PEAK OIL: Going Mainstream

[CriticalFunker]

There's a huge difference.

But it's not a thermodynamic one.



Fair enough.



Really? You know this? You can predict the future?

Randi's million awaits you, then.



And I will.



Really? Tell Mr. Randi how you learned that. Then tell him what tomorrow's lottery numbers will be.



... or the actual knowledge.

Why exactly are you so disrespectful to anyone who disagrees with you? What do you get out of it? Are you that insecure of yourself you have to disrespect others? Where praytell, is that in the guidelines at JREF? Since you worship at the altar of James Randi willingly, you would think you would respect other members.

But you over step your bounds with everyone you come in contact with who has a differing view. Why is it JREF members like yourself violate the guidelines of respect to other members? Just a few questions you should maybe ask yourself. Maybe just maybe, Hindmost and others have a valid point here and there to add to the discussion.

 

[Dymanic]

Perhaps you see why "Not a big problem" is probably the correct answer.

I don't have the foggiest clue what you're getting at with this peculiar post.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I don't have the foggiest clue what you're getting at with this peculiar post.

Seriously? Perhaps you should look at it more closely. What is different about each bit of quoted text?

Assuming you find the differences, what point do you think I might have been trying to make?

 

[CriticalFunker]

It's better to prepare for the possible than to not be prepared. It amazes me what it all comes down to is someone saying "Not a Big Problem" It's staggering really and that is the majority of the world's tone.

50 years is significant in the space of time it's going to take to make the transition. The bureaucratic wranglings will take a big chunk of that time and bring it down to near nothing. The planning procedures has to be stepped up or we face the consequences of inaction. "Not a Big Problem" might fly if this was 1950.

 

[Dymanic]

Assuming you find the differences, what point do you think I might have been trying to make?

If the point you're trying (quite awkwardly) to make is that there has ever before been such a strong consensus among experts as exists today that the peak of global oil production is imminent (defining that as something like: "within the next decade or so if not sooner"), then I'd suggest that instead of falsely attributing to ME statements I've never made, you provide the evidence upon which you are basing that claim.

I mean, in 1968 the oil industry was still laughing at Hubbert's 1956 prediction that US production would peak between '65 and '70 (the year it DID peak) -- for cryin' out loud.

 

[Dymanic]

50 years is significant in the space of time it's going to take to make the transition.

It's also more optimistic than most of the projections by at least 40 years

 

[CriticalFunker]

If the point you're trying (quite awkwardly) to make is that there has ever before been such a strong consensus among experts as exists today that the peak of global oil production is imminent (defining that as something like: "within the next decade or so if not sooner"), then I'd suggest that instead of falsely attributing to ME statements I've never made, you provide the evidence upon which you are basing that claim.

I mean, in 1968 the oil industry was still laughing at Hubbert's 1956 prediction that US production would peak between '65 and '70 (the year it DID peak) -- for cryin' out loud.

I bet you this will be considered a "PEER reviewed" reference in in a decade or so.

Relax, we can live on Oil if I imagine there is a abundant supply for my nation. Ah, I think it's happening. The powers of attraction are working,

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's better to prepare for the possible than to not be prepared. It amazes me what it all comes down to is someone saying "Not a Big Problem" It's staggering really and that is the majority of the world's tone.

I'm prepared for when the Sun consumes the Earth, if that comforts you.

50 years is significant in the space of time it's going to take to make the transition. The bureaucratic wranglings will take a big chunk of that time and bring it down to near nothing. The planning procedures has to be stepped up or we face the consequences of inaction. "Not a Big Problem" might fly if this was 1950.

You misunderstand - we won't be out of oil in 50 years. We'll still be at "peak oil". See above explanation.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If the point you're trying (quite awkwardly) to make is that there has ever before been such a strong consensus among experts as exists today that the peak of global oil production is imminent (defining that as something like: "within the next decade or so if not sooner"), then I'd suggest that instead of falsely attributing to ME statements I've never made, you provide the evidence upon which you are basing that claim.

I mean, in 1968 the oil industry was still laughing at Hubbert's 1956 prediction that US production would peak between '65 and '70 (the year it DID peak) -- for cryin' out loud.

You realize that US production "peaked" because we stopped drilling, right?

