oil gusher in california

[RGR]

I find it more than just a tad confusing how estimates regarding the reserves can be so wildly different.

Humans do not like uncertainty. Engineers are designed to give you an answer down to 3 significant digits.

Reserves are all about the future. Take all the information you have as of today (and when today IS matters as well) and cast your idea down the road. The correct way to express that answer would be with a histogram, and technically, proven SEC reserves are supposed to be a fractile pull from that histogram. In any case, the day after you calculate these "reserves", the price of oil doubles the next day, and you are now wrong. It drops in half, and you are wrong again. By definition, any single reserve number only represents a single fractile guess into the overall histogram.

Thought of like that, "reserves" are by definition wildly different. Those of us who do them simply don't show the full histograms when asked the question, "How much will this well/field make?"

Now what's a layman supposed to think when the ranges of estimates are so wildly different?

The layman becomes confused, because he/she doesn't know how these reserves are calculated. A peaker assumes its a conspiracy. 3 engineers know it happened because they each have their own way of dealing with the geologic, economic, and reservoir uncertainty involved.

So while you EXPERTS here are debating the PEAK OIL issue, I cannot help but wonder how YOU GUYS decide which expert to believe.

How DO you decide who YOU believe?

We ask questions to establish a basis. What method was used to calculate these reserves? Analogs, material balance, decline curves, reservoir modeling and matching, in-place estimates with an assumed recovery factor method, where did all the information to create this estimate come from (well logs, core samples, seismic, geologic arm waving at similar rock, production) and was it accurately assembled.

And then guess what? We are happy if two independent calculations come within 50% of each other, at least until our sources of information have improved as the well/field is developed.

No one said this is easy, certainly peakers miss the nuance altogether in a rush to backstop their religious beliefs. Uncertainty has always been there, it just isn't as visible as some of us would like. Realizing of course that the instant I report my reserves as a histogram, I catch all kinds of flak from investors and accountants who are very deterministic in their own worlds.

 

[westwall]

What part of the Hirsch report would you like to discuss?

Whatever you feel you can best spin. The ball is in your court, and you've countered with more rhetoric, and still zero data. I grow confident that you're hoping this exchange goes away.

You don't need me to steer the discussion any further. Here is your chance to distort the conclusions of Hirsch's report, and the best you can do is punt to 1987 and suggest the DoE doesn't necessarily agree.

Perhaps we can start with Hirsch's prediction of energy crisis...in 1987? I assume you are familiar with his history at seeing oil crisis around every corner?

Enough with the pretentious posturing by way of vague rhetoricals. Just get on with it then. Qualify your assertion. You have plenty of rope now; Hang yourself with vague apples to oranges comparisons to 24 years ago. I can't wait.

Do you wish to discuss the similarities between his 1987 work and his 2005 DOE sponsored report (which is not the position of the DOE I might add)?

Take your pick, spin-master. If the DoE objected, it would have disavowed the findings from a report it facilitated. Worse, if the DoE objected, why then do its officials follow up with corroboration?

Dept of Energy Acknowledges Possibility of Peak Oil Production After 2011 | HeatingOil.com

In contrast to its official stance on a global production peak, comments by DOE secretary Glen Sweetnam in an exclusive interview demonstrate that the department is considering whether a swift and unexpected decline of oil supplies is close at hand.​

LOL. No, it's not "considering" ... It's softening the American public for a condition it's certain of by 2016.

"Once maximum world oil production is reached, that level will be approximately maintained for several years thereafter, creating an undulating plateau. After this plateau period, production will experience a decline." - Lauren Mayne, DoE.​

Oops, production has been at that undulating plateau since 2004.

"A chance exists that we may experience a decline [of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015] if the investment is not there." - Glen Sweetnam, DoE, secretary ​

"A chance exists ... if" we don't pour money into it. That's about as alarmist as a government official is allowed to get, especially after years of denying to the American people that the problem exists at all.

Or do you wish to focus on only the 2005 report and what he said in there that was reasonable, and unreasonable? You decide sometime today, and when I'm home this evening I will tackle any piece of it that you would like.

