A High-Risk Barrel
Posted by Leanan on December 23, 2007 - 4:46pm
What are the problems posed by dwindling oil supplies? What are the oil companies doing as oil becomes harder to find?
This documentary aired in the UK in November. Turns out it was actually made back in 2005. It's held up very well, however. It may be one of the best peak oil documentaries I've ever seen. It's only 50 minutes, but it's jam-packed with information. It explains the basics of peak oil, and covers, briefly, just about every aspect of the oil industry. It takes you out the rigs, underwater repairing said rigs, into the labs where the "libraries" of petroleum samples are analyzed and stored, into the office of the then-CEO of Shell, to Saudi Arabia, to a refinery via tanker, onto the NYMEX trading floor, and more.
Most peak oilers have probably heard most of it before, but it's a great introduction for newbies. The tone is urgent, but not too doom-laden.
And you can download it. (RealMedia, 30 Mb) That means even those without broadband can watch it. And if you have a reasonably up-to-date DVD burning program, you can put it on DVD. Just the thing to liven up holiday get-togethers. (Well, maybe not. But it's worth an hour of your time.)
Features interviews with Matthew Simmons, Colin Campbell, Chris Skrebowski and many others.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Someone posted this a few weeks ago. It is one of the best. Now on the list to show my students.
There are little epiphanies along the way. Like, who would've thought how nerve-wracking it is for the pilot of an oil tanker to confront a single rogue sailboat?
As the cargo gets even more valuable, what other anxieties will these captains face?
Maybe the pilot ought to go fly a kite :-)
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10section3a.t-10.html?_r=1&ex...
Sailing an Oil Tanker.
I get the idea piracy won't be near so bad in our technological age, as any deviation from the ship's planned course will trigger an investigation, and oil tankers are NOT speedboats or jet planes. If the expected data stream from the ships GPS transponders is disrupted, or the transmission fails to be received in expected time phase ( similar to LORAN ) across multiple receivers, I am sure jets representing the armed forces of the involved countries will investigate. Even then, I am quite sure orbital satellites show us exactly where the ships are.
Just where does one take a hijacked ship? You will arrive at port with a hornet's nest of angry jets.
Where do "get this idea?" You can easily search google for "sea piracy" to find out that pirates can successfully hijack ships.
Merchant ships on the high seas are not the responsibility of any particular nation, nor are most nation-states particularly well equipped to keep track of vessels in their territorial waters, especially if navigation of those waters is complicated (see Indonesia). The idea that countries would dispatch jets (many countries don't even have an airforce) every time a transponder malfunctioned is...laughable? Countries simply don't keep track of vessel locations that way.
As for what one does with hijacked ships, tankers are the best target: you simply pump the load to non-suspect vessels and sail them to countries with corrupt or gullible customs officials.
The impact of piracy on the international oil trade is small, but there's no reason to expect it to get smaller as the value of a tanker load increases.
Excellent.
Now if I can just get a few of the PO deniers in my life sat in front of this......
Summary:
Nice to see something like this on the The Business Channel, although you'd think a lot of business people would be aware of the issue already. Will take a while still to get the Wikipedia article on peak-oil featured on the front page - then there'll be some real awakening in the general net population at least...
The tour of the drilling rig wasn't very informative. They talked of depths of 4km and high pressures bringing the stuff up - a mixture of gas, water and oil. Could've easily shown a short computer animation of a reservour and well structure, showing what the problem is with the gas and water etc.
Platforms are indeed of the most inhospitable places to put your technology and maintenance costs are significant. They were talking of a 15 year life expectancy for the rig with and 10 year extension - i didn't quite get that? And they are having to drill 10 km away from the rig!
The point is that the highest technology imaginable is already in use out there. And 'impossible to reach places' are already being reached. So there isn't much hope from the cornucopian mantras of 'technology' or exotic locations...
The rest of the documentary then goes on to discuss economics. Our financial system is based on debt, which in turn is based on continuing growth - and its all dependent upon abundant cheap energy - oil.
Interesting bit about the London The Energy Institute: North sea field seeing rapid falls in production of 10 to 17 percent in recent years.
What the documentary does badly is not explain unconventional oil - just refers to 'clever chemistry' and tar sands. I guess you have to give people something to cling to...
Another mistake is to talk about profiteering oil companies and states - giving the wrong idea that high prices are caused by artificial scarcity - holding back oil to pump up the price. This is the most common argument I hear people make these days. Or that stock market speculation is the reason for the recent high prices. Without further explanation people tend to make the convenient conclusions...
Yeah, Mandatory Reserve Inventories in my dreams...
And it's way easier for politicians to accuse the oil companies rather then commit political suicide by admitting that we have a problem - a problem with no 'nice' solution...
I have not yet seen the video described in the keypost. At 30MB it will take several hours to download on dial up, if it will download at all (many of them won't...the IT industry and the internet do not have the level of service that we expect from our energy and automobile providers!).
However, I can comment on the comments, so to speak, because as usual, they have a subtext of absolute dejection and defeatism that has become so pronounced that if you come here with a belief that any solution or any alternative is possible, you are pretty much wasting your time. We need to post a slogan at the top of the page, with apology to Devils Island...
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here."
First, let us all agree, per the title of Matthew Simmons presentation, "The High Risk Barrel", that indeed, finding and drilling for oil is difficult. It has been difficult for a very long time. Reading the stories of the first high risk efforts in Arabia, working with virtually no advanced technology, or the sheer nerve of those who developed the North Sea against all odds, one finds accounts of sheer nerve and daring that we all can use as inspiration.
One wonders, would such efforts be made if it had to be done today? "Peak Oil" is a problem, but a problem as great as that, sad to say, is "Peak Nerve".
We have become an "old" country. The country itself is young, but the people in it are old, and the population is aging fast. The baby boom, not the oil boom, of the post war period may be our undoing. As people age, it is well known that they (we, I'M one of them) are prone to become more conservative not only in politics, but in business and in risk taking in general. They (we) have a career and assets to protect. Bankers, by their nature conservative to begin with, become even more so, a frightening prospect. They choose what "looks" safe. Real estate for instance...the irony becomes so thick it drips.
But there are still the last "lone" independent operators, risk takers, "outside the box" operators....
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/12/02/news/local/news04.txt
Of course, it's only a few dozen billion barrels....and in todays "economics of scale world, what's a few billion barrels? A piss in the sea.
