Peak Oil: Fact or Crap?

[Zippyjuan]

I was told by an engineer who use to work for an oil company that we had at least 200 years of oil and 1000 years of natural gas. Now I'm not exactly sure how, or where he got those numbers, but I trust them enough to not think it's freak out time.

Well, we consume roughly 7 billion barrels a year and our reported proven reserves are only about 24 billion barrels so that comes out to about three years worth. 200 years would be 1.4 trillion barrels. According to numbers on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_proven_oil_reserves total proven reserves for the entire world are 1.3 trillion barrels. But proven reserves are not necessarily a total of all known drops of oil in the ground- that is the amount which is believed recoverable at a profit given the current price and technology. Proven reserves can increase simply by having the price of oil go up. One source may be profitable at $50 a barrel and another may be profitable at $500 a barrel. If you are looking at an oil price of $90 a barrel, we have about three or so years worth (assuming we don't import a drop) while if the price soars, then some other sources may be financially worth going after.

As for Natural Gas, one estimate by the Heartland Institute published this week indicates that the US has about 650 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas and currently produces 3 trillion a year and imports about 11% of total consumption. That makes it about 3.3 trillion used a year or 200 years which is quite a lot (maybe not 1000 years but enough not to run out by the time I die). http://www.heartland.org/full/29277...ordable_Energy_Future_Says_DOE_Official_.html

Coincidentally, an article just hit the newswire about newer drilling techniques which may allow the extraction of more oil- fracturing which has been used for natural gas. You drill down and blast in water, sand, and chemicals to try to knock the oil or gas loose so you can pump it up. They don't say what the costs are but that it is "profitable"- more so than spending $1 billion a hole to drill in deep Gulf of Mexico waters.

A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude.

Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at oil deposits scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day — more than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.

This new drilling is expected to raise U.S. production by at least 20 percent over the next five years. And within 10 years, it could help reduce oil imports by more than half, advancing a goal that has long eluded policymakers.

"That's a significant contribution to energy security," says Ed Morse, head of commodities research at Credit Suisse.

Oil engineers are applying what critics say is an environmentally questionable method developed in recent years to tap natural gas trapped in underground shale. They drill down and horizontally into the rock, then pump water, sand and chemicals into the hole to crack the shale and allow gas to flow up.

Because oil molecules are sticky and larger than gas molecules, engineers thought the process wouldn't work to squeeze oil out fast enough to make it economical. But drillers learned how to increase the number of cracks in the rock and use different chemicals to free up oil at low cost. "We've completely transformed the natural gas industry, and I wouldn't be surprised if we transform the oil business in the next few years too," says Aubrey McClendon, chief executive of Chesapeake Energy, which is using the technique.

Petroleum engineers first used the method in 2007 to unlock oil from a 25,000-square-mile formation under North Dakota and Montana known as the Bakken. Production there rose 50 percent in just the past year, to 458,000 barrels a day, according to Bentek Energy, an energy analysis firm.

It was first thought that the Bakken was unique. Then drillers tapped oil in a shale formation under South Texas called the Eagle Ford. Drilling permits in the region grew 11-fold last year.

The Bakken and the Eagle Ford are each expected to ultimately produce 4 billion barrels of oil. That would make them the fifth- and sixth-biggest oil fields ever discovered in the United States. The top four are Prudhoe Bay in Alaska, Spraberry Trend in West Texas, the East Texas Oilfield and the Kuparuk Field in Alaska.

The fields are attracting billions of dollars of investment from foreign oil giants like Royal Dutch Shell, BP and Norway's Statoil, and also from the smaller U.S. drillers who developed the new techniques like Chesapeake, EOG Resources and Occidental Petroleum.

Last month China's state-owned oil company CNOOC agreed to pay Chesapeake $570 million for a one-third stake in a drilling project in the Niobrara. This followed a $1 billion deal in October between the two companies on a project in the Eagle Ford.

