Open Question to Powerswitchers From RGR. Input requested.

Forum for general discussion of Peak Oil / Oil depletion; also covering related subjects

Moderator: Peak Moderation

User avatar
Totally_Baffled
Posts: 2824
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Hampshire

Post by Totally_Baffled »

How about precedent?

I forget the exact numbers but there are something like 60 out 90 oil producing countries that have oil production in terminal decline.

In other words, despite investment, very high prices have failed to get production increasing again or even halt decline (eg UK, Norway, USA etc).

There are middle eastern countries that have increased production recently, but have failed to get back to historical highs (eg Iran). But these are the exception?

How do we increase the global flow rate of oil when so many countries are in decline?

Surely you only have to look at the production graphs of these countries to see a pattern, growth in production, peak and then decline....
TB

Peak oil? ahhh smeg..... :(
lurker
Posts: 434
Joined: 17 Jul 2010, 02:55

Post by lurker »

Can we read this paper afterwards?

Is RGR a peak oil skeptic?

Surely peak oil occuring some time is a non-brainer its just how & when thats debatable?
Every time you spend money,you're casting a vote for the kind of world you want.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich" -Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12780
Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

Let a hundred flowers bloom...
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
RGR

Post by RGR »

Blue Peter wrote: Would you include things such as EROEI?


Peter.
Last edited by RGR on 11 Aug 2011, 03:24, edited 2 times in total.
RGR

Post by RGR »

[quote="Lord Beria3"]
Last edited by RGR on 11 Aug 2011, 03:25, edited 2 times in total.
RGR

Post by RGR »

RalphW wrote: To an extreme extent modern society is fossil fuel. Parts of the world will see major starvation.
Last edited by RGR on 11 Aug 2011, 03:25, edited 2 times in total.
RGR

Post by RGR »

[quote="Totally_Baffled"]How about precedent?
Last edited by RGR on 11 Aug 2011, 03:26, edited 2 times in total.
RGR

Post by RGR »

lurker wrote:Can we read this paper afterwards?
Last edited by RGR on 11 Aug 2011, 03:26, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

RGR wrote:
lurker wrote:Can we read this paper afterwards?
My publications are in peer reviewed science journals and have been published domestically and internationally
which would be easier to find if I knew your name.
2 As and a B
Posts: 2590
Joined: 28 Nov 2008, 19:06

Post by 2 As and a B »

RGR wrote:
Blue Peter wrote: Would you include things such as EROEI?


Peter.
I might consider it. However, after 5 years of watching it used in the peak oil debate I am still not convinced it is relevant.
Why not relevant?
User avatar
PS_RalphW
Posts: 6974
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Cambridge

Post by PS_RalphW »

RGR,

There is more energy in bucket of water (Not sure how big a bucket...) than we individually use in a lifetime. All we need is the technology to make a pocket cold fusion reactor and we are flying! (OK Hot fusion will do).

Energy too cheap to metre by 1950!

The doomers are not the only ones who get it wrong.

History suggests that civilisations collapse more often than they adapt.

The Romans had pretty nifty technology. Some of it we are only now able to match. They ran out of slave labour and overextended themselves.

Methane hydrates are not an easy energy source. In difficult to access areas with unstable and variable 'geology', and very nasty side effects for the climate when they are released on mass. I studied them at university.

I haven't seen any detailed reserve figures either...

also

US Shale Discovery Bonanza Is Over - Chesapeake CEO

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp ... 024&hmpn=1
Blue Peter
Posts: 1939
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Milton Keynes

Post by Blue Peter »

foodimista wrote:
RGR wrote:
Blue Peter wrote: Would you include things such as EROEI?


Peter.
I might consider it. However, after 5 years of watching it used in the peak oil debate I am still not convinced it is relevant.
Why not relevant?
It's obviously a sort of static measure of a dynamic situation (we obtain the EROEI now, but the oil is extracted, refined and used with an infrastructure which was already existent and which will continue to exist into the future), and it's not really possible to measure it exactly. So, one might have theoretical concerns with it.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the ace in the hole of the resource economics people is that if you apply enough energy, you can still extract more resources as the concentration of a material decreases. And that has been roughly true so far. However, it doesn't seem like it should apply to the extraction of energy itself for EROEI reasons. So, if RGR believe that there is some way round this, then it would be very interesting (and make a great paper, I would have thought),


Peter.
Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the seconds to hours?
RGR

Post by RGR »

[quote="foodimista"]
Last edited by RGR on 11 Aug 2011, 03:26, edited 1 time in total.
Blue Peter
Posts: 1939
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Milton Keynes

Post by Blue Peter »

RGR wrote:
foodimista wrote:
RGR wrote: I might consider it. However, after 5 years of watching it used in the peak oil debate I am still not convinced it is relevant.
Why not relevant?
EROEI is not a valid measure of value for anything within human economic systems.
So, what would be a valid measure of the net energy produced by energy producers within human economic systems?

Or do you not believe that net energy has any value?


Peter.
Does anyone know where the love of God goes when the waves turn the seconds to hours?
RGR

Post by RGR »

RalphW wrote: The doomers are not the only ones who get it wrong.
Last edited by RGR on 11 Aug 2011, 03:27, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply