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

[ralfy]

@XT

I don’t know specifically why the Oil Drum folded (I didn’t even know they did until you brought it up), but it’s kind of hard to keep being chicken little when the sky never falls. Look at this thread…it’s from 2003. Here we are, over a decade later, and the sky still hasn’t fallen, nor is there any clear indication that it’s poised to do so any day now. Certainly the price per barrel has fluctuated during that time. Even adjusted for inflation the trend is pretty clear that it’s rising. But, as it rises, the thing the Peak Oil folks never seem to take into account is that reserves that were economically unfeasible in the past become viable. Technologies and techniques that were not economically feasible become viable. Alternatives that couldn’t compete with fossil fuel based technology become viable. Look at how far hybrids have come…and how far all electric has come…since 2003. And that’s with oil/gasoline STILL relatively cheap. As the price rises, more and more alternatives will become viable and economically feasible until, eventually, there will be a tipping point.

Or, I guess, no one will do anything and we’ll simply run out of oil and all go back to the joys of hunting and gathering.

I think the oil price should only be around $50 a barrel. From what I remember, it was predicted years ago that by 2010 the price would plummet to less than $30 and that production will reach 100 Mb/d.

Now, it’s $100 and crude oil production has been in plateau at 73.4 Mb/d since 2005.

Finally, alternatives become viable because crude oil is now expensive. Unfortunately, what the global economy needs is cheap energy, whether crude oil or otherwise.

[ralfy]

@XT

The fact that oil production will peak is certainly a fact. It’s the Peak Oil™ end of the world gloom and doom that’s really under discussion in these sorts of threads, and it’s that aspect I was responding too.

Crude oil production peaked in 2005.

Oil production per capita peaked in 1979.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@ralfy

It’s now around $100 a barrel, three times higher than what it should be.

What does this even mean? How does one determine what oil “should” cost? The world economy hasn’t fallen apart on $100/bbl and it seems unlikely that $200/bbl would do it either.

The current situation is in fact exactly what we want–a long tail of steadily increasing prices. It means that we have both a lot of time and high motivation to transition to alternatives. The worst possible situation would have been for all oil to be easy oil, because it means we would just drain it to zero without preparing for the event. Large countries and corporations have virtually zero foresight; they need immediate motivations to change behavior. The huge reserves of difficult shale oil is exactly the right forcing function to smoothly get away from a petroleum economy.

In other words, it’s not the peak that’s the danger. It’s the slope on the far side.

[ralfy]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

Actually, I think the peak oil folks have always taken into account that as oil gets more expensive, new reserves would become economical. I think what they didn’t predict was the extraordinary scale of these new reserves. Look at the OP- (s)he rightly points out that no new super-giant oil fields had been found from the '80s until that point. And that was a reasonable cause for alarm- where the hell was the oil going to come from when all that was left was ever-shrinking discoveries of more-expensive oil?

But that trend didn’t hold. A few years after the OP, horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing hit the scene. I think it was 2005 or 2007 that the Bakken started really being exploited. Whether or not it was economical or not before is moot- it just wasn’t possible before. Anyway, it turns out that this one deposit is truly a monster. I’ve seen estimates as high as 425 billion recoverable barrels (though I don’t 100% believe any of the estimates of the Bakken), and there are other big shale deposits scattered around the US and indeed around the world.

So, it is a pain that this oil is so expensive to produce, and that fracking sucks up so much precious water and runs the risk of turning any area it touches into a wasteland. But I don’t think the guys at, for example, the Oil Drum (or me- I worried about this issue enough to really look into it, then calmed down) were prepared for such massive reserves to reveal themselves.

Reserves have been known to be high across the board. The problem is that extraction cost in terms of energy is too high.

Thus, we face high energy costs coupled with environmental damage and even higher CO2 emissions.