With oil prices high and natural-gas prices low, profit margins from producing oil from shale are much higher than for gas. Also, drilling for shale oil is not dependent on high oil prices. Papa says this oil is cheaper to tap than the oil in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico or in Canada's oil sands.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20110209/b79d5262-f8ce-4810-b792-e469196ff185

The four billion barrels in each of the Bakkan and Eagle fields would let us last just over another year on our own supplies over our current proven reserves- stretching our current supplies to last us alone without importing anything for over four years. Their estimated two million barrels a day peak production would almost cover ten percent of our current daily consumption of 21 million barrels. To be independent of imports at our current rate of consumption you need two Bakkans or Eagles every year into the forseable future but it is a start.

 

[teacherone]

total crap.

anybody who still believes in peak oil after witnessing the Deepwater Horizon spill is a moron.

there is more oil out there than we could possibly ever use.

 

[hugolp]

Okay, this is really frustrating. I've been reading about this subject for a long time and have found that without examining the world's oil reserves with my own eyes, there's no way to know what's true and what's not!

On the one hand, a lot of doomers talk about how we're using up all the oil too fast and that it will lead to the destruction of our economy. On the other hand, a lot of people claim that this is all BS propaganda put out by oil cartels to keep the price of oil unnaturally high.

Example: I read an article about all the untapped oil reserves discovered in the Dakotas and Montana, supposedly more oil there than in the whole middle East. Then I found another article stating that the amount of oil there is exaggerated and it's not enough to make a big difference.

Damn you, Internet! Who am I supposed to believe?

Hahaha. A lot feel this way. I do too, specially since the doomers about peak-oil make sense but have been wrong a lot of times previously.

 

[Acala]

peak oil

Much of the peak oil hysteria rests on the idea that at some point declining oil production will cause the industrialized world to come to a screeching halt. It won't.

I don't know when or even if we are going to run out of oil. But I know that if demand for oil outstrips production the market will do what it always does under those circumstance: raise prices. Higher prices will do three things. It will stimulate more production. It will supress consumption. And it will stimulate the development and implementation of alternatives. By stimulating production and supressing consumption the market will extend the supply, direct it to the uses of most importance, and it will ease the transition to the alternatives it will be developing.

The market is very, very good at responding to scarcity. So there really is no cause for alarm. UNLESS the government gets in the way.

It is also worth pointing out that the industrial revolution was well underway BEFORE petroleum had any significant impact. The diesel engine that runs much industrial machinery was designed to work on vegetable oil. The electricity that drives the rest of industrial machinery can be generated nicely by burning the vast deposits of coal and by nuclear reaction. So although the cost of manufactured goods and food might go up, there is no reason to believe that industrial civilization can only exist with the availablity of cheap oil.

Far more likely to crush us is Peak Dollar.

 

[jmdrake]

Oil production could be dramatically increased by small backyard operations. Flashback to 2009.

Indiana Man Operates Oil Well in Backyard, Producing Three Barrels of Crude a Day

Monday, May 19, 2008

* Print
* ShareThis

Greg Losh

The oil well Greg Losh of Indiana is operating in his backyard

The oil well Greg Losh of Indiana is operating in his backyard

*
*

SELMA, Ind. — It's just a drop in the global oil bucket, but an eastern Indiana man is operating an oil well in his backyard in an effort to capitalize on soaring crude prices.

Greg Losh's rig produces three barrels of crude oil a day, though he told FOX News that he hasn't started selling it yet. For now, he and his partners are keeping it in storage containers.

He declined to say how much oil they've collected in the two weeks they've been pumping.

But as oil is going for about $127 a barrel on the international market, three daily would yield just under $400 a day for Losh on the global spot market — or 1/100,000 of the daily production increase the Saudis agreed to earlier this month.

Still, in spite of those returns and the $100,000 it costs to drill a well, it's worth it to Losh considering the current price of oil, he told WISH-TV in Indianapolis.

The oil his well produces comes from the Trenton field that fueled the growth of east-central Indiana cities more than a century ago, he told the station.

