now, it's the IEA admitting peak

Discussion in 'Energy' started by JiggsCasey, Apr 25, 2011.

  1. JiggsCasey
    Offline

    JiggsCasey VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    991
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +128
    so, last week it was the International Monetary Fund, now, on queue, the IEA... next week, who knows? ... maybe the World Bank? USAID? heck, the UN? ... it'll prolly move on a Friday too, like this absolute bummer did:

    [​IMG]

    Cheap energy no more, IEA says

    Cheap energy no more, IEA says - UPI.com

    LUXEMBOURG, April 22 (UPI) -- The global energy sector will have to kick into high gear to meet soaring demand, the IEA said as it warned of the end of cheap energy.

    The International Energy Agency warned that it won't be easy to reverse the rise in energy prices because it's getting harder to access and exploit conventional resources.

    "The age of cheap energy is over," said IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka in a statement from Luxembourg.

    Tanaka said that if one assumes high prices are here to stay, the energy sector needs to consider whether the "extra rent" goes into the pocketbooks of global energy companies is going toward increased environmental sustainability.

    IEA analysts said the world needs another 50 million barrels of oil from new fields by 2035 in order to meet expected demand. Crude oil production from existing fields, meanwhile, is expected to decline from the 68-million-barrel-per-day mark in 2009 to just 16 million bpd by 2035.

    "Despite the fact that crude oil production doesn't increase, the need for new capacity on a gross basis is still very large, because so much of the world's existing production capacity will have been lost by the end of the projection period (of 2035)," said Tanaka.

    Let's see if we've got that straight (and anyone please stop me if I'm wrong):

    the International Energy Agency - a global policy-influencing entity that, for years, has flat denied or deflected from acknowledging peak - just admitted the comfy world as we know it will absolutely want/need/require 50 million additional barrels per day by the time our children are in their 20s and 30s. And yet, it is ALSO saying the capacity of all known fields that exist today will in fact be LOSING 50 million barrels per day from what they provide currently. Can we assume then that we really need close to 100 million barrels of newly discovered oil - per day - by 2035? .... Shit, just for argument's sake, let's pretend the IEA is being over dramatic and call it merely 40 million new barrels. No. 30 million barrels. ... every day.

    While you're pondering that figure, remind yourself that the Macondo Prospect that Deepwater Horizon was sucking off contained a total of 55 million barrels. Heck, not even a day's worth of what the IEA says the next generation will need. A night's sleep worth. ... Was it worth it? Would thousands more of them be?

    Gosh, I guess mankind had better find about 5 new Ghawars in the next 10 years then... what with all that advanced exploration technology them librul lawmakers just won't let us use. :cool: ...

    Of course, we could always let the rest of the world eat cake, and "frack" our way through the problem. There's supposedly "a thousanty trillion cubic meters" of that gas-from-rock stuff everywhere, from Conn. to Arkansas to Wyoming to Idaho, if the EPA would just stfu and (continue to) look the other way. ... Good times.

    And so here we are. Many of us seeing the writing on the wall, knowing the world will never reach those new 50-100 million barrels per day, because demand will be crushed. ... others admitting (perhaps finally) obvious supply problems, yet sure as the sun will rise that technology is not only ready, but in place for a seamless transition into something new, 'like it always does!'... 'boy, i say boy!... the stone age din't end cause of lack o' stones!'

    The IEA has admitted the Peak Oil condition. Period, end of story.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2011
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
  3. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    65,320
    Thanks Received:
    11,939
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +26,266
  4. RGR
    Offline

    RGR VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,339
    Thanks Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +133
    Cheap crude disappeared in 1969.

    So you are now claiming that 40+ years after it happened, that someone noticing is a amazing thing? And they didn't say peak you parrot...if you are going to claim someone is declaring yet another peak, they should do so, rather than you titling your thread as though they are, when they aren't.

    I mean seriously Jiggs, do they teach ignorance at your church and you are a wonderful student, or were you born this way?
     
  5. RGR
    Offline

    RGR VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    1,339
    Thanks Received:
    110
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +133
    Oh. And apparently we have discovered a few new Saudi Arabia's (to heck with just a Ghawar!) and peakers forgot to mention it!

    (WARNING: Addition and subtraction skills required: Jiggsy, find a second grader for help with the math section)

    PowerSwitch :: View topic - Expected decline rates and the questions they generate.
     
  6. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
  7. chikenwing
    Offline

    chikenwing Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    7,389
    Thanks Received:
    830
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,960
    Disaster,not so much,a spill yes,but not a disaster,no fish kill or water supply affected.
     
  8. chikenwing
    Offline

    chikenwing Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    7,389
    Thanks Received:
    830
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,960
    And as usual the media blows it out of reality, 1 farm,not farms,1 field not fields.

    North east pa has gained so much economically from gas drilling,farms that were on the brink are now solvent,new start ups in support for drilling are doing very well.

    They will learn from this and make improvements,this is a resource we need in this area,but as with everything,there is a cost.

    As exploration has moved ahead,they have discovered,just as much oil as gas,its a huge find.
     
  9. chikenwing
    Offline

    chikenwing Guest

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2010
    Messages:
    7,389
    Thanks Received:
    830
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,960
    There are signs next to peoples gas meters on there homes,in protest of drilling,but they still want their gas.Could one be more selfish??

    You don't want gas drilling,give up your gas,you can't have it both ways.
     
  10. JiggsCasey
    Offline

    JiggsCasey VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2010
    Messages:
    991
    Thanks Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Ratings:
    +128
    Are you saying I've somehow tried to suggest this?

    If not, what does this statement mean then? Just that "cheap" crude is subjective? Sure, I'll admit that, to a degree.

    I'm sorry you disagree, but yes they most certainly are admitting to the peak condition.

    In the paragraph bolded, they are most certainly "saying" the growth model required is completely unsustainable. You had better do a bit more than continuously pointing to Spraberry as your evidence of alleged "reserve growth" on the scale required to mitigate dying existing capacity.

    I'm not going to fight with you any longer. I've had a death in the family, and your snark, while usually entertaining, is no longer embraced. .... Let's please cut the crap, it's boring. Debate like a man, not an insecure "industry insider." Or I'm done with you. Your choice.
     

Share This Page