Oil - Produced by the Earth?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]In any event, I think your argument misses wildly due to the fact that there are huge amounts of fossil fuels in the ground that were not economically viable when oil prices were lower. Now that prices have risen dramatically, those huge supplies are becoming economically viable. When production of these sources kicks in to gear, the supply of available oil will increase quite a bit.

It seems as though you are arguing that we have consumed over half of what is in the ground, and that is simply not true.[/quote]

Nope. You’re still not getting it. Peak oil has nothing to do with determining whether something is economically viable, potential reserves, etc. It is concerned about rate of PRODUCTION. While oil shale, tar sands, and offshore oil will all be valuable sources in the years to come, they will not offset peaking production. The production from these sources simply does not match the production of mega-fields like Gahawar in Saudi Arabia.

So, when these older, much more massive, easy to exploit fields go into decline, overall production will as well. So, I’m not saying new discoveries in Brazil, or new techniques used in places like the Bakken field will not yield oil. They will. But they won’t amount to enough to offset a general global decline after the peak.

LISTEN CAREFULLY:

PEAK OIL DOES NOT MEAN “RUNNING OUT OF OIL.” Even extreme peak enthusiasts like Colin Campbell state that in 2030, the gobal oil production will still be high, likely as much as it was in the early 1980s.

PEAK OIL THEORY STATES THAT PRODUCTION WILL REACHED A HIGH AND THEN DECLINE CONSISTANTLY.

That’s it. When the peak occurs is open to quite abit of debate, but the concept that it will peak is almost universally accepted. Furthermore, most, if not all agree that if it hasn’t peaked yet, it will soon. (With the exception of few, such as CERA, as Mage pointed out.)

PLEASE, PLEASE DON’T ASSOCIATE ME with doomsday nuts and the like.

My point is that Hubbert’s theory and the concept of peak oil is not some crackpot scheme cooked up by fear-mongers. Its principals are generally accepted by the academic community.

42

“Note that “geology student” is NOT equal to “geologist”.”

Sure it does. How many people here who don’t compete call themselves bodybuilders?

:stuck_out_tongue:

43

[quote]joeisdead wrote:
“Note that “geology student” is NOT equal to “geologist”.”

Sure it does. How many people here who don’t compete call themselves bodybuilders?

:stuck_out_tongue:
[/quote]

It’s different. That’s why you usually prefix it with “professional”.

But TG’s just splitting hairs. Depending on where you are in your curriculum, you can call yourself a geologist and get away with it. It’s not like you magically turn into one once you get a piece of paper.

44

[quote]lixy wrote:
It’s not like you magically turn into one once you get a piece of paper.[/quote]

I think that is how it works.

They gave me a pocket protector and a slide-rule at graduation. Those are basically equivalent to a PE.

45

[quote]joeisdead wrote:
Nope. You’re still not getting it. Peak oil has nothing to do with determining whether something is economically viable, potential reserves, etc. It is concerned about rate of PRODUCTION. While oil shale, tar sands, and offshore oil will all be valuable sources in the years to come, they will not offset peaking production. The production from these sources simply does not match the production of mega-fields like Gahawar in Saudi Arabia.

So, when these older, much more massive, easy to exploit fields go into decline, overall production will as well. So, I’m not saying new discoveries in Brazil, or new techniques used in places like the Bakken field will not yield oil. They will. But they won’t amount to enough to offset a general global decline after the peak.

LISTEN CAREFULLY:

PEAK OIL DOES NOT MEAN “RUNNING OUT OF OIL.” Even extreme peak enthusiasts like Colin Campbell state that in 2030, the gobal oil production will still be high, likely as much as it was in the early 1980s.

PEAK OIL THEORY STATES THAT PRODUCTION WILL REACHED A HIGH AND THEN DECLINE CONSISTANTLY.

That’s it. When the peak occurs is open to quite abit of debate, but the concept that it will peak is almost universally accepted. Furthermore, most, if not all agree that if it hasn’t peaked yet, it will soon. (With the exception of few, such as CERA, as Mage pointed out.)