You didn't need to wait, cool guy. I served you a softball, and you responded with obfuscation.

Just the fact that the U.S. Dept. of Energy has finally acknowledged imminent peak speaks volumes, and it's going to be really tricky for you to maintain your Frank Drebbin routine in the wake of multiple statements, even if coded, by our own government, in lock step with the Pentagon, IEA, Oxford, Lloyd's, Total, ASPO, Post Carbon Institute, British and German governments, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Even if you do conjure up yet another new spin-tacular narrative regarding Hirsch that maintains the doubt platform that your disciples here are so desperate to cling to, you can not account for the fact that 1) world conventional production has flatlined for seven years while world demand continues to skyrocket, and 2) there have been no new finds of conventional crude in excess of 500 million barrels in 8 years anywhere on God's green Earth.

Reserve growth is vastly offset by OPEC and non-OPEC accounting gimmicks, and no one can show where the new oil is going to come from going forward.

Unconventional oil will not save us. And despite your lame attempts to sneak piddly oil-from-dirt production totals into the overall equation, I'm quite confident you know sands/shale won't save us.

But, but, but....didn't you tell us that we had hit peak oil long ago? Didn't you say Hubbert had made the prediction and it was validated years ago? And here you link to a report that says we might hit it after 2011? So which is it maximum bloviator?

 

[Old Rocks]

Dumb ass, we hit the Hubert peak for the US in 1971, right on schedule. And how much has the rate of production increased in the last few years?

 

[westwall]

Dumb ass, we hit the Hubert peak for the US in 1971, right on schedule. And how much has the rate of production increased in the last few years?

Yeah so? Jiggy baby said the world hit peak a few years ago and now here is a DOE report that says the world may hit Peak in 2015 or 2016. That's what I was referring to.
Why you enjoy mens asses however, is beyond me

 

[RGR]

Dumb ass, we hit the Hubert peak for the US in 1971, right on schedule. And how much has the rate of production increased in the last few years?

Hubbert predicted 2 different peaks for the US oil production. He came close to one of them.He also predicted peak natural gas for about the same time period. It peaked right when he said it would, and began its inevitable decline. Until the early 80's. Then it started growing again. And then some more. And then some more. And nearly 40 years after the FIRST American Hubbert peak in natural gas, we got another!!

So I ask...how many peaks does Hubbert's method allow, do ya think? And how far apart can they be? Saudi Arabia peaked back in the early 80's I believe, the peak of the worlds largest producing country bothered you much in 3 decades?

US crude oil production was up about 8% in 2009, over 2008. EIA doesn't have annuals out for 2010 yet.

 

[KissMy]

Government Regulations created the peak that coincided with Hubert's peak BS for the US in 1971.

If you can't sink an oil drill when, where & however you please like here in the USA then the government is restricting production. Just look at how the government, EPA, unions & regulators nearly prevented the Alaska pipeline from being completed. If the oil companies had been allowed to install 2 pipelines there would have been a second much higher peak in the 1980s. With all the government games, regs, leasing fees & restrictions it has become far cheaper to import our oil than produce it domestically which is why our production has declined & imports have risen.

Next thing these idiots will tell us is we hit peak clothing & shoes in the USA because our production dropped off & we import most of them from China. Wow we must have hit peak manufacturing in the USA.

Government plays games with the little libtards heads & they fall for it every time. These crooks create a bunch of money & steal it. Then 16 months later we get hit with inflation driving up commodity prices. The government political spin control convinces the population that a shortage, weather, catastrophe or hazardous pollution controls had to be imposed & this is why prices went up. Never ever will they tell the truth that all the money they printed a year or two ago is now causing the huge price rise.

 

[Bones]

Seven billion people (and growing) on Earth + the increasing use of the automobile in densely populated nations (i.e. India, China) + oil being a finite resource + the world relying on oil in order for their complex civilizations to function = inevitable disaster.

The population growth isn't going to miraculously slow down (until it hits a brick wall at top speed); alternatives to fossil fuel will be/are too little, too late; there is not enough oil in the United States to keep up with the incredible amount required for daily consumption (18,690,000 barrels per day)

Let's repeat that. 18,690,000 barrels of oil per day

Such usage, by the United States and worldwide, is unsustainable.

