The end of the oil era: The fall of civilization, or just a bump in the road?

Great Debates
441

Well you have told everyone that rising production costs would lead to people selling oil at a higher price, so it is good to see that you accept that high production cost and lower price is thinner profit for the OPERATOR.

So? Some investors and shareholders are going to loose a bunch of money. The resource remains, the production capability remains, someone will come along and snap them up at bargin basement prices. The production rate is the key thing right?Not the profit margin of an oil company or some investors loosing a boat load of cash. just trying to see this in your eyes.

This makes no sense, yes I get increase capex is increase in cost, but what does leading less production each time mean? To your mind what is this increased capital? Where is that money going?

I looked at the Kopits website

“The Reality is that the so-called shale revolution is nothing more than a bubble, driven by record levels of drilling”

Drilling is a capital cost, to the operator ( and a revenue stream to the drilling contractors etc, they are quite happy about the whole thing ) That whole sentence makes no sense, it is just a string of words thrown together that is gibberish. Drilling is a activity and cost driven by a desire to produce oil, oil is not a byproduct of someone wanting to drill.
The capital expenditures are going on rigs, frac fleets and people, this is simply moving the profit from the operator to other service companies, and is in some way , a good thing and has redressed some of the historical imbalances between operator and service companies.
If we see drilling and frac fleet activity decline , prices will drop on those items, capex per well will drop. Right now in deepwater there is significant price pressure on the deep and ultra deepwater rig rates. Profit moving from one pocket to another, not really affecting the actual production rates.

Refuted earlier and by the ongoing data - old data

Wait a minute - didn’t you just agree increasing cost is thinner margins for operator?

442

Nice

443

There’s this idea I see sometimes from Peak Oilers, that if the United States is buying oil for $100 per unit, and China offers $101 per unit, then China gets all the oil and the United States gets none, and the next day the lights go out in Manhattan.

But despite very high global oil prices today in 2014, people in third world countries can still get gas for their cars, despite the fact that people in America have a lot more money to bid on gas. Why then doesn’t it happen that some guy in India is trying to buy gas for his jitney and an American swoops in and offers to buy the same gas, only for 10% higher, and suddenly every internal combustion vehicle in India sputters to a halt.

Also there’s a conviction that oil is the only source of energy worth talking about, that we get our electricity from oil, and that there’s a one to one correspondence between energy consumption and GDP.

444

I am referring to the following articles from 2004:

“Capitalism’s Amazing Resilience”

and 2005:

“It’s Not the End Of the Oil Age”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072901672.html

445

“What do I pay for in a gallon of regular gasoline?”

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=22&t=10

See also the marginal cost of production mentioned here:

“Saudis, soaring costs may keep oil above $100”

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/16/us-energy-summit-oilprice-idUSBRE84F0RW20120516

446

The price will remain low if there are no others willing to buy at a higher price. Given that, the last thing that a producer will want to be is isolated.

This confirms Kopits’ arguments.

Also, I think for the global economy to actually recover, the price has to go below $40. For that to happen, crude oil production has to ramp up considerably, with energy returns back to those of the 1970s (if not better).

“U.S. Oil Exports Ready to Sail”

http://online.wsj.com/articles/oil-shipment-cracks-decades-old-ban-1406762293

The news does not surprise me because as I explained earlier, the global economy is now becoming increasingly reliant on U.S. shale oil. But according to the EIA, production will peak in only a few years. That together with low energy returns for unconventional production confirms that peak oil has taken place.

Exactly. And as shown in the Kopits lecture and recent articles, capex are rising considerably in exchange for lower increases in production. That’s peak oil.

447

If it is doing OK, then why do you argue the opposite in your next paragraph?

The reason why I mention below $40 is because that was the forecast made in 2004 for the next few decades.

If this is so, then why you argue the opposite in your previous paragraph?

As for other factors, Kopits discusses them in his lecture.

[/quote]

So the belief that peak oil has not taken place of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic?

[/quote]

Yes.