He expects to drill four more wells soon on his property in the town of Selma about 55 miles northeast of Indianapolis.

"It's a money maker. It is paying off," Losh told FOX.

The oil is stored in a tank and transported to Ohio for sale, he said. His oil well also produces natural gas to heat his home and several others.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356606,00.html#ixzz1DZZ6z700


I know where oil is in Alabama that is untapped. And before someone pipes in with some irrelevant comment like '3 barrels a day isn't enough to blah blah blah" you are missing the point. Solving the energy crisis means people and/or small communities becoming energy independent themselves, as opposed to solving the problem for the whole world. Peak oil is only a problem if you are collectivist in your thinking about energy. At the end of the day, what difference does it make how much oil Saudi Arabia can or cannot produce if you and/or your community is self sufficient on energy?

 

[sevin]

Thanks, everyone. I'm actually not nearly as worried about peak oil as I was. We'll probably have to deal with very high oil prices soon and will have to learn to use less energy. But as Acala said, unless the government gets in the way, the market will handle the problem and eventually we will transition to alternative forms of energy, if necessary.

 

[Seraphim]

I'll put this into context for you. Canada supplies the USA with the highest % of it's oil. ALL of the oil comes from Alberta. We currently have enough oil to supply current levels of extraction (which is A LOT) for 200 years. TWO HUNDRED YEARS.

The kicker? Manitoba, the province right beside Alberta...has untapped oil reserves that are BIGGER than Alberta's.

Particularly if the market place demands sustainable energy forms and hybrid-type cars...we have TONS of oil.

Okay, this is really frustrating. I've been reading about this subject for a long time and have found that without examining the world's oil reserves with my own eyes, there's no way to know what's true and what's not!

On the one hand, a lot of doomers talk about how we're using up all the oil too fast and that it will lead to the destruction of our economy. On the other hand, a lot of people claim that this is all BS propaganda put out by oil cartels to keep the price of oil unnaturally high.

Example: I read an article about all the untapped oil reserves discovered in the Dakotas and Montana, supposedly more oil there than in the whole middle East. Then I found another article stating that the amount of oil there is exaggerated and it's not enough to make a big difference.

Damn you, Internet! Who am I supposed to believe?

 

[bdmarti]

Peak Oil is a fact. It's simple math really. Now, I won't try to convince you we are at, or even near, the world's peak in oil production, but I will tell you that the math obviously shows that if oil is finite, or even if it is replenished at some rate that is slower than we use it, then we will peak in production. Once you understand this simple fact you can attempt to honestly determine when that might be. Knowing the when is nearly impossible (unless you have a time traveling delorian or something), but that doesn't stop people from trying, nor does it mean that people are wrong when they make an educated guess. Knowing that it will happen someday means that someday, someone, will guess right about when we'll peak.

Should we be hysterical about peak oil today? I don't know. You can look at the graphs of oil production, oil discoveries, and population growth and to me it looks like production is going to peak soon to me...but graphs can change shape for lots of reasons. Most sources I've ever seen admit that sweet light crude is peaking or has peaked and now it's a question of how quickly we can ramp up the alternative sources of oil and energy. There are massive amounts of oil in the tar sands and oil shale...but can we extract it as fast or as efficiently as we can light sweet crude? the answer currently, is no. We'll see where technology takes us. I'm less than optimistic, but I'd hardly call myself hysterical about the matter....'cause again, I don't claim to know the "when" of peak oil.

but...more than weather it is or is not happening "now" I wanted to comment on this:

Much of the peak oil hysteria rests on the idea that at some point declining oil production will cause the industrialized world to come to a screeching halt. It won't.

I don't know when or even if we are going to run out of oil. But I know that if demand for oil outstrips production the market will do what it always does under those circumstance: raise prices. Higher prices will do three things. It will stimulate more production. It will supress consumption. And it will stimulate the development and implementation of alternatives. By stimulating production and supressing consumption the market will extend the supply, direct it to the uses of most importance, and it will ease the transition to the alternatives it will be developing.

