Quote from: K-Dog on May 18, 2024, 10:03 AM

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 07:14 AMSome knew that peak oil was a crock from the same data that the suckers who fell for it used. Was it because

I am not going to argue this, but I will express my annoyance.

I understand. We discussed this before. I provided reasonably detailed research, facts, quotes, historical and temporally correct references and whatnot explaining my points rather than just being annoyed. If you recall any of the information I provided and can contradict it with reasonable detailed research, facts, quotes, historical or temporal mistakes I made, I would greatly appreciate it if you pointed it out. And I will then to recalculate my statements and analysis incorporating this new research, facts, etc etc.

Quote from: K-DogHubbert described a model which described how oil would deplete.  Given the data he used the model was 100% correct. Hubbert gave his talk and drew his graph.

He sure did. Here is his quote talking about the US peak.

Quote from: M. King HubbertWhile we do not know exactly how much oil remains undiscovered, we do know that it is a limited supply...Furthermore, the easy discoveries have already been and only the difficult ones remain.

It is certain that the production of oil will reach one or more peaks and finally decline.

The time of this decline in the US is somewhat uncertain, yet it seems doubtful that it can be postponed any later than 1950.

There you go. Hubbert declaring US peak oil sure looks to be a-coming. How do you like the "one or more peaks" part? Pre-cognitive. The guy who came up with the peak concept folks thought meant "just A peak" knew 80 years before it happened in 2018 that just in the 21st century alone the world could have 6 claimed or occurred peak oils!

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 08:22 PM

Quote from: RE on May 18, 2024, 09:47 AM

Quote from: TDoS on May 18, 2024, 07:14 AMWe are discussing doomer scenarios....WAGs are all there is.

Without any data I'm not going to set a timeline.  I am not and never have been a "Peak Oiler".

Well good for you then. The amount of egg on face those folks have accumulated would sink the Titanic at this point. Best to stay as far away as possible from that one.

Eh, you see it as more important than I do.  To me, the concept of PO, that decline would be tied to reaching a peak in oil consumption is what is relevant, not how perfect the predictions were of the date it would be reached.  We already agree (I think) that if you don't have all the data you won't get a perfect prediction.  As more and better data comes in, the results get more accurate, so there isn't too much fundamentally wrong with the model.  The main thing wrong I see is it discounts too much the effect of energy substitution.  It's not complete substitution, but it's enough to slow things down.

Quote

Quote from: REIn terms of "failure", the fact timelines aren't spot on isn't failure, just means all the data wasn't accounted for and/or there have been discontinuties affecting the rate of change.

Okay...so when someone calls a time, and a volume, and gets it wrong it isn't failure. Would you volunteer that it is just incompetence, making a guess they knew was a WAG but pretending it time and volume certain? And then when the WAG didn't work out, and they did it again, with the same result, what would that be? Just stupid as a stump?

I would volunteer that making absolute claims for anything in the future is a mistake, which I try not to make.  When you talk about future events, you should always speak in terms of probabilities.  Nothing is written in stone.  However, when you start talking about future events, people try to pin you down for a date, as you have been doing with me.  In order to impress upon people the gravity of the situation, doomers often fall into the trap of pitching out dates.  Dr. McStinksion is a great example of that.  If you want foolish, that's where you find it, because not only his timeline was incredibly wrong, his model of positive feedback loops has practically zero basis in scientific research to date, and any data he has is pulled out of his ass. That's where you find incompetence and egg meets face disease.

Quote

Quote from: REOne such discontinuity was tight oil production.  Rather than failing, most of what was predicted is coming true, though it's mostly happening in South and Central America right now, which is why they are running up here in ever increasing numbers.

So when tight oil production began being developed from shales in northern Pennsylvania between 1880-1900 (might have been in the 1860-1880 timeframe, it has been awhile since I checked my library on this one), that was a discontinuity? Strikes me that folks that knew some geology, like at least geologically trained peak oilers, certainly can't make that claim with a straight face. And if your point is BOY are they lousy at doing some basic research in historical geology about when tight oil from shale began development, I couldn't deny it. Footnote provided on request of course, from the mid-90s no less. So any peak oilers after that timeframe can't claim to be uninformed on this fact.

Tight oil was identified early on, and I recall you pointing out in the past that fracking isn't really new either.  However, it wasn't pursued at scale until quite late in the game, so its contribution to the total mix was insignificant until the last decade or two.  You can date Marcellus, Eagle Ford and all the formations properly for us.

Quote

Quote from: REWho was POTUS is irrelevant.