[ralfy]

@XT

I’m sorry, but I totally disagree (ETA: This was mean as a response to Little Nemo). The Peak Oil™ folks have ALWAYS been about predicting gloom and doom, the end of the world, cats and dogs living together, etc etc, and that’s permeated the debate on this board for over a decade now. Very few people dispute the scientific reality that, at some point, oil production (as well as every other commodity or product) will, eventually, peak and decline. Oil is no different…nor is coal, nor other fossil fuels. It’s going to happen, if for no other reason than eventually we’ll simply move on to something else and that will cause the decline. The crux of the debate as far as Peak Oil proponents goes is that this is going to happen suddenly, rapidly, and that it’s going to cause our civilization to collapse.

Given significant dependence on oil and gas for manufacturing and food production, a JIT system to keep prices of goods low, a large human population, a growing global middle class, significant levels of environmental damage, and threat of global warming, this is no longer an issue discussed only by a few but by large organizations and businesses. Here’s a list of reports about the issue from 2004 to the present:

https://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/

Notice that reports come from groups including military organizations, governments, insurance firms, multinational banks, car companies, and even oil producers. Very few are arguing that this problem won’t take place after a long while.

The most prominent is the IEA:

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,27324,en.html

They argue that in order to deal with both peak oil and global warming, we will need maximum depletion rates for all oil and gas producers worldwide, strong coordination between governments and more regulation, and a major shift to renewable energy (to replace at least 70 pct of oil demand increase per annum) immediately.

No, that’s not the main dispute in these thread or in this debate. That’s the rational debate we SHOULD be having, but it’s not the debate we HAVE been having.

I do think that most Peak Oil proponents predict dire consequences and gloom and doom. They aren’t the fringe, they are the core. Again, most people with a clue freely acknowledge that oil production will peak. It’s going to happen. So, not much of a debate there.

I think it’s the opposite, given the IEA and other organizations.

The chicken little’s were absolutely predicting we were going to run out of oil in 10 years (or that we’d deplete our reserves so much that civilization would collapse, basically most people would die off, and we’d go back to the joys of hunting and gathering or some such).

From what I remember, it was the opposite. That is, by 2010 oil prices would drop to less than $30 a barrel and crude oil production reach 100 Mb/d. Even Saudi Arabia predicted that by 2010 they would easily breach 15 Mb/d.

As to the rest of your point there, well, yeah…that’s what rational people were predicting back then. Everyone with a clue knew the price of oil was going to rise as the easier reserves were depleted and new, more difficult and expensive reserves were used. That’s how market economics works after all. And the price of oil will continue to rise…which will open up reserves that are currently not economically feasible to exploit become economically feasible. Again, that’s how it works. The issue was trying to beat that concept into most of the Peak Oil crowds heads. It was not very successful.

But oil price has an effect on the economy similar to that of peak oil. Thus, higher oil prices actually proves peak oil.

For more on this, try this lecture:

Is straw on sale? Neither scientists nor economists look silly…the folks who look silly are the Peak Oil crowd who have been saying the sky is falling for over a decade now, yet…well, the sky still hasn’t fallen, nor does it look poised to do so any time soon. In the mean time, reserves that used to be unexploited due to economic or technological factors are now exploitable (which is what people tried to tell the Peak Oil crowd way back then) and new technologies for alternatives continue to be developed and even brought to market (which, again, people tried to tell the Peak Oil folks back then)…and, as the price of oil continues to rise, as it inevitably will, even MORE reserves will be exploited as their price point or as technologies become available, and even MORE alternatives will be developed or brought to the market as they become viable and competitive. Eventually, there will be a tipping point, and oil production will decline even more rapidly until it drops to somewhere around whale oil production and we will have moved on. Without the world ending.

I am interested in the chemistry and fertilizer angle you brought up though, if you would like to expand on that.

But the reports listed in the link shared earlier come from scientists and economists. In fact, one of the main organizations, the IEA, confirmed a peak in crude oil production in 2010.