PLEASE, PLEASE DON’T ASSOCIATE ME with doomsday nuts and the like.

My point is that Hubbert’s theory and the concept of peak oil is not some crackpot scheme cooked up by fear-mongers. Its principals are generally accepted by the academic community.

[/quote]

While I was conflating ‘production’ vs. ‘supply’, I still disagree with the basic premise that peak oil will occur soon.

We both agree that there is still plenty of oil left in the ground. The idea that oil production will peak soon makes an assumption that technology will remain at similar levels. I disagree with that notion, and believe that as long as oil production remains as profitable as it currently is, then technological breakthroughs will continue to occur, thus maintaining or increasing production levels.

This has happened continuously since the oil production industry began, and I see no reason to assume that technology improvements will cease now.

In short, I believe that as long as lots of oil remains in the ground and that oil production remains profitable for the long-term, then we will not reach peak oil for a long time.

46

“I disagree with that notion, and believe that as long as oil production remains as profitable as it currently is, then technological breakthroughs will continue to occur, thus maintaining or increasing production levels.”

I’ll concede that, and no one in their right mind wouldn’t. There is no way to foresee how new technology will affect the future of oil production/exploration.

I’m personally pessimistic about it, but it’s certainly a possibility.

Anyways, I suppose I should thank you and Mage for dragging me out of my elitist attitude, it’s been much more fun debating like this, as opposed to hit and run posting.

My bad.

47

[quote]lixy wrote:
joeisdead wrote:
“Note that “geology student” is NOT equal to “geologist”.”

Sure it does. How many people here who don’t compete call themselves bodybuilders?

:stuck_out_tongue:

It’s different. That’s why you usually prefix it with “professional”.

But TG’s just splitting hairs. Depending on where you are in your curriculum, you can call yourself a geologist and get away with it. It’s not like you magically turn into one once you get a piece of paper.[/quote]

Given that even freshly minted graduates are not themselves considered respected professionals by many, I don’t think it’s splitting hairs to note that joeisdead is not yet even at that level.

joeisdead comes in, shares his perspective without any supporting evidence, then claims we should take his word for it because he’s a geologist, only to later reveal that he’s still just a student.

It’s not splitting hairs to then remind him that he’s not in much of a position to insist that we should just take his word for it.

48

“I think that is how it works.
They gave me a pocket protector and a slide-rule at graduation. Those are basically equivalent to a PE.”

Sad, funny, and probably true.

49

[quote]joeisdead wrote:
“I disagree with that notion, and believe that as long as oil production remains as profitable as it currently is, then technological breakthroughs will continue to occur, thus maintaining or increasing production levels.”

I’ll concede that, and no one in their right mind wouldn’t. There is no way to foresee how new technology will affect the future of oil production/exploration.

I’m personally pessimistic about it, but it’s certainly a possibility.

Anyways, I suppose I should thank you and Mage for dragging me out of my elitist attitude, it’s been much more fun debating like this, as opposed to hit and run posting.

My bad.
[/quote]

It is more beneficial for everybody when we drop our condescensions, and I’m as guilty of not doing that as anyone.

50

Lixy wrote: It’s different. That’s why you usually prefix it with “professional”.

But TG’s just splitting hairs. Depending on where you are in your curriculum, you can call yourself a geologist and get away with it. It’s not like you magically turn into one once you get a piece of paper.

(sorry being new to this site I’m still learning the fonts)

