No such thing as peak oil

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
There's a common tactic on discussion boards that I call "link bombardment." It consists of presenting a veritable blizzard of links on a subject to create the impression of knowing what one is talking about.

I am going to assume my earlier post is involved .... i Think you have no idea how many months and tens of thousands of words worth of discussion it took to assemble the reading material i provided earlier. If you did you would not be so very snide.

Anyone who reads the posts is expected to believe that the poster has read and (more important) understood and rationally considered all the material linked.

If they read all the material they are certainly entitled to decide if the posters arguments based on the information provided makes sense. If they read the same material and came to a different conclusion they may object in any way they want...

It is also expected that few readers will actually do more than glance at the volumes of material linked, so that meaningful discussion of the material is usually avoidable.

Based on the assumption that the presenter of the information did not slowly assemble his information and thus defended each bit individually over many years. Meaningful discussion does not always result because the other parties normally realise that they are completely out of their depth and that they do not have enough interest to look at the information presented to see if it validates the arguments of the author or not.

The answer to link bombardment is to present a rational argument, with minimal links to provide data in support of that argument where it is needed (I will present only one, below), and invite response. So:

The answer to 'link bombardment' is to be better informed and simply use the authors 'facts' to sink all his fantastic floats. If one is not interested in doing the leg work one has no reason or business molesting the authors verbosity or zeal.

I'll present the link first. Please ignore the opinions expressed and concentrate on the data graphs.

Data graphs depend on the 'facts' that they are based on and when those are patently false graphs , however pretty, are completely meaningless even if easily understood by the average voter.

I will present my own opinions here. Note the graphs for North American oil production, and for the different peaks for different regions of the world. Very significant points occur when the majority of the world's oil production will occur in OPEC countries (2007), and when the majority of the world's oil production will come from the Middle East (2025), due to earlier declines elsewhere, for reasons that will be clear shortly.

With such ugly graphs it's obvious these people are not to be believed.... How serious are i supposed to try be when looking at this page, considering the source of the information, when mine comes from the same governments supposedly saying we will soon run out of oil? The best kind of source is a government source and their official figures simply disagree with even the basic tenants of peak oil.

Here's the link: dieoff.org...

As noted above, we have already seen an example of peak oil. It occurred in the United States in 1970.

That's not true as American government statistics shows. Whatever the reality of the decline of production the assumption that it was because there was suddenly no more oil to extract does simply NOT follow. It's a assumption based on a very biased predisposition and answers very few good questions. The main source for the 'oil running out drama' is Colin Cambell and he is not worth quoting or talking about once one has investigated his lies and propaganda. Check out what Michael Lynch has to say about him and other Hubbert curve revisionists.

Prior to the 1970s, the U.S. had been a net exporter of oil. In 1973, the U.S. (along with many other countries) experienced catastrophic oil shortages caused by a politically-motivated embargo imposed by the OPEC cartel.

How can you go from a net exporter to sudden shortages in so few years when the same old Saudi fields are still going strong after a hundred years? If this does not reek of resource 'fixing' then i do not think you have look at all aspect of the international energy market. The OPEC cartel was controlled at the time by Western money and power interest and thus the embargo was completely artificial to start with.

Many people insisted at the time that we weren't running out of oil, which was technically true (the global peak was still many years away). But even though the shortage was politically caused, it was also caused by peak oil, not by the global peak (not yet a reality), but by the U.S. peak.

The Us has enough oil in just a few American states ( not even Alaska and the other states/offshore resources) for another 300 years at current consumption levels but that is not talked about as it would expose the artificial nature of the shortage. One only has to look at the current admitted American reserves to understand that no foreign expeditions is in fact required to get oil from other places. American involvement in the gulf region costs the American tax payer about 50 billion USD per year and if one does the math you will quickly see that even at full barrel cost of around 30 dollars that's not even NEAR breaking even but luckily the oil companies do not have to pay for that expenditure so it's just another tax on the average joe.

If the U.S. had not reached its oil peak in 1970, OPEC would not have been able to cause us economic problems with its embargo.

OPEC did = nothing as it was all a big set up to provide reasons for American direct involvement in the ME along with massive prices hikes on almost all energy resources to start reforming American life along big business lines.

So in that sense, when people insisted that the shortage was not caused by running out of oil, they were wrong.

They were right and in my opinion far more astute than you.

Similar considerations apply today. "Peak oil" is not a single event with everything running smoothly until we hit it.

But apparently that happened in the USA, suddenly? Who's fooling who?

Oil is produced locally and combined together on the market, so what we have is a lot of regional peaks, and the global peak is something that happens when the decline in regions that have peaked outstrips the increasing production in regions that still haven't.

The world is largely unexplored and the methods employed ( and regions that has to be rechecked since they were earlier considered geologically incompatible) has changed as well as the science and expectations.

A lot of regions of the world have already peaked.

So because you do not drill more wells you have no more oil? Does oxygen dissapear when you do not breath it? Apple's and oranges and not at all related to the market forces that can and have manipulated resources and their artificial shortages for centuries.

These include North America (1985), Central and South America (2005), Europe (2000), the former USSR (1987), Africa (2004), and Asia (2002). The only major oil-producing region that has not yet peaked is the Middle East, which is expected to reach peak in 2011.

Why invest in your own oil when it's cheaper to get in on the world market which only a few years ago had a oil glut? Large parts of the world has enormous financial problems and they simply can not ( and is not allowed anyways ) to spend money on developing their own resources while they owe money to the world bank or IMF. Why has the USA not built a single petroleum refinery since 1976? Where there no more oil to refine? Apple's and oranges.

Continued....

If we haven't reached the global peak yet, the reason is because increases in Middle East oil production have so far managed to oustrip declines in the rest of the world.

Far more likely means that the rest of the world does not see a reason to develop their own resources when they can not even begin to compete with shallow easily extractable ME resources where you can still get a barrel out of ground for as little as 1-2 USD. I believe Russia is second cheapest around 6 USD per barrel....