But oil, like money, adds up....a few dozen billion barrels here, a few dozen billion barrels there, and your talking about some real oil. :-)
And the technology and ideas developed by the lone thinkers can be used in places all over the world that had been dismissed as being tapped out of oil.
The truth is, the human race still knows VERY little about what lies below the surface of the earth and floor of the sea. Those who have engaged in hysteria rants of "IT'S OVER, WE'RE DOOMED!", have been made to look foolish before. They believed ABSOLUTELY that what they said was true. But they were cursed with an absolute belief in their own infalibility.
While the Peak oil community has moved to an almost philosophical position of no hope, it is interesting to note that even those geologists out there working in the field, more able to find oil and develop fields than any of us "board yakkers" do not take a "cornucopian" lack of caution.
The closing four lines of the story above, the view of one hard working risk taker who has been blessed by oil that supposedly wasn't there, are informative, almost moving....
"Findley also sounds a cautionary note. To state lawmakers, he says, don't get used to oil tax revenues. Oil wells run dry and with it, tax dollars. And to the users of oil, he encourages conservation and other kinds of energy, including nuclear energy.
“We do have a lot of oil left to find,“ he said. “But our demand worldwide is increasing so rapidly, at some point our supply is going to flatten out.”
Findley worries about a crisis, where demand for oil, especially foreign oil, is significantly greater than the supply.
“At that point, it is going to be too late,” he said. “We need to start today to do everything we can to decrease our dependence on foreign sources of oil.”
A balanced wisdom that, work the fields, be rewarded for your belief that the work will reward you if you take your own path....but still see the bigger picture.....the balanced view, the Golden Mean still has great value.
Which way would you bet your money, the "Cornucopians" blue sky forever forward, the screaming banshee cries of doom "abandon hope....", or the balanced view of those who unlike the "oil giants" are still willing and able to think for themselves?
My bet goes to the "Golden Mean". And for the banshees of doom, only one small bit of advice...."For heaven's sake, GET A GRIP, will ya', your grown ups!"
RC
Absolute poppycock! A good geologist can look at any drill core and tell you what the chances are for of oil being found in that area. Virtually all the earth and the continental shelf have been explored. Why Roger, do you think discoveries have been dropping? Why have the fields that are being found, getting smaller and smaller?
The idea that geologists are stupid and do not know what lies beneath is nothing but another form of denial. “Know one knows so there may be ten times as much oil yet to be discovered as has been discovered so far.” Yeah right! Keep on dreaming Roger.
And by the way, oil is only found in sedimentary rock. The deep ocean, off the continental shelf is not sedimentary rock, it is basement basalt, pushed up from the mantle as it pushes the continents apart. It contains no oil. We know that Roger, geologists are not nearly as stupid as you would lead us to believe.
Ron Patterson
Ron, I would argue the point with you, but everytime I have made that mistake and put very good arguments in rebuttal at cost of time to myself, you disappear and never reply....you descend in with a blast of rhetoric and then disappear after you have insulted anyone who doesn't accept your absolute belief in the infallibility of the great "psychic geologist".
Geologists are good, but like most professions, some hold a belief in their superiority that borders on self worship. We have seen it over and over. The best geologists are the ones who accept that they are often wrong in their assumptions about what is "possible" or "knowable".
I do hope you actually read the link I provided, it is an interesting story. How many times have we used the words you used in your reply "It contains no oil. We know that...." and been completely wrong?
I once more, I allowed myself to waste my time....
RC
Roger, if you post after 10PM Central time, there is a good chance I have gone to bed. Tonight however I am watching the ballgame.
The reason geologists know what is below is because virtually every spot on the earth has been explored.
Yes, I read your link. They are producing 32 million barrels a year. Wow!
If geologists were as stupid as you seem to believe then the size of new discoveries would not be declining at a fairly steady rate and the size of the fields would not be getting smaller.
Yes, I wrote that the basement basalt off the continental shelf contains no oil. Are you actually suggesting Roger, that there may be oil there? Are you serious? Roger we KNOW that the ocean floor is basement basalt. That we know! There is some sediment laying on it. The closer to the continental shelf you get, the deeper the sediment is. That is because it has been many millions of years since the mid oceanic rift pushed it to the surface and fish crap and die. That sediment drops to the sea floor. But the sediment is soft silt, all several hundred feet of it. It gets thinner as you approach the mid oceanic rift because the ocean floor gets younger there and less silt has had time to fall from sea life above. But it is not rock or soil, just pure soft silt. It never hardens into hard dry rock for obvious reasons.
The mid oceanic rift pushes the continents apart at about the same speed your fingernails grow. It is pushed up from the mantle as magma or lava and hardens once it hits the cold ocean. And it is the same story in every ocean.
The idea that the deep ocean, off the contineantal shelf might contain oil is truly absurd Roger. Oil is formed in shallow seas when dead plankton, (alga) settles to the bottom. If conditions are right and the shallow sea has been robbed of oxygen then the plankton will not decay but will be buried by sediment. Eventually, if it is buried deep enough, it will cook into oil.
Magma contains NO OIL. Magma hardens to form basalt. If you really think basalt could contain oil then you really do believe all geology is down in the dirt stupid.
I am going to bed now but will reply to you in the morning if you really think there is a possibility that former molten magma may be rich with oil. I would just love for you to explain that one.
Again, geologists are not nearly as stupid as you think they are. At least they are not so dumb as to believe that hardned basalt, formerly molten magma, contains oil.
Ron Patterson
Mr. Patterson...I read what you had to say regarding Roger and his comments. He never stated or inferred that geologists were stupid. Nor did he suggest that the "hardned basalt, formerly molten mgma, contains oil. You brought up these topics.
I actually enjoyed his post and the Bakken, as I suspect you already know, extends thru the Dakotas and up into Saskatchewan. There is potential with the Bakken and many "oil plays" are being pursued.
Mr. Paradigm Shifter, please read the posts you are referring to a little closer before you start telling me who said what. Obliviously you did not do this. I wrote:
Roger, in his reply, indicated that we do not know that at all. He replied:
I then explained why we knew we were not wrong this time.
I hope that clears things up for you Paradigm Shifter. But in case it does not I will go over it again:
I stated that we knew there was no oil in the deep ocean basaltic ocean floor.