The video seemed to take a different angle. Would you say his claim was materially wrong? He had quite a bit of causality assigned to Reagan there.

I didn't watch that video.  I don't really care which jackass was in the Oval Office or which party was running the show.  They're all idiots.  Carter was slightly less of an idiot, but he was ineffectual.

RE

Quote from: RE

Quote from: TDos

Quote from: RE on May 19, 2024, 12:36 AMWithout any data I'm not going to set a timeline.  I am not and never have been a "Peak Oiler".

Well good for you then. The amount of egg on face those folks have accumulated would sink the Titanic at this point. Best to stay as far away as possible from that one.

Eh, you see it as more important than I do.

I don't see it as important at all, in the sense of volumes and a maximum somewhere along the way. Interesting technically, but peak oil at the end of the day is about the economics of its use, not the absolute volume at some point in time. I just happen to be well informed on this particular technical topic.

Quote from: REWe already agree (I think) that if you don't have all the data you won't get a perfect prediction.

I might venture there are no perfect predictions outside of mathematics, because it is designed that way. Hubbert's math was perfect on the theoretical side in this regard. And because of the data issue you mention, peak oil will only be known in hindsight. A minimum of 15 years of hindsight, because we DO have data that at the global level, old peaks can be reversed that far away in time. At the regional level, the time span is longer. US states for example have repeaked 80 years after the last one, and the US obviously sets the standard for nations at around half a century. 

Quote from: REI would volunteer that making absolute claims for anything in the future is a mistake, which I try not to make. 

You have seemed to be more careful on some specific claims in the future since the 2008 time frame, but I would argue that claims in the future are always made, at all levels, with or without data, by damn near everyone, every organization, etc etc. People need to figure out if they have money in the bank to pay rent at the end of the month, companies need to have a plan for payroll the next 6 months, governments have to guess at tax receipts, etc etc. So sure...absolute claims pin folks down, they can't get them right, but it still must be done, even if it is a binary solution set. "If that invoice gets paid and clears the bank before the end of the month, I can pay rent, otherwise, I can't." 

Quote from: REWhen you talk about future events, you should always speak in terms of probabilities. 

But of course. But folks don't very often do they? I know oil and gas projections from top flight experts that do this, by smart people who can. But most future events never include probability density functions propagating out into the future. Peak oilers were never smart enough to figure this out. Maybe they hedged on occasion with "give or take a few years" but that isn't a probability hedge, it is just a range without probabilities assigned.

Quote from: REIn order to impress upon people the gravity of the situation, doomers often fall into the trap of pitching out dates.  Dr. McStinksion is a great example of that.

Of course. Snake oil salesmen don't want you to think before reaching into your wallet and just handing them the money/clicks/subscriptions.

Guy was a joke dating back to his peak oil claims in 2008. And many peak oil talking heads have risen to the occasional over the years to be just like Guy.

Quote from: RE

Quote from: TDoS

Quote from: K-DogOne such discontinuity was tight oil production.  Rather than failing, most of what was predicted is coming true, though it's mostly happening in South and Central America right now, which is why they are running up here in ever increasing numbers.

So when tight oil production began being developed from shales in northern Pennsylvania between 1880-1900 (might have been in the 1860-1880 timeframe, it has been awhile since I checked my library on this one), that was a discontinuity? Strikes me that folks that knew some geology, like at least geologically trained peak oilers, certainly can't make that claim with a straight face. And if your point is BOY are they lousy at doing some basic research in historical geology about when tight oil from shale began development, I couldn't deny it. Footnote provided on request of course, from the mid-90s no less. So any peak oilers after that timeframe can't claim to be uninformed on this fact.

Tight oil was identified early on, and I recall you pointing out in the past that fracking isn't really new either.  However, it wasn't pursued at scale until quite late in the game, so its contribution to the total mix was insignificant until the last decade or two.  You can date Marcellus, Eagle Ford and all the formations properly for us.

Everything is relative. When natural gas from Devonian shale was lighting up Fredonia NY starting around 1825, it was ALL the production there was. The Mid-Ohio valley oil production was the Middle East of the world, late 1800's. Producing oil sourced from and contained within shales. Sure...not much by todays volumes....but in the time it was happening? The Middle East of the world. 

Quote from: TDoS on May 19, 2024, 07:33 AMI don't see it as important at all

Your actions speak otherwise.  It's basically the only thing you care about writing on these pages, and you spend almost as much time at it as I do.

QuotePeak oilers were never smart enough to figure this out.