The market is very, very good at responding to scarcity. So there really is no cause for alarm. UNLESS the government gets in the way.
....
Far more likely to crush us is Peak Dollar.

We don't have a very free market for oil and energy. We have highly restricted and regulated market for oil and energy.
In addition, energy, and oil in particular (at this time) are somewhat special items in the market place. Add to that, the fact that we in the US, and all countries around the world that I'm aware of, have a debt based monetary system and then you have a recipe for disaster "IF" we did in fact hit peak oil.

I'll now say why I think it would be "bad" for the world "IF" we were to actually peak in oil production.

All dollars, excepting for coins, are borrowed into existence. A person or company borrows money from the bank and this, in effect, creates the money. The bank is not lending you money it had, it is creating NEW money. The borrower is then required to pay back the principle and the interest. This means that all the borrowers put together must collectively find, and repay, more money than was loaned out into existence. In order for this to be possible, more borrowers must come along and borrow ever more money into existence. This is the nature of our fiat money system (highly oversimplified).

The poster above claims that the market will adapt...BUT...if we are to assume that the market is even remotely efficient and reasonable, then we are currently using oil for so many things because it is the CHEAPEST way to get work done. All other forms of energy, for whatever we are using oil for, would cost MORE. This is why the market is using oil (assuming the market is remotely reasonable). Why does this matter?

What happens if your costs go up significantly...like if for instance you couldn't use cheap oil, but had to shift to some other more expensive energy source? For all debtors, there will be a point at which an increase in costs will prevent them from making profits, which will in turn result in default of loan. If that point is reached due to increase in oil and shift to alternative energy, then you get massive debt default. Massive debt default would shrink the money supply...which could very well lower prices and also have the effect of making it harder to profit and pay back debt. Massive debt default also has the effect of tightening credit rules...which also tends to shrink the money supply...which also makes it ever more difficult for everyone to pay back their debt.

Clearly governments don't want that type of situation to happen...they can't let the money supply shrink, for any reason. So, they must pump money into the economy by printing it and spending it themselves.

Now...you could try to raise your prices to cover your increased costs...but everyone will be trying this. So in this situation every debtor would need the money supply to grow EVEN FASTER...so you'd need ever more debt. Now everyone needs to pay their principle, interest, and increased energy costs. I don't think it's generally the case that when people start to have massive defaults and energy prices are going up up up that banks get loose with the loans...but maybe that's just me.

So...that's why it's my opinion that "IF" peak oil were to happen at this time, it would turn the industrialized world upside down. A) we'd need to re-do our currency systems globally and B) we'd all need to learn to get by with less energy use which for most Americans would mean a lower standard of living.

Everything would work "better" and there would be less of an issue if we actually got the government out of the way for the most part and if we didn't have fiat currency, but rather used gold or some other stable basket of commodities for currency. Since we do have fiat currency/reserve banking...I think peak oil would be very bad.

Economic conditions right now happen to be the type that I might expect to see if we were at peak. We had a massive spike in oil costs, then we had massive economic repercussions. Will we see this cycle continue? I dunno. If we do...then maybe we are at peak. Or maybe we won't see this type of thing repeat. i'd be pleasantly surprised to see a global economic recovery.

No matter if we are at peak today or not, you should accept the math. Peak oil will happen. Quibble about the when and be sure to point out when people are using poor arguments and evidence to back up predictions. Even mine.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Zippy's analysis on this is pretty much spot on.

Decreasing supply will not result in an overnight shut down of all oil and petroleum products, they will just become increasingly expensive.

Which is why, yet again, I have to insist that the continued exportation of manufacturing and, in an alarming trend, agricultural production, is insanity.

The day will come when even cheap, essentially slave, labor costs of production in tyrannical regimes will not offset the costs of transport halfway around the globe.

Unless you plan on returning to sail, which frankly, would make me happy.

 

[Travlyr]

So...that's why it's my opinion that "IF" peak oil were to happen at this time, it would turn the industrialized world upside down.