Lixy are you a student? Because only a student would say that. I Graduated From B.U. with a B.S. in Computer Science, but I still had to take my MSCE testing to be a Certified Engineer.
I recently got out of the U.S. Marines as a Ssgt but that doesn’t mean I could call my self a Five Star General because its just a piece of paper that changes my grade, can I? Oh and by the way. There are no Five Star Generals in the Corps, just to keep you up on things past your grade level.
To Joeisdead don’t lie about what or who you are. You will be found out and then known to all as untrustworthy. Just look at O’bama and Hillary right now, they are as phony as G.W. is dimwitted.
Whether or not the Oil Peak has been reached is not important. Creating lower cost, cleaner, more efficient energy sources for society is important. Corn isn’t going to do it neither will Geo Thermal energy sources (That is if we are trying to preserve the planet). Corn will destroy economies world wide and Geo Thermal will cause a cooling of the Earth’s Core, when widely used. Right now and has always been, Oil is the best energy source for our transportation and heating needs. If we where to use Nuclear power for Electricity, we could save billions of gallons of Oil for society as well as lowering the cost of Electricity for the masses. France is building 23 new power plants; Japan 20 new power plants, just to name a few. Do you realize that if the Liberal Mecca of NY City built just two mid sized Auger style Nuclear power plants they would save 130,000 barrels of oil and 200,000 tons of “clean burning” coal every year,(a product of China since Hillary’s husband turned our “Clean Burning” Coal reserve into a State Park). The people of NY City would also only pay @ 10 cents on the dollar for their electricity.
Hey then they could then afford some more high priced Baseball players and maybe win something for all the money they spend (sorry had to dig on the Yankees) :slight_smile:

51

[quote]joeisdead wrote:
Fun, fun, fun. I figured you were trying to get a reaction out of me and you did a good job. Hope there are no hard feelings.[/quote]

I was actually laughing at how I was immediately violating the debate rules set down by Boston Barrister.[quote]

I would post the link to these journals, but unless you have an account with Springerlink you’ll have to find hard copies of this on your own.[/quote]

I did find links to the articles, and google was able to actually list the quote as being in the text, but was not accessible to me.

And actually this helped me figure out you most likely was a student. Most likely in the first, but possibly second year of college, under 21, maxing out those student loans, (be sure to thank the parents,) while not coming from a wealthy family, still had a fairly stable household without too much financial difficulty growing up. Probably avoided the frat, and went for a simple dorm room.

Oops, went all psychic reading on you. (How much was right?)[quote]

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe my profs have been misinformed.[/quote]

How does that old saying go? Science advances one death at a time.

Respect and learn from them. But always remember, they are not perfect, and always could be wrong. I don’t care who it is, or what they teach you, your job is to advance science, not regurgitate it.

Stand on their shoulders and climb higher. You brought up Newton, and how Einstein stood on his shoulders, and now today others are standing on the shoulders of Einstein.

Don’t just blindly accept what the professors tell you, but work to understand it. Then if what they say is correct, it will be obvious, and if not, you will then have the opportunity to change the science for the better.[quote]

Some good journals to start with:

Hubbert�??s Petroleum Production Model: An Evaluation
and Implications for World Oil Production Forecasts,
Cavallo, Natural Resources Research, Vol. 13 (2004)

An Analysis of U.S. and World Oil Production
Patterns Using Hubbert-Style Curves
Bartlett, Mathematical Geology, Vol. 32 (2000)

An Assessment of Oil Supply and Its Implications for
Future Prices
Santini, Nonrenewable Resouces, Vol. 7 (1998)

Theses authors argue much more eloquently for Hubbert’s principals than I ever could. If you want, I can email them to you. [/quote]

Not sure I have the time to go rummaging through journals right now, plus what would be involved in dissecting everything. Also the debate is here, and unless everyone has a copy of that journal, can they follow the discussion?

Anyway I do believe there is a possibility of a peak in the future. My disagreement is with when, the idea that it must occur right at the 50% point, and the resulting plunge. The nice perfect bell curve.

One of the plans involving the sequestering of CO2 interestingly enough involves pumping it into wells, and the result is that it will actually push out more oil. In a test on the Weyburn oil field in Canada, they have doubled the oil recovery rate, and estimate that the oil fields life is extended by 20 years.

http://www.fe.doe.gov/news/techlines/2005/tl_weyburn_mou.html

Hubbert’s peak never took this into account. (Or the estimated 33 billion barrels of oil off the coast of Brazil.)

52

[quote]joeisdead wrote:
Yes, I’m a student. Not a professional, never claimed to be.