You just can't help yourself insulting people, can you?  Calling people stupid just makes you look petty and stupid.

Since you didn't name a specific person, I'll keep your cooler time short and I won't delete the post. 2 days.

RE

Quote from: RE on May 19, 2024, 08:40 AMYou just can't help yourself insulting people, can you?  Calling people stupid just makes you look petty and stupid.

Since you didn't name a specific person, I'll keep your cooler time short and I won't delete the post. 2 days.

RE

On your return, before you bring up the fact I just called all politicians idiots and recently called the writer and editors of that fusion story about the tokamak producing record energy dimwits, there's a difference.  I'm Admin.     It's the perogative of a tyrant to be petty and stupid.

Admin.  Power of God on a forum. 

RE

TDOS is in the cooler?  Fine then, I can make a claim about Peak Oil without the stench of denial blowing over it within the hour.

Peak Oil is real.  TDOS forgets I bought the M. K. Hubbert biography, but there is little point in arguing incorrect facts with someone who denies reality, and takes things out of context.

Nobody seems to have noticed that I said there will be shortages of all fossil liquids in ten years.  TDOS was too busy equating dropping a stick of dynamite down an oil well as the same thing as hydraulic fracking using custom liquids and equipment which won't be invented for a hundred years to notice.

Actually, the truth is TDOS saw my claim clearly.  It was in bold.  It is deliberately ignored.

Did TDOS say to himself Oh Shit, Looks like the Diner managed to acquire some proprietary oil company data?  If so he is correct. 

The Diner managed to get a report prepared by the same people oil companies pay money to when they need the info.

In ten years production will not meet demand.  And no amount of cracking rock is going to change that fact.

It totally sucks that after taking the trouble to build a website to discuss these facts.  The Diner is shadow banned and attacked by lackeys of the American Deep state.

Because inquiring nurds want to know!

Quote from: K-Dog on May 19, 2024, 11:10 AMTDOS is in the cooler?  Fine then, I can make a claim about Peak Oil without the stench of denial blowing over it within the hour.

Peak Oil is real.  TDOS forgets I bought the M. K. Hubbert biography, but there is little point in arguing incorrect facts with someone who denies reality, and takes things out of context.

Yah, besides that he's fond of using half-truths to validate the claim fracking technology has beeen around since the 1800s.  In order to be really effective, fracking needs to be combined with horizontal drilling to be really effective in accessing oil trapped in non-permeable rock.

Horizontal drilling has been around since 1950s. Recent advances in equipment and in hydraulic fracturing techniques allowed the production of natural gas from previously inaccessible sources such as shale formations (Robbins, 2013). This new and significant increase in shale gas production opened novel research areas for process systems engineering (PSE) community, and it, in turn, benefited from PSE contributions (e.g., Tavallali et al., 2014; Cafaro and Grossmann, 2016; Drouven and Grossmann, 2016; Gao and You, 2017). For example, Cafaro and Grossmann (2016) presents a continuous-time nonlinear programming model and a multi-period mixed-integer programming model to solve refracturing planning problem for horizontal shale gas wells. The models determine which wells to refracture, and the frequency of refracturing and its schedule.

The equipment used for drilling in the 1800s was basically the same as what was used to drill a well for water.  The first wells they hir were basically accidental, and they blew out under so much pressure from NG they fracked themselves.  Drop some dynamite down the hole to frack some more.

While there was plenty of oil around in reservoirs that didn't need to be drilled horizontally and fracked at different strata, few bothered doing it because it's more expensive.  The method didn't come into wide use until conventional oil reserves started running thin and Tdos and his buddies went to North Dakota to frack the living shit out of the Bakken formation.

The North Dakota oil boom was the period of rapidly expanding oil extraction from the Bakken Formation in the state of North Dakota that lasted from the discovery of Parshall Oil Field in 2006, and peaked in 2012,[1][2] but with substantially less growth noted since 2015 due to a global decline in oil prices.[3]

The oil boom was largely due to the successful use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, which made unconventional tight oil deposits recoverable.[4] Contributing to the boom was a push to commence drilling and production on oil and gas leases before the expiration of their primary term, commonly three to five years, at which time the leases would terminate unless a producing well was drilled on the lease. But once production was established, the leases continued as long as oil and gas were continually produced.

The boom created new jobs and economic growth in tandem with long-lasting negative effects, such as environmental degredation, pollution, infrastructure collapse, and an increased rate of sexual assault and other violent crime perpetrated by workers living in the area's "man camps" against Indigenous women and children in neighboring reservations.