Roger stated that when we have made such statements in the past we have often been completely wrong.
I further explained why we were obviously not wrong this time!
Clear enough?
Ron Patterson
There used to be a theory that impact structures might contain oil and gas. There was an entire track on this at the 1995 AAPG conference on this concept. Since the price of oil hasn't dropped to five dollars a barrel I conclude that this theory didn't actually work in the real world.
Hope the ballgame came out to suit you! :-)
I of course do not expect a reply "that night"...my discussion was concerning posters, whoever they may be, coming on and lambasting a post, using red herring statements that were not even in the original post, and then when the poster (in this case, me) posts a clarification, usually defending himself against statements he never made to begin with, the lambasting poster disappears...the "guerrilla" strike method of trying to insult and lambast a post that somehow displeases the sensibility of the lambaster (in this case, that would be you! :-) I usually check for replies over the next couple of days, and have come to accept that if there is none, then the guerilla posters must accept my position completely! Take the positive route I say.
A great example is your sentence:
"I am going to bed now but will reply to you in the morning if you really think there is a possibility that former molten magma may be rich with oil."
Since my original post made no mention of magma, molten or otherwise, so of course there is no need in your wasting a reply.
Likewise, as paradigm shifter noted in his reply to you, my post made no mention of geologists being stupid.
I am not fool enough to get into the details of a petroleum geology debate, as that is not my area, and I have the utmost respect for geologists. I just don't view them as some sort of deity. Many geologists have proven other geologists wrong. The smart ones don't worship at the alter of their own infallibility, but I posted a link and let the geologist discussed defend his own record, which doesn't seem to be too shabby, of going after oil where others dismissed the possibility of success.
My points were much broader, consisting of two main themes:
I said this...
The posts on any story put on TOD "recently have a subtext of absolute dejection and defeatism that has become so pronounced that if you come here with a belief that any solution or any alternative is possible, you are pretty much wasting your time."
I reread it. I stand by it.
My other main point was this:
"The truth is, the human race still knows VERY little about what lies below the surface of the earth and floor of the sea."
I reread it. I stand by it.
Now of course I absolutely differ with your remark that virtually the whole world and the Contintal Shelf have been "explored". I would need some sort of proof of that one, unless the definition of "explored" means "photographed from a satellite perhaps....
In a recent presentation, Matthew Simmons gave the offshore area explored as 5%. Even regarding onshore oil, we have to ask many questions: Explored with what type of technology? Explored when? Explored at what depth?
Explored for viability at what price for the recovered oil? Explored considering what technology would be available for extraction?
It is hard for me to understand why oil companies would explore for oil at depths in the 1980's at depths that were not even feasible to drill at in those days for example. It is a three deminsional world. At what depth did they explore? Why would oil companies explore for oil in places where it could not possibly be extracted for less than say $70 dollars a barrel when the price until this new century was usually down in the $20 or $30 per barrel range (sometimes less)?
Your sentence,
Virtually all the earth and the continental shelf have been explored. Why Roger, do you think discoveries have been dropping?
First, I would need proof of the first half of your statement. If you mean by "explored" explored using the most up to date technical and economic models, using current oil prices as what dictates economically recoverable oil, then I simply don't accept it without proof. Period.
Why have discoveries been dropping? I have made the case, as have many others in the industry, that exploration in the 1980's and '90's lapsed due to the extreme low price of oil and the dire financial situation of the oil industry post the 1982 price collapse. I would request any exploration geologist who would do so to come on TOD and tell us that the oil companies were spending any measurable amount of money on oil exploration in that period. We are about 15 years behind on exploration, period.
The smaller field size....the reasons for which are obvious. The areas with the largest potential finds (Canada, offshore Africa and offshore South America somewhat excepted) are now off limits to Western oil companies (Arabia and OPEC areas and Russia, plus Venesuala). And sure enough, sizable finds are being found in Canada, and offshore Africa and offshore South America...we will know in the next 15 years if there is real finds of large size or not....my argument stands, for now, we simply do not know.
Why am I being so adament about this argument, which I make with some regularity on TOD and other forums?
Am I refuting Peak Oil, am I a Cornucopian? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. But I am deeply concerned about the possibility of false alarms. I saw this happen in the 1970's, when people poured investment into commodities and oil, with the belief that they would go forever up in price, and were wiped out. When the alternative energy industry collapsed and was abandoned. We are now rediscovering ideas that were well on their way to commercialization 30 years ago, but were left as dusty reports on corporate and university shelves when the oil price collapsed.
After 1982, people regarded concern about oil consumption as the mark of an uninformed boob, still living in the 1970's. You might as well have went out in an afro and polyester bell bottoms as be associated with concern about oil depletion in the 1980's and '90's. But oil depletion was STILL occuring, year after year. The false alarmists simply made it seem like a joke issue.
I am simply begging for common sense. The Peak Oil cause has achieved it's dream. It is now on te public agenda. I am begging for those who speak for this cause to use restraint. I will again quote Mr. Findley, the geologist I linked in the first of my posts....
"Oil wells run dry and with it, tax dollars. And to the users of oil, he encourages conservation and other kinds of energy, including nuclear energy.
“We do have a lot of oil left to find,“ he said. “But our demand worldwide is increasing so rapidly, at some point our supply is going to flatten out.”
Findley worries about a crisis, where demand for oil, especially foreign oil, is significantly greater than the supply.
“At that point, it is going to be too late,” he said. “We need to start today to do everything we can to decrease our dependence on foreign sources of oil.”
Is this man refuting Peak Oil? No. But he is not claiming he knows exactly when it will occur. He is not claiming he knows exactly how much oil is left to find. He is simply begging for some level of modesty in what we think we know. And he is begging for caution, for conservation, for alternatives, without making an ass of himself with unfounded assertions.
Why is that considered so unacceptable?
If we have another oil price collapse and burst of new oil discovery (and this is NOT impossible) after we have seen a militant "peak oil now" agenda of catastrophic collapse and failure pushed in schools, governments and the minds of individuals, we will see the whole idea of peak oil so discredited that no one, NO ONE will sacrifice to reduce oil consumption or pay for alternatives in the future. We will leave ourselves defenseless.
We must be ready for both peak soon and or peak later. Either could be the case. We simply have no way to know.
