[QUOTE=ralfy]
According to the IEA, crude oil production peaked in 2005.
[/QUOTE]
Uhuh…I know that you continue to quote this as gospel, though I also note that you continue to either refer to earlier drive by links or new drive by links where you expect the reader to sift through your link to figure out what data is relevant to what you are claiming. While it’s laughably easy for me to do a google search on ‘debunking peak oil occurred in 2005’ and tossing out a bunch of my own drive by links, or linking to the Wiki on predicting peak oil, where I could quote that experts in the field are still predicting that the production peak could happen anywhere between now and 2030 (depending on a host of variables), and that your own EIA (who has it’s own agenda btw) is using a very narrow definition of oil and production to make that claim, I’ll just put it to you this way: How come, if oil peaked in 2005, no one really noticed? Here we are, 9 years later and still chugging along. During that period, China and India (as well as several other countries) have expanded their own demand by huge amounts, while the demand in the US and Europe has mainly flattened or gone down slightly. Supply…demand. Since you claim that the supply in the form of production peaked (presumably meaning it’s gone down since then), how could increased demand is being met? Where is it being met from?
No thanks…if you can’t be bothered to quote the relevant details in your cited link then I’m certainly not going to slog through to make your argument for you. However, I wanted to quote this part because this seems to be the biggest disconnect between your favorite EIA source and just about everyone else. To me, this is where their real bias shows itself, in the repeated claim that unconventional sources are tenuous and will have an ever increasing price tag on production…and that, regardless, they can never be made to produce the same levels and volumes anyway, so we are all doomed, DOOMMEEEDDD!
Reading through their site (despite telling you I’m not going to slog through your drive by links, I actually did take a look), you can see that they clearly have a renewable/clean energy agenda, and also that they still have a bit of a Peak Oil slant as well (several references to the now defunct Oil Drum cite you also seem to like using).
From what I remember, the best-case estimates show that shale oil will last for only a few more years.
The other problem is that it has to make up for both increasing oil demand plus a drop in crude oil production. More details are given in two articles shared earlier.
and they come from multiple sources, from energy agencies to international banks to oil companies to military and intelligence organizations.
All of the links I post are relevant. That’s why I keep referring to them in my responses, even though I already referred to relevant details many times in previous messages in this thread.
Finally, the Oil Drum contains reports from various sources. For example, EROI is also discussed here:
“Will Fossil Fuels Be Able to Maintain Economic Growth? A Q&A with Charles Hall”
For more details, try
“Special Issue ‘New Studies in EROI (Energy Return on Investment)’”
Again, I discussed the relevant points about this in earlier messages.
Uh… why don’t you use the price trendline evident between 1950 to 1971? Or between 1990-98, when it decreased by 50%?
In other words… you’re picking and choosing your starting and stopping points to match your thesis. And since the price trend during the first half of your 15 year period was deflationary, I’m still a bit confused as to why you think the period from 1990-2005 was somehow normal.
Per capita doesn’t work as, has been explained before, efficiencies and conservation has made oil use flatline in the US from 1978-present, even though there is a demonstrable rise in our standard of living, population, economy, etc since then.
Per capita only works if it is a finite substance whose use cannot be improved upon. Otherwise, you’re comparing apples (1978) to oranges (2013.)
In short, the US experience and use of oil since the last oil shock does not match with what you are saying is an economic fact. As the past 35 years have proven: A country does not need to increase oil use merely because population, GDP… hell, even the number of vehicles on the road… increase. Our per capita consumption has dropped, though our standard of living has risen.
Gotta tell you… I’m confused as to why you think your theories are established fact when the historical record doesn’t match what they say needs to happen?
:dubious: Oil prices have risen because the costs of getting oil have risen slightly (overall average) while the demand from the world has shot through the roof, in comparison to the early 1990s. This is the basic principle of how supply and demand works, before you get to thousands of economic factors that mess with supply and demand.
Outside of that, you are also dealing with a still-fairly-powerful oil cartel (OPEC) that has an intended price point range of $80 - $120 dollars per barrel and are more than willing to cut or increase production to meet that target.
Thus, I’m fairly certain that oil should not be $30-40 per barrel.
[QUOTE=ralfy]
All you need to do is to prove the EIA wrong concerning reported crude oil production. That’s all.
[/QUOTE]
Um, no…it’s not up to me to disprove your case. It’s up to you to prove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, and all that.
That’s nice. Perhaps you’d like to include a post number, since, again, I have zero desire to slog back through the thread to figure out what your first post stated at this point.
You’ve posted drive by links, where you basically post a link, make a brief assertion and then leave it up to anyone interested to slog through your link to try and figure out what the fuck your point is. I’m disinclined to do so. If you wish to make a point using a cite, then post your link and quote the parts you feel are relevant to whatever point you are trying to make. Or don’t, if you just want to be dismissed…as you have been in this thread.
No, you haven’t…as you haven’t HERE. You posted links an a brief assertion. You quoted NOTHING from your drive by link, and you leave it up to the reader to click on your link, dig through the page(s) and figure out what your point was and whether the page actually has the information you asserted it does and make your argument for you. Sorry…me no play that stupid silly game. If you don’t want to defend your points with quotes from your links, well, that’s your look out. I’ll just dismiss you at this point and engage with Little Nemo or someone else who is worth engaging.
I am referring to oil price in nominal dollars. It was less than $20 from the latter part of the nineteenth century until the mid-'70s, then reached almost $40 by the end of the decade, then stayed between $15 and $30 for the next two decades.
Now, I’d understand an increase from, say, $30 to almost $50 between 2001 and 2020, but a tripling of the price in less than a decade?
Notice the major increase from 2005 to the present.
The only other time that happened was during the 1970s. That time, U.S. oil production dropped, and with the removal of the gold standard, the U.S. started dealing with Saudi Arabia, leading to the phenomenon of the petro-dollar.
The situation is a lot different now, as global crude oil production is now in a plateau, there are fears of currency wars, and we (i.e., the global economy) need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years to maintain economic growth (according to the IEA).
Finally, to meet a growing global middle class, even more. Details can be found in my previous messages.
Do you understand the peak oil concept? It is not a clearly delineated point of inflection, it is a phase that may continue for years, kind of like the apocalypse. Market vectors – the supply/demand/price interplay – drag the peak period out into a lengthy series of fluctuations, so whether or not we have in fact entered the peak period, and when it will or did start, will probably not be known until the full-on decline plays out.
The economic troubles of '07-08 caused a significant decline in demand, because a large number of people did not need to or could not afford to consume as much. That factor kind of skews the numbers, as does the increasing deployment of alternative sources and more efficient vehicles – due in large part to concerns about peak oil (and AGW, which is rather related).
So, yeah, maybe it started in 2005, or maybe in 2012, or maybe it will start in 2017. The trends are based on a lot of variables, I am not convinced that it can be reliably identified, not even after it is “over”. Data is subject to interpretation, you will just have to trust whomever you feel comfortable trusting. But go ahead, continue the fruitless furious fencing.