[ralfy]

@XT

Sure. The problem with Peak Oil folk, IMHO, is that they never seem to grasp market economics at a fundamental level. I’m not talking about people who know that oil production will peak, mind, but folks who predict that it will rapidly peak and cause a crash because we’ll run out of oil suddenly and catastrophically and the world will come to an end. The reality was always that the price of oil might spike or dip, but that it’s on a long, steady climb as the easy reserves were used up. Even in 2003 people tried to point out that there was shale oil, and tar sands and other reserves that were massive but relatively unexploited because they simply weren’t economically viable at the price point that oil was at then…and the technology wasn’t being pushed for development because, again, it wasn’t needed (though it WAS being developed). That’s always been the frustrating thing in these debates…trying to get that point across, and being told that it was magical thinking, despite the fact that it’s how market economics works AND the fact that historically it’s what actually has happened when we’ve come up to these tipping points in the past.

But I agree with your assessment of the probable reason why the Oil Drum has seemingly gone into hibernation.

The problem is that there are also capital expenditures, and that oil price has not increased steadily. If any, it is at $100 a barrel, far from the $30 predicted for 2010.

The economy behind this issue is discussed in detail in the lecture linked earlier. See also the IEA report shared previously.

[ralfy]

@Dr.Strangelove

What does this even mean? How does one determine what oil “should” cost? The world economy hasn’t fallen apart on $100/bbl and it seems unlikely that $200/bbl would do it either.

The current situation is in fact exactly what we want–a long tail of steadily increasing prices. It means that we have both a lot of time and high motivation to transition to alternatives. The worst possible situation would have been for all oil to be easy oil, because it means we would just drain it to zero without preparing for the event. Large countries and corporations have virtually zero foresight; they need immediate motivations to change behavior. The huge reserves of difficult shale oil is exactly the right forcing function to smoothly get away from a petroleum economy.

In other words, it’s not the peak that’s the danger. It’s the slope on the far side.

One should not look at this as an either-or issue, that is, either the world economy falls apart, or things are fine.

One should go back to 2005 to the present, and consider the effects of high oil prices on various economies, especially in light of increasing credit that is ultimately dependent on cheap oil needed for manufacturing and services:

“No recovery until 2018, IMF warns”

No recovery until 2018, IMF warns

And that’s just for oil at $100 a barrel. At $200, a report mentioned here argues that the “impact” may be “severe”:

“Possible effect on global economy if oil prices hit $200 a barrel”

Business News Today: Read Latest Business news, India Business News Live,...

[Little_Nemo]

@XT

I’m sorry, but I totally disagree (ETA: This was mean as a response to Little Nemo). The Peak Oil™ folks have ALWAYS been about predicting gloom and doom, the end of the world, cats and dogs living together, etc etc, and that’s permeated the debate on this board for over a decade now. Very few people dispute the scientific reality that, at some point, oil production (as well as every other commodity or product) will, eventually, peak and decline. Oil is no different…nor is coal, nor other fossil fuels. It’s going to happen, if for no other reason than eventually we’ll simply move on to something else and that will cause the decline. The crux of the debate as far as Peak Oil proponents goes is that this is going to happen suddenly, rapidly, and that it’s going to cause our civilization to collapse.

Well, let’s call it a difference of opinion on that score. I feel there have been plenty of people who agree with peak fossil fuel (like I said, pretty much everyone agrees with the basic idea) without predicting the end of civilization. There was certainly no doomsday prediction in M. King Hubbert’s original work back in the fifties.

[ralfy]

@Little_Nemo

Well, let’s call it a difference of opinion on that score. I feel there have been plenty of people who agree with peak fossil fuel (like I said, pretty much everyone agrees with the basic idea) without predicting the end of civilization. There was certainly no doomsday prediction in M. King Hubbert’s original work back in the fifties.

Indeed. From what I remember, Hubbert stated in his report that nuclear energy could be used to replace oil.