Ron, I have made my case. Not for your benefit, but for the benefit of the "newbies" who arrive here daily. It is the same case exactly that I have made so many times since I have been here at TOD. That is the other rhetorical trick used here, to make one repeat their case over and over again by flooding them with oppositon to points that have been already clearly stated. The idea is that anyone who does not accept with absolute conviction the dejection and doomerism scenario will finally get bored and give up repeating well known opposing arguments.
This leaves me with my final question: Why is so important to destroy any acceptance of the possibility of options, alternatives and national and world survival as a modern technical world? Why is that such an important agenda? Except for the neo-primitivist anarchist, who could possibly benefit by the constant and ever more increasing push of the dejectionist/doomerist agenda? Who?
If you want to answer my post, answer that question, and do not whip up red herrings, Ron, because that is becoming an essential question to thinking persons. Thank you for your time.
RC
Yes, I am the one who has 'abandoned all hope' and hence was the target of your frustrated outburst. I don't mind ad-hominem attacks myself since I'm pretty confident about what I am going to do about the situation and help my friends. However I would like to try to correct you on your notions of TOD's in general.
You quite clearly place great hope in finding new oil. And new oil we keep finding, so you must be right.
You seem to imply that since every square inch of earth at every depth hasn't been 'explored', there is still great hope of finding substantial amounts of oil. And this feel of hope is easy to maintain as long as one doesn't actually look up what oil exploration means.
Geologist have been using modern methods of geomorphology and structural geology for over a hundred years now. Even before extensive core sample drilling had begun, we had mapped the structures and morphology we see on the surface and had a pretty good map of how different structures and morphologies behaved in relation to each other. Hence you can start to form some basic rules on what is 'down there'. You don't have to drill right next to where you drilled before since you can know from past drilling statistics that the formation continues at a certain angle that way, or that certain rock types are associated with it.
I friend of mine is an oil geologist by the way and she gave us a good presentation of the work she's been doing in Algeria. They had no modern 3D-seismic surveying equipment, just simple survey holes drilled for core samples. From them you could see back in time millions of years, with each layer carefully studied under the microscope for biologic markers, small fossils, which indicated the age of the layer, and more importantly, the 'order' of the layer. Then you drilled another hole and found the same layers, maybe in slightly different angles or in different order. You drilled a few more and you could draw a 3D-map of the area and compare that to all the knowledge geologist have gathered for the past 100 years - and with that you could tell exactly where to drill for the potential pockets of oil.
Today all that drilling data has been consolidated into computer databases and with seismic survey data. We know that certain formations have certain seismic signatures. We can truly 'see' what's 'down there'. And we can confirm and keep checking the seismic surveys by doing the occasional core drill. And they keep refining the database. This by the way has been going on for 30 years.
So now you hopefully know a little bit more about oil geology. However you could've, like many others here, not consulted an oil geologist, and instead trusted the cold statistic data. Discoveries peaked many many decades ago, and have been going down ever since. We can now retrospectively look at the discovery peaking dynamics of single countries or even continents and conclude that, YES, we can keep finding new oil, BUT NOT in any substantial significant qualities. That is what we TOD's are saying. Nothing more.
And to add a bit about hopelessness and hopefulness: I think denial is a strong form of hopelessness. Most TOD's are actually very lively and happy people, doing great things for their friends and communities, preparing for the now inevitable consequences of PO. Some of us myself included might trip on doom'n'gloom occasionally, but you have to see that people like us are useful since we look into the worst-case scenarios and then find ways to live with them. This is useful unless of course you don't believe in worst-case scenarios...
Great post. Are you a geologist?
You should post more often.
No, I work for the airforces. My friend is an oil geologist. But like another friend I have, one who studied half-a-medical degree ones he got cancer, you have to look up the facts yourself in the end. TOD is a good place to get bits of facts. But you have to follow them up and make up your own mind.
Internet alone is a poor source for such study. You have to get the basics from a few good library books. After that you have a more critical attitude to what's on the net. Of course it helps if you have a science background and are a professional in one field or two - it's much easier to learn another field quickly.
Recently I toyed with a computer simulation i wrote for reservour depletion. It was enlightening to see that no matter what you do, it's always a bell-shaped curve. And the more you force 'technology' into the equation the sooner you reach a peak (super straw effect) and the steeper is the fall at the other side. There is no way to 'cheat'.
But really I wish I was just an organic farmer.
Based on HL, Texas peaked at a later stage of depletion than did the overall Lower 48, and had a sharper post-peak decline rate (-4%/year, versus -2%/year).
And the crux of the argument that I have been making regarding Russia is that based on the mathematical model, the Russians have now "caught up" to where they should be, which suggests a potentially very sharp production decline rate.
But really I wish I was just an organic farmer.
If I can do it, anyone can (just be prepared to work):
Feed the soil with recycled plant matter. Mulch to keep water in. Know your plants. Use less petroleum by using more human labor, and learn the "home remedies" for pests.
Save seed. Harvest, eat, survive.
And please be careful of the superstitions around "organic" farming. The crackpots have destroyed the reputation of "organic" farming the way wax moths destroy a bee hive.
I'm searching for a new name for what I do. "Dirt farmer"? "Lo/cal, low carbon farmer"?
Organic farming has its own "bell curves" to deal with.Trust me on this.
"Some of us myself included might trip on doom'n'gloom occasionally, but you have to see that people like us are useful since we look into the worst-case scenarios and then find ways to live with them. "
This is also called "prevention" and it is a mindset we need to switch to more quickly if we care to survive in this world.
Think about all the professions that try to work in preventive ways instead of reactive ways (medical, fire protection, police, social work, etc.) Are all these people pessimistics only because they train and prepare for worst case scenarios? Of course not. So, why are TODers labelled as such?
Roger, I simply believe that you, and all those other people who keep saying; “nothing to worry about folks, we have heard all this before” are doing us a great disservice. You are perpetuating the myth the myth that all is well with the world and we should make no preparations for peak oil. You, Michael Lynch, Daniel Yergin and the rest of those guys at CERA are doing exactly the same thing. And I think, as far as you are successful, are doing great harm.
Now you may not see yourself as perpetuating the “Not to worry” myth, but believe me, that is exactly what you are doing.
Ron Patterson
Correct.
I also agree with Darwinian.