But what that means is that the world's oil consumption has come to rely on oil from the Middle East, and if anything should happen to disrupt that flow -- like a war in Iraq, for example -- there is no place in the world from which the lost oil production can be replaced.

Which is why the oil flow from Iraq is interrupted so often. If you can not prevent oil from being found and extracted , and thus forcing down prices, you better convince people it's scarce and altogether try interrupt it to prove your 'fact'.

So, when the oil companies insist (as they did in one of the links from the bombardment) that today's rising prices are not caused by peak oil, they are, at best, only technically correct in the same sense as people were right about the 1970s shortages. The rise in prices is indeed caused at the moment by non-geological factors such as the Iraq war.

It's not just the oil companies as you should know by now.

But at the same time, they ARE caused by geological factors, because if oil production weren't already declining everywhere except the Middle East, the Iraq war would not have the effect that it does.

Oil production is not declining in all that many places contrary to popular propaganda. Do some research?

We don't have to wait for peak oil to actually happen to see its effects.

Creating scarcity artificially will have exactly the same global and market effects as physical oil running out and not many voters would be the wiser.

We've seen the effects of approaching the peak since the 1970s. Just open your eyes.

We have seen the effects of artificial energy restrictions to force American citizens into low wage-no benefits-long hours type jobs , yes. American wages stagnated for most of the 70's and then started declining till their current levels where the average American has about 25% less buying power.

All the links and data and arguments that say peak oil is a false concept and we will never run short of oil fail on a single point. Most of the world's oil-producing regions have already peaked.

Your completely ignoring economic and political realities when it comes to the trade in oil. Higher oil prices is completely irrelevant to governments around the world as it's just another tax on the consumer which is largely beyond the control of 90% of the world's governments. My eyes are open and i see something very different.

If any of these arguments held any water, why do we not see oil production increasing in North America or Europe or Africa?

Because NAFTA exists? Do some research? African production is strangely expanding and if one looks at non producing American oil reserves that is very possible in North America. Do you realise that we had a global oil price collapse in late 1998- early 1999? How do you figure that is possible with us running out of oil as fast as you seem to be suggesting? Do you realise the impact such oil collapses have on oil exploration and investment in expansion? Do you know how many times this has happened in the recent past? How is overproduction and price collapses possible if oil cost has much anything to do with supply and demand?

Why is it that the production of oil has exactly followed the pattern predicted by those who predict the global peak? And why should we not expect the planet as a whole to follow the same pattern as its regions do?

You have clearly done no investigation as world oil reserves do not in fact follow the classical hubbert curve and is the reason why any well informed party, not interested in deception, has long ago realised the lie that is the hubbert model.

I could have added a link to prove each statement but you would probably not appreciate it. If you continue along your current line i guess i will need to do that and embarrass you as you deserve to be for avoiding reality so very well.

Stellar

That's right...

No Shortage of oil at all.

But there will be a massive shortage of the dollars that go to support the pumps.

Just imagine...

REGULAR GAS.

15.32/gal

STOP BUYING GAS!!!

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
All right, this is a conspiracy-theory discussion board, and StellarX has raised a conspiracy idea involving price-fixing by the energy companies and the government. In that context, I want to point out the difference between a conspiracy theory, properly so called, and a conspiracy fantasy.

Example: the idea that John F. Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy is a conspiracy theory. There is some evidence behind it: the pattern of gunshots, the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby, the signs of a cover-up in the behavior of the Warren Commission. The evidence doesn't amount to conclusive proof, but it's strong enough to call the "lone gunman" idea into serious question.

The idea that JFK was murdered by a specific conspiracy consisting of LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Mafia is a conspiracy fantasy. The only evidence linking any of these agents to the murder is the fact that all of them had an identifiable motive. And the further idea that we are governed by a shadow government and all our elections are a sham, and that Kennedy was killed because he challenged this shadow government in some behind-the-scenes way (he certainly did not do so publicly), goes beyond fantasy into sheer paranoid delusion.

Similarly: the idea that the energy companies conspire with the government to influence the price of oil (either upward or downward) is a conspiracy theory. As with the JFK assassination, there's evidence supporting it. I would not be inclined to believe, that such a conspiracy does NOT exist, or that it is not a factor in the price we pay for everything oil gives us.

But the idea that such a conspiracy is the sole and only determining factor behind the price of oil, and that such mundane and visible factors as geology and economics play no part, is a conspiracy fantasy.

In general, when a conspiracy theory grants the conspiracy unlimited power and influence and reduces all of us to mere puppets or flotsam on the ocean, it has crossed the line into fantasy.

That was great, very well put

You have voted Two Steps Forward for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month

I've mentioned it before but I'll put it in here as well, my grandfather was the head geologist for one of Canada's large oil companies. Briefly, here is what he had to say about peak oil.

Oil is a finite resource in that the rate of generation of new oil is in geologic time and our consumption is in millions of bbls/day. World consumption is reducing known reserves ie our rate of discoveries cannot, and never will again, equal consumption. Both China and India want to attain major increases in their standard of living and that will require massive energy use.

So yes, we are running short of oil. Wheather there will be dire shorfalls next year, in 20 or 50 years depends on: conservation, political unrest in major producing countries, and discoveries of alternate energy sources. We will definitely have to use a lot more nuclear energy soon. Expect oil to hit $100/ bbl in less than 5 years. At least that is the way I see it.

Originally posted by StellarXi Think you have no idea how many months and tens of thousands of words worth of discussion it took to assemble the reading material i provided earlier. If you did you would not be so very snide.

Since I cannot read your mind, you're right, I have no ideas how long it took you. However, the "snide" quality comes from the fact that you used a fundamentally misleading and fallacious posting tactic, and that is not affected by how long it took you to put it together.

If they read all the material they are certainly entitled to decide if the posters arguments based on the information provided makes sense.

They are also entitled to do that if the poster isn't making sense based on ordinary common sense. More on this below.

Based on the assumption that the presenter of the information did not slowly assemble his information and thus defended each bit individually over many years.