Anyways, forgive the typo in my biogenic/abiogenic post. I have several folders on my computer full of articles on both, and in my haste to post I choose the wrong one. Regardless, there are still lots of skeptical reports on the theory out there. I’ll see if I can post one later.

Next, I might as well tackle some other issues. For one CERA’s report has been heavily criticized, not just by the ASPO. CERA’s funding is also, I might add, directly supported by several oil conglomerates. [/quote]

Not sure why that matters. They do not benefit from saying there is plenty of oil, and actually they benefit if people believe there is less then there is.

Besides, funding has to come from somewhere, and I am fairly certain the oil industry really wanted to know how accurate the peak oil theory was.[quote]

ASPO has challanged CERA’s claims by literally betting $100,000 dollars they’re wrong. See the story below.

http://www.energycurrent.com/index.php?id=4&storyid=8698[/quote]

Is this really news, or just a political stunt? $100,000 advertising? Drop in the bucket really. [quote]

Next, I spent a whopping 5 minutes on google and found other organizations like the EIA that have numbers that also support my claims. Certainly the ASPO is biased, but if you reread my post you’ll notice I said it could be verified by others.

Bottom line:

Looking at data, crude oil production has peaked. Demand is higher than ever, yet supply has shrunk. It hasn’t even been able to stay level. Global production, including unconventional sources, also reached a high and has not been able to surpass it. ASPO and others like them seem to think that it will rise again and peak around 2010. Personally, I would go so far as to say it has peaked already, period. However, I could be proven wrong very easily if the numbers go up this year. We’ll see.

The numbers will settle the score eventually, eh?[/quote]

What numbers are you working with? Certain numbers are influenced by price. For example the supply in America will actually go down as the price of oil goes up simply because the buyers are trying to play the market.

Oh hey, my chicken is done…

nerfa wiff herpbler frudenaw…

(Oh, sorry, typing with my mouth full.)

Also I am very familiar with what happens when you search for information on this very subject. Anything doing with PEAK OIL jumps to the top. Similar to any political subject that pushes all the biased opinions to the top.

But as I have pointed out before, try looking at the USGS data. If you are into geology, then that would make the most sense I would think.

53

[quote]joeisdead wrote:
In any event, I think your argument misses wildly due to the fact that there are huge amounts of fossil fuels in the ground that were not economically viable when oil prices were lower. Now that prices have risen dramatically, those huge supplies are becoming economically viable. When production of these sources kicks in to gear, the supply of available oil will increase quite a bit.

It seems as though you are arguing that we have consumed over half of what is in the ground, and that is simply not true.

Nope. You’re still not getting it. Peak oil has nothing to do with determining whether something is economically viable, potential reserves, etc. It is concerned about rate of PRODUCTION. While oil shale, tar sands, and offshore oil will all be valuable sources in the years to come, they will not offset peaking production. The production from these sources simply does not match the production of mega-fields like Gahawar in Saudi Arabia.
…

[/quote]

You are the one that doesn’t get it. Production from difficult fields doesn’t match production from easy oil fields yet due to economics reasons. We will be using more oil in the future than we are using today (unless we find a cheaper source of energy).

Peak oil means we have peaked and will always use less oil in the future. This is not true unless we find that cheaper energy.

54

Thank you everyone for a wonderful debate. It’s so rare these days, I think I may be crying.

Please, continue.

55

[quote]Damici wrote:
Can someone with at least a few brain cells to rub together tell me why the FUCK we’re not drilling in ANWAR yet?? This dolt we have in the White House was for all of about 2 right things: Keeping taxes low and drilling in ANWAR. Seven years in office and he couldn’t push ANWAR through?? Are you kidding me?

There’s NOBODY THERE (in Alaska)!!! Alaska is MASSIVE, and the WHOLE STATE has 800,000 people! New York City – a CITY – has 8 MILLION!!! Are we REALLY going to let people who want to protect 3 caribou scare us off from securing a key aspect of our national security and economy?

WTF?!?!?!?

Drill that freaking state like it’s Swiss cheese!![/quote]

I agree - but perhaps you should direct your ire at the Democratic Congress:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/04/despite-energy-crisis-dems-vow-no-new.html

56

A question to the economics-literate.