 

[KissMy]

In the 1920s, oil prices were peaking and many commentators believed that oil supplies were running out.

In 1919 the director of the U.S. Bureau of Mines predicted that "within the next two to five years the oil fields of this country will reach their maximum production, and from that time on we will face an ever-increasing decline."

That same year, National Geographic magazine predicted that oil shales in Colorado and Utah would be exploited to produce oil, because the demand for oil could not be met by existing production.

In January 1920, Dr. George Otis Smith, Director of the United States Geological Survey, in commenting upon our oil supply stated: "The position of the United States in regard to oil can best be characterized as precarious."

In May 1920, Dr. Smith said: "Americans will have to depend on foreign sources or use less oil, or perhaps both.

In 1920, David White, of the United States Geological Survey, stated: "On the whole, therefore, we must expect that, unless our consumption is checked, we shall by 1925 be dependent on foreign oil fields to the extent of 150,000,000 barrels and possibly as much as 200,000,000 of crude each year, except insofar as the situation may at that time, perhaps, be helped to a slight extent by shale oil. Add to this probability that within 5 years--perhaps 3 years only--our domestic production will begin to fall off with increasing rapidity, due to the exhaustion of our reserves"

Congress was confronted by requests to augment supplies, so it enacted a generous depletion allowance for producers in 1926, which increased investment returns substantially. This change induced additional exploration activity, and subsequently the discovery of large new oil reservoirs.

Beginning in the late-1920s, different groups in the oil industry proposed policy measures to help prop up prices. Initially, the major oil companies supported industry planning similar to that used during World War l. The war experience left many corporate leaders favorably disposed toward managed capitalism under the protection of the state.

During the next decade, the situation was reversed, with prices low and dropping. That led to demands for more “orderly” competition and oil price supports. Rather than repealing the supply-enhancement policies enacted during the 1920s, Congress left them intact and enacted a price-support system. Similar cycles occurred in the 1950s and 1970s. In each case, Congress enacted policies that overreacted to the current peak or trough and failed to quickly repeal the policies when petroleum prices retreated from their extreme highs or lows.

 

[RGR]

Seven billion people (and growing) on Earth + the increasing use of the automobile in densely populated nations (i.e. India, China) + oil being a finite resource + the world relying on oil in order for their complex civilizations to function = inevitable disaster.

Malthus claimed population disaster more than 2 centuries ago. While I'm sure recycling really old, really stupid ideas makes fine sense to peakers, please don't assume the rest of us are so enRaptured in your religious perspective.

The population growth isn't going to miraculously slow down (until it hits a brick wall at top speed); alternatives to fossil fuel will be/are too little, too late; there is not enough oil in the United States to keep up with the incredible amount required for daily consumption (18,690,000 barrels per day)

Let's repeat that. 18,690,000 barrels of oil per day

I assume the fascination with big numbers is because no one ever taught you Avogadro's constant, and the way scientists write it down so as not to scare ignorant peakers?

Such usage, by the United States and worldwide, is unsustainable.

The solar system in its entirety is unsustainable. And just like the use of oil, will outlive both you, and the dogma of peak oil.

 

[JiggsCasey]

What part of the Hirsch report would you like to discuss?

Whatever you feel you can best spin. The ball is in your court, and you've countered with more rhetoric, and still zero data. I grow confident that you're hoping this exchange goes away.

Grow as confident as you would like. Its not like I'm scared of parrots. As per your request, here is where I wish to start.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf

Hirsch, R.L., Bezdek, R., Wendling, R., 2005, Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management, NETL Publications at NETL Publications


Page 33, Section V. Hirsch complains that there is a dramatic example of the risks of over reliance on geological resources projections, as related to US natural gas. He goes on to say "The North American natural gas situation provides some useful lessons relevant to the peaking of conventional world oil production.