If it has no “practical value”, then why are “technology developments” needed?

All of the data I’ve presented are recent and come from the EIA and the IEA. The same goes for news articles, data used by Kopits and others, etc.

I’ve also addressed the points raised by John in my previous messages.

Peak oil “belief” does not require accepting such a list but the opposite.

Finally, if “peak oil claims” are wrong, then why are “technology developments” necessary?

448

Not just lower profit but even losses. See the article shared earlier about rising debt and capex. From there, consider what happens if prices drop further.

It won’t matter because capex will still be high, and that driven by higher energy costs.

Simple. It means higher oil prices as production cannot catch up with demand. But the global economy can’t stand higher prices. That’s one of the reasons for the 2008 crash and the on-going crisis.

That’s not the Kopits website. You will find the lecture here:

If capex drops, production also goes down.

Finally, I didn’t agree that increasing cost will mean lower profits. If any, that’s been part of my argument from the start.

449

I don’t recall seeing that point. From what I know, the new price of oil for the bourse will be $101. If a country works outside any of the exchanges, then producers in that country and buyers can probably work out various agreements.

The reason why oil consumption is growing for the rest of the world is because their debt and consumption levels are not yet that high. Thus, we face multiple issues: when the oil price goes up, the global economy crashes. When it goes down as a reaction to continued economic crisis, then producers have to deal with debt and high marginal costs.

Given the example, this must have been the case for many years. That is, given the petrodollar and increasing credit, the U.S. was able to spend on oil and consume it readily. But because more spending led to debt issues, the U.S. economy soon crashed and remained weak, with the EU and Japan following. This explains why oil consumption for these three areas weakened.

At the same time, BRIC and emerging markets became more powerful, leading to higher oil consumption for the rest of the world, and an increase in global consumption:

Thus, we are seeing multiple problems taking place: demand destruction for various developed economies, rising demand for much of the world with a much larger population, a global economy that weakens when prices are too high, producers that need high prices as marginal costs rise, production that doesn’t rise readily even with a tripling of prices, and a global economy that correlates with GDP growth:

the need for petrochemicals and fossil fuels for transport (including overseas shipping), etc.

Add to this a multi-fold increase in arms production and military spending partly employed to protect the petrodollar, high food prices, chronic unemployment, supply issues for other resources (including fresh water), environmental damage, and long-term effects of global warming.

450

It should be noted that lower prices were expected. From 2013:

“What’s Ahead? Lower Oil Prices, Despite Higher Extraction Costs”

The reason for lower prices is economic crisis as a result of high prices. See also

This also explains why other markets are also weakening:

Thus, in order to have economic recovery, extraction costs have to be much lower than they are now, and that means a significant ramp-up in crude oil production.

451

I think the problem is before 1950 people keep saying we will run out of fossil fuels.And look we are in 2014 and still have lots of fossil fuels.

Some say we have enough fossil fuels to 2050 some say for over 100 years from now.

I think the problem is they cannot predict when we will run out. It is very hard to predict.

So it may be in 50 years from now or 100 years from now. By that time science and technology will be better than what we have to day!! So there will be next new major thing.

452

[QUOTE=sweat209]
I think the problem is they cannot predict when we will run out. It is very hard to predict.
[/QUOTE]

We will never ‘run out’ of fossil fuels. Never. What will happen is that at some point in the next decade or so the price of, say, oil will reach a point where other alternatives look better from a market perspective. Currently, oil and oil products are still too cheap to allow real competitors, especially if you don’t factor in the costs to the environment and global warming in the price, which we don’t. Eventually, however, as the price of oil and oil products rises they will cross a threshold where the many alternatives waiting in the wings will become more attractive to more than a niche group of yuppies and rich folks buying them as status symbols. During that same time while the price rises development will continue along several lines, as companies pour R&D money into what they and their crystal ball types think will be the next big thing.