No, because I wasn't talking about you here, but about the rest of us. Whether or not you have read all that stuff, you didn't expect any of us to do so, and therefore expected to remain immune from comeback.

The answer to 'link bombardment' is to be better informed and simply use the authors 'facts' to sink all his fantastic floats.

Why in the world would I need to use YOUR facts? I don't even know that they ARE facts.

I used facts that I know are facts; that works fine.

With such ugly graphs it's obvious these people are not to be believed

Is this a joke? Or do you actually mean the above?

Please clarify that question before I respond to something so stupid. Maybe you didn't mean it seriously.

Whatever the reality of the decline of production the assumption that it was because there was suddenly no more oil to extract does simply NOT follow.

Nor does anyone make that assumption. That's not what peak oil is and it's not how it works. When we hit peak oil, the oil isn't gone, it's only half gone. The U.S. is still producing oil. We will continue producing oil for a long time to come, too. But the rate at which we can pump it from the ground has declined.

How can anyone take your opinion on peak oil seriously, when it's clear from the above you have no clear idea of what the concept even is?

How can you go from a net exporter to sudden shortages in so few years when the same old Saudi fields are still going strong after a hundred years?

What do you mean, "so few years"? The U.S. has been pumping oil since the 1890s. 70 years is not a short time. As for the Saudi fields, they're the biggest in the world and it will take longer for that extremely rich source of oil to hit peak. And even after that (see above) they'll still be pumping.

The OPEC cartel was controlled at the time by Western money and power interest and thus the embargo was completely artificial to start with. . . . OPEC did = nothing as it was all a big set up to provide reasons for American direct involvement in the ME along with massive prices hikes

Woo-hoo! Conspiracy fantasy, here we come. There is no real conflict in the world, it's all controlled behind the scenes by Our Secret Masters, the laws of geology and economics have no reality, and Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong.

It's entertaining, I'll say that much.

The Us has enough oil in just a few American states ( not even Alaska and the other states/offshore resources) for another 300 years at current consumption levels

Again, you demonstrate that you don't understand how peak oil works. Since the U.S. has almost half its easily-extracted oil reserves left, and since I believe you're including in that 300 year figure all of our oil reserves regardless of how easily they can be extracted, you may be right. But the fact remains that, however much oil we may have left in the ground, we can't extract it quickly enough and economically enough to meet current demand. If we could, we would, and would not buy the oil abroad. That's what the U.S. did until 1970, after all.

Similar considerations apply today. "Peak oil" is not a single event with everything running smoothly until we hit it.

But apparently that happened in the USA, suddenly?

If all of the world's oil were being produced by one nation, then peak oil would be a single event. All of America's oil WAS being produced by one nation, so America's peak WAS a single event.

The world is largely unexplored and the methods employed ( and regions that has to be rechecked since they were earlier considered geologically incompatible) has changed as well as the science and expectations.

I'm going to let dedboi answer you here. What would your grandfather have to say to the claim that the world is "largely unexplored," deadboi?

So because you do not drill more wells you have no more oil?

Basic hydraulics: multiple wells drilled into a single source reach diminishing returns as each produces less individually than fewer wells would do.

It is a fact that U.S. oil production has declined since 1970. The most straightforward interpretation of that fact is that the amount of easily-extracted oil in the U.S. was 50% pumped out in that year, and we have since been pumping the remainder, and hence doing it slower.

Unless, of course, you believe something like:

not at all related to the market forces that can and have manipulated resources and their artificial shortages for centuries.

As I said, it's at least entertaining.

Look, that governments and businesses conspire to influence the price of commodities is not exactly shocking news. I'm sure such conspiratorial activity factors into the price of oil. That's a conspiracy theory, properly so called.

But what you're saying is that this conspiracy is all-powerful, and so effects that any sensible and educated person would attribute to causes we can see, you instead attribute entirely to the conspiracy of government and business. That's not a conspiracy theory. It's a conspiracy fantasy. It's crazy, is what it is.

Why invest in your own oil when it's cheaper to get in on the world market

If you're a company in the business of producing and selling oil, and your own production can be increased without limit (or without practical limit), then it will always be more profitable for you to increase that production than to purchase the oil from someone else and resell it. As consumers, we don't care, but as producers, our oil companies sure do. If they could have increased domestic production to meet demand after 1970, they would have done it.

Originally posted by StellarX

If we haven't reached the global peak yet, the reason is because increases in Middle East oil production have so far managed to oustrip declines in the rest of the world.

Far more likely means that the rest of the world does not see a reason to develop their own resources when they can not even begin to compete with shallow easily extractable ME resources

Yes. Exactly. And again, you show us that you don't understand what peak oil is, because you think what you said here answers my assertion. It doesn't. It helps explain the mechanics of it, actually.

Years ago, the U.S. had lots of oil that was just as shallow and easily extractable as what they're pumping today in the Middle East. Today, all that shallow and easily extractable oil has been pumped, and we are left with what's left, which is deeper, harder to pump out, more expensive to pump out.

And that's exactly what peak oil is all about! It's not about all the oil being gone, but about all the oil that's left being harder and more expensive to extract. That happens when half the oil has been pumped. And we are very close to that point, if not already past it.

Which is why the oil flow from Iraq is interrupted so often. If you can not prevent oil from being found and extracted , and thus forcing down prices, you better convince people it's scarce

Where's my tinfoil hat when I need it most . . .

Oil production is not declining in all that many places contrary to popular propaganda. Do some research?

I did. You're wrong. I don't think you even deny it, you just explain it differently than I do.

Your completely ignoring economic and political realities when it comes to the trade in oil.

No, I'm not. You, on the other hand, are completely ignoring geological and hydraulic realities, and attributing EVERYTHING to economics and politics. In other words, you believe the conspiracy of companies and governments to be omnipotent, and the laws of nature to have no power when faced with their will.

A conspiracy fantasy, as I said.

I could have added a link to prove each statement but you would probably not appreciate it. If you continue along your current line i guess i will need to do that and embarrass you

Go right ahead. I'm certainly not going to take your word for any of this.