Page 36, under "Current Natural Gas Situation", he says in summary that "forecasts of a decade of high prices and shortages are credible." On that same page, he says, "If the experts were so wrong on their assessments of North American natural gas, are we really comfortable risking that the optimists are correct on world conventional oil production, which involves similar geologic and technological issues?"

Do you know what happened after that report was released Jiggs? Those geologic assessment people turned out to be RIGHT. Natural gas supplies from shale gas exploded, and cratered the price of natural gas.

In other words, those who used the geology to determine resources were correct, and those who made claims of shortages and prices increases, like Hirsch, are wrong.

By Hirsch's own words, he is wrong for the EXACT same reasons for conventional oil production. To whit, he ignores the geology. And now that the geology turns out to be an honest predictor of resource in his example, by extension it is also the best way to calculate future conventional oil resources. His argument, which he says doesn't work...except it does. He is incorrect, and has proven it himself. Geologic estimates trump his ridiculous triangles and trendology.

Seems like a good place to start, and it reinforces a critical notion which must never be forgotten when dealing with Hirsch. You see, from Fort Worth in 2005 he could have thrown a rock from a tall building and hit a shale gas rig drilling nearby. He could have counted drilling rigs from a rental car with no more than a single trip to the area and a pencil and paper. Instead, he choose to ignore the geology, he ignored the activity which was being trumpeted from every office tower in Dallas/Fort Worth, and because he didn't even take the time to do some basic background work, now his report looks stupid. Its one thing to miss a future trend, quite another to ignore the one you can literally go out and put your hand on.

Feel free to parrot some peak mythology in his defense.

wait, did you just punt to shale gas?

Seriously, before I respond... I'm not confident I understood some of your rambling above, so I just need to be clear: Are you essentially saying that Hirsh's report is wrong because it didn't account for shale gas innovation?

If so, how much shale gas production do you think takes place currently? About how much do you feel the shale gas industry can expand in say, the next 5 years? Please be honest.

If you're attempting to conflate shale gas with light sweet crude, it's beyond evident that you're completely lost on the core question of this debate.

 

[JiggsCasey]

Dumb ass, we hit the Hubert peak for the US in 1971, right on schedule. And how much has the rate of production increased in the last few years?

Yeah so? Jiggy baby said the world hit peak a few years ago and now here is a DOE report that says the world may hit Peak in 2015 or 2016. That's what I was referring to.
Why you enjoy mens asses however, is beyond me

What? That's not what the DoE says, fraud. This is pretty much why you've become irrelevant to this discussion and are largely ignored now. ... It says if investment isn't there, a 10 million barrel per day shortfall between supply and demand by 2015 is likely. Do you have any idea what that means for complex societies completely reliant on future growth?

Peak is here now. We are at the plateau and have been since 2004, barely avoiding decline due to desperate and exhaustive unconventional oil and deep sea production and Iraq dislocation. Period. You're pretending the decline point = peak. Peak is peak, decline comes after peak. Try and follow along.

It's full-bore production DECLINE that hasn't yet begun, .... and it's that aggregate production DECLINE that the DoE, IEA, Pentagon, Oxford, Lloyds, Total, and many others have recently (in unison) warned is coming in the next 5-10 years. If the world gets to a demand climate that calls for 95 million barrels per day, and world industry can only still provide 85 million barrels, what do you think that results in? Say, at best, we get to 105 million demand vs. 95 million supply?

 

[westwall]

Dumb ass, we hit the Hubert peak for the US in 1971, right on schedule. And how much has the rate of production increased in the last few years?

Yeah so? Jiggy baby said the world hit peak a few years ago and now here is a DOE report that says the world may hit Peak in 2015 or 2016. That's what I was referring to.
Why you enjoy mens asses however, is beyond me

What? That's not what the DoE says, fraud. This is pretty much why you've become irrelevant to this discussion and are largely ignored now. ... It says if investment isn't there, a 10 million barrel per day shortfall between supply and demand by 2015 is likely. Do you have any idea what that means for complex societies completely reliant on future growth?

Peak is here now. We are at the plateau and have been since 2004, barely avoiding decline due to desperate and exhaustive unconventional oil and deep sea production and Iraq dislocation. Period. You're pretending the decline point = peak. Peak is peak, decline comes after peak. Try and follow along.

