Ever wonder why the Tea Party hates building green?

[Dymanic]

A "peakoil" theory is developed about 3% of oil reserves. Suddenly we know how to get to and retrieve an order of magnitude more oil. The rational thing would be to say "Ok, I need to revise the "peakoil" theory and now the peak will be a long time off".

Uncertainty about the size of remaining reserves is arguably the main reason for there being so much variation in the different projections. But though you continue to avoid saying so directly, it looks like you are at least willing to acknowledge that production will peak, and I see that as progress.

The rational thing would be to say "Ok, I need to revise the "peakoil" theory and now the peak will be a long time off".

But you haven't.

A passage I overlooked in your last post was one in which you offered your own projection, putting us "currently on the far left side of a 100 year plus peak oil curve." That's a rather awkward way of phrasing things. We're talking about a roughly symetrical logistic distribution curve which represents a plotting of rates of production over a period of several hundred years, starting from the mid-1850s. (There effectively is no limit to the scale parameter on the right, as the world's oil will never be completely depleted, and while production will eventually approach zero, it is unlikely to ever actually reach it).

I have to assume that what you were trying to say is that the peak is still more than 100 years in the future. I also have to assume that you're basing that on the numbers provided by the Citigroup report recommended by the Register article you linked (the one of which you said: "I think this article pretty much sums up my understanding of the confluence of "Peakoil" and modern oil shale retrieval."). You did read that report, right? There's a lot of stuff there (including some pretty crazy-ass graphs), and evaluating it is a task that could take considerable time, but I'd be willing to walk through at least some of it with you if you'd like to confirm that it does indeed "pretty much sum up your understanding". As a demonstration of this willingness, I'll offer to go first, beginning with a passage that appears (in rather small print) at the bottom of the introduction and just before the beginning of the actual report itself:

"Citi Investment Research & Analysis is a division of Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (the "Firm"), which does and seeks to do business with companies covered in its research reports. As a result, investors should be aware that the Firm may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of this report."

I guess one could just be skeptical about the payout for the Utah play above mentioned that has 3x the recoverable reserves as Saudi Arabia.

The historical record indicates that skepticism definitely is the best approach to evaluating the accuracy of estimates, considering how often those estimates are being made by those with strong political and economic motives for fudging them. As noted in that Citigroup PDF, "Major supply projects often came online much later than expected, at much greater cost, and with much less oil. The production profiles tended to show sharp peaks followed by sharp declines".

M85 alone can put a huge dent in the liquid petroleum requirements of the transportation sector.

I agree, and as I've already noted, there is no question in my mind as to whether or not that's something we should do and are going to do. We just need to be realistic about the relative size of that dent.

 

[mhaze]

Like I said in the prior post, I'm not disputing that a graph can show for any commodity in any geographical region, the initial growth and the slow decline. Doesn't matter at all what it is - a gold rush is a good example. The same can be done with aggregates of production.

But it's irrelevant to social and economic consequences that are often ascribed as "results" of that "cause". That's totally flawed logic and is contrary to first semester economics. Secondly, when we look at something like M85 introduction (which incidentally is already being used for millions of cars in China) there isn't any need to interject the "should".

The market and profit incentives do that job.

 

[WildCat]

It's rather amusing to me that you have inquired about my use of this phrase!

Who's "anti-transportation"?

 

[Trakar]

Just as Simons predicted.

Simions has never been alone in this set of understandings. They are also a part of the Hubbert peak oil understandings, the differences are more in perceived reactions to these effects and whether or not secondary impacts and influences converge to more strongly push investment along the current path or towards new paths.

That's an interesting approach, taking the converse of the personal belief pattern.

I can't take credit for it, it is a part of the standard method of scientific investigation and analysis to examine and explore alternative and oppositional perspectives and understandings. This is usually considered a part of the background research one performs when you first start to examine an issue, well before the hypothesis formulation stage of consideration. I'd be interested in which actual "peak-oil" papers and understandings you reviewed and analyzed and where you found them wanting or uncompellingly supported...