Originally posted by StellarX
Why have i not heard about peak coal i ask you?

Peak coal is very real as well. According to this and this, the world has 909,064 million tonnes of coal left, which will last roughly 327 years at 2004 consumption levels. Not so worrisome for us, but given that coal is as polluting as it is we'd be better off leaving most of that in the ground.

[edit on 14/7/2006 by Thousand]

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
I'm familiar with some of them. Are you referring to the deep earth generation theory, the idea that oil is produced abiotically below the biosphere in huge abundance and that what is being tapped is only seepage from these deep wells into more shallow pools?

Indeed.

If so, there's a serious problem with that theory. On the basis of it, we would predict that known oil deposits would rather rapidly replenish as they are tapped, in the same way as groundwater replenishes over time.

Why should it replenish as fast as water? We know that oil reservoirs have massively replenished themselves in a few instances but that is normally assumed to be deeper reserves suddenly being released into shallower one's.

Wall Street Journal Article About The Origins Of Crude Oil

We do not see that happening. Every oil-producing region except the Middle East has passed the peak and oil production in all regions except the Middle East is declining.

Not even the USA has peaked tonto.eia.doe.gov..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> tonto.eia.doe.gov... The US current reserves is the same now as five years ago despite half of the original reserves having been used in the last five years. It is illogical to argue that even the USA has 'peaked' and it's even worse to make such a argument for any other part of the world.

2 billion barrels per year over 5 years = 10 billion barrels consumed from own resources and the USA had 'admitted' reserves of 21 odd billion both in 1999 , 2004 AND , far more revealingly, 1947. Despite using up it's 'proved reserves' a few dozen times over nothing has changed. 'Proved' reserves is a meaningless number one can manipulate in a dozen ways i can immediately think of and thinking of it as proof of 'decline' is really believing what you want.

It has been declining in North America since 1985, and in the U.S. since 1970. This observed fact is consistent with the conventional theory of petro-origin, and inconsistent with the deep-earth theory.

Only if you avoid any serious mathematical considerations.

If you mean something else, it would help to specify exactly what.

I am , as always, making my views known quite clearly and if you do not want to go where the logic leads i can not help you.

Then why ask for it? One may observe easily enough that there is more plant matter in the world than animal matter. If petroleum is produced from dead organisms, surely the great majority of it would come from plant rather than animal sources because that's what the great majority of dead organisms are.

How much would you need in what geological age and in what concentrations in what areas of the world? Lets talk tonnage and conversion rates. Just how much biological material ( specific species-to-oil conversation rate would be cool ) do you need to fill a barrel with and how long would you have to hang around with barrel in hand? Do you know how much oil and coal is yearly consumed by natural geological processes ( fires, under -sea releases) and if so please state how humans can make a impact in 100 years where nature could not in hundreds of millions? Did we happen to arrive just in time to use up the last bits? I have plenty of questions and so should you.

As literally stated, to doubt it is sheer nonsense. The earth itself is finite, and oil represents only a tiny portion of the mass of the earth; therefore, the amount of oil is finite.

As stated above it hardly explains how we managed to use up what the earth could not in all that time. To doubt is how we progress.

As for oil being nonrenewable in a practical sense, again there's the observed fact that every oil-producing region in the world except for the Middle East has reached peak and gone into decline.

There is so much oil that we have wars to prevent it from reaching global markets as it easily proven by American intervention and control of Middle eastern economies.

If you don't want to consider that "proof" in the same sense as a rigorous mathematical proof or a solid experimental proof in science, I suppose you can raise that meaningless quibble. It remains the case that all available evidence supports the idea that oil is nonrenewable, and none whatsoever argues to the contrary.

There is no 'proof' as such is based on hopelessly bad math invalidated by yearly consumption and reserve figures. Most geologist now admit that at least some oil does indeed come from abiotic processes but the common consensus is that it will not affect reserve figures at current consumption rates. As i indicated reserve figures are growing ( or not exploited& explored for) in even the USA so there just ain't no truth to discern when it comes to peak oil in at least the next 50 years.

Your memory is in error, but if your underlying assertions are correct, there should have been no peak at all, whether in 1970 or in 1974.

tonto.eia.doe.gov... Says 1970 as well but does strangely show a decline and recovery ( even with sharply declining 'reserves') to almost the same levels 14 years later... Whatever that means the much talked about reserves were used up every 2or 3 years for three decades now. If that does not tell you that official reserve figures are largely pointless then i am not sure what it will take. Peak PRODUCTION does not = not peak availability.

Yes, that's called supply and demand. When OPEC imposed its oil embargo, a lot of industries turned to coal as an alternative source of energy. Increased demand for coal = rising prices.

The increase in coal price came before the OPEC embargo and considering the current price , and general fluctuation , it's clear that both commodities rose sharply for the same reason which had nothing to do with how much of both resources there were. The actual rise in price had today with energy and emissions control , not general coal availability.

www.eia.doe.gov...

All right, I'll tell you about peak coal. Coal is also a nonrenewable resource, and we should expect that it, too, will meet a global production peak.

Why should we considering the amounts we have used and the amount naturally being used up by coal fires every year? All you seem to do is repeat assumptions you have never investigated.

The difference is that the supply of coal is enormously greater than the supply of oil, so we are nowhere near tapping 50% of it. Just the same, you can find local coal peaks that have been reached in some places, so the same principle applies.

The same principle does apply but it shows the exact opposite.

You haven't heard about it because you aren't a geologist or an energy specialist. It isn't an urgent concern, and so has not made the mainstream news. That doesn't mean it's not real.

Hearing about something does not make it true or real. I have not heard about peak coal because the supplies are so fast that they have not yet decided to bother trying to convince us it's very scarce. Oil and coal comes from the same common source and it's just more dead plants/Dino's you will have to heap on the pile you already need to explain all the oil.

Continued

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

The world is largely unexplored and the methods employed ( and regions that has to be rechecked since they were earlier considered geologically incompatible) has changed as well as the science and expectations.