I was reading an article that tried to analyze the reasons behind the rice prices, and run across this: “And, of course, the demand for ethanol as an alternative fuel is linked directly to the soaring price of oil.”

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2008/gb20080428_894449.htm

Can someone please explain why they say “of course”?

57

[quote]lixy wrote:
A question to the economics-literate.

I was reading an article that tried to analyze the reasons behind the rice prices, and run across this: “And, of course, the demand for ethanol as an alternative fuel is linked directly to the soaring price of oil.”

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2008/gb20080428_894449.htm

Can someone please explain why they say “of course”? [/quote]

The higher oil goes the more appealing ethanol seems.

58

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

The higher oil goes the more appealing ethanol seems.

[/quote]

Yep - they’re imperfect substitute goods.

59

Yes, it has been an interesting debate. I enjoy debating with Mage. Even though we obviously disagree, and I don’t think we’ll even see eye to eye, it’s fun nonetheless. Good stuff.

“And actually this helped me figure out you most likely was a student. Most likely in the first, but possibly second year of college…”

Actually, that WAS ME, about 6 years ago. I’m going back to school now for another degree.

“You are the one that doesn’t get it. Production from difficult fields doesn’t match production from easy oil fields yet due to economics reasons. We will be using more oil in the future than we are using today (unless we find a cheaper source of energy).”

Nope, still wrong. I live and study in Canada, not far from the Alberta tar sands/oil shale, a hot topic at our university. Yes, economic reasons will increase operations, but there is literally no physical way that it could increase output to make up for the loss of the decline in other fields. The technology isn’t there for it. If, by some miracle, new technology appears and solves this problem, yes, you would be right. But at the moment, it’s literally impossible using current methods.

And yes, I do follow the USGS data. They’re a good source of info, very realistic. For example, the Bakken formation, in the upper midwest, was just surveyed by them. Prior to USGS data, people were making estimates of upwards of 400 billion barrels. USGS estimated only about 4.

The numbers will prove me wrong or right, and by numbers I mean crude oil and overall global production data. Various organizations report on this, and at the moment, production in crude oil is in decline, and has been for a year or so, and global production from all sources, conventional and unconventional, is also in slight decline.

So, there are three possible outcomes from this point.

A)If it rises and continues to until 2010, then declines permanently, ASPO was right.

B) And if it rises this year and continues to or plateaus, you’ll be right and I’ll be wrong.

C) If it continues to decline and never hits it’s past high, I was correct.

60

[quote]joeisdead wrote:
Yes, it has been an interesting debate. I enjoy debating with Mage. Even though we obviously disagree, and I don’t think we’ll even see eye to eye, it’s fun nonetheless. Good stuff.[/quote]

Yes, debate can be fun, although recently I have been limiting my time at it as it can really take up time. Sometime I will drop out of a debate when things start turning from debate into a fight, or the debate degrades. Although sometimes I have stayed too long.

xcutx

There is a slight problem with that argument though. Yes oil production has declined since 2005, this is true, but only because OPEC has decided to cut production. And unlike the 90’s, members are actually cutting the supply. Maybe not as much as they agree too, but they actually do it. .5 million barrels a day cut results in 180 million barrels a year reduction.

They have stated they will not increase production because the current prices are not really a supply/demand result, and instead are artificially inflated due to speculation.

I disagree with their holding the supply down attempting to manipulate the market, but they are correct that speculation has pushed oil way higher then it should be.

This is exacerbated by all the attacks on pipelines, oil worker strikes, and all the things that have happened in recent years to help push prices up, and help keep the numbers from growing.

If oil has actually peaked, then there is no reason to restrict production at all. They would be pumping at full capacity, which they should be anyway.

Anyway, even if they were always trying to pump at full capacity, even if we were at the middle of a growing curve, the actual numbers would still have declining years. Kind of like the stock market does not just go up or down, it bounces around like crazy.

Production drops can never be used as evidence of the peak until OPEC quits playing this game.