It's full-bore production DECLINE that hasn't yet begun, .... and it's that aggregate production DECLINE that the DoE, IEA, Pentagon, Oxford, Lloyds, Total, and many others have recently (in unison) warned is coming in the next 5-10 years. If the world gets to a demand climate that calls for 95 million barrels per day, and world industry can only still provide 85 million barrels, what do you think that results in? Say, at best, we get to 105 million demand vs. 95 million supply?

You are correct I am pretty irrelevant to this discussion, RGR hands you your ass every time you open your mouth. Keep going though it's amusing to see you flail away.

 

[JiggsCasey]

You are correct I am pretty irrelevant to this discussion, RGR hands you your ass every time you open your mouth. Keep going though it's amusing to see you flail away.

He does? How? About what? And don't punt to "all of it."

Try and give an answer this time to the specific point or points you feel he's "ass handing" about.

Let's see how you're actually following the discussion.

You're irrelevant because you have no real answers. Not because someone else has picked up the baton and tried a new slant in your stead.

Ah well. By your silence, at least you know you lied about what the DoE actually said.

 

[RGR]

wait, did you just punt to shale gas?

If you do not have the intellectual wherewithall to tackle the topic and document you allowed me to choose, just say so.

Seriously, before I respond... I'm not confident I understood some of your rambling above, so I just need to be clear: Are you essentially saying that Hirsh's report is wrong because it didn't account for shale gas innovation?

No. I am not. Do you understand what geology is the study of? Do you understand what trendology is? Do you know the difference between using either of these methods to make an estimate about the future?

This is the report you requested.

If so, how much shale gas production do you think takes place currently? About how much do you feel the shale gas industry can expand in say, the next 5 years? Please be honest.

It is not "If so", therefore please try and stick to the topic you requested. And the report. All you have to do is think for yourself. I realize this does not come naturally to peakers, but you should try.

If you're attempting to conflate shale gas with light sweet crude, it's beyond evident that you're completely lost on the core question of this debate.

The only incompetents who confuse oil types are peakers who don't know what oil is in their desire to count only some of it.

I used your report to make a specific point. If my references to YOUR report were too complex, ask a second grader to help you look up the big words in a dictionary. I would be more than happy to clarify any specific issues you might have with Hirsch's poor logic if you just let me know which ones you are having trouble with.

 

[RGR]

Peak is here now.

Peak has been here before. It may very well be here again.

If Stuarts graphs are correct, we may be having yet ANOTHER one even as we speak.

The Oil Drum | New High of Liquid Fuel Production

How many peaks does it take before we have one that matters?

It's full-bore production DECLINE that hasn't yet begun, .... and it's that aggregate production DECLINE that the DoE, IEA, Pentagon, Oxford, Lloyds, Total, and many others have recently (in unison) warned is coming in the next 5-10 years.

Would you like to reference anything specific in THOSE reports which I can refute for you? Or is this your MO? Organizations just like those were saying the same things in the 19th century. Can you validate the current reports by telling us what they are doing differently than the ones written before you were born saying the same basic thing?

Why aren't you referencing the esteemed organizations saying we were running out in a few years? In 1920? Does that scientific reference not fit your agenda to scare people now? Or is this yet another case of peakers not training you parrots properly before casting you out into the world to scare people? They should teach you a little bit of history first.

 

[RGR]

You are correct I am pretty irrelevant to this discussion, RGR hands you your ass every time you open your mouth. Keep going though it's amusing to see you flail away.

He does? How? About what? And don't punt to "all of it."

Are you kidding? You pick a reference, and when a single point from it is used to dissemble the validity of the report you can't even respond without trying to change the topic to something else.

Do you actually READ any of these things you throw around as "sources"?

Edited

Do you even realize how predictable you are? Can't you at least come up with something original in the Dogma of Doom routine you guys try and foist off on the unsuspecting?

Try and give an answer this time to the specific point or points you feel he's "ass handing" about.

Try and read the Hirsch report, and UNDERSTAND it, prior to pretending it supports your case rather than refutes it.