 

[Dymanic]

Doesn't matter at all what it is - a gold rush is a good example.

It's an excellent example, and one I've used before. As I sit here typing, I am less than a hundred yards away from a large tailings pile next to a gold mine that ceased operations about a century ago, and which surely contains at least some minute traces of gold that those original miners left behind. (Of course I've thought about it). The thing is, the amount of dirt one would have to process in order to extract an ounce of gold from that tailings pile -- using the most sophisticated modern methods and technologies available (or even imaginable) -- would be enormously greater than what those original miners had to process in order to see the same return. Still, it could be done profitably if the price of gold is high enough. The key difference has to do with Energy Returned on Energy Invested. In the case of gold, that's zero, but in that particular case we really are talking about an irrelevancy, because gold is not and never has been mined as an energy source.

Obtaining energy from some of the alternative energy sources now under consideration would be roughly equivalent to reworking that tailings pile. Yeah, you may see some return, but the proposition (your claim) that those sources are capable of meeting or exceeding production levels from the boom times of the past is, in my opinion, an extraodinary claim, and you've fallen far short of meeting the burden of proof that incurs.

But it's irrelevant to social and economic consequences that are often ascribed as "results" of that "cause".

Accurately associating causes with effects can get complicated, but it's seldom irrelevant.

Secondly, when we look at something like M85 introduction (which incidentally is already being used for millions of cars in China) there isn't any need to interject the "should".

I disagree. The very notion that some decisions are better than others presupposes that there are some things that should be done and others that should not. If it turned out that millions of people in China were burning old tires for heat, that would not constitite a valid argument for adopting that practice ourselves. If we are to expand our use of M85, it should be because that works for us; not because it works for China.

The market and profit incentives do that job.

I'd say the use of child labor in China says a lot about the sort of job profit incentives do at determining what should and should not be done.

 

[mhaze]

Simions has never been alone in this set of understandings. They are also a part of the Hubbert peak oil understandings,......

Perhaps among some. But Dynamic early on trotted out the "But oil is different" argument, which is typically what the peak oil fanatics do. Some how oil is not subject to the market realities of commodity substitution - nothing can replace it, they seem to think.

 

[mhaze]

....the proposition (your claim) that those sources are capable of meeting or exceeding production levels from the boom times of the past is, in my opinion, an extraodinary claim, and you've fallen far short of meeting the burden of proof that incurs. ...

Perhaps I should clarify (or revise, can't recall what exact wording I used) that fracking operations, gas-to-liquid process, and synthetic fuel production will most certainly meet or exceed production levels from the boom times of the past of oil.

I don't know what exact mix of these energy products will be in use in 20 years, and neither do you. If it is easier and cheaper to fuel cars with methanol than to get oil from a fracking process, then if a free market is permitted to operate that's what will be done. There's no need for a "should" in the mix. In fact it's misguided "shoulds" that cause trouble or inefficiencies, more often than not.

 

[BenBurch]

Except the issue isn't that oil cannot be replaced.

Only an idiot sees that as the issue.

The issue is that CHEAP oil cannot be replaced.

 

[mhaze]

Except the issue isn't that oil cannot be replaced.

Only an idiot sees that as the issue.

The issue is that CHEAP oil cannot be replaced.

IIRC, commodity substitution usually does result in cheaper prices to the consumer, whether for the identical product or the substitute. Don't you think if we went for 5M bbl equivalent of methanol per day for autos, Opec would react by lowering prices? Lower demand would of course have already caused lower prices.

 

[Dymanic]

But Dynamic early on trotted out the "But oil is different" argument, which is typically what the peak oil fanatics do. Some how oil is not subject to the market realities of commodity substitution - nothing can replace it, they seem to think.

The very fact that we refer to these other sources as "alternatives to" or "substitutes for" oil strongly suggests that insofar as its impact on our civilization, oil IS different. There is not a single commodity that can substitute for all of the products that can be derived from a barrel of light sweet crude. It takes rather a large number of them, some of which either lack the quality of their oil-derived counterparts, or are less practical to produce, or both. And that's before we even start talking about energy density. There are good reasons why we've wrapped our entire societies around the stuff, and why we are so reluctant to confront the reality that oil will change things just as much on its way out as it did on its way in.