My production of baby teeth peaked when I was 5, just as my mom predicted it would! Gee, I wonder why?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It's also more optimistic than most of the projections by at least 40 years

Actually, it's more optimistic by about 90 years, given that the first cries of "peak oil" were heard some 40 years ago.

 

[Dymanic]

You realize that US production "peaked" because we stopped drilling, right?

We stopped drilling in 1970? I'd love to see where you picked up that interesting "fact". Stayed stopped through the oil embargo of 1973-74, when price quadrupled? Never opened the Alaska North Slope for drilling in the mid-seventies? Those rigs I used to see steadily pumping away all across LA were, what... props? This whole Gulf thing is staged, the same way they faked the moon landings?

Actually, it's more optimistic by about 90 years, given that the first cries of "peak oil" were heard some 40 years ago.

I never heard those cries myself. Just who was it that you are claiming was voicing these warnings? The reason I ask is that I've got guys like Sadad al-Huseini, former head of exploration and production at Saudi Aramco, saying (in 2007) that global production has reached its maximum sustainable plateau and that output will start to fall within 15 years, by which time the world’s oil resources will be very severely depleted.
http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=67

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

We stopped drilling in 1970? I'd love to see where you picked up that interesting "fact". Stayed stopped through the oil embargo of 1973-74, when price quadrupled? Never opened the Alaska North Slope for drilling in the mid-seventies? Those rigs I used to see steadily pumping away all across LA were, what... props? This whole Gulf thing is staged, the same way they faked the moon landings?

You do realize that our percentage of imported oil is far higher now than it was then, correct? Why do you think that might be?

I never heard those cries myself.

Then you either 1) weren't listening, 2) aren't old enough, or 3) haven't studied history. Which is it? If 2, then I would suggest 3.

Just who was it that you are claiming was voicing these warnings?

Try this site - www.google.com. It will blow your mind!

The reason I ask is that I've got guys like Sadad al-Huseini, former head of exploration and production at Saudi Aramco, saying (in 2007) that global production has reached its maximum sustainable plateau and that output will start to fall within 15 years, by which time the world’s oil resources will be very severely depleted.
http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=67

Good for him.

 

[Dymanic]

You do realize that our percentage of imported oil is far higher now than it was then, correct? Why do you think that might be?

Because we consume considerably more oil now than we did then, and produce considerably less domestically due to declining production in our mature oilfields. It's treated as a no-brainer by every authoratative source I've ever read on the subject. If you have some CT-esque explanation I haven't heard (or any alternative explanation) I can't help but wonder why you wouldn't simply spill it rather than continuing to hint around. It's not coming across as cute; it's coming across as evasive.

Then you either 1) weren't listening, 2) aren't old enough, or 3) haven't studied history.

Or 4) you just made it up.

Try this site - www.google.com. It will blow your mind!

That's the kind of response I'd expect to encounter in a Yahoo or AOL chatroom. If you can't support your own claim -- that the global community of oil analysts included highly visible peak oil doomsters forty or something years ago, and that they were claiming that the peak was imminent then -- I'd be happy to consider it retracted. (Have I paraphrased your position accurately? After all, due to your cutesy and evasive rhetorical tactics, it is necessary to infer just what it was that you were claiming). Otherwise, I'd suggest that it's time for you to either link up or STF up.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Because we consume considerably more oil now than we did then, and produce considerably less domestically due to declining production in our mature oilfields. It's treated as a no-brainer by every authoratative source I've ever read on the subject. If you have some CT-esque explanation I haven't heard (or any alternative explanation) I can't help but wonder why you wouldn't simply spill it rather than continuing to hint around. It's not coming across as cute; it's coming across as evasive.

So why aren't we drilling new ones? Are we completely out of oil already?

Or 4) you just made it up.

Or 5) You're a CT Peak Oil nutjob.

DING DING DING!!! We have a winner.

That's the kind of response I'd expect to encounter in a Yahoo or AOL chatroom. If you can't support your own claim -- that the global community of oil analysts included highly visible peak oil doomsters forty or something years ago, and that they were claiming that the peak was imminent then -- I'd be happy to consider it retracted. (Have I paraphrased your position accurately? After all, due to your cutesy and evasive rhetorical tactics, it is necessary to infer just what it was that you were claiming). Otherwise, I'd suggest that it's time for you to either link up or STF up.

