 1% of people know what the price of crude oil is today.

This issue IS NOT solely about our cars since increases in costs or shortages/outages of supply directly effect 100% of the US economy. You'll be able to drive your EV to the grocery store to pay $5 for a tomato!

 

What gives you the strange idea that the oil industry follows free market principles? If the government taxed the hell out of it to cover some of its downstream costs it would come closer to being a real free market. Free market phonies have gotten away with ignoring the externalities in asserting their religious ideology, like a church ignoring their sins. A free market that doesn't price in the costs is no free market. From analysis I have read the real unsubsidized costs would push the price of gas somewhere upwards of $15 a gallon.

 

Which proves the point…that crude oil isn't NEAR as expensive as it ought to be. People don't respect a thing until it costs so much, their wallets BLEED when they pay for it.

Liquid fuels is all about transport. And a 100% increase in fuel costs does NOT lead to a 100% increase if derivative products cost…say…what you pay for tomatoes shipped in from California for example. It works that way with individuals…if fuels increase 100% and you REFUSE to change your behavior, your fuel costs go up 100%. However, discerning consumers that Americans are, we change our behavior.Some of us change our behavior so much, we RAIN discretionary income into our budgets. I recommend American fuels for everyone, stop funding the jihadists and extortion stores!

 

The United States certainly has the technology to dramatically reduce our need of Oil.

Right now Solar Highways are being built on small scales that work exceptionally well and are SELF HEATING....thus solving Snow issues in Northern States.

The U.S. Military is whispered to have developed Low Temp. Micro-Fusion Reactors and as this appears to be a reality the rest is up to getting the U.S. Military to release the use of such Tech. for Civilian App's.

AboveAlpha

 

A decade of drilling for, completing, producing and selling crude oil and natural gas…following…free market principles? Hey, if someone was there and wanted to buy my oil and gas for double the price, I can tell you EXACTLY who I would have sold my oil and gas to.

I supervised the printing and distribution of the tax checks to counties yearly. Thousands of dollars multiplied by average daily production rates meant big checks. How do you figure the government wasn't taxing the hell out of the company?

Cool. I'm all for it. Having the oil industry pay for all the external costs means that those of us EVing around can use everything those new tax dollars will buy, without having the costs flow through to OUR fuel, good ol' American electricity.

 

Those of us already using such technology agree!!

Living in a better place would also work exceptionally well. Colorado has tons of solar flux potential, and all those sunny days make for good moods among its citizens! Other folks can keep the dreary and drab.

Yes…and the HARP tectonic weapon was aimed at Venezuela so we could steal all their oil and accidentally hit Haiti back in 2010!!

Love conspiracy stuff…

http://www.infowars.com/chavez-and-the-russian-fleet-u-s-used-earthquake-weapon-on-haiti/

 

Whatever you might have heard or read about as far as highly secretive and advanced U.S. Military R&D existing....multiply it by 100 and you STILL would not be close the level of reality.

AboveAlpha

 

I assume you are being a little facetious here. Gas of course is my stand-in for taxing fossil fuel in general. What do you think powers most electricity? Part of the unpaid for cost is lung cancer, emphysema and a progressively wrecked planet.

 

FWIW, demand is part of the issue. That is, we needed to access U.S. shale oil to meet increasing global demand.

 

But the data that I've been presenting to you comes the IEA, EIA, and other organizations. A link was given earlier showing reports from multiple groups, from energy agencies to multinational banks to oil companies.

Again, the data I presented to you comes from EIA data until October 2013.

The forecasts for shale oil comes from the IEA. You can even see it in the latest report published a few days ago. That was shared earlier, and more details are given below.

As for organizations you mentioned, surely you can refer to findings in this thread. For example, from 2011:

"Geologists Sharply Cut Estimate of Shale Gas"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/25/us/25gas.html

From a few days ago,

"U.S. officials cut estimate of recoverable Monterey Shale oil by 96%"

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-oil-20140521-story.html

You need to look at the reason why the IEA argued otherwise. The report is linked in my earlier message.

For the EIA, I got the information from this news report from last December:

"U.S. shale oil production to peak in 2021 at 4.8 mln bpd-EIA"

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/12/16/energy-eia-outlook-shale-idUKL2N0JV1B020131216

For production through 2040, you are probably referring to AEO 2014, which is mentioned here:

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/early_production.cfm

But if you read that article carefully, you will see that the same argument is given: tight oil production is expected to decline in 2021.

Finally, we need to look at how a recent cut in recoverable estimates for two-thirds of U.S. shale oil reserves will affect the forecast:

"UPDATE 2-U.S. EIA cuts recoverable Monterey shale oil estimate by 96 pct"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/21/eia-monterey-shale-idUSL1N0O713N20140521

 

Why are you focusing on a high resource case given uncertainty?

Not, it's not about that, either.

Actually, he did. That's why he referred to nuclear energy at the end of his report.

Why should I do that? You've not countered any of my arguments.

 

The information used comes from the USDA Economic Research Service. You are free to use other sources or refer to other reports. For example, comments below the article refer to data from the IMF WEO.

Also, you are that previous poster, but you did not refer to any experts or reports. If any, you were asking for the effects of peak oil on the GDP, etc. I fulfilled your request.

 

I am always willing to admit the possibility, even without evidence for same. My curiosity centers on these tectonic weapons we have, that we can't aim very well.

 

I can't help it sometimes. 13.8% of my electrical power came from windmills, in 2013. Call it another 20% from the solar panels on the roof. The rest came from natural gas and coal, no nukes in my neck of the woods.

So feel free to raise my electric rates I fuel my car with, this will then trigger a standard efficiency response by those looking to free up discretionary income (as I have before, and Econ101 says plenty of other folks will as well) and in terms of absolute dollars, we will end up spending less....even with the high per unit cost.

 

Stop being a dumbass. We aren't even allowed to EXPORT US shale oil, so we certainly can't use it to meet increasing GLOBAL demand..only increasing US demand...and the US since about 2005..decided to use LESS.

So where in your scenario is the obvious, and recently proven idea that it is possible to have economic growth while using less oil...both in absolute terms, and per capita? Per capita, the US has reduced crude usage per person some 40% since the last peak oil/running out hysteria of the 70's....where was your religion then except doing the same stupid things they have been for the past decade?