The problem is that we have a large global population, dependence on oil for petrochemicals and some delivery systems (such as shipping), and a growing global middle class.

According to one geologist, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every three to four years to meet economic growth and the resource and energy demands of that middle class.

[Dr.Strangelove]

@ralfy

And that’s just for oil at $100 a barrel. At $200, a report mentioned here argues that the “impact” may be “severe”:

Sure. There needs to be some pain. “Everything’s fine” economically is an utter disaster environmentally, since it means there’s no motivation to stop pumping carbon into the atmosphere.

However, as long as the transition is smooth, and there aren’t enormous shocks when some particular resource depletes, then the world economy can survive without destroying too much wealth. Expensive oil is good as long as it doesn’t get too expensive too quickly, and as long as there is a reasonable supply at these prices.

[Blake]

@ralfy

There is no more cheap oil. It’s now around $100 a barrel, three times higher than what it should be. Conventional production has been in plateau and production for the five major players have been dropping by 25 pct since 2005.

What does it matter if conventional production has plateaued if unconventional sources have taken up the slack so that production has remained steady or increased with demand?

This is the point that the Chicken Littles didn’t get 10 years ago. As conventional crude becomes more expensive it becomes less attractive, and unconventional sources will take up the slack. Thus no peak in oil production occurs for the forseeable future.

Also, when the oil price goes up and other sources of energy are needed, these don’t debunk peak oil but proves it.

Ahh, no. They disprove it exactly. To quote from one of the Chicken Little sources of ten years ago, Peak Oil was going to be "when global crude production begins its inevitable decline, not as a result of an OPEC decision, but of an inability of producers to continue expanding production of what is, ultimately, a finite resource.”

If oil production goes down because demand goes down due to price, not because of an inability to extract more, that is not Peak Oil. So yeah, when the oil price goes up and other sources of energy are used solely for *economic *reasons, that utterly debunks Peak Oil.

Peak oil isn’t about running out of oil but running out of “easy oil.”

No, it isn’t. It’s about ""when global crude production begins its inevitable decline, not as a result of an OPEC decision, but of an inability of producers to continue expanding production of what is, ultimately, a finite resource.”

Nothing to do with “easy oil”. Sol and entirely about oil production falling simply because there is no more oil to extract.

Maybe somebody, somewhere used Peak Oil to refer to “easy oil”. But that wasn’t the definition used by the Chicken Littles in this thread or anywhere on the internet that I ever saw.

Can you perhaps provide a link to somebody 10 years ago using Peak Oil to refer to running out of “Easy Oil” rather than when global crude production begins an inevitable decline due to an inability of producers to continue expanding production?

Finally, the transition period is lengthy because significant sectors of manufacturing and even food production are heavily dependent on oil

Can you name even one of these “significant sectors” that is *dependent *on conventional oil that won’t be able to use LNG, shale oil or other alternative hydrocarbon sources just as easily?

In fact, oil is needed even for renewable energy, including copper and other minerals that need to be mined, plastics for various components, and even fuel needed to deliver goods across thousands of km through JIT systems to keep costs low.

Can you explain why conventional oil is needed for those things, and why they can;t be obtained using coal oil, LNG or other alternative hydrocarbon soucres?
We seem to have fallen straight back into the same Chicken Little pattern as we see here from ten years ago. Start out by talking about reserves and conventional liquid oil, then at some point start referring to resources and all hydrocarbon sources, without ever making it clear where the switch occurred so that the situation seems really dire.
Let’s get this straight: without any sources of conventional liquid crude oil, the global economy would scarcely hiccup at this stage. We would still have abundant hydrocarbons for energy and for manufacturing. It’s becoming increasingly irrelevant and there are so many alternatives now online at current prices. As a result demand for conventional conventional liquid crude oil has fallen and production plateaued, just at the WEO predicted a decade ago. That production plateau has nothing to do with a lack of oil available for extraction. It’s a purely economics driven production plateau.

