It’s illogical to revive a thread after a collapse for very obvious reasons.
Also, a collapse has already taken place for various countries, and crashes for others, and all due to peak oil.
There are no details in your previous posts. You did not counter the point about capex, which is one main proof of peak oil. See also the latest EIA data for crude oil.
There are no such details in your previous posts. You did not counter the point about high oil prices, crude oil peaking, global production per capita peaking in 1979, etc.
Yes. That is, economic crisis is weakening demand, and with that there is enough supply. What we want is increasing demand and increasing supply, not enough supply because of a weak economy.
You’re welcome.
You <> the world.
Actually, that was the belief in 2006. See the Four Corners documentary linked to earlier plus the 2010 Catalyst follow-up.
The point about the global middle class being irrelevant makes absolutely no sense at all as the manner by which an economy “works” IS based on a growing middle class. Where do you think the higher profits and returns on investment come from?
All of the points were countered in my previous message.
What supports my position are the IEA and the EIA. See the latest EIA data for crude oil for details.
Please read my previous messages. They contain multiple links where details are given.
To recap, see the 2010 IEA report for information on crude oil peaking plus global warming. (linked multiple times earlier)
To see the latest EIA data on crude oil, try
To confirm the data until the end of 2013, see the EIA 2014 report (linked earlier).
Crude oil peaking confirms what Hubbert said in 1976 (the video was linked earlier).
To see details on capital expenditures and increasing debt for the oil industry, see my post about Kopits’ talk, one interview, and two articles about the matter.
To see downgrades on forecasts for Marcellus, etc., see an article I shared earlier about the matter.
That’s my point. Are the other 192 countries discussed in what you’ve presented?
Are you assuming that there will be no “failed companies” in the future?
Again, why are you looking for only new systems? Shouldn’t you be looking at systems that have been operating for several years? Isn’t that the logical way to study the matter?
The data used does not come from 2004.
Obviously not! If any, what is being studied is a system presently operating. What you want is to do a performance analysis of a system that hasn’t been operating yet. That makes no sense at all.
On the contrary, I think what is happening in Spain counters that view. I also want to see what is happening in Germany. Also, not just problems affecting solar but also other energy systems, such as wind power:
what happened to nuclear power in Japan, and more.
In the end, we need to realize that there are certain factors and even physical laws that cannot be hurdled easily. That is why even the IEA is worried about the issue. For more details, see the Catalyst video linked earlier, as well as the IEA 2010 report.
Capital expenditures are rising together with debt for the oil and gas industry because of peak oil. That’s why prices remain high. At the same time, the industry is now spending around twice the amount to find new oil in exchange for only a fraction of an increase in production. Lots of details are given in my previous messages.
Also, the EIA and the IEA forecast that shale oil will peak after only a few years, after which we will need to focus on natural gas. The hope is that the industry will go for maximum depletion rates while governments regulate heavily to increase the use of renewable energy significantly, to counter both peak oil and global warming. More details are given in my previous posts, especially the ones that refer to the IEA 2010 report and the EIA 2014 report.
The catch is that oil prices have to go up to cover those expenditures, and it is very likely that a global economy that remains in crisis after the 2008 crash cannot withstand higher prices. I shared an earlier article about that:
That’s because energy returns for oil have gone down, and that’s due to peak oil.
The catch is that energy returns and quantity for other sources of energy are not high enough to maintain a global capitalist economy. They also need to meet growing energy and material resources demand given oil supply issues. That’s because fossil fuels are still needed for mining, manufacturing, and shipping various components for renewable energy.
In addition, other material resources, from fresh water to various minerals, face similar problems as fossil fuels due to combinations of depletion and even pollution.
Finally, increased money supply through greater returns on investment ultimately leads to increased demand for more material resources and energy.
Yes, my posts have addressed solar costs in all countries, see my charts on the immanence of worldwide grid parity in my previous posts, har har.
And, no, you aren’t being logical at all. For one, you are eliding the difference between all systems and your laser-focus on Spain and only Spain, which, by the way, is cherry picking pretty much the worst example and holding it up as representative of the entire solar industry. Spain’s data may not come from 2004, but the CRUCIAL POINT is that those systems were BUILT around 2004. If you understand this last sentence, please indicate it with a “yes”.
Are you seeing that? Do you see how dramatically the cost of alternative energy has dropped in just the last five years? Systems built 10+ years ago, like Spain’s, produce energy much more expensively than new ones.
