[cualcrees]

What do you think of this guy?


Link

[mkwin]

Well he is certainly far more qualified than me, but I disagree.

Arguing about reserves is too abstract. Flow rates are the key and flow rates have been struggling since 2004.

While the supply picture is looking better over the next 3 or 4 years, we will have to wait and see if it continues.

[VMarcHart]

I'm not disagreeing there's an enormous amount of oil left, actually about half of what has been extracted to date, but my argument is, at what price?

That's peak oil.

From now on, on average, the price will increase with every extracted barrel, and less and less people will be able to afford it, and there's no replacement. Think of the million products, services and produces that come from and with oil.

What does he mean by postponed?

[mkwin]

I'm not disagreeing there's an enormous amount of oil left, actually about half of what has been extracted to date, but my argument is, at what price?

That's peak oil.

Although serious, increasing expensive oil can be adjusted to with increased effciency, alternatives and conservation. Peak oil, however, is when global oil supplies go into terminal decline. Not the situation you highlighted.

In this regard, he is saying it will be decades before that happens because oil reserves are under reported.

[alokin]

As me too, I haven't got too deep knowledge in oil reserves, but look at the article, it's quite superficial. He does not state which country has how much, he does not come up with figures and graph and never heard about this newspaper. These all are signals that there is not much behind.

[karras]

Efficiency, higher prices, etc will not do much to "postpone" PO. Now that we have burned up most of the easy-to-get-to oil, not only will the rest cost more, but we will expend ever-increasing amounts of oil just to produce the oil that's left.

[TheDude]

For those who want to save time without opening the link in the OP, this is Dr Richard Pike again, head of the RSC. Look up his name at TOD if you want to see what petroleum geologists think of his rap. The global decline rate is what's really important to focus on, and the flow rates of projects to compensate for that decline, as mkwin says. His monster reserves haven't pulled Mexico or the North Sea out of their tailspins, you notice.

His canard doesn't take into account any of those pesky above ground factors such as economics or geopolitical concerns, either. Some fret over the possibility of a massive economic slowdown or widespread war masking the reality of geologic decline. In a crumbling world I'm not really keen on receiving kudos, myself.

[shortonsense]

For those who want to save time without opening the link in the OP, this is Dr Richard Pike again, head of the RSC. Look up his name at TOD if you want to see what petroleum geologists think of his rap.

117 comments on his video and information and nearly all of it was concentrated on a massive climate change argument.

Did I find the wrong Pike? It was definitely the reserves guy, and the comments were off topic and didn't say much at all about his actual ideas.

[Keith_McClary]

What do you think of this guy?

Link

Pike says:

The rough rule of thumb that applied three or four years ago was that to get 1m barrels of oil a day extra, you needed to spend in the order of $10bn

So, if we spent $700,000,000,000.00 (instead of giving it to failed banksters) we could get an extra 70m bpd, doubling current world production.

(insert lame joke about flying pigs with lipstick)