Perhaps I should clarify (or revise, can't recall what exact wording I used) that fracking operations, gas-to-liquid process, and synthetic fuel production will most certainly meet or exceed production levels from the boom times of the past of oil.

So basically, Hubbert's curve isn't useful as a tool for predicting trends in oil production if you count, as part of that production, stuff that isn't, strictly speaking, you know: oil. Reminds me of Abraham Lincoln's famous question: "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?" Even using that crazy logic, I still say you're making extraordinary claims, and you haven't supported them with evidence (extraordinary or otherwise), and what's worse is that you really haven't even tried. What I'm mostly seeing from you is argument by repeated assertion.

In fact it's misguided "shoulds" that cause trouble or inefficiencies, more often than not.

So... we should try to eliminate misguided "shoulds"?

 

[mhaze]

The very fact that we refer to these other sources as "alternatives to" or "substitutes for" oil strongly suggests that insofar as its impact on our civilization, oil IS different. There is not a single commodity that can substitute for all of the products that can be derived from a barrel of light sweet crude. It takes rather a large number of them, some of which either lack the quality of their oil-derived counterparts, or are less practical to produce, or both. And that's before we even start talking about energy density. There are good reasons why we've wrapped our entire societies around the stuff, and why we are so reluctant to confront the reality that oil will change things just as much on its way out as it did on its way in. ...

Who, exactly, is reluctant to face what reality?

Note you dodged my comment re the process of commodity substitution in a free market results in CHEAPER prices for just as good goods. Your post above makes well, not too much sense. Yes the commodity in question is differentiated on the way in (variations of crude oil) and differentiated on the way out (products coming off the tower at various levels or made from petro or by products). That doesn't matter, it just falls into the category of a "mostly fungible" resource.

So who's the WE? Different countries use this so-called-by-you precious and irreplaceable resource to differing degrees. Some are net exporters, some are importers. Some have always produced their oil from shale. Some have always produced light crude. My guess is that you have a "US-centric" view and that the "we" refers to the USA and dire consequences and dismal future for it and so forth. But that doesn't compute, given the alternatives I've mentioned.

Seems rather obvious that if you - for example - reduce gasoline needs by 5M b/day by using methanol, then that changes the balance of payments by the corresponding amount (assuming methanol produced in country from natural gas, which it would be). Are you saying there'd be a shortage of fuel oil for heating in that case? Obviously not, there is a separate set of trading on fuel oil as for gasoline, and a separate market price structure. If demand for gasoline drops 5M b/day, price of gasoline and to some extent other petro by products drops too. That's the opposite of your opinion, isn't it?

Having said that, I do think that kerosene as a fuel for aircraft is going to be around a long, long, long time, and that it may be the only crude byproduct clearly in that category. Maybe diesel fuel, also, although dimethyl ether can easily substitute and is easily produced (again, from natural gas) but at a slightly higher price than diesel.

 

[Dymanic]

Note you dodged my comment re the process of commodity substitution in a free market results in CHEAPER prices for just as good goods.

At this point in the discussion, I feel that you are in no position whatsoever to accuse anyone of dodging any of your comments or questions. If, on reviewing the last few pages worth of posts, you are unable to understand why I say this, I'll be happy to re-post some questions which have been put to you repeatedly and which you have made not so much as the slightest attempt to answer.

This "free market" you mention is apparently part of this delusional quasi-libertarian fantasy world in which you live. Meanwhile in the real world, prices of energy commodities continue to be very heavily influenced by government policy, as we covered at length in our discussion upthread of US government subsidies. We have fought wars to secure our supply of foreign oil, and participated in the overthrow of at least one duly elected civilian government. The greatest oil price shock our country has ever seen was the result of a backlash from a US foreign policy decision which arguably had very little to do with oil directly. In the real world, oil is not merely a commodity; it's a weapon.