I'm going to let dedboi answer you here. What would your grandfather have to say to the claim that the world is "largely unexplored," deadboi?

Well like he said in the quote I posted, "our rate of discoveries cannot, and never will again, equal consumption. Both China and India want to attain major increases in their standard of living and that will require massive energy use."

That is not to say we have discovered all the oil we are ever going to find, but our rate of consumption is just too great. China and India both have populations of over 1 billion people, that is approximately the same as the combined population of North America and Europe (give or a couple 100 million). When those two start consuming oil at the same rate we are now there is no possible way to we will be able to meet those demands.

Also just because there may be oil in the ground that doesn't mean that it will be economically feasible to get it out, there reaches a point where it costs more money to get the oil out of the ground then you are going to be able to sell it for. People seem to like to praise the Alberta tar sands for it's vast reserves of oil, however, in order to get that oil they need to inject steam into the soil so that the tar will melt enough and and can be pumped up to the surface. And how do they heat that steam? Natural gas, of course. So as the price of natural gas continues to increase so will the cost of producing oil from the tar sands. Not to mention the massive envirnmental impact it has, but who care about that eh? As long as it's cheap at the pump

I'm sure that's a factor and I don't care to let the energy companies off the hook. However, to say that this is ALL that's going on is to say that the laws of economics are nonexistent. And that's just not true.

For oil it has been largely true for a century. Oil has from it's very inception into global markets been a massively manipulated resources ; first to find some uses for the massive amounts find and then to try shut down or control the flow so as to restrict oil availability as best they could. If you really know nothing about the market history of oil then we should start with that and stop wasting time on mundane facts such as massively growing oil reserves world wide.

Stellar

The price for oil today is heavily influenced by the capacity of our current refineries. This is pure market economy. Why buy crude oil if you can't put it to some practical use that is profitable. The laws of supply and demand come into play when the oil companies want to refine the oil. So, the market is not driven by a shortage of raw material.

That being said, given that oil is a finite resource a supply peak must come eventually, although it is not clear when this is going to happen, on a global scale. There will be a day when a barrel of oil is more expensive than the revenue expected from its usage. This is also pure economic reason and it is rather irrational to argue against it.

But we may reach peak oil not only because it will become too expensive to extract. Other forms of energy may decrease demand for oil, thus making oil production costly. This also qualifies as reaching peak oil, though not as people tend to think it will happen.

Some years ago I attended a lecture with Peter Odell, a well respected figure in the research community, and he made the prediction that natural gas will overtake oil as an energy source somewhere around 2025, and that oil will have disappeared completely well before the end of this century.

So, peak oil will happen, though it may not be because of diminishing reserves.

There is peak oil. It is a fact that much of our fossil fuels comes from peat. There are arguments here saying that an organism will form a very small percentage of oil. Indeed it will, but we're talking the previous 400 million years or so, especially the Paleozoic Era when Bryophytes and Pteridophytes (ferns and mosses) reigned supreme. Humans have been using oil on a mass scale for around 100 years. That's alot of time for alot of oil to have accumulated.

Take a look at the wars lately. Iraq, and now so much speculation about Iran. Before we know it, oil will be 100 dollars a barrel - it has completely sky rocketed just int he past few years. Take a look at the prices of gas. Take a look at the fact the Chinese and Indians are starting to drive. Oil will run out. Alternative energy sources probably could be made better, but it is not in the best interests of the oil companies and their greedy investors for such a thing to happen.

Originally posted by el_madmaster
There is peak oil.

No evidence for that so there really is nothing to talk about.

It is a fact that much of our fossil fuels comes from peat.

It's just a theory and not a particularly imaginative one at that.

There are arguments here saying that an organism will form a very small percentage of oil. Indeed it will, but we're talking the previous 400 million years or so, especially the Paleozoic Era when Bryophytes and Pteridophytes (ferns and mosses) reigned supreme.

And that is all swell but how and why if it's so plentiful did we manage to 'use it all up' ( coal fires , seepage etc) in less than 100 years when nature itself could not in all those hundreds of millions of years?

Humans have been using oil on a mass scale for around 100 years. That's alot of time for alot of oil to have accumulated.

Yet still we manage to use it all up in such a short geological period? Well even if that could logically be so growing world oil reserves proves it's just as insane as it sounds.

Take a look at the wars lately. Iraq, and now so much speculation about Iran.

The wars against Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran whoever is to CLOSE DOWN oil wells/pipelines as there is so much of the *damn* stuff that it destroys profit margins and generally allows people freedom of movement which is just against everything the true masters of the world wants.

Before we know it, oil will be 100 dollars a barrel - it has completely sky rocketed just int he past few years.

Which is quite clearly not connected with the availability of oil in the ground as we are still finding ( and their trying to avoid finding oil) 5 barrels for every 3 used and it's been that way for very many decades.

Take a look at the prices of gas. Take a look at the fact the Chinese and Indians are starting to drive.

Damn ##$%^*($%$(*% Chinese and Indians! How dare they demand to make a decent living! $%#%$&*%$&* Asians! Well i will give you the benefit out the doubt and assume your just selfish and ignorant instead of racist and cruel. If you want to save the world sell your car or petrol bomb a refinery but do not demand that other give up their rights to self determination to ensure your standard of living.

Oil will run out.

Stranger things have happened but if i were you i wouldn't be holding my breath or counting in anything less than half centuries.

Alternative energy sources probably could be made better, but it is not in the best interests of the oil companies and their greedy investors for such a thing to happen.

We already have proven alternatives ( zero point energy-cold fusion etc ) and by in fact just logically examining the way we generate energy we could supply nearly free and very close to unlimited energy to one and all. If that was what the leaders of the world wanted for us ( unlimited energy = potentially unlimited freedom) we could have had all that at least as much as 50 years ago and possibly even 100 years ago.

Stellar

Originally posted by yergen
The price for oil today is heavily influenced by the capacity of our current refineries.