*A balanced wisdom that, work the fields, be rewarded for your belief that the work will reward you if you take your own path....but still see the bigger picture.....the balanced view, the Golden Mean still has great value.*
Roger, you may be, as Nassim Taleb would say, fooled by randomness. You have to ask how many unsuccessful Findley's there are. The Missoulian doesn't report that. Do you think there are none. Are there hundreds, thousands?
Even the most pessimistic believer in peak oil doesn't believe there will not be some additional discoveries. There will be.
As to oil in unexpected places, the Bakken hardly qualifies since it is in the Williston Basin.
Paul said,
"Roger, you may be, as Nassim Taleb would say, fooled by randomness. You have to ask how many unsuccessful Findley's there are. The Missoulian doesn't report that. Do you think there are none. Are there hundreds, thousands?"
Exactly true. The risks of being wrong in the oil business are great. That is why the rewards for being right are so great.
But this is not new news in the oil industry, is it? And for the exploration geologist, is there any other choice than to strike out with a belief in your own ideas? The odds are long, but most people who have made exploration their profession already know that.
To your sentence,
"Even the most pessimistic believer in peak oil doesn't believe there will not be some additional discoveries. There will be."
I don't know if you actually read the posts of "the most pessimistic believers", but they often spin scenarios based on the concepts of no oil whatsoever....so the acceptance that there is still even some oil to be discovered I will accept as a major victory for the cause of hope and making the effort! :-)
RC
Roger,
Reading your earlier comments on the trauma post 70s and playing amatuer psychologist I would suggest a sort of post trauamtic stress syndrome on this point on your side, like you got burned once and are not about to risk looking the fool again. Good point. The hippies preached Silent Spring and Limits to Growth a bit early befoer absolutely necessary and almost no one stuck to their guns on this one. A truly wise man would have just seen the subsequent interlude of easy crude as just that. However manipulating people into really believing we are no just crying wolf this time, like Jimmy Carter, etc. last time is going to be a hard job.
Maybe those melting glaciers will be our saving grace. We can surely hide behind Al Gore and the GW movement, which is what we have been doing. Resource depletion seems to be the cinderella poor step sister of GW but in the end she wins the princess. Your worry is that she should hide her beauty and work hard behind the scenes until the day of the ball and then play as coy as possible so as to not be caught out the loser due to hubris.
Fairy tales are great for psychoanalysis. Don't you all think so?
"Fairy tales are great for psychoanalysis. Don't you all think so?"
Myths are the poor's history.
Cliches are their philosophy.
Gambling, their finance.
I don't know what "Magic Numbers" would be.
Religion?
I can't agree. They were right on time with their warnings. Had they been heeded then, we'd be so much better off now it's not even funny. Now we're in a hopeless shit and it's too late.
I'm just glad to spark debate and show it in a different light. If we just let it go and don't call people on stuff then they will keep repeating it. I mean wimping out because somebody once made a mistake on a bad call on Po in the 70s is still wimping out. You gotta have balls to do what TOD is doing and not back down. Psychoanalysis is way past time and for wimps. We need action heroes.
One thing is for sure, neither Rachael Carson nor The Club of Rome made any bad call.
Carson, with Silent Spring, was spot on. If it had not been for her alarm, we may have kept on using DDT until it was way too late. The Bald Eagle would have been completely extinct along with most other birds.
The Club of Rome made no predictions. They speculated on what life would be like in 100 years if nothing was done. The stupid rumor that they predicted that oil would run out in 1990 is a blatant lie. I have read the book "Limits to Growth" and it is not in there.
There were no bad calls by either.
Ron Patterson
Ron,
Thanks for straightening me out. You must be thinking about me "He's long on style and short on substance" but for some people style is substance. My heart is in the right place.
A quotable for the Christmas feast:
Time is short
Bullshit is Long
Let's get a move on
As I have described several times now, the Texas and North Sea case histories are pretty compelling. No material restrictions on drilling. Developed by private companies. Best available technology. Texas has declined at about -4%year and the North Sea has declined at about -4.5%/year (C+C). In both cases, the initial declines corresponded to rising oil prices.
In neither case did we stop finding oil.
I am developing several small, but profitable oil fields, which I hope will serve to slow the rate of decline in Texas oil production. If I am wildly successful, the total URR from all of the fields that I find, and that will be produced over several decades, would meet world oil demand for a few hours.
At some point, the world starts declining, just like Texas and the North Sea. And in fact, the ongoing decline in world C+C production, relative to 2005, occurred at the same stage of depletion at which the North Sea peaked (based on the HL models).
It takes decades to fully deplete a giant oil field like Prudhoe Bay. At our current rate of consumption of fossil fuel and nuclear energy worldwide, we consume the energy equivalent of the oil reserves in the Prudhoe Bay Field about every two months--the every equivalent of a billion barrels of oil every five days.
Nothing else can explain US foreign policy.
Such as"the birthing pains of a new Middle East".
westexas,
Your comment:
"As I have described several times now, the Texas and North Sea case histories are pretty compelling."
Once more I will say what I have said at least a half dozen times before...I think Texas and North Sea, along with Alaska, are easily the most compelling case histories in the peak oil and HL arsenal, bar none.
It was your discussion of Texas that caused me to see and really start to examine the difference between what I have called "logistical" peak and true "geological peak". The two are fundamentally different. I think your analysis of Texas is a textbook case of true geological peak. Geological peak is final, mathematical, done, finito. There is no recovery. No amount of effort, money, logistics or technology can overcome it. It's a done deal.
Here's the problem: Texas and North Sea are exceptional for all the reasons you mentioned.
"No material restrictions on drilling. Developed by private companies. Best available technology."
Texas is in the backyard of the best talant and a financial community that understands oil in a way that few other places in the world do. One of those few other places would be the United Kingdom.
I worry about extropolation of the Texas example onto the rest of the world. Even Jean Laharrere once warned against using Hubbert Linear in places in the world where the tap has been repeatedly turned up and down for political and economic reasons.
Of course, there are those who are going to claim that is Cornucopian, to express any questions whatsoever. But when I started following the ASPO group, to believe that the world could ever produce 78 million barrels per day was viewed by the core peak thinkers (a much smaller group then) was considered Cornucopian.
Then the ceiling was moved up a bit, to 80 Million bpd....then to 82...finally the recent ceiling was set at 85, with T. Boone Pickens saying "85 million barrels per day tops".