So who's the WE? Different countries use this so-called-by-you precious and irreplaceable resource to differing degrees. Some are net exporters, some are importers. Some have always produced their oil from shale. Some have always produced light crude. My guess is that you have a "US-centric" view and that the "we" refers to the USA and dire consequences and dismal future for it and so forth.

The title of this thread is "Ever wonder why the Tea Party hates building green?" -- so the discussion was US-centric right out of the gate. But the issue of oil is strongly biased toward the US anyway, because no country consumes anywhere near as much oil as "WE" do. According to the CIA World Factbook, the US used more oil in 2009 than China, Russia and India combined. More than the 27-member-state European Union. We alone consume more than a fourth of the world supply.

There are a great many reasons why other countries use less of this resource than we do. The question implicitly raised by the question in the thread title is whether we should support government policies which will enable and encourage us to bring our per capita consumption down (at least partially solving several problems simultaneously), or should we continue to allow oil profteers to call the shots, using all of the political influence they have bought and paid for at our expense, and all of the propaganda machinery they have put in place (again using the taxpayer-provided funding their special tax breaks provide) to create an entire class of glassy-eyed, slack-jawed, SUV-driving energy illiterates whose entire view of the future of our energy economy can be summed up in a three-word bumper sticker?

 

[Chaos]

The title of this thread is "Ever wonder why the Tea Party hates building green?" -- so the discussion was US-centric right out of the gate.

Not just that... thread is also in the "USA Politics" forum, which should give all but the most wilfully illiterate a hint what geographic region it focuses on.

 

[daenku32]

In regards to the Cali HSR, I think they would get support for the project if they shut down I-5 to show a view of the future where you don't have HSR.

 

[mhaze]

Not just that... thread is also in the "USA Politics" forum, which should give all but the most wilfully illiterate a hint what geographic region it focuses on.

Just clarifying.

So we are talking then about PeakOil theory as it applies to the USA.

At this point in the discussion, I feel that you are in no position whatsoever to accuse anyone of dodging any of your comments or questions. If, on reviewing the last few pages worth of posts, you are unable to understand why I say this, I'll be happy to re-post some questions which have been put to you repeatedly and which you have made not so much as the slightest attempt to answer.

This "free market" you mention is apparently part of this delusional quasi-libertarian fantasy world in which you live. Meanwhile in the real world, prices of energy commodities continue to be very heavily influenced by government policy, as we covered at length in our discussion upthread of US government subsidies. We have fought wars to secure our supply of foreign oil, and participated in the overthrow of at least one duly elected civilian government. The greatest oil price shock our country has ever seen was the result of a backlash from a US foreign policy decision which arguably had very little to do with oil directly. In the real world, oil is not merely a commodity; it's a weapon.



The title of this thread is "Ever wonder why the Tea Party hates building green?" -- so the discussion was US-centric right out of the gate. But the issue of oil is strongly biased toward the US anyway, because no country consumes anywhere near as much oil as "WE" do. According to the CIA World Factbook, the US used more oil in 2009 than China, Russia and India combined. More than the 27-member-state European Union. We alone consume more than a fourth of the world supply.

There are a great many reasons why other countries use less of this resource than we do. The question implicitly raised by the question in the thread title is whether we should support government policies which will enable and encourage us to bring our per capita consumption down (at least partially solving several problems simultaneously), or should we continue to allow oil profteers to call the shots, using all of the political influence they have bought and paid for at our expense, and all of the propaganda machinery they have put in place (again using the taxpayer-provided funding their special tax breaks provide) to create an entire class of glassy-eyed, slack-jawed, SUV-driving energy illiterates whose entire view of the future of our energy economy can be summed up in a three-word bumper sticker?

Sentence there that rivals Leftysargent.

No, I have to agree there have been tangents that I've been reluctant to pursue, eg answer your questions on. The reason was that I felt like the result wasn't relevant to the discussion, insofar as (I view-future-as-rosy-you-view-future-as-dismal).

We take the same data and reach diametrically opposed results. But there are areas of common interest. For example I place a very high value on energy independence, which to achieve has to involve not just more drilling and oil shale operations, but methanol in autos, and nuclear plant expansion.