So you see, Spain doesn’t matter because RIGHT NOW alternative sources have reached grid parity, and not just because oil has become more expensive, but because alternatives have become so much cheaper.
We have a problem in transitioning to new energy sources, but your insistence that there is no cheap energy left isn’t true. It is just oil that isn’t getting cheaper.
The book mentioned earlier refers to a performance analysis of large systems used in Spain.
As I said, if you have performance analyses of other systems in 100+ countries, let me know.
The reasons why Spain is very representative is given at the start of the review, that is, given the amounts invested and sunlight available. If you think most countries have more money and more sunlight available, please explain why.
As explained multiple times to you, that’s because if there’s anything we can create easily, it’s money.
What we want is high energy return. The energy return for solar is 12-20 given EROI(el), but it goes down given multiple factors, such as large grid ties, the need for storage, infrastructure to distribute electricity, maintenance issues, etc. That’s why the returns for Spanish systems are lower. And this is a country with large amounts of money invested, some of the largest systems in the world, and lots of sunlight.
Most important of all is energy quantity.
Spain should matter for exactly the reason you just gave. The problem is that given a performance of the system the energy return was lower than what was expected. What happened? A review presented earlier explains why.
Hopefully, analysis of systems for Germany can also be presented in the future, and not just for solar but even for wind power, especially given the latest news regarding Bard 1.
There is no cheap energy left because the smaller global middle class from the '70s thrived on an energy return from oil that was at 30. Now, we are looking at much lower energy returns, a middle class that is set to grow to 50 pct of the world’s population, and higher energy and material resource requirements per person. Given that, we will need not only lots of cheap energy but more of it than we did in the past, energy that can provide petrochemicals and needed to manufacture even components needed for renewable energy, and as fast as possible. How immediate is the concern? View the Catalyst video shared earlier where the IEA was asked about it. That is connected to the 2010 report that was shared earlier.
Finally, in terms of overall material resources, ecological footprint is now at overshoot compared to biocapacity, and that’s for the present global population. The footprint is expected to increase even more as more people worldwide want middle class amenities while biocapacity is set to drop given environmental damage coupled with the long-term effects of global warming.
I agree…more efficient methods need to be found in regards to energy, however, not all methods are causing negative effects in the efforts to make more energy. www.texlark.com
“- Saudi Arabia’s decision to slash the official selling price for its oil has sparked trader talk of an emerging OPEC price cutting war, as members of the producer group could compete to defend their market share amid ample supplies and tepid demand. -”
Latest estimates of reserves and production continue to, particular as we see re fracturing, continue to rise, cost continue to go down as new technology and additional third party infrastructure comes on line.
As to your point "The hope is that the industry will go for maximum depletion rates " indicates that you ( or who ever you got that idea from) does not really know much about production and reservoir management. Maximum depletion rates help pay down the investment in the well, hence make money for the operator, it is not always good for maximum recovery. Gov regulation has a long history of trying to manage operators into not sucking as hard as possible and hence not screwing up the reservoirs, pick up Danel Yergins The Prize ( an old but still relevant book) and look at the history of the Texas railroad commission etc.( the point being regulation for sustainable depletion is good, not free for all get it as son as you can)
New technology in tight liquids, deepwater, conventional ( whatever that is) continue to meet production with demand. New technology in solar and the renewables continues to meet demand at ever lower price points, new technology on the consumption side continues to use energy more efficiently.
( as an aside, I am involved in the oil industry, but not specifically in tight liquids, and I am very much behind bringing online any additional form of energy. I may see the worlds problems a little too much through the lens of oil and gas, but too many of the worlds issues are caused by energy shortages or threat of shortages, so any additional energy capacity is a good thing, the cleaner the better)
The lower oil prices are caused not by lower demand, which is also the source of the oversupply. The lower demand is caused by continued economic crisis. Hence,
“CITY FOCUS: Can IMF calm storm as fears grow of another economic cataclysm?”
On top of that, oil production cost for Saudi Arabia is now at $90+ a barrel. How will they maintain production if the price drops below that?
Reserve estimates have always been high, even for crude oil. One article, for example, argues that we’ve used only 25 pct of global crude oil reserves. And yet we are now resorting to non-conventional. The reason has to do with peak oil.
The idea comes from the IEA. More details are found in my previous messages.