True, but it doesn't have to be that way. We could be using more alternative fuels now if they weren't illegal ... industrial hemp is a prime example. Now, that would not "solve" the inevitability of peak oil, but it would help to postpone it while reducing pollution, promoting quality products, and creating opportunity.

A) we'd need to re-do our currency systems globally

That is #1. The current debt monetary system is a facade designed to transfer wealth from workers to non-workers. The fractional reserve banking scheme and persistent fiat inflation don't create any aggregate wealth. Central bank counterfeiting simply takes wealth from one person and gives it to another. It should go away tomorrow... or this afternoon wouldn't be too soon. If everyone repudiated their debt tomorrow morning and started using real money, then wealth would stop being transfered from the poor to the rich. The coming economic crash is only problematic for the rulers... it is good for the rest of us.

B) we'd all need to learn to get by with less energy use which for most Americans would mean a lower standard of living.

There is no need to reduce anyone's standard of living. Our standard of living can skyrocket, as soon as, we end our debt monetary system and embrace a real honest system of trading. There is plenty of federal land that could be homesteaded with an entire earth friendly hemp industry just begging to be used. Our lower standard of living is a result of our enslavement to the central banks. When we break those chains peace, liberty, and prosperity abounds.

Everything would work "better" and there would be less of an issue if we actually got the government out of the way for the most part and if we didn't have fiat currency, but rather used gold or some other stable basket of commodities for currency. Since we do have fiat currency/reserve banking...I think peak oil would be very bad.

Exactly. If we could get everyone focused like a laser beam on ending central bank's control over us, everything would work better ... much, much better.

 

[bdmarti]

I'll put this into context for you. Canada supplies the USA with the highest % of it's oil. ALL of the oil comes from Alberta. We currently have enough oil to supply current levels of extraction (which is A LOT) for 200 years. TWO HUNDRED YEARS.

The kicker? Manitoba, the province right beside Alberta...has untapped oil reserves that are BIGGER than Alberta's.

Particularly if the market place demands sustainable energy forms and hybrid-type cars...we have TONS of oil.

We don't extract at a constant rate. In reality, we have, and are trying to continue to extract at an ever growing rate.

If we attempted to increase extraction rate by just 1% per year we would double extraction rate within 70 years. This rate of increase would also result in that 200 year supply lasting only about 110 years.

however, they are trying very hard to ramp up production FAR faster than 1% per year.

let's say they achieved something near 10% production increase per year.
If they managed that...and I think they are trying to do even better...then that 200 year supply lasts closer to 30 years. That's not nearly as impressive.

Just think if we could increase extraction of that oil by 50% a year!

Exponential growth is a monster.

 

[bdmarti]

The current debt monetary system is a facade designed to transfer wealth from workers to non-workers. The fractional reserve banking scheme and persistent fiat inflation don't create any aggregate wealth. Central bank counterfeiting simply takes wealth from one person and gives it to another. It should go away tomorrow... or this afternoon wouldn't be too soon. If everyone repudiated their debt tomorrow morning and started using real money, then wealth would stop being transfered from the poor to the rich. The coming economic crash is only problematic for the rulers... it is good for the rest of us.

While I readily agree that if we could flip a switch and suddenly be using real currency and fair trade that nearly everyone outside the rulers would be better off.

I don't see the transition as going very smoothly though. Rulers are reluctant to let go of power and I can see things heading even more in a direction of corporatism/feudalism/fascism or something like that more easily than I can see the masses suddenly coming to understand they are being used and abused and embracing liberty and fair trade and honest currency.

I'm all for a liberty utopia..you've just got 6 to 7 billion more people to convince.

 

[Travlyr]

While I readily agree that if we could flip a switch and suddenly be using real currency and fair trade that nearly everyone outside the rulers would be better off.

I don't see the transition as going very smoothly though. Rulers are reluctant to let go of power and I can see things heading even more in a direction of corporatism/feudalism/fascism or something like that more easily than I can see the masses suddenly coming to understand they are being used and abused and embracing liberty and fair trade and honest currency.