As i remember the USA have not built one on it's own soil since 1977. The price of oil can not be influenced by the refinery capacity as the two things are simply not related.

This is pure market economy.

Not even close.

Why buy crude oil if you can't put it to some practical use that is profitable.

There will always be a profit of some kind as long as a resource/product or service is in demand and not massively over supplied in a pure market economy. The fact that things are so out of control when there is no shortage of supply of oil and such high demand proves massive market manipulation.

The laws of supply and demand come into play when the oil companies want to refine the oil. So, the market is not driven by a shortage of raw material.

Indeed and they are in fact CLOSING refineries and highly profitable one's at that.

That being said, given that oil is a finite resource a supply peak must come eventually, although it is not clear when this is going to happen, on a global scale.

Assuming that it really is a finite resources ( that's a theory ) it will eventually run out but evidence does not seem to suggest that that is going to be very soon. OPEC numbers suggest it to be no sooner than another five decades at which point it might become reasonable ( under the current energy paradigm) to start investing and researching alternatives; their words, not mine.

There will be a day when a barrel of oil is more expensive than the revenue expected from its usage.

They still get a barrel of oil out of the ground in Saudi Arabia for below two dollars so i don't think there is any reason to hold or collective breaths. In Venezuela a barrel of drinking water is still far more expensive than a barrel of oil and they are in fact sitting on larger reserves than those of Saudi Arabia.

This is also pure economic reason and it is rather irrational to argue against it.

Economics have very little to do with energy markets as those are far too manipulated by governments and for profit entities for such base realities to interfere.

But we may reach peak oil not only because it will become too expensive to extract. Other forms of energy may decrease demand for oil, thus making oil production costly.

We already have sources of energy that could produce nearly or completely unlimited energy so the the two issues are not connected in any economic sense.

This also qualifies as reaching peak oil, though not as people tend to think it will happen.

Nothing about peak oil is as people think.

Some years ago I attended a lecture with Peter Odell, a well respected figure in the research community, and he made the prediction that natural gas will overtake oil as an energy source somewhere around 2025, and that oil will have disappeared completely well before the end of this century.

I have looked into the histories of most of these 'Peak freaks' ( thanks for the term Greg) and even thought i am not familiar with this one i can only assume his either ignorant or getting paid very well as there simply is NO evidence for what his suggesting.

So, peak oil will happen, though it may not be because of diminishing reserves.

Which makes only marginal sense.

Anyways!

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX

As i remember the USA have not built one on it's own soil since 1977. The price of oil can not be influenced by the refinery capacity as the two things are simply not related.

No one uses crude oil. You have to refine it to be able to put it to use. That's why they are, in fact, related. Oil is not a commodity, like f.i. gold, with any intrinsic value. The fact that the USA haven't built any refineries only proves my point. Today we see a demand never seen before, but for refined oil. The western civilisation does not want expensive resources, because it means too much pressure on the economy as a whole. In the not very long run expensive oil leads to recession.

There will always be a profit of some kind as long as a resource/product or service is in demand and not massively over supplied in a pure market economy. The fact that things are so out of control when there is no shortage of supply of oil and such high demand proves massive market manipulation.

Well, first of all, a lot of the reserves are considered risky as a large portion of it is in Iran and other places. So, although there is no actual shortage, there is concern that the oil might not be available, effectively decreasing the amount available on the market. If you know your economics 101, the laws of supply and demand gives that prices go up when demand increases and/or supply decreases. Pure market economy.

Moreover, crude oil is not in demand, it's the refined, end product that is in actual demand. Look at the steel business. Iron ore is not in demand per se, as it is useless, unless someone extracts the iron and produces steel. Mining companies are doing very well right now, as demand for steel is sky high, but they depend on steel producers who refine iron ore to an end product. Often, these companies are integrated in one way or another. Then, and only then, there is money to be made.

Assuming that it really is a finite resources ( that's a theory ) it will eventually run out but evidence does not seem to suggest that that is going to be very soon. OPEC numbers suggest it to be no sooner than another five decades at which point it might become reasonable ( under the current energy paradigm) to start investing and researching alternatives; their words, not mine.

I won't go in to scientific theory, but the evidence is rather strong for it to be more than just a theory in the common meaning of the word.

We already have sources of energy that could produce nearly or completely unlimited energy so the the two issues are not connected in any economic sense.

Well, you're talking about cold fusion and zero point energy as alternatives. That'll give you the Nobel prize straight up if you can produce them. You have my vote, if that's the case. I'm not saying that cold fusion is impossible, but I am saying that no one has ever proved it to be productive to this date. The research community is working on it, but we are years away from cold fusion as an energy source on a large scale.

I have looked into the histories of most of these 'Peak freaks' ( thanks for the term Greg) and even thought i am not familiar with this one i can only assume his either ignorant or getting paid very well as there simply is NO evidence for what his suggesting.

Peter Odell is not a Peak freak, although I find the term highly amusing. He does not consider Peak Oil to be something to be concerned about. Rather, he believes that there will be other, cheaper, alternatives in the near future. This is not necessarily because of diminishing reserves.

Which makes only marginal sense.

Well, people always seem to think that the Peak is a supply peak. It might just be a demand peak. But it is still a peak.

Regards

Originally posted by yergen
No one uses crude oil. You have to refine it to be able to put it to use. That's why they are, in fact, related. Oil is not a commodity, like f.i. gold, with any intrinsic value.

Well that is a interesting point of view considering they are now forcing us to pay 70 USD per barrel for the stuff. Does Gold really have a intrinsic value beside it's relative scarceness and monetary uses?

The fact that the USA haven't built any refineries only proves my point. Today we see a demand never seen before, but for refined oil.

Indeed but why then is the oil per barrel so very expensive at this stage when it's so very abundant? Why manipulate the relative availability of oil -above ground- when it's no use anyways?

The western civilisation does not want expensive resources, because it means too much pressure on the economy as a whole. In the not very long run expensive oil leads to recession.

Expensive oil has very little to do with recession as most of the oil price is in fact just another government tax. They choose to hurt the economy and it's pointless to blame oil or refining capacity over that.

