TonyPrep wrote:Whenever the overall peak comes, I very much doubt the downslope will be a mirror image of the upslope. A declining supply will likely precipitate the collapse of societies, especially those who don't have their own oil and refining capabilities.
TonyPrep wrote:So far, the peak of all liquids production was November 2018 (though I haven't seen the last few months). Conventional oil continues its steady decline.
TonyPrep wrote:Whenever the overall peak comes, I very much doubt the downslope will be a mirror image of the upslope. A declining supply will likely precipitate the collapse of societies, especially those who don't have their own oil and refining capabilities.
Light or medium density oil occurring in discrete oil fields, usually having an oil–water contact, produced by primary (own pressure, or pumping) or secondary (natural gas or water injection) recovery techniques. Currently this class of oil supplies about 70% of global ‘all-liquids’, and has constituted the vast majority of oil produced to-date.
TonyPrep wrote:There is a definition of conventional oil in this article which seems reasonable:Light or medium density oil occurring in discrete oil fields, usually having an oil–water contact, produced by primary (own pressure, or pumping) or secondary (natural gas or water injection) recovery techniques. Currently this class of oil supplies about 70% of global ‘all-liquids’, and has constituted the vast majority of oil produced to-date.
Tony Prep wrote:The same article has a graph of oil production and conventional oil has been on a slight decline (though the article calls it a plateau) since 2005.
TonyPrep wrote:Forecasting future production of total liquids is hard.
TonyPrep wrote: Impossible to say exactly when different categories of liquids will peak or what new categories might be discovered or old categories revived and profitably so.
TonyPrep wrote: I don't agree that peak oil voices lacked credibility at the time (hindsight is a wonderful thing).
[/quote]TonyPrep wrote: I'm sure human societies will take no notice anyway. It is only when any activity becomes a long term loss maker that the activity will cease.
AdamB wrote:Not impossible. Difficult.
TonyPrep wrote:AdamB wrote:Not impossible. Difficult.
No, impossible.
TonyPrep wrote: Unless someone has a private line to the future. In the end, it's all guesswork. Maybe informed, but guesswork.
TonyPrep wrote:I don't think it matters what the downward curve looks like and it's something we'll only know in hindsight (if at all).
TonyPrep wrote:What matters more is when supply will turn down, permanently. If it wasn't for tight oil, we'd be well on the downslope now and the world would look very different.
TonyPrep wrote:No-one knows when the actual peak will be and there could still be surprises, in terms of supply. One thing is guaranteed; oil companies will do their best to delay the downslope for as long as possible.
TonyPrep wrote:Four large resource volumes waiting in the wings? Do tell. Likely to be profitable?
TonyPrep wrote:Of course the oil companies are in it for the money, that's why they will do anything to ensure their money flow continue and even increases. That's all I meant by their doing their best to delay the downslope.
I can name 4 other large resource volumes just waiting in the wings
Newfie wrote:Adam wrote:I can name 4 other large resource volumes just waiting in the wings
This is the bit we all want to know about.
Please name them.
TonyPrep wrote:Thanks. Personally, I doubt any of those can be profitable and affordable at the volumes required, but you're the expert so maybe you're right.
TonyPrep wrote:I hope not because that leads to just as much of a problem as peak oil. Even if one discounts environmental issues, perhaps thinking that humans are clever enough to comfortably inhabit an even more degraded biosphere than the one we have, continuing to expand an unsustainable civilisation with a fuel that will ultimately decline, possibly quite rapidly, is decidedly not clever.
AdamB wrote:The US oil shales of the Green River formation (muy caro!), the Texas ROZ (not near as expensive), the Canadian tar sands (currently underestimated in reserve size by 3x), the extra heavy of the Orinoco (the resource to reserve conversion rate there could be monstrous with more oil resources than all known oil in Saudi Arabia, its cheap, easy to get, but needs a functioning government and capital markets or outside investment), the Bazhenov of Russia (better than the Wolfcamp in the Permian),the Junggar and Songliao basins in China. You could throw in reserve growth on the North Slope if you want and are American and feel left out, that's probably as big as all the currently producing US shale formation ultimate recoveries combined, but pretty pipsqueak in the greater scheme of things. I was thinking significant, rather than just another "large enough to make the US the world's largest oil and gas producer...again"...no big whoop in the resource game.
Those are the known and are affordable (might want to exclude US Green River formation stuff if "affordable" consists of <$150/bbl prices) that the US has prototyped all the technology for already, including drill-baby-drill. Just a matter of folks wanting or needing to, for some reasonable price or another. Achieving that itself is an issue with the recent acceleration into alternatives.
Peak oil has never been about the reserves, but rather resources.
Plantagenet wrote:AdamB wrote:Peak oil has never been about the reserves, but rather resources.
The development and use of any those potential sites would result in the release of enormous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, producing concomitant jumps in global warming.
Plantagenet wrote:The price of oil is NOT the only factor to consider before developing these low grade oil resources....consideration must also be given to their deleterious effects on global climate.
Users browsing this forum: ralfy and 35 guests