Just the other day, right here on TOD, there was an article saying that convergence was now occuring, even among some who were priorly considered peakers, of 100 million barrels per day as tops. This included the Total chief Christopher De Marjorie is now converging on 100 million barrels, even though he was famously quoted only a year ago saying "100 million barrels per day, never," And it is to be remembered that De Marjorie is not a believer in geologcial peak, but a "logisitcal peaker" feeling that the problem is political and economic, often saying "the oil is out there."
We could go around and around on this, I guess what I am asking is for caution in giving exact dates and production predictions. And please be careful of some of these hysterical scenarios that are not based on any mathematical model! People are needlessly being scared, people with disabled children or who suffer health problems and are the most vulnerable. Many of these scenarios are pure fantasies by anarcho primativist activists who are engaging in wishful thinking.
That is little difference in the big view....peak in 2025 or even later must be prepared for now. But in the lives of individuals, the difference between peak 2005 at 85 million barrels per day and peak 100 plus million barrels per day sometime after 2025 is huge. For many of us, this puts peak in the final years of our lives.
I am reading posts on TOD by people claiming they are selling homes at a loss and dumping their investments in an effort to flee the consequences of peak. If these people are wrong, and have accepted mis-timed advice, they could be wiped out going into the most vulnerable years of their lives. There will be no time left to make up for the losses. I have seen it before.
Please be careful.
Thank you for the excellent discussion.
RC
We tend to find the big fields first, and the Lower 48 is probably the best case net post-peak decline rate, so it's quite possible that the world post-peak crude oil production decline rate will be sharper than the Lower 48.
And despite vastly higher prices and increased drilling, crude oil production continues to be below the 2005 level. The clincher is that it is a near certainty that every oil field that has ever produced one mbpd or more of crude oil is now in decline.
Regarding housing, the poor suckers that believed that higher oil prices are temporary, and who did not downsize their housing and commute (unloading the white elephants on some other poor sucker) have had much cause for regrets.
A little perspective on the Bakken formation:
My grandfather had a little spare cash and bought a piece of land (1/2 section) from a real estate broker who had bought it at a tax sale shortly after WWI. Just into Montana from the North Dakota border where the Yellowstone River is located (Richland County). They knew there was oil when he bought or soon after.
The problem--it was too little, too deep. In today's dollars it might cost a million dollars to drill down 2 miles to the oil. If you borrowed the money from a bank, you would get enough oil to pay about 1/3 of the interest on the loan. The rest you would have to pay out of your own pocket. If you didn't have it the bank would foreclose, sell the well (and associated mineral rights (leased or owned) and take a loss and someone would buy it at fair value of a couple of hundred thousand. You would not drill again and the bank would not lend again on such a venture.
About 10 years ago horizontal drilling became good enough to exploit oil in the Bakken and similiar formations. A horizontal well might cost 3 million dollars but a bilateral horizontal well would have about a mile of pipe exposed to the Bakken and bring up mayvbe 20x the oil of a vertical well. Enough oil to pay off the well in 3-9 months. After that a lot of profit. There are about 70 drilling rigs operating in Richland County according to a cousin who took a look last summer. So this is a "hot" area for drilling today. Scary because wells there according to 1-2 year old statistics I looked up from the Montana Oil Conservation Board show Bakken horizontal wells produce from zero to about a thousand barrels a day (initially). Call it 500 barrels average.
What is scary to me is that this is an exciting and "hot" drilling area today. Remember that the Spindletop well that started the Texas oil rush in that particular field initially produced over 100,000 barrels per day. One figure I saw was 140,000 barrels per day. Now that was something to get excited about! 500 barrels per day is pretty pathetic by comparison. Yet that is what excites oil drillers today.
But that is where we are today. Exploration companies can make good money on the Bakken. But it will never replace the big stuff that was discovered in the past.
FWIW
p.s.
The Bakken wells seem to have a short life. The first well on grandfathers mineral rights (the land was sold without rights) and adjacent (it takes 1280 acres (2 square miles)) to drill a horizontal Bakken well in Montana) after about 2 1/2 years is only producing about 1/3 of initial rate. If Spindletop had been drilled as a horizontal well it might have had a shorter life too. But if they got 20x the flow that would be almost 3,000,000 barrels per day. So horizontal wells do produce faster. But with just so much oil in place, they do not last as long.
No free lunch. Higher production rates do produce shorter lived wells.
Your bet looks an awful lot like cornucopia, thatsitimout.
I actually view TOD posters, generally, rather differently from you. Not as doomers but as hopers and wishful thinkers. I see many posters who think they have found the solution to our energy problems (and, therefore, to all other problems we may have, concerning earth's limits). The think that their solution will happen, at a smooth rate, with no real hitches and without any bad side-effects.
However, there is a hard core of what you call doomers but I would call realists, who recognise that, indeed, the earth is finite and that we should learn to live within its limits before it teaches us the hard way. Deniers, such as you appear to be, resist such monumental changes because they don't want to spend time thinking about whether a sustainable world could be kind of good, perhaps better than what we have now. You may classify those that think life could be better, if it is more sustainable, as doomers but I'm sure many would consider themselves just the opposite.
"Deniers, such as you appear to be, resist such monumental changes because they don't want to spend time thinking about whether a sustainable world could be kind of good, perhaps better than what we have now."
That depends on what you think can be "sustained". For many of the neo primativists, the first thing that has to happen is that about 75 percent of the world needs to die, and the sooner the better.
Next, we need to stop using metals. Of course, medical is out of the question. Transportation? I will not even go into the wild eyed tirades by even well known spokesman for the cause such as Kunstler.
On and on.....
Many of the "sustainable" thinkers mean a world that is sustainable for them in some sort of noble savage fantasy. If that is the definition, then no, I don't buy it. It is childish and useless.
If by sustainable you mean the survival of the worlds people using an increasing percentage of our energy from renewable energy, and giving away a declining percentage of our energy and resources to wasteful idiotic design, then yes, I am all for it.
Of course we all know that American per capita petroleum consumption has gone nowhere but up over the last third century, right?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/25opec/sld008.htm
Why do you never see charts like those around here? And cosider the amount of waste that we know exists in this system! Take the waste out, and that chart could be extremely interesting!