I'm all for a liberty utopia..you've just got 6 to 7 billion more people to convince.

The switch may be close to being flipped by the bursting bond and currency bubbles whether the rulers like it or not.

Murray N. Rothbard writes in "The Mystery of Banking"

As Ludwig von Mises conclusively demonstrated in 1912, money does not and cannot originate by order of the State or by some sort of social contract agreed upon by all citizens; it must always originate in the processes of the free market.

I suspect this means that the IMF cannot successfully issue a new currency by decree. The black market option and the correct State option is to let real money work. Utah is leading the charge; hopefully, other States will follow their lead.

 

[Zippyjuan]

The Alberta Oil Sands are a very messy and expensive way to get oil. It requires lots of water and energy to heat the water to steam to blast the sands and separate the oil from the sands. This creates tons and tons of toxic waste. There are literally hundreds of kilometers of lakes full of this waste. And they will continue to grow. It is a low grade of oil which also means it requires more refining.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/11/fossilfuels.pollution

A decade ago, the vast landscape of forests and lakes around Fort McMurray and the Athabasca river provided a fairly minor and barely profitable sand oil industry. But it is now pitted with hundreds of square kilometres of toxic waste ponds, mines that are 300ft deep, hundreds of miles of pipes and burgeoning petrochemical works. Every day brings a bumper to bumper stream of lorries carrying the world's largest plant, pipes and machinery to the area, as well as young men seeking fortunes, and, say critics, the devastation of a pristine land.

The companies are now mining 1.3m barrels a day of heavy crude oil from the sands, which are saturated with bitumen. But they expect to spend another £50bn to more than double production to 3.5m barrels by 2011. The surge is expected to attract 100,000 more workers to the northern wilderness where the wolf and bear are still common.

And that would just be the start. By 2030 they plan to produce at least 5m barrels a day, and export more than Nigeria, Venezuela or Norway, which would make Canada one of the world's largest oil producers.

If the oil price stays high and new technology permits, oil companies will move, with the Canadian government's blessing, to extract the estimated 180bn barrels of crude to be found far deeper under 140,000 sq km of Alberta in what are the world's largest proven oil deposits after Saudi Arabia.

Oil sands need to be washed and more than 12,713m cubic feet (360 million cubic metres) are used a year - the equivalent used in a city of 2 million people.

http://newbeeland.co.cc/?attachment_id=1541

If, as they would like, they double their production, so will the water consumed and waste produced. One company in the area just recently (news report from today, Feb 10) accused of lying about their water use and drawing off too much.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/10/statoil-idUSN1010295820110210

UPDATE 2-Alberta charges Statoil for oil sands water use
8:25am PST
Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:29pm EST

* Norwegian company faces 19 charges under water act

* Alberta gov't says Statoil provide false information

* Statoil says charges relate to drilling program (Adds detail, company comment.)

CALGARY, Alberta, Feb 10 (Reuters) - Norwary's Statoil ASA (STL.OL) faces charges in Canada of diverting water for use at its oil sands operations in northern Alberta, the province's government said on Thursday.

Alberta said the Norwegian state-owned oil company contravened parts of its water license and provided false or misleading information regarding water withdrawals at its facility near Conklin.

The province's environment ministry said in a statement 19 charges relate to separate incidents in 2008 through 2010. It did not specify the penalties the company could face.

Water impacts:
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/alberta-s-oil-sands-key-issues-and-impacts

Oil sands production requires an extremely large quantity of water. In general it takes about 2 to 4.5 barrels of water, most of which is withdrawn from the Athabasca River, to produce one barrel of oil. While much of this water is recycled and used many times over, the oil sands use more water per year than the entire city of Calgary. The key policy problem regarding water for this purpose is the need to allocate water supplies in a way that properly balances oil sands production needs with ecosystem and human needs in the region. While the amount of water consumed per barrel of oil produced has been declining, a 2006 Government of Alberta report warned that there simply may not be enough available water to meet the needs of all planned oil sands projects while maintaining adequate stream flows.