Examples of new technology are actually not new. We are now resorting to shale oil because crude oil production costs have gone up. The problem is that we need lower production costs no matter what type of fossil fuel source is used.
Conventional production is defined clearly by the EIA.
In global capitalist systems, efficiency does not lead to more savings but more consumption. Again, I explained that in my previous messages.
The information I’ve been presenting is the latest and comes from the EIA and the IEA. The per capita global oil production, which peaked back in 1979, comes from several sources.
From what I remember, the main argument is that U.S. crude oil production would peak sometime in 1970 and that global crude oil production would peak in 1995 + 10 years. Both predictions took place.
The reason for this is that crude oil production has peaked. That’s why we are now forced to use shale oil, etc. But according to the EIA and the IEA, shale oil production will peak after only a few years.
I think problems regarding accuracy in predictions involved prices. On one hand, it was predicted that oil prices would never exceed $35 a barrel for several decades. On the other, that prices would reach $200 a barrel.
The first did not take place, as we’re now seeing prices three times higher. And yet we’re not seeing ever-increasing prices because when that happens economic crises takes place.
The catch is that capital expenditures are rising, such that in order to get more oil, prices have to go up. More details are found in the Kopits lecture mentioned in my previous posts.
Nuclear is the next generation of energy. We take out the nuclear fuel in all the atomic bombs on the planet and use this energy to power our needs. We use sea water to drive the nuclear plants and then use the minerals that precipitate out during the heating stage for other uses.
There are several problems, though, including the need for petrochemicals, the use of fossil fuels for components used in nuclear power, the energy return for nuclear power, the energy quantity, etc.
It looks like Ralfy was right…we are in the final death throes of civilization. Look at how the price of oil has shot up world wide…exactly what you’d expect if we are tapping the bottom of the barrel of ‘real’ oil and are unable to keep up production with demand. :eek:
The Saudis have decided to maintain their level of production rather than lose market share to the new glut of North American oil production. They will settle for $80 per barrel oil for the next several years in order to compete.
This is not something that a country or corporation would do in the face of dwindling future supplies. It is what a corporation does to maintain a competitive edge against its competition. Maintain full production levels to lower prices and hold your market share. When various competing producers are seeking to dump product on the market at lower prices, there is no pending shortage of product.
It is basic Econ 101.
Oil producing countries are fighting to hold share of a market with a glut of production, not the end of the world scarcity that ralfy keeps positing in this rather humorous thread.
Electric vehicles will fill a small, niche market in urban areas. Wind and solar will become cheaper and more widely used as the technology and delivery systems improve.
And we, out in the great expanses of the Western USA will still be driving internal combustion engines, powered by if not cheap, then affordable gasoline, for the next hundred years.
Peak Oil and the predicted collapse of society envisioned has been replaced by advances in production capabilities, introduction of new power sources, reductions in estimated usage levels. And these factors will continue to modulate the market and keep oil an affordable commodity, for a very long time.
They keep it pretty tight, I have heard sub $10 lift cost. The Manifa offshore stuff, which has proved difficult to develop, is higher, but yeah, $90 is out to lunch,
It will be interesting to see how low it goes , the industry has a history of capex out pacing cash flow, so when price drops arrive, cash catches up and someone gets taken to the cleaners. No doubt we will see some consolidation, people snapping up some of the smaller fish as they hit cash problems, we have already seen majors adjusting portfolios as some decide that shale isn’t their thing, and others exit deepwater, no doubt with a big bag of money, ready to take advantage of the upcoming cash crunch.
None of which has anything to do with tight liquids being viable, if fact according to latest IEA ( Ralfy , latest, not 5 years old data) only a small percentage of the tight liquids will be affected by a price drop to $80. There will not be a lot of incentive to cut current production in the US , and with OPEC not blinking I think we will see further drops. A cut back in drilling will likely follow , and with the decline curves on tight liquid wells, we will see US production drop, no doubt leading to a price correction. Again just markets doing what they do, the US drop in production would not be an indication of the tight liquids running out.
“Some 98 percent of crude oil and condensates from the United States have a breakeven price of below $80 and 82 percent had a breakeven price of $60 or lower,” she told Reuters in an interview on the sidelines of the launch of the Africa Energy Outlook publication - See more at: IEA Chief: Oil Price Slump Yet To Hit US Shale Oil Production | Rigzone