I repeat what I asked Ron. Why is so important to create a picture of absolute hopelessness and dejection? It seems to be a willful attmept to create perceptions that are not based on facts. It discredits the real need for reform in energy waste, and makes the whole cause look daffy.
RC
Roger, I have never implied that the situation is hopeless for those who would take the time and effort to prepart for the ultimate collapse of TWAWKI. They should make every effort to prepare for only in that way can they hope to be among the survivors. And I do believe there will be survivors. I believe there will be from 100 million to 1 billion survivors thirty to fifty years from now. Of course that is nothing but a wild ass guess.
But if they listen to you and your "Not to worry" message, no one will prepare. They will march blindly into that nightmare. And that dear Roger, is why I am fighting so hard for my message of, "prepare", and why I am fighting the message you are spreading which is, "not to worry".
"Do not go gentle into that good night,...
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."
That's my message Roger. Methinks your message is:
"March blindly into that good night,...
And totally ignore the dying of the light,
Because there is plenty of oil to be found,
And if it is not, alternatives will abound."
Ron Patterson
I challenge you to find one post by me that has the sentence "Not to worry" in it.
RC
Roger, please get real! Of course you never used those exact words. However that is the message you are sending. Your message is "plenty of oil and when that is gone there will be plenty of alternatives.
Ron Patterson
Ron said,
"Your message is "plenty of oil and when that is gone there will be plenty of alternatives."
May I be permitted to explain my own message, which is very simple?
On the issue of "plenty of oil" the peak theory says we about half through the world's URR, which was given in the old original ASPO estimates at 2 trillion barrels, of which we had used one. So there is still a fair amount of oil left, even taking the ASPO scenario (I know of some that guess far higher, sometimes as high as 6 plus trillion barrels, but I don't accept those, as they have not proven them)....of course, as those familiar with the peak theory point out, the problem is extraction which gets harder and more expensive on the second half of the world's available oil. I don't think there is any doubt of that, and accept the core ideas of the peak theory absolutely.
My issue is trying to time it exactly. I simply don't think it can be done. There does not have to be a difference of opinion of trillions of barrels to move the "peak point" and the post peak decline rate considerably.
On alternatives, there are several (I would not use the word "plenty") but they are technically difficult and expensive. The alternatives also take time to bring to scale, probably more than a decade for any real difference in oil consumption to be made. I have always said of alternatives that we must begin now, and we absolutely MUST deliver educated young people to the alternative energy sector. I am absolutely astounded by those who would recommend to our young that they should not continue their education and instead try to become farmers and blacksmiths. I think that is equal to consigning them to slave nation status, because the Europeans, Japanese and others are not making this grave error.
Oil, yes, still a lot, but no way to know how much.
Alternatives, yes, there are several that can reduce world oil consumption considerably, but they are not easy, and require elegant and skilled technology, very artistic thinking. And we need to be developing it now and not wasting our time in creating panic.
That's it in a nutshell.
RC
So we're just talking focus here. I have say a huge telescope and point it at a supernova or at something else, depending on my interests. Some guys love to see gore, neo anrchic primitivists amd some like sci-fi solutions, the Jetsons style. Both miss the boat.
We have to get the big picture:
1)There will be less oil, coal , gas in the foreseeable future.- Lots of timelines here, guesswork,etc. (I have young kids so +/- a couple years is just gravy to me)
2) Highway effect- use will expand to use up any growth-including solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, biofuels. There is no shrinking total use of energy. The growth econom ywith profits and interest based banking is a main part of the problem accordign to Hubbert.
3)Jevon's paradox-efficient devices aren't the answer, just a stopgap whicvh leasd to higher energy consumption for larger masses of people.
4)Population just keeps growing and destruction of nature along with it to feed, clothe.
5)Asians want what we have. Impossible even with 100 million bbl/day and limitless coal consumption which will also hit peak soon for China.
Solutions:
We are now at the stage the theorists were at in mid 19th century disucssing the system of industrial capitalism vs. communism/socialism. Their problem was fairer dsitribution of a growing pie quasi in Christian terminology. I was impressed with the Time magazine interview with Putin where he said approximately "Common sense is based on morals and morals on religion." Now we have common ground as we all believe in common sense which is based on morals and eventually on a sense of something greater than ourselves.
WE are faced with distributing a shrinking pie. Interest based banking would have to be turned in reverse and a continual reduction of usage of energy would have to be the norm, not in terms of more efficient products but in terms of less usage in toto fpr the society, which would tehn be distributed to each sot hat noone would die. High tech market solutions will not cut it. We need intervention. 1 billion people drive and have energy intesive lifestyles and 51/2 billionpeople are energy poor. Cars are in oil the main culprit. I suggest going over to public electrical transit and bicycles. For housing smaller size, more centrally located with common walls, super insulated. For farming going over to lower technolog in the anticipation of zero oil/FF inputs over one to two generations(20-40 years).
The point is, as in the Hirsch report, we need twenty years to adjust with a crash program from current status. 5 years difference or even ten in PO estimates aren't that significant as nobody is doing anything to adjust(windmill/soalr new energy just goes to expanded energy use for growing population and ditto for more efficietn products like high mpg cars). Europe and Japan are ahead but not by much due to more efficient infrastructure(no massive suburban build out post WWII). Japan was totally isolated before Mid 19th century and did fine but now import most energy/food and have 3-4 times as many people as then so with blocked hormuz will turn off the lights and heat and eat raw food made with humanure and park the cars adnhopefully not starve.
No market solution based on Business As Usual with automobile usage, suburban living, electronic and plastics usage(read: product packaging with advertising, planned obsolescence= profit based corporate system supporting central banking interest and therefore grwoing energy usage), centralized industrial farming with global dsitribution based on endless cheap energy inputs for ever growing polpulation.
I do not talk some abstract philosophy here but rather resource economics, brutal realities.
I have earlier painted war scenarios based on US centered control of oil to maintain BAU and the concept of ELM. If, as Hirsch said, we have only little time to adjust, and additionally we are grwoing our population and energy needs and destorying our underlying infrastructure(water, topsoils) to support car usage and obesity then fantasy barrels booked by Saudia Arabia or even a global Marschall plan to get every last barrell of oil globally below Montana or in the Arctic or Antarctic without regards to cost will probably not help. We have to reverse the growth paradigm to avoid collapse and dieoff so that my 5 and 8 year old boys have a future "Beyond Thunderdome".