 

[westwall]

You are correct I am pretty irrelevant to this discussion, RGR hands you your ass every time you open your mouth. Keep going though it's amusing to see you flail away.

He does? How? About what? And don't punt to "all of it."

Try and give an answer this time to the specific point or points you feel he's "ass handing" about.

Let's see how you're actually following the discussion.

You're irrelevant because you have no real answers. Not because someone else has picked up the baton and tried a new slant in your stead.

Ah well. By your silence, at least you know you lied about what the DoE actually said.

Well, the only person carrying on a discussion is RGR. His conversation I am following quite well. Clearly you are far out of your depth and can't follow a single point he's made.
I asked you to address the history of peak oil prediction at the very beginning of your bloviating and you never answered those simple basic questions. He has made the point again and once again you have danced around the subject so I will make it simple for you so that even my four year old could understand it...which means it is at the 2nd grade level, she's fairly advanced....so here it is...are you ready for it?

There have been multiple peaks in the history of oil production. What makes you think that this is "the one"? What evidence do you have to support it? And why do you peakers only use light sweet crude as the "only source of oil" when that is the rarest of the types pulled from the ground?

 

[westwall]

You are correct I am pretty irrelevant to this discussion, RGR hands you your ass every time you open your mouth. Keep going though it's amusing to see you flail away.

He does? How? About what? And don't punt to "all of it."

Are you kidding? You pick a reference, and when a single point from it is used to dissemble the validity of the report you can't even respond without trying to change the topic to something else.

Do you actually READ any of these things you throw around as "sources"?

Oh..the so and so organization said <insert misrepresentation here> and so of course its peak and we're all gonna die! THE END IS NIGH! OH NOES!!

Do you even realize how predictable you are? Can't you at least come up with something original in the Dogma of Doom routine you guys try and foist off on the unsuspecting?

Try and give an answer this time to the specific point or points you feel he's "ass handing" about.

Try and read the Hirsch report, and UNDERSTAND it, prior to pretending it supports your case rather than refutes it.

I think Jiggs has been smoking to much ganja and no longer has the capacity to understand the subject. He is, as you say, reduced to the level of a myna bird....repeating what he hears but in no way understanding it. Sad.

 

[RGR]

I think Jiggs has been smoking to much ganja and no longer has the capacity to understand the subject. He is, as you say, reduced to the level of a myna bird....repeating what he hears but in no way understanding it. Sad.

Peakers have several standard precepts built into their religion, which they cast onto the waters as bait.

1) We have been consuming more than we produce for a long time.
2) Oil is the only substance of consequence in the human universe.
3) Hubbert invented a predictive method and it worked.

None of them are true without some artificial context or manipulation of the data to force the answer in only the direction they have predetermined to be acceptable.

I don't know WHY they do it, other than the obvious psychological need to prove that if they were dumb enough to fall for it, at least they aren't alone in the world.

 

[westwall]

I think Jiggs has been smoking to much ganja and no longer has the capacity to understand the subject. He is, as you say, reduced to the level of a myna bird....repeating what he hears but in no way understanding it. Sad.

Peakers have several standard precepts built into their religion, which they cast onto the waters as bait.

1) We have been consuming more than we produce for a long time.
2) Oil is the only substance of consequence in the human universe.
3) Hubbert invented a predictive method and it worked.

None of them are true without some artificial context or manipulation of the data to force the answer in only the direction they have predetermined to be acceptable.

I don't know WHY they do it, other than the obvious psychological need to prove that if they were dumb enough to fall for it, at least they aren't alone in the world.

I think that the vast majority of people who follow modern catastrophism if I may be so bold to use that august term, are wrapped around the axle of these things because it makes them feel important. They don't really produce much if anything, and they are too smart to actually attend school and get an advanced degree, and mommy and daddy allways told them how smart they were so they actually believe it. But now as they get older and all the dullards are making more money and having enjoyable fullfilling lives they just can't stand it. So they adopt the "world is ending" mantra and try to convince everyone that they are the only ones who can understand it all.

Kind of like climatologists.