Well, first of all, a lot of the reserves are considered risky as a large portion of it is in Iran and other places.

Actually no but they do a great job of trying to convince of us that reality but starting wars and general trouble as far and wide as they can. Venezuela has larger oil reserves than either Iran/Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Alaska and many American states are still very rich in oil reserves without even mentioning the absolutely MASSIVE oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico.

So, although there is no actual shortage, there is concern that the oil might not be available, effectively decreasing the amount available on the market.

Which is obviously blatant manipulation which could be prevented by funding excess capacity in these countries . These money can come from all the tax added to normal fuel costs in most countries. I am not fooled by these fear mongering and neither should you. Did you know that in the time when the price were rising the fastest the USA was also busy filling it's strategic reserves , FOR SOME REASON? Talk about blatant market manipulation.

If you know your economics 101, the laws of supply and demand gives that prices go up when demand increases and/or supply decreases. Pure market economy.

Not at all since the problem is clearly downstream ( refining) which could be solved by investment which is just a choice the American government has left for others to do. Shell CLOSED it's most profitable ( or one of the top one's) not so long ago for no good reason under the sun.

Moreover, crude oil is not in demand, it's the refined, end product that is in actual demand. Look at the steel business. Iron ore is not in demand per se, as it is useless, unless someone extracts the iron and produces steel. Mining companies are doing very well right now, as demand for steel is sky high, but they depend on steel producers who refine iron ore to an end product. Often, these companies are integrated in one way or another. Then, and only then, there is money to be made.

Fine and all but that does not explain how crude per barrel cost went from 30 dollars to 70 dollars in less than 5 years. Reserve and production figures does not even begin to explain this massive price hike based on purely market fundamentals.

I won't go in to scientific theory, but the evidence is rather strong for it to be more than just a theory in the common meaning of the word.

The Abiotic theory best explains how the oil 'poor' USSR is now the leading oil producer in the world. I have posted ample links to a proper investigation of this theory elsewhere if you want some links.

Well, you're talking about cold fusion and zero point energy as alternatives. That'll give you the Nobel prize straight up if you can produce them. You have my vote, if that's the case. I'm not saying that cold fusion is impossible, but I am saying that no one has ever proved it to be productive to this date. The research community is working on it, but we are years away from cold fusion as an energy source on a large scale.

Actually ZPE has been known about in scientific terms ( in terms of them being experimentally observed without explanation) since 1965, experimentally used to power external loads since 1890 by Tesla, and proven in terms of pure physics since 1957 when Lee and Yang (
physics.nobel.brainparad.com... ) were awarded the Nobel, for physics, when they showed that parity symmetry simply was not true as assumed till then. To get a better idea of what even living systems can manage with micro volts and millivolts check out Kevran works ( he was nominated for a Nobel prize )

www.cheniere.org...
A Compilation of Briefing Papers Prepared For: The U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
www.rexresearch.com...
experts.about.com...
www.lasarcyk.de...

Peter Odell is not a Peak freak, although I find the term highly amusing.

Well i love the term ( you can thank Greg Palast for it as far as i am concerned) and it describes their theories and methods very well. I am not familiar with the author ( as i earlier admitted) but i know the area well enough to show that the author - no matter how clever- can not alter the fact of massively growing world oil reserves.

He does not consider Peak Oil to be something to be concerned about.

Then his probably not deserving of the title 'peak freak' ....

Rather, he believes that there will be other, cheaper, alternatives in the near future. This is not necessarily because of diminishing reserves.

That i can agree with without reservations.

Well, people always seem to think that the Peak is a supply peak. It might just be a demand peak. But it is still a peak.

Regards

Half empty kinda guy .

Cheers nstuff!

Stellar

Consider these facts:

There is no support of a supply peak just yet. Reserves are massive and there is no shortage of oil in the ground. In time there may well be that other means of extraction will take over and further increase the reserves.

The price of crude oil is not only determined by how much is extracted from the ground. Other factors play a big part.

Some of the factors are (among others):

1. Refinery capacity. One of the main reasons we have low refinery capacity today is the quality of the crude oil that gets produced today. It is not as "sweet" anymore, which means that fewer than before refineries can process it. More are under construction, though.

2. The market price is set in New York. Although large reserves are in Venezuela there is a big concern that Chavez won't sell to the USA -> decrease in supply. Moreover, Iran is another big supplier but also hostile to the market in NY. Iraq is insecure etc. The supply chain of oil is weak to say the least. High risk means high price.

3. Transportation. There is a generation shift in supertanker ships. Currently they are shifting one hull ships out of business. Also, demand is higher than ever. Hence, there is a shortage of means for transportaion of the oil to the refineries and from the refineries to the end user. Ship building is a booming business at the moment. To emphasize the problem: this month Iran leased 30 of only 400 supertankers in the world, effectively seizing 10% of the total, world-wide capacity. This made the price for renting them go up 60%. No one knows why they did it, but apparently they made a statement regarding their nuclear capacity along with it.


Now, I don't mean to be rude, but the fact is that energy is the basic element of a functioning economy. This really is economics 101. When energy prices go up, everything else does. This means lower demand of goods and services among the general populace. If prices rise rapidly we go right into recession and probably depression with stagflation.

I don't believe that there is any conspiracy to this, as deliberately driving energy prices through the roof makes everyone lose. Also, it is devastating for an oil baron because it will only make the transition to other energy sources go faster. The higher the oil price the more incentive for breaking the oil dependency.

In short, I agree with you StellarX that there won't be any peak oil because the reserves are to massive. But there will be a transition from oil to some other form of energy (just don't know where my bet is right now). And there is no conspiracy or manipulation of the markets. Well, apart from Iran and Chavez and so on...

I would give you links, but they are all in Swedish. Give me time and I'll find them in english if required.

May the coast of Lebanon be cleansed from oil...