IMO...a lot of people here think that there will be no developing without panic.
And there's historical reason to believe that. People say if we could put a man on the moon, we could get ourselves off fossil fuels. But why did we put a man on the moon? Sheer panic, when Sputnik was launched.
Viewed in that light, "creating panic" isn't a waste of time. It's the necessary step one if we're to get anything done at all.
Europe and Japan are different. With the US, as the little quote in our random quote box sometimes says, there's only panic or complacency.
Your Cartman-like trauma with hippies is amusing but since your criticism seems to consist of abuse rather than insight could you go wave your straw men somewhere else. We are here to talk about peak oil and related subjects. Thank you.
Ohhhh, a South Park reference! Well, if your going to use deep philosphy, I don't want to play anymore....:-)
Anyway, I have no problem with good old fashioned hippies, they are relatively harmless, as opposed to the new crowd...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-Primitivism
RC
Yes you really are close to paranoid delusional. Claiming to see anarcho-primitivists in TOD. Most people here, myself included, are decent people, with families and communities we care about, with careers, professions we have worked hard for. We are here to analyse data related to PO, because we are concerned of their well being - and if some mathematical scenario points to a world recession, where some people inevitable do die, you jump in and start accusing everyone of having an ideology of mass-killing!
You really are the child here, unable to moderate your suspicions of people, giving the benefit of the doubt, charging without concern of what people are actually trying to say.
Why on earth of all the places on the internet, you come to TOD with your paranoid delusions? If you want to rant about anarcho-primivists, go and do it in the usenet.
There are no anarcho-primitivists here.
I think he is specifically referring to LATOC and similar forums where I hung around for quite awhile earning my wings so to speak, learning to get over the emotional stress or shock of the PO newbie, observing all the madness that goes through people's heads in terms of what happens upon possible collapse(racist concepts, weappon freaks, conspiracy nuts, etc.). As a result of my experiences and my learning on some basic technical information at TOD and PO.COM I matured since Fall 2005 gradually into a balanced opinion between extremes. I already made a parody at LATOC on Oct. 30th which nobody discussed directly to me but I certainly got the impression it was widely read. This parody "Zardoz and Ghengis" about green fascists mass murder of hmanity was taking all left wing green tendencies to their logical conclusion for my own amusement. I think such an exercise is usful personally so that one can see where one really is. Just being afaid of "what other people think" in case we cry wolf and being into MSM opinion placation is not good. We have to plumb the depths of problems wherever that may lead us and provide community leadership based on our findings. A lot of guys here are good technically and have been around longer than some of us and as a relative newbie(maybe 5-6 months regular conrtributions) I have had to fight prejudice by the guys here against a generalist with a fairly good education and high intelligence but no enrgy industry experince or higher technical degree. I think after lots of thought I have good ideas and can maintain a good argument and can add something ot anybody who says "30 years ago..."
Hello,
This discussion is rather acrimonious, which is unusual for TOD.
I would tend to follow Ransu's advice and try to see "what people are actually trying to say".
So if I apply that to Roger (ThatsItImout), I understand him to be essentially advising caution on our manner of spreading the word on PO. That strikes me as eminently sensible.
I have zero experience in oil, but I do have experience in trying to put information across to people that contradicts what they want to believe or what they have been told for years by the State, television, etc.
When Roger warns of not stepping too far and providing opponents with the means of discrediting us, that strikes me as good advice. Because once your credit is gone, it is gone. Even if you are correct.
But I also agree with the others here that there are points that must be made. Steadily declining discoveries (and the necessary consequences) are one of them.
In short, as in virtually every political effort, it comes down to whether we want to blast people with information or whether we want to take the time and make the effort to convince.
The first is fun and rather heady, but often fruitless, the second is work.
If I read TOD so extensively, it is because so many people here tend to do the necessary work.
Look forward to reading more from you,
Ciao,
FB
I don't think anyone who has actually looked at the numbers believes that.
The articles that gush over small, independent operators are not saying that they will ever replace the aging giants. Rather, they are looking at it from a business point of view: these companies can turn a profit.
IMO, that's the big difference between TODers and the viewpoint espoused in the link you posted, and many similar ones. Good news for the mainstream business press is "you can make money." TODers know that, but we are looking at a much bigger picture.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2007/12/24/061.html
Rosneft Shares Dumped
12/24/07
Jeffrey,
Good link from Moscow Times "Business in Brief" that one could check evey day to keep up. Lots of good short stories about oil projects by Russia to central Asia, Siberia, etc. A go to page for once a day or so I guess. I bookmarked it.
Bad news for us here in Germany:
I have enjoyed reading these posts, even though there is a bit of " disent." When I found out about peak oil 4 years ago it really depressed me for several months. I am a high school teacher and the unmotivated, cell phone addicted, semi literate students I teach didn't help either. In the end I bought oil shares with the proceeds of a business I sold and it looks like " victory " is at last in sight next month afer a roller coaster ride. Not pushing the stock to anyone but for the record I'm in CNR, which has a million acres in Georgia FSU and drilling very deep into the cretaceous. A pretty good summary here.
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=4408&mn=12308&pt=msg&mid=3709731
Frontera which is drilling next door also has good prospects. The reason I mention this is that the difficulties CNR has had have really brought home to me how grateful we need to be to be able to fill up at the pump. Virtually everyone takes oil for granted. SLB provides a good image of 3d seismic at work and yes they really can "read" the earth.
http://www.slb.com/content/services/software/geo/petrel/seismic.asp
Have a happy Xmas one and all.
Isn't part of your job to motivate and help them, not the other way around? Don't get me wrong, as a parent of a highly intelligent, special needs student, I know how difficult that can be. However if you can't take the heat maybe you shouldn't be in the kitchen.
Have you read this:
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/1a.htm
It's about how 'school' was created.
I haven't been able to read all the comments here, though I did watch the video. However, from personal observation of the attitudes of those in my community, as well as the car buying habits they exhibit, my conclusion is that nothing will change until the shortage ACTUALLY ARRIVES. In the meantime, all the prognostications and warnings in the world are so much wind, because only a few are listening, and as a result, those issuing the warning will never be able to change general perceptions; those perceptions will only be changed by events. By that time, of course, it will be too late.