Without any sources of oil at all, the global economy would collapse and we would almost no hydrocarbons for energy and for manufacturing. But nobody believes this can happen for at least the next 500 years.

See what a huge difference it makes if you clarify when you make the switch from “conventional oil” to “all oil”.

There is no Oil Peak in sight because there is never going to be a time when when global crude production begins its inevitable decline due to an inability of producers to continue expanding production. This hasn’t happened in the last 10 years and won’t happen in the next 500 years. Global crude production has plateaued, but it’s not due to any inability of producers to extract more. It’s due to the fact that alternatives have become cheaper so fewer customers want the stuff any more.

This is exactly what the real experts predicted 10 years ago and the complete opposite to what the Peak Oil Chicken Littles predicted. Peak Oil has been thoroughly debunked.

[Jonathan_Chance]

I’ve toyed with closing this zombie but I’m astounded at Blake picking up the fight without a blink after ten years.

Truly. Astounded.

[Try2B_Comprehensive]

@ralfy

Reserves have been known to be high across the board. The problem is that extraction cost in terms of energy is too high.

Thus, we face high energy costs coupled with environmental damage and even higher CO2 emissions.

What I remember of the extraction costs aspect of Peak Oil hinged on EROEI- energy returned on energy invested. We’d track the easy oil through history- EROEI used to be something like 100:1. Oil was especially awesome then. Gradually it got harder and harder to extract. Today I think it is all the way down to something like 3:1.

The idea was that trend would continue. Eventually EROEI would approach 1:1, at which point drilling for oil would be a fool’s errand- drilling would take as much energy as what you got back. But that is the equation that changed. At today’s EROEI, VAST reserves are available. The curve goes flat- EROEI doesn’t get any worse from here for a long time. Oil is still dirty and problematic of course.

I’m not sure I agree with Blake that this actually debunks Peak Oil though. I thought total oil production actually had peaked. Maybe I’m wrong, show me a cite, really- maybe I’m wrong. It may not be practical to actually increase global oil output, but it doesn’t seem likely to drop off either. So the price will increase, people will be compelled to move away from oil, eventually production will drop off because of that… isn’t that still Peak Oil? It just isn’t the disaster scenario people were worried about.

[ralfy]

@Blake

What does it matter if conventional production has plateaued if unconventional sources have taken up the slack so that production has remained steady or increased with demand?

It matters because it proves peak oil. Otherwise, conventional production should keep going up.

This is the point that the Chicken Littles didn’t get 10 years ago. As conventional crude becomes more expensive it becomes less attractive, and unconventional sources will take up the slack. Thus no peak in oil production occurs for the forseeable future.

That’s assuming that unconventional production has similar staying power. Unfortunately, that’s not the case:

“The Myth of ‘Saudi America’”

Don’t Buy the Myth of a Coming “Saudi America”

Ahh, no. They disprove it exactly. To quote from one of the Chicken Little sources of ten years ago, Peak Oil was going to be "when global crude production begins its inevitable decline, not as a result of an OPEC decision, but of an inability of producers to continue expanding production of what is, ultimately, a finite resource.”

No, it proves peak oil. That’s why unconventional production has to take up the slack.

If oil production goes down because demand goes down due to price, not because of an inability to extract more, that is not Peak Oil. So yeah, when the oil price goes up and other sources of energy are used solely for *economic *reasons, that utterly debunks Peak Oil.

Oil production is not going down because demand is going down. Demand is going up, and even with a tripling of prices conventional production cannot catch up. That’s why shale oil is now used.

That’s peak oil.

No, it isn’t. It’s about ""when global crude production begins its inevitable decline, not as a result of an OPEC decision, but of an inability of producers to continue expanding production of what is, ultimately, a finite resource.”

Exactly. Production cannot increase because the easy oil is gone. That’s why we’re now resorting to shale oil.

Nothing to do with “easy oil”. Sol and entirely about oil production falling simply because there is no more oil to extract.