Criticism from academics and activists has primarily focused on the effects of water withdrawals on fish populations, particularly during low-flow months, and the water security of communities within the Athabasca watershed. Alberta’s current regulatory framework has been criticized because the quantity of water withdrawals it authorizes does not adequately ensure ecosystem protection or the long-term conservation of the Athabasca watershed. As the federal government has jurisdiction over fisheries and the Athabasca watershed is shared by the province of Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and numerous First Nations communities, there is a large potential for future jurisdictional disputes and power-sharing arrangements. Some affected communities are becoming increasingly vocal with their demands that a moratorium be placed on development, citing the negative effect that oil sands production is having on the region’s water systems. As new projects will require further massive withdrawals of water, the availability of freshwater sources may very well limit the continued expansion of oil sands production.

 

[raystone]

Peak oil is something I've been following closely over at Chrismartenson.com

Here's one of the better forum postings laying it out fairly clearly..

Do your own observing. How many oil fields have been abandon in California? In Texas, In Oklahoma? How much oil comes from the fields in Pennsylvania? If those fields were still producing, why would we have drilled offshore for much more expensive oil? I live in New Mexico and when I go up towards Farmington from Albuquerque, I see many pumps standing idle while others nearby are pumping. I see small storage tanks here and there that have no pump anywhere near them. It is apparent that the big oil field up there is shutting down gradually. Ordinary common sense tells you that no oil field can last forever and therefore must have a half life.

Why is Mexico exporting less and less oil to us when they are in financial straits? Could it be because they are running out of oil? Chris's stats are easy enough to verify on the web. Why is Canada developing its tar sands if it still has lots of oil to pump in its ordinary oil fields? No business develops more expensive ways to do business unless it has no alternative. Even if there is some oil left in the many fields around, just the fact that more expensive alternatives are being and have been developed tells you that extraction has become so costly that other alternatives offer a better return. If you think that peak oil is a hoax, then go buy yourself a couple of Hummers and celebrate. As for me, I am convinced just on the evidence of my own observations, and I was even before I took the Crash Course.

 

[EndDaFed]

Peak oil is something I've been following closely over at Chrismartenson.com

Do you have a paid membership to his website? If so how good is the content he provides to paying members?

 

[osan]

Okay, this is really frustrating. I've been reading about this subject for a long time and have found that without examining the world's oil reserves with my own eyes, there's no way to know what's true and what's not!

On the one hand, a lot of doomers talk about how we're using up all the oil too fast and that it will lead to the destruction of our economy. On the other hand, a lot of people claim that this is all BS propaganda put out by oil cartels to keep the price of oil unnaturally high.

Example: I read an article about all the untapped oil reserves discovered in the Dakotas and Montana, supposedly more oil there than in the whole middle East. Then I found another article stating that the amount of oil there is exaggerated and it's not enough to make a big difference.

Damn you, Internet! Who am I supposed to believe?

Probably impossible to know from where we stand. This is obviously a highly politically charged issue from many perspectives,including that of control. Ad Danno mentions, there are many "good" arguments from differing points of view - "good" meaning cogent and convincing looking. If, however, two stories are saying diametrically opposing things, at least one of them must be wrong. Add to all you list the third notion of "deep" oil and things become even more confusing. Deep oil in many ways seems like a load of nonsense, but if so, then why did the Soviets do so much deep drilling? Why did they publish so much information on deep oil? Was it a ruse of some sort? Were they all indulging in too much LSD, or perhaps too much borscht had turned their thinking fuzzy? Why would they sink a 57K foot (10.8 mile) deep well in North Vietnam, the deepest on record as I recall?

