[FoRK] US Reaches Peak Oil!

Stephen D. Williams sdw at lig.net
Tue Oct 8 09:20:53 PDT 2013


On 10/8/13 7:16 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 06:42:33AM -0700, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
>> On Oct 8, 2013, at 4:06 AM, Bill Kearney <wkearney99 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> It