It has everything to do with easy oil. See the EROI article shared earlier for details.

Maybe somebody, somewhere used Peak Oil to refer to “easy oil”. But that wasn’t the definition used by the Chicken Littles in this thread or anywhere on the internet that I ever saw.

No, it’s always been about that, unless you can prove that oil that’s deeper can be accessed with the same energy cost.

Can you perhaps provide a link to somebody 10 years ago using Peak Oil to refer to running out of “Easy Oil” rather than when global crude production begins an inevitable decline due to an inability of producers to continue expanding production?

Easy oil refers to oil with high energy returns. Low energy returns or higher energy cost is the main reason why production cannot expand. There are some details here:

http://www.alternet.org/story/60086/the_end_of_'easy_oil'

Also,

Peak oil

Can you name even one of these “significant sectors” that is *dependent *on conventional oil that won’t be able to use LNG, shale oil or other alternative hydrocarbon sources just as easily?

By oil, I am referring to fossil fuels.

Also, energy returns for alternative hydrocarbon sources are not high. See the EROI article shared earlier for details.

Can you explain why conventional oil is needed for those things, and why they can;t be obtained using coal oil, LNG or other alternative hydrocarbon soucres?

Not just conventional oil but oil with high energy returns, equivalent to 1:40. See the article about EROI shared earlier for details.

Also, we need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every three to four years to meet the needs of a growing global middle class. See the article referring to the BP geologist shared earlier for details.

We seem to have fallen straight back into the same Chicken Little pattern as we see here from ten years ago. Start out by talking about reserves and conventional liquid oil, then at some point start referring to resources and all hydrocarbon sources, without ever making it clear where the switch occurred so that the situation seems really dire.

For peak oil, you need to look at production rate and not reserves. See the article about rate of flow shared earlier for details.

Let’s get this straight: without any sources of conventional liquid crude oil, the global economy would scarcely hiccup at this stage. We would still have abundant hydrocarbons for energy and for manufacturing. It’s becoming increasingly irrelevant and there are so many alternatives now online at current prices. As a result demand for conventional conventional liquid crude oil has fallen and production plateaued, just at the WEO predicted a decade ago. That production plateau has nothing to do with a lack of oil available for extraction. It’s a purely economics driven production plateau.

Crude oil is needed for both high energy returns and petrochemicals. Extra processing and higher energy costs are needed to obtain the same from alternatives. That’s why even with shale oil, oil prices have still tripled.

The claim that demand for crude oil has fallen is wrong. See the chart shared in this article for details:

Peak Oil Demand is Already a Huge Problem

Consumption for the rest of the world has been negating demand destruction for the U.S., Japan, and Europe. Overall demand has been rising steadily:

http://omrpublic.iea.org/world/wb_wodem.pdf

Without any sources of oil at all, the global economy would collapse and we would almost no hydrocarbons for energy and for manufacturing. But nobody believes this can happen for at least the next 500 years.

The IEA argues that to maintain economic growth (which is needed by the same global economy), we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years:

https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/name,27324,en.html

In order to maintain a growing global middle class, we will need one every three to four years.

See what a huge difference it makes if you clarify when you make the switch from “conventional oil” to “all oil”.

Exactly, but peak oil can also refer to conventional production. That peaked in 2005:

World crude production 2013 without shale oil is back to 2005 levels

That’s peak oil.

Unconventional sources like shale oil will also be affected by the same, and likely more pronounced given decline curves:

We’re fracking to stand still

There is no Oil Peak in sight because there is never going to be a time when when global crude production begins its inevitable decline due to an inability of producers to continue expanding production. This hasn’t happened in the last 10 years and won’t happen in the next 500 years. Global crude production has plateaued, but it’s not due to any inability of producers to extract more. It’s due to the fact that alternatives have become cheaper so fewer customers want the stuff any more.

This is exactly what the real experts predicted 10 years ago and the complete opposite to what the Peak Oil Chicken Littles predicted. Peak Oil has been thoroughly debunked.