Regards

Calling me racist, selfish, and ignorant, simply because I stated a FACT that the Chinese and Indians are starting to use cars on a scale never before seen. Right... Whether or not you like it, it is a very simple rule of supply and demand that if more people are using oil faster than at any point in time, it will run out quicker. I'm not blaming them for anything, it's about time they enjoy the benefits of using an automobile over bikes.

Originally posted by yergen
Consider these facts:

I have.....

1. Refinery capacity. One of the main reasons we have low refinery capacity today is the quality of the crude oil that gets produced today. It is not as "sweet" anymore, which means that fewer than before refineries can process it. More are under construction, though.

It's been this way for a few decades now so no one should be acting surprised or have too few refineries.

2. The market price is set in New York. Although large reserves are in Venezuela there is a big concern that Chavez won't sell to the USA -> decrease in supply.

If they keep trying to kill him one can say with some confidence that they ( the USA) are in fact trying to antagonize him into not selling oil to the USA or not trading his in USD. The real difference between the the Venezuela and SA is that SA reinvests their oil profits in the USA while Hugo says he will sell it for 20 or 30 dollars but is not going to reinvest choosing instead to spend it on his own people. It's clearly why they hate him.

Moreover, Iran is another big supplier but also hostile to the market in NY. Iraq is insecure etc. The supply chain of oil is weak to say the least. High risk means high price.

Iran is NOT hostile to the market for the same reasons Venezuela is not hostile in any conventional sense of the word. The chain or supply in the ME is weak by design as the USA really have no need to get oil from there especially considering the fact that it spends more money on ME security ( 50 odd billion in defense and 'aid' costs) than the cheaper oil costs. It's quite clear that the object of the design is to drive prices UP , not down.

3. Transportation. There is a generation shift in supertanker ships. Currently they are shifting one hull ships out of business. Also, demand is higher than ever.

Demand is NOT higher than ever and the growth has been quite steady for a very long time ; nothing unpredictable about it and whoever failed to project growth, based on statistical historical data, clearly intended to.

Hence, there is a shortage of means for transportaion of the oil to the refineries and from the refineries to the end user.

I have not seen any evidence for such but feel free to share yours. If that is so ( it is not imo) how can such any event come about by accident? Market forces are not ,according to popular economy theory, that dumb.

Ship building is a booming business at the moment. To emphasize the problem: this month Iran leased 30 of only 400 supertankers in the world, effectively seizing 10% of the total, world-wide capacity. This made the price for renting them go up 60%. No one knows why they did it, but apparently they made a statement regarding their nuclear capacity along with it.

www.oceansatlas.com...

Suggest quote clearly that 30 tankers ( if that is the fact of the matter) in 3500 + is not a big deal especially considering the fact that 'supertankers' cant 'do' the whole Suez thing. Why the massive price hike? How can 1% of ships 'changing hands' temporarily drive up costs? Please supply link as if this was in fact true i would just have more evidence for blatant market manipulation by the West ( the insurance companies who 'chose' to hire out these ships).

Now, I don't mean to be rude, but the fact is that energy is the basic element of a functioning economy.

Unconnected really as higher/high energy is just another tax on the constituents of the 'economy' in question. All prices increase and the government prints so more ''from thin air' money so that nothing really chances ( if that was their intent). Since the US trough the USD controls to a great extent the exchange of oil a higher oil prices creates a demand for dollars which does not harm but expressly support the US economy which can run up the deficit without problem while others are forced to take the 'fake promise' that is the current USD.

This really is economics 101. When energy prices go up, everything else does. This means lower demand of goods and services among the general populace.

Actually the price 'rise' ( price is completely artificial anyways) can easily be covered by a general subsidy coming out of taxpayer's pocket instead of starting wars in the middle easy to drive up prices. If American tax payer money were actually spent on Americans this would not have a problem even if i have far better solutions to such a problem including exploiting American reserves which are enough for a hundred or more years AT LEAST.

If prices rise rapidly we go right into recession and probably depression with stagflation.

Those things can only happen by the manipulation of the flow of currency in an economy; they can simply not come about by higher energy prices. Governments could ideally simply extend more credit to cover the rising costs and governments are not supposed to have to pay foreign owners a 'tax' to print money on the cheap. The system is so entirely artificial that 'market forces' hardly comes into the equation.

I don't believe that there is any conspiracy to this, as deliberately driving energy prices through the roof makes everyone lose.

The only losers are the average person on the planet; the rich are getting richer ever faster and the corporate elite just raise their prices ( they easily get away with it as they have the perfect excuse in high oil prices) to keep making their massive profits.
I just do not see how this can be seen as anything BUT a conspiracy. What DOES constitute a conspiracy in your mind?

Also, it is devastating for an oil baron because it will only make the transition to other energy sources go faster.

It will not as those are being supressed by governments world wide who are desperately fighting to keep their people dependent on centralized power and energy distribution. The power elite ALL lose when we find cheaper/cleaner/more efficient energy sources or resources so they will fight it tooth and nail to keep their 'power' which is largely dependent on us having to pay highly to get some of it from them.

The higher the oil price the more incentive for breaking the oil dependency.

As i indicated earlier there is no question that we have for very long had very real and easy to implement alternatives which has been suppressed so far. To suppose that these massive programs of deception will suddenly grind to a half simply because oil prices are rising is not in my opinion logical as they will simply start pouring ever more taxpayer money into stupid things like high energy fusion and the like which they have already spent billions on for no good reason under the sun. I can support this if you have the time to study the subject.

[quotesnip - to save space - is right now).

Probably something fusion related ( probably high energy) as it still depends massive resource investment and centralized distribution and massive generation plants which will 'obviously' have to be state run.

And there is no conspiracy or manipulation of the markets. Well, apart from Iran and Chavez and so on...

They are the one's trying to break the blatant manipulation of the markets by the West and they are being singled out for destruction because of it.

I would give you links, but they are all in Swedish. Give me time and I'll find them in english if required.

May the coast of Lebanon be cleansed from oil...

No links required as i have done my own thorough investigate of the various fields that comes into play when it comes to energy and the people who strive to control it.

Cheers.
Stellar