This biz took off in 2006, right when Peak Oil interest began growing in the blogosphere, and has been used ever since by Tdos as the evidence that Peak Oil is wrong, there's plenty of oil out there to be fracked, so stop the doom talk already, OK? lol.

As it turns out, the wells depleted rather rapidly, the massive amount of debt to do it went underwater when prices dropped back down, and since then the oil companies have been a lot more conservative in the fracking adventures.  Now, the debt and investment is flowing toward the Green Energy Hopium crowd, which is why we get this non-stop parade of articles about new Batt tech, Fuel Cells, Hydrogen and Fusion.  They know fracking isn't a solution, so they're going balls to the wall with "clean renewable" energy.

Despite this fairly obvious turn of events, Tdos has been trolling websites so long claiming Peak Oil was bogus and everyone who made predictions were idiots that he just can't let go of it and move on.  What he should be doing now is debunking all the bullshit claims about Fusion power and Hydrogen substituting for FFs, that is the current meme, not Peak Oil.  That's ancient history.

From where I sit, the Renewables Hopium cohort has done a surprisingly good job of building Solar & Wind capacity as well as LDES to support that when the sun don't shine and the wing don't blow.  Despite this, there's still no way alternative energy can fully replace FFs at the current leveel of per capita consumption in 10 years.  So we are likely to take a significant hit at that time, if not before since the monetary system is seriously on the rocks and a more proximal problem.  Latest there is the Chinese have accelerated their dumping of USTs and the BRICS are closer to issuing a distributed currency based on blockchain technology.

So anyhow, I gave him another brief trip to the cooler because yet another trip down memory lane on the subject of Peak Oil remains tiresome, and basically irrelevant at this point.  Everybody Knows oil can't cover the energy demands projected for the decade to come.  In all likelihood, the demand won't be there, it will be destroyed first.  Growth numbers predicted for many if not all countries won't be met.

The 3rd Quarter of 2024 is a recent date I went out on a limb to predict for recession.  I felt I had enough data last year to make that call.  I could be wrong of course, but 3rd quarter begins at the end of June, so we'll see if we start heading south sooner rather than later.

RE

QuoteThe Renewables Hopium cohort has done a surprisingly good job of building Solar & Wind capacity as well as LDES to support that when the sun don't shine and the wing don't blow.  Despite this, there's still no way alternative energy can fully replace FFs at the current leveel of per capita consumption in 10 years.

If they have been doing such a good job why are we using more fossil fuel now then when the Hopium renewable dance to keep everything the same started?

Quote from: K-Dog on May 20, 2024, 08:56 AM

QuoteThe Renewables Hopium cohort has done a surprisingly good job of building Solar & Wind capacity as well as LDES to support that when the sun don't shine and the wing don't blow.  Despite this, there's still no way alternative energy can fully replace FFs at the current leveel of per capita consumption in 10 years.

If they have been doing such a good job why are we using more fossil fuel now then when the Hopium renewable dance to keep everything the same started?

Because demand increases faster than they can build alternative energy.

RE

Quote from: RE on May 20, 2024, 10:14 AM

Quote from: K-Dog on May 20, 2024, 08:56 AM

QuoteThe Renewables Hopium cohort has done a surprisingly good job of building Solar & Wind capacity as well as LDES to support that when the sun don't shine and the wing don't blow.  Despite this, there's still no way alternative energy can fully replace FFs at the current leveel of per capita consumption in 10 years.

If they have been doing such a good job why are we using more fossil fuel now then when the Hopium renewable dance to keep everything the same started?

Because demand increases faster than they can build alternative energy.

RE

All serious students of Jevon's paradox KNOW that it is futile to pursue alternative energy without restricting conventional energy use.  The relationship to Jevon's may not seem obvious, but a dynamic analysis of what happens as alternative energy is added to the mix shows there is a clear relationship which mimics Jevon's efficiency gain if the introduction of new energy is not balanced by removal of old energy.  Total energy use can only increase.  It is in the math.

But this being America, we don't do math.  We prefer to die.

Quote from: RE on May 19, 2024, 08:40 AM

Quote from: TDoS on May 19, 2024, 07:33 AMI don't see it as important at all

Your actions speak otherwise.  It's basically the only thing you care about writing on these pages, and you spend almost as much time at it as I do.

As I've mentioned before, you don't have a clue why I am here.  In the context of "why", my actions speak perfectly.