Have you gone to that site I recommended? It's mind blowing, isn't it? All the things one can find out. Like this:

Abdullah S. Jum'ah, President, Director and CEO of Saudi Aramco states that the world has adequate reserves of conventional and nonconventional oil sources that will last for more than a century. As recently as 2008 he pronounced "We have grossly underestimated mankind’s ability to find new reserves of petroleum, as well as our capacity to raise recovery rates and tap fields once thought inaccessible or impossible to produce.” Jum’ah believes that in-place conventional and non-conventional liquid resources may ultimately total between 13 trillion and 16 trillion barrels and that only a small fraction (1.1 trillion) has been extracted to date.

“I do not believe the world has to worry about ‘peak oil’ for a very long time. ”

— Abdullah S. Jum'ah, 2008

Maybe you can search on some things too!

 

[Dymanic]

So why aren't we drilling new ones?

We ARE drilling new ones. Just before it blew up, the Deepwater Horizon rig was in the final phases of drilling a new exploratory well (and in fact, it has been suggested that pressure on the operators to get the well capped so the rig could be moved to a new site played a key role in causing the accident). A key insight in understanding why the Hubbert curve works is that in extracting oil from a reservoir, a point is reached at which the return in increased production diminishes with the addition of each new well; more artificial lift is required, and eventually, waterflooding and other methods, all of which consumes energy -- energy which, when subtracted from the total energy potential of the oil being produced, reduces that total correspondingly. If you think it's all about politics and economics, you're just flat wrong; you're up against hard laws of physics and geology here.

Are we completely out of oil already?

No. We will surely be extracting oil from wells in the US two hundred years from now. This isn't about being "completely out of oil", and never has been. If the concept, "peak oil production" is too subtle for you to grasp, I don't know what help there is for you.

Or 5) You're a CT Peak Oil nutjob.

I won't contest that at this juncture, because it's not the point at issue. To refresh your memory, the point at issue is whether the global community of oil analysts included highly visible peak oil doomsters forty or something years ago and that they were claiming that the peak was imminent then. In support of that claim, you offer a quote, from which I have snipped and bolded what I consider to be the most relevant to that argument:

- Abdullah S. Jum'ah, 2008

The very fact that you consider this adequate support for your claim says a lot about your ability to think critically. Again, if you aren't prepared to support the claim, you are free to retract it -- then, we could move on to examining what today's experts are saying, including the above-mentioned outliers such as the example you have just provided, and see if we agree on whether there is a consensus.

As part of that discussion, we could take a closer look at some of what I snipped out of the quote you just posted:

We have grossly underestimated mankind’s ability to find new reserves of petroleum,

(Which doesn't do a bit of good if there aren't any large reserves left to be discovered -- as is suggested by the fact that the oil discovery peak took place in the 1960's)

...as well as our capacity to raise recovery rates and tap fields once thought inaccessible or impossible to produce.

(Impossible to produce at a profit he means, unless the price of oil is high enough to support it -- if high oil prices are part of the solution, then there isn't any problem).

Jum’ah believes that in-place conventional and non-conventional liquid resources may ultimately total between 13 trillion and 16 trillion barrels and that only a small fraction (1.1 trillion) has been extracted to date.

Completely irrelevant as far as the point of global peak production is concerned. It's not about how much oil is there. It's about how fast you can extract it; peak oil refers to a rate of production.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In support of that claim, you offer a quote, from which I have snipped and bolded what I consider to be the most relevant to that argument:The very fact that you consider this adequate support for your claim says a lot about your ability to think critically. Again, if you aren't prepared to support the claim, you are free to retract it -- then, we could move on to examining what today's experts are saying, including the above-mentioned outliers such as the example you have just provided, and see if we agree on whether there is a consensus.

So we went from peak oil nowhere in site (2008) to peak oil right this minute (2010) in 2 years? Seriously?

It's also interesting to note that we both quoted high ranking Saudi Aramco officials, but someone yours is the one to be believed, while mine is the "outlier". Interesting....

One of us here is a critical thinker, and it isn't you.

 

[jimbob]

So we went from peak oil nowhere in site (2008) to peak oil right this minute (2010) in 2 years? Seriously?

It's also interesting to note that we both quoted high ranking Saudi Aramco officials, but someone yours is the one to be believed, while mine is the "outlier". Interesting....

One of us here is a critical thinker, and it isn't you.