I'd say believe nobody. If peak oil is on the money, barring discovery of other sources of raw materials such as fuels, plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, etc., a whole lot of us are going to die when the supplies dwindle below the level of mere price-effect. When pharmaceuticals go the way of the dodo some time after synthetic fertilizers, the "developed" world is going to go to hell in a hand basket in a way few people can envision today. Naturally, those at the top of the ladder will have plenty, leaving the rest of us to fend for ourselves. Those will be most interesting days if they come to pass, and at this point and given what I have come to observe - particularly in the past decade since 9/11 - The wild cards are out and about in abundance. I have no idea who is controlling what and to which degree such control is being maintained. This may be all show for purposes I cannot divine - it may be we have an era of unprecedented non-linearity looming on what feels like the very immediate horizon. The truth evades me, save to say that increasingly interesting days are ahead one way or another.

We have our livestock, tilled ground... none of it may make any difference. I simply do not know. If anyone has definite information relating to all this, please do not be shy. I for one would like to know what is going on even if the truth is not pretty.

Anyone?

 

[osan]

Peak oil is something I've been following closely over at Chrismartenson.com

Here's one of the better forum postings laying it out fairly clearly..

Do your own observing. How many oil fields have been abandon in California? In Texas, In Oklahoma? How much oil comes from the fields in Pennsylvania? If those fields were still producing, why would we have drilled offshore for much more expensive oil? I live in New Mexico and when I go up towards Farmington from Albuquerque, I see many pumps standing idle while others nearby are pumping. I see small storage tanks here and there that have no pump anywhere near them. It is apparent that the big oil field up there is shutting down gradually. Ordinary common sense tells you that no oil field can last forever and therefore must have a half life.

Why is Mexico exporting less and less oil to us when they are in financial straits? Could it be because they are running out of oil? Chris's stats are easy enough to verify on the web. Why is Canada developing its tar sands if it still has lots of oil to pump in its ordinary oil fields? No business develops more expensive ways to do business unless it has no alternative. Even if there is some oil left in the many fields around, just the fact that more expensive alternatives are being and have been developed tells you that extraction has become so costly that other alternatives offer a better return. If you think that peak oil is a hoax, then go buy yourself a couple of Hummers and celebrate. As for me, I am convinced just on the evidence of my own observations, and I was even before I took the Crash Course.

A cogent argument whose truth is predicated on the truth implied in the statements about idle wells. I am not saying peak oil is a hoax - it may well be and the intuition seems to lean in that direction, also based largely on what I "know". There have been some rather elaborate ruses mounted in the name of "social engineering". Given that, if TPTB decided, say, 50 years ago that we needed to move away from such heavy oil consumption, what better way to steer such a decision in the face of a reticent public than to claim we are running out? Oh no! Everybody run, the end of the world is nigh! Yes yes, a paranoid conspiracy and most likely not the case - but let us remind ourselves that where political power is concerned, almost anything is possible. I would also point out that if TPTB have the buy-in of the global oil companies and such a program is actually in effect, how would be know? Most likely we would not. The belief systems of entire populations can be very effectively steered by the words and deeds of just a handful of very carefully places "experts". This is well established fact and the technology-enabled history of the 20th century alone demonstrates this most convincingly.

Therefore, I would be somewhat circumspect when considering what to believe on any issue of such political significance. Be careful, and unless you have unimpeachable reasons for accepting a certain belief, better to remain the skeptic.

My plugged kopek's worth.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Add to all you list the third notion of "deep" oil and things become even more confusing. Deep oil in many ways seems like a load of nonsense, but if so, then why did the Soviets do so much deep drilling?

"Deep" oil is proved.

I helped punch a couple of these holes.

http://www.ogfj.com/index/article-d.../e-__p/offshore/bp-finds_oil_in_multiple.html

 

[raystone]

Do you have a paid membership to his website? If so how good is the content he provides to paying members?

Yes, 3 month period. It has value, and he is moving more of his stuff to subscription only, including high profile interviews. MOST of the interview content, however, can be found among several different sites. Martenson's own analysis is singular and is probably worth a one month or 3 month subscription to check it out. I like his clear thinking on describing warning signals for an imminent collapse and new focus on providing valuable information on prepping. Finally, I actually subscribed to read a subscription only link posted by a subscribed member. A lot of smart people there, with good thinking and good prepping plans.