Quote from: K-Dog on May 19, 2024, 11:10 AMTDOS is in the cooler?  Fine then, I can make a claim about Peak Oil without the stench of denial blowing over it within the hour.

I note that you missed the part where I already mentioned peak oil is real.

Are you aware that you are generally repeating points previously dispatched with quotes, references, timelines and history, evidence etc etc? Or do they not count because they are vanished by someone/organization, and as we are a bunch of geriatrics around here, we don't remember things as well as we used to?

I give credit where credit is do. Hubbert certainly declared peak oils. They just weren't perfect, unless now you wish to defend his 1950 peak claim as such? You did KNOW about his 1950 US peak oil claim didn't you?

Quote from: K-Dog on May 19, 2024, 11:10 AMPeak Oil is real.  TDOS forgets I bought the M. K. Hubbert biography, but there is little point in arguing incorrect facts with someone who denies reality, and takes things out of context.

Hubbert's 1950 peak oil claim comes from the biography written by Mason Inman. So you had the biography, FORGOT he claimed peak oil in the US in 1950 and claim it is ME who had incorrect facts?

So..back in white is black and black is white land?

Quote from: TDoS on May 21, 2024, 05:04 PM

Quote from: RE on May 19, 2024, 08:40 AM

Quote from: TDoS on May 19, 2024, 07:33 AMI don't see it as important at all

Your actions speak otherwise.  It's basically the only thing you care about writing on these pages, and you spend almost as much time at it as I do.

As I've mentioned before, you don't have a clue why I am here.  In the context of "why", my actions speak perfectly.

Don't need clues.  The sheer volume demonstrates it in any context.  Why is irrelevant.

RE

Quote from: RE on May 19, 2024, 04:57 PMYah, besides that he's fond of using half-truths to validate the claim fracking technology has beeen around since the 1800s.

Oh what nonsense. Half truths indeed, are you really at the point where you can't even represent what I've written here?

I provided a year for when modern hydraulic fracturing began. It wasn't in the 1800's. I also mentioned when hydrostatic shock showed up...that was in the 1800's. So who doesn't know the difference between the two of those? A clue...it ain't me!

You can't even remember when you were taking bets on Toyota going bankrupt back in 2008, apparently your memory isn't even able to go back to the last couple of hidden posts you now pretend don't exist so you can misrepresent what I said in them.

Quote from: REIn order to be really effective, fracking needs to be combined with horizontal drilling to be really effective in accessing oil trapped in non-permeable rock.

Oh boy. Shale is permeable. Just not very. NON-permeable is rock that nothing flows through. Guess what shale can do, because it is PERMEABLE. It can have gas flowing through it. Now you can't be bothered to look up a word in a dictionary prior to inserting foot in mouth?

And there was certainly ZERO horizontal wells needed to develop the largest accumulation of natural gas in the known world in the 1920's and 1930's. Devonian shale. Still producing today. All vertical wells, all shot holes (no horizontal wells and no hydraulic fracturing) for the historically and geologically challenged.

 

Quote from: REThe equipment used for drilling in the 1800s was basically the same as what was used to drill a well for water.  The first wells they hir were basically accidental, and they blew out under so much pressure from NG they fracked themselves.  Drop some dynamite down the hole to frack some more.

Again, can't even get HISTORY right. Springboards and cable tools certainly drilled for brine for the salt, and occasionally hit oil. 1848. American well set the Ohio River on fire. It was a water well.  It didn't do this because of pressure, it did it because oil came up with the water, hit the brazer for making bits nearby, caught fire, and there was no well control back then so a flowing well now on fire flowed down the bank, into a local tributary to the Ohio, burning all the way.

What kind of pressure you figure natural gas 60' under the ground is under Mr "I only wish they taught about Lithostatic Pressure In Chemistry Class so I wouldn't so easily say something stupid in front of someone who knows better"? Folks in NY drilled a well into shale, it leaked natural gas, they threw a big cast iron lid on top of the well with a hole in it, and used in some cases hollowed out anything they could find to move it up and down the street to run lighting. You figure those materials are really good for handling high pressure natural gas do you? The kind you can stop by using your finger to plug the hole if you wanted?

Stick to chemistry, your understanding of geology isn't any better than your mechanic skills where you can't figure out fire-fuel-compression on an internal combustion engine. Someone who thinks they can do an appendectomy my ass, you can't get an American V8 started that sits a little while.

Face it RE, you can't accomplish dick when it comes to practical applications. Smarter than shit and if trapped in a wet paper bag would die because paper when wet is NON-PERMEABLE!!!