I favor "shoulds and musts" to achieve energy indepedance, incidentally. In fact, it's simple to layout a mix of energy that does this and changes the balance of payment of the country from negative to positive. The next economic boom of the USA will come from energy (or if not, there won't be a next boom). It won't be from housing - the last one - or from electronics - the one before that. It's always different, and energy is where the opportunity is this time.

 

[Dymanic]

So we are talking then about PeakOil theory as it applies to the USA.

Is there a kind that doesn't apply to the USA?

Sentence there that rivals Leftysargent.

Nothing like being damned with faint praise. "Rivals"? Are you sure you don't mean that it takes the most hard-punching sentence Lefty ever came up with and just totally mops the floor with it?

We take the same data and reach diametrically opposed results.

Do we? That's one of the questions you've left unanswered. One thing for sure is that we aren't getting our data from the same types of sources.

 

[mhaze]

Is there a kind that doesn't apply to the USA?



Nothing like being damned with faint praise. "Rivals"? Are you sure you don't mean that it takes the most hard-punching sentence Lefty ever came up with and just totally mops the floor with it?



Do we? That's one of the questions you've left unanswered. One thing for sure is that we aren't getting our data from the same types of sources.

No, we are not. Here's something that should be of interest.

http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_rate/Gasoline_Inflation.asp



Pretty much what I read into this is that there may be "dire and drastic" consequences to the US dollar inflation and money printing issues. But it doesn't really doesn't support oil prices making some tremendous rise.

 

[debunker of debunker]

So what public infrastructure expenditure. That's a good thing.

Tea Party is a tool of neo-con politics.

Massive infrastructure spending employs thousands. good for the economy.

Obama is trying to do a Hoover and as Hoover did, is failing massively.

Roosevelt, massive government employment and make the rich and corporations pay through taxing.

It certainly worked last time and Hoovers plan certainly failed. Obama is trying a Hoover and is failing. The 13 trillion given banks should have been spent wisely on creating taxpayers.

The banks and shareholders should have taken a bath. They literally produce nothing.

Running a country based on monetary policy is insane.

And if all that means we can't compete with China then stop trading with China.

Argentina told the world Bank to *****themselves and have done just fine. Maybe the US should tell China to do the same.

 

[mhaze]

So what public infrastructure expenditure. That's a good thing.

Tea Party is a tool of neo-con politics.

Massive infrastructure spending employs thousands. good for the economy.

Obama is trying to do a Hoover and as Hoover did, is failing massively.

Roosevelt, massive government employment and make the rich and corporations pay through taxing.

It certainly worked last time and Hoovers plan certainly failed. Obama is trying a Hoover and is failing. The 13 trillion given banks should have been spent wisely on creating taxpayers.

The banks and shareholders should have taken a bath. They literally produce nothing.

Running a country based on monetary policy is insane.

And if all that means we can't compete with China then stop trading with China.

Argentina told the world Bank to *****themselves and have done just fine. Maybe the US should tell China to do the same.

Well ya. The last 2 comments are wrong, for different reasons. China, we're in bed with them. Argentina, they are a mess, they are not at all doing fine.

 

[mhaze]

Is there a kind that doesn't apply to the USA?



Nothing like being damned with faint praise. "Rivals"? Are you sure you don't mean that it takes the most hard-punching sentence Lefty ever came up with and just totally mops the floor with it?



Do we? That's one of the questions you've left unanswered. One thing for sure is that we aren't getting our data from the same types of sources.

Okay, you did BETTER THAN LEFTY.

Here's what might be called a "baseline" shale oil study. It's one that influenced my thinking, but keep in mind it is dated 2005. It's rather conservative, and actual production is ahead of it's estimates, as well as required production costs being lower, than it's estimates.

For example, the Rand study predicts about 1M b/day as of 2020. But N. Dakota alone is doing 500K+/day, adding the other fields in gets better than 800k b/day. No time now to find the exact production curve, got to run. And there wasn't anything wrong with the Rand study taking a conservative point of view.