PowerSwitch

A pretty decent primer on oil supplies I think:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 30179.full

It's part of a special issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (via Resilience.org)

Pepperman wrote:A pretty decent primer on oil supplies I think:

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 30179.full

It's part of a special issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (via Resilience.org)

Figure 15 would seem to indicate that nothing else in this entire presentation needs to be read.

I particularly like "Fields yet to be found".

We're buying a Porsche in the new year. We're paying for it with money Yet To Be Found

RenewableCandy wrote:I particularly like "Fields yet to be found".

We're buying a Porsche in the new year. We're paying for it with money Yet To Be Found

Interesting chart alright. It is saying that some of the biggest chunks between now and 2035 - 'fields to be developed' - have still to be found as well.

emordnilap wrote:Interesting chart alright. It is saying that some of the biggest chunks between now and 2035 - 'fields to be developed' - have still to be found as well.

"Fields to be found" are always amusing. Until they are found of course. Like the new Saudi Arabia's every 3 years required since the 70's to allow continued consumption, and then the funny thing was, they showed up! And now nobody can find them, because none of them joined OPEC!!

But all that oil they pumped into the system sure saved the world from the claim of others that we would run out back in the 80's (and yes, they used those words, peak oil being a more modern invention to try and make all the oil that once was "yet to be found" much smaller because those pesky reserve estimates just wouldn't ever go down).

Ralph wrote:

emordnilap wrote:Interesting chart alright. It is saying that some of the biggest chunks between now and 2035 - 'fields to be developed' - have still to be found as well.

"Fields to be found" are always amusing. Until they are found of course.

or more like kind-of scraped. At ever-increasing cost.

RenewableCandy wrote:

Ralph wrote:

emordnilap wrote:Interesting chart alright. It is saying that some of the biggest chunks between now and 2035 - 'fields to be developed' - have still to be found as well.

"Fields to be found" are always amusing. Until they are found of course.

or more like kind-of scraped. At ever-increasing cost.

The history of the finding indicates that the net effect is exactly as portrayed in the article. Funny how it works that way, some might think.

An honest conversation on this topic would involve both the amount expected to be found from the organizations and scientists that study these things, (there is a good chance the "yet to be found" amounts come from those sources anyway) and then the procedure by which those amounts are expected to be found.

When the economists just randomly apply the information generated from the scientific world it does tend to have a look of certainty to it that makes one wonder about their knowledge on the vulgarities of chance versus the certainty of the invisible hand so core to their projections.

SleeperService wrote:FACT: The amount of oil is finite. It was created in a finite period of time which gives a limit to how much energy it can contain, i'e it couldn't be made with 'sun light that'll happen next year'.

FACT: Oil is very energy dense and very useful in a lot of ways. Given a demand for increasing goods in any society, a growing population generally and improved efficiency of use, it will be used much faster than it's being created by whatever means.

FACT: At some stage it will become unavailable for use. Either it will all be found and extracted or it will be economically impossible to extract. This would be when it takes much more energy to extract than it contains. Further extraction would only occur for a while if the chemical value of it is high enough until alternatives are developed.

FACT: The industry employ a lot of lobbyists to convince us to keep buying and acting as normal.

FINAL FACT: The actual date for oil 'running out' in either way outlined won't be known until after it's happened lest action to harm corporate interests be taken.

One of these can't be determined until a whistle blower comes along. The rest are as accepted as gravity, death and taxes. Everything else is garbage.

Ralph The Paid Mouthpiece wrote:Now just please don't blame me for ignoring your list of facts that no one disputes, and didn't cause peak oil to come along when it was supposed to either.

No one disputes this list including you presumably? Then you say

An honest conversation on this topic would involve both the amount expected to be found from the organizations and scientists that study these things, (there is a good chance the "yet to be found" amounts come from those sources anyway) and then the procedure by which those amounts are expected to be found.

So either ;

The Peak has passed and my 'FINAL FACT', which you acknowledged to be true, has been confirmed by the implication that you know the figures exist.

OR

One of your two statements is wrong. If the remaining reserves are known not estimated then the corporate interest is in a final dash for cash before economies start shrinking. If they're not you're telling a fib.

RenewableCandy wrote:I particularly like "Fields yet to be found".

We're buying a Porsche in the new year. We're paying for it with money Yet To Be Found

I do not expect to find any significant amount of money in the coming year, previous experience and common sense strongly suggests that finding significant money is most unlikely.