It’s hard to predict when this will all happen as you say, not because we’ll run out of oil/fossil fuels, but because there are some uncertain factors like the continued development of technologies to extract oil and fossil fuels from environments and conditions that were impossible or cost prohibitive before. There are also developments in alternative power sources and developing those alternatives and what their impact will be and when it will happen. All of this could extend our use of oil, say, for another decade…or 2…or 5 (probably not much beyond that though), or it could also shorten it substantially if development on one of the alternatives being worked on makes a major breakthrough in cost and/or performance envelop. Or environmental/social/political factors come in strong…look at coal, something we have plenty of (several hundred years reserve at least). We are currently spinning it down because of the environmental and political costs outweigh it’s utility, and technology has allowed us to use a less damaging alternative (natural gas) at a lower price. Something like that could very well happen with oil in the next decade. Eventually SOMETHING will replace it due to market factors or political reasons, or some combination of both of those. Predicting WHEN however is the trick. If someone knew that, and knew what the next paradigm will be they could be richer than the gods. :stuck_out_tongue:

453

Also, please don’t equate “fossil fuels” with oil. Oil is getting harder and harder to extract, but we’re sitting on mountains of coal. The problem is dumping all that carbon back into the atmosphere.

454

Oil is a fossil fuel , at least by EIA, IEA , OECD, Greenpeace etc definitions, so it would be hard not to equate fossil fuels with oil unless we once again start to adopt unusual definitions for things.
If you can find a credible cite that differentiates fossil fuels from oil, please share it.

455

No, I meant that oil is a fossil fuel. But it’s not the only fossil fuel, coal is a fossil fuel and so is natural gas.

Peak Oilers tend to believe that oil powers everything and treat “fossil fuel” as a synonym for “oil”.

456

Ahhhh , gotcha, sorry

457

What does this have to do with anything? You stated that the cost of production for Saudi Arabia crude oil was $90+. This is a FAQ on retail gasoline in the U.S.

Uh, did you even read this? It is talking about added social costs in Saudi Arabia requiring $100 oil in order to balance the budget.

I think maybe you should just admit you’re wrong on this one. It’s not a debate; you’ve just made an incorrect statement.

458

I think you are trying to say we have lots of coal and natural gas.But not much oil left.

Some say we will run out of oil by the year 2050 and some say 100 to 150 years from now.

459

We’re not going to run out of oil at any date. At some point in the future it will no longer be economical to extract liquid hydrocarbons out of the ground, refine them, and sell them as transportation fuel.

There will still be plenty of liquid hydrocarbons in the earth’s crust, it’s just that no one will bother extracting it, because there will be no way to make a profit doing so.

We’ll use something else to power transportation at that point–wind power, horses, humans, coal-fired steam engines, batteries, ethanol, synthetic liquid hydrocarbons, hydrogen, fusion pods, fairies, or whatever.

The point about coal is that there’s a mountain of coal under the ground, and there are plenty of processes to convert the carbon in solid coal or biomass to arbitrary liquid hydrocarbons, it’s just that those processes currently are a lot more expensive than crude oil sucked from the deserts of Saudi Arabia. So if we absolutely positively must have liquid hydrocarbon transportation fuel we can manufacture it. These manufactured hydrocarbons are always going to be more expensive in absolute terms than gasoline was in 1990, and some people believe that unless transportation fuel prices are at 1990 levels our civilization is impossible and we’ll have a catastrophic economic collapse.

460

This post reminds me of some “mockumentary” that was on TV about 5-7 years ago that postulated this very scenario. Part of the scenario had oil running out with one last, final tanker of oil making its way to the US… when the oil was purchased by China in precisely the way you said (they offered more money), causing a major market meltdown, financial chaos, and the wheels of commerce slowly grinding to a halt.

I don’t think it was part of the “Aftermath” series… but I could be wrong, after all it’s been a few years since I’ve seen this. The Aftermath series was more about how mankind could survive w/o oil, postulating that it all disappeared from the ground one day (there were four other scenarios in this series: What would happen if the earth stopped rotating, WWHI the sun expanded, and WWHI the population doubled overnight.