Too late, as conventional production peaked in 2005 and discoveries in 1964:

And in terms of oil production per capita (which is more logical as oil is used by a growing population), that peaked back in 1979:

Peak oil? What peak oil?

[ralfy]

@Jonathan_Chance

I’ve toyed with closing this zombie but I’m astounded at Blake picking up the fight without a blink after ten years.

Truly. Astounded.

Consider multiple reports about the issue from military organizations, banks, insurance firms, and even oil companies during the last four years:

https://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/

The most recent news from the IEA was given only a few months ago:

Peak Oil Is Dead

From what I gathered, the IEA argues that in order to maintain economic growth, oil demand has to continue rising at around 2 pct per annum, similar to what happened during the last two decades or so. But in order to meet that increasing demand, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years.

The IEA forecasts that all oil and gas sources worldwide will increase energy production by only 9 pct during the next two decades. Since that will obviously not be able to meet a 2-pct per annum demand increase, then at least 70 pct of demand increase has to be replaced by renewable energy, and that will require strong government policies and cooperation between economies.

Unfortunately, that’s going to be difficult in a world with a growing global middle class:

The rise of the global middle class

which means higher energy and material resource demand across the board.

[GreasyJack]

@Try2B_Comprehensive

What I remember of the extraction costs aspect of Peak Oil hinged on EROEI- energy returned on energy invested. We’d track the easy oil through history- EROEI used to be something like 100:1. Oil was especially awesome then. Gradually it got harder and harder to extract. Today I think it is all the way down to something like 3:1.

Nope, it’s closer to 20-40:1. Furthermore, the big improvements in technology have largely cancelled out the issues with the oil we’re producing today being “harder” oil-- the overall EROEI has dropped since the 70’s. (Handy chart: File:EROI - Ratio of Energy Returned on Energy Invested - USA.svg - Wikipedia )

With oil sands, the EROEI is a lot narrower, but technology and infrastructure has moved it from originally being close to 1:1 to now 5:1 or so.

@Try2B_Comprehensive

I’m not sure I agree with Blake that this actually debunks Peak Oil though. I thought total oil production actually had peaked. Maybe I’m wrong, show me a cite, really- maybe I’m wrong. It may not be practical to actually increase global oil output, but it doesn’t seem likely to drop off either. So the price will increase, people will be compelled to move away from oil, eventually production will drop off because of that… isn’t that still Peak Oil? It just isn’t the disaster scenario people were worried about.

He’s not denying that worldwide production has peaked (or at least plateaued), he’s saying that production is slowing down because there’s less demand due to the availability of alternatives, not due to supply failing to keep up as predicted in the peak oil theory.

[Bryan_Ekers]

When this thread started, fusion power was just 30 years way.

Now we’re within just 360 months!

[XT]

@Bryan_Ekers

When this thread started, fusion power was just 30 years way.

Now we’re within just 360 months!

I think you are wrong. I’d put it closer to one score and 10, realistically. It’s nearly right around the corner!

[Little_Nemo]

@Blake

Peak Oil has been thoroughly debunked.

So you don’t believe in peak oil? The idea that there is a finite amount of oil in the world? You’re going with the other option - that the supply of oil is infinite.

Okay, that puts the rest of your claims into the proper perspective.

[XT]

@Little_Nemo

So you don’t believe in peak oil? The idea that there is a finite amount of oil in the world? You’re going with the other option - that the supply of oil is infinite.

Okay, that puts the rest of your claims into the proper perspective.

That’s not what he’s saying there. You should read GreasyJack’s post 116 to get a very brief correction. Blake can give a longer one himself if he likes, but you are not understanding what he’s saying, nor based on your above reply to me do you seem to acknowledge what the debate was. That’s fine to agree to disagree, but you really need to understand the difference between peak oil and Peak Oil and the arguments of both before putting this all into ‘proper perspective’.