I do however expect that significant oil will be found in the coming year and in subsequent years.
For about 100 years, oil has been discovered on a yearly basis and I see no reason why this should suddenly cease next year.

New oil discoveries will slow the decline in production, but probably not reveres the decline.
We seem to on the downward slope, because although oil is still bering found, the rate of consumption is exceeding the rate of discovery.

If you ignore 'reserve growth' as in Reserve Growth Rulz or , more accurately backdate reserves growth to the year in which the original fields were discovered, then we have been burning oil faster than we have been discovering it for decades.

Redefining Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan extra heavy as reserves has increased official global reserves by 30% at a stroke of the pen.

Venezuelan exports have been declining for years.

SleeperService wrote: No one disputes this list including you presumably? Then you say

An honest conversation on this topic would involve both the amount expected to be found from the organizations and scientists that study these things, (there is a good chance the "yet to be found" amounts come from those sources anyway) and then the procedure by which those amounts are expected to be found.

So either ;

The Peak has passed and my 'FINAL FACT', which you acknowledged to be true, has been confirmed by the implication that you know the figures exist.

OR

One of your two statements is wrong. If the remaining reserves are known not estimated then the corporate interest is in a final dash for cash before economies start shrinking. If they're not you're telling a fib.

Listing items that are the equivalent of "the sun rises in the east" certainly doesn't invalidate any post, or statement I've ever made. Anywhere.

adam2 wrote: New oil discoveries will slow the decline in production, but probably not reveres the decline.

Probably not. Of course, if someone were to find lots of new resources and turn them on, and do more than reverse decline, it sure would be prototyped by that country with the most experience and oil field know-how.

And then the question would only be, is the same sort of development possible elsewhere? I wonder what the projections of David Hughes look like, in terms of how much more oil the world can make, should they decide to import a little of that American can-do attitude into their oil field sector?

adam2 wrote: We seem to on the downward slope, because although oil is still bering found, the rate of consumption is exceeding the rate of discovery.

And yet the inventory just keeps on growing…..amazing how that can happen. Must be an economist around somewhere who can explain how this is, because certainly those fitting time series data have missed the boat on extrapolating oil production. Peak oil in 2008…TOD said so, must be true!

PS_RalphW wrote:If you ignore 'reserve growth' as in Reserve Growth Rulz or , more accurately backdate reserves growth to the year in which the original fields were discovered, then we have been burning oil faster than we have been discovering it for decades.

How many more decades can this continue? Would seem like a interesting way to attack the problem, if folks actually believe it to be true.

PS_RalphW wrote: Redefining Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan extra heavy as reserves has increased official global reserves by 30% at a stroke of the pen.

Venezuelan exports have been declining for years.

I'll stick with the IEA estimates on what is available to build liquid fuels from. I imagine some of those blokes went to good schools too! Maybe even knows some maths and stuff? Plus Paris is closer to England than the States, maybe folks need to get a petition going to have them stop spreading such propaganda? Telling the world that we are going to build liquid fuels from things that aren't oil only found in friendly places? Onshore? At shallow depths? With a specific density? Low sulphur? Someone needs to set those folks straight. They need to have a talk with some TOD editors, the ones that the professional organizations in the States aren't laughing at anyway.

The offices of the Agency are located in central Paris near the Eiffel Tower. The Agency also takes Staff on loan from ministries, agencies and companies who are working in fields of interest to the Agency.

From http://www.iea.org/ The IEA is a sister of OECD which, as we all know, is completely open-minded, acting in everybody's interests, non-partisan and environmentally aware. or NOT.

The IEA is run by politicians on the usual gravy train rotation. I wouldn't trust them or their 'research' any further than I can throw them. The graph suggests that there are 8 times the amount of oil available that has already been extracted and used. I find that laughable. Even with increasing demand the suggestion is that the reserves will last for 300 years+.

No, the IEA is another Government/Industry mouthpiece acting in Industry's interests. Educated the men and women maybe but I think that is not the same about being honest. It's a fact of life that people in power lie to those they feel superior to, doesn't mean we have to like it.

Final question Ralph. If there are so many reserves why are the oil companies exploiting tar sands now? According to your graph there is another 2,000 billion barrels to go at before the conventional oil is exhausted and about twice that before the minimum cost of oil shale production is reached.

I may be saying 'the sun rises in the east' many ways, but it does. You're suggesting we're all excited about something that isn't going to happen for a very long time. Why, if this is so, do you spend so much effort here? We don't believe you, you source nothing that isn't in the open and most of that is there for a reason. Misinformation, something I used to know a great deal about.