Here is an interesting picture from wikipedia:

Hubbert's original model of world production trends from 1956 (figure 21). It is skewed based on observed discovery trends and predicted production trends.

You might notice that the decline is gradual. Peak production doesn't mean zero production immediately afterwards. In fact I understand that the top of the curve tends to ba a bit flatter than this simplistic model.

The UK (North Sea) produced peak oil before 2008.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

You might notice that the decline is gradual. Peak production doesn't mean zero production immediately afterwards.

I agree. Dynamic seems to be questioning that.

 

[jimbob]

You might notice that the decline is gradual. Peak production doesn't mean zero production immediately afterwards.

I agree. Dynamic seems to be questioning that.

Not the way I read the conversation:

If the point you're trying (quite awkwardly) to make is that there has ever before been such a strong consensus among experts as exists today that the peak of global oil production is imminent (defining that as something like: "within the next decade or so if not sooner"), then I'd suggest that instead of falsely attributing to ME statements I've never made, you provide the evidence upon which you are basing that claim.

I mean, in 1968 the oil industry was still laughing at Hubbert's 1956 prediction that US production would peak between '65 and '70 (the year it DID peak) -- for cryin' out loud.

You realize that US production "peaked" because we stopped drilling, right?
My production of baby teeth peaked when I was 5, just as my mom predicted it would! Gee, I wonder why?

We stopped drilling in 1970? I'd love to see where you picked up that interesting "fact". Stayed stopped through the oil embargo of 1973-74, when price quadrupled? Never opened the Alaska North Slope for drilling in the mid-seventies? Those rigs I used to see steadily pumping away all across LA were, what... props?

<snip>

I never heard those cries myself. Just who was it that you are claiming was voicing these warnings? The reason I ask is that I've got guys like Sadad al-Huseini, former head of exploration and production at Saudi Aramco, saying (in 2007) that global production has reached its maximum sustainable plateau and that output will start to fall within 15 years, by which time the world’s oil resources will be very severely depleted.
http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=67

ETA: Indeed it almost looks as if you were questioning that

So why aren't we drilling new ones? [Are we completely out of oil already? ]

We ARE drilling new ones.<snip>

A key insight in understanding why the Hubbert curve works is that in extracting oil from a reservoir, a point is reached at which the return in increased production diminishes with the addition of each new well; more artificial lift is required, and eventually, waterflooding and other methods, all of which consumes energy -- energy which, when subtracted from the total energy potential of the oil being produced, reduces that total correspondingly. If you think it's all about politics and economics, you're just flat wrong; you're up against hard laws of physics and geology here.

No. We will surely be extracting oil from wells in the US two hundred years from now. This isn't about being "completely out of oil", and never has been.<snip>

 

[Dymanic]

So we went from peak oil nowhere in site (2008) to peak oil right this minute (2010) in 2 years? Seriously?

Again you dodge the question. As jimbob has just noted, Hubbert took a stab at projecting the peak point of global oil production in 1956, and his findings were rejected by the majority of the experts of that time -- precisely the opposite of what you have argued: that the first cries of "peak oil" were heard some 40 years ago. I'm not aware of others besides Hubbert (I'm really only interested in the opinions of experts rather than the ravings of loons in counterculture magazines and whatnot -- which I do agree exist and surely have for some time). If you were referring to Hubbert himself, then we have no further argument there -- as long as you aren't sticking to your implication that those cries included erroneous claims that the peak was ocurring "now" (in '68, '73, '81, etc).

It's also interesting to note that we both quoted high ranking Saudi Aramco officials, but someone yours is the one to be believed, while mine is the "outlier".

The passage you quoted contains logical flaws which I took the trouble to point out specifically. If you'd care to make counterarguments, please proceed. As for which is the outlier, I've already stated in earlier posts that my position is that the consensus among current experts is that the peak is imminent (and I've even clarified how I'm defining that). Yours is the outlier by comparison with that consensus, of which mine is only one example. If you'd like to argue that the consensus does NOT hold that the peak is imminent, and that yours represents an example of the true consensus, (or that NO consensus exists), please proceed.

I agree. Dynamic seems to be questioning that.

Kindly use the quote feature in the way it was intended (following jimbob's example) to provide a post by me which includes any statement even remotely suggesting that my position is that a sudden drop to zero production immediately after the peak would so much as vaguely conceivable, or even that a very sudden and steep decline would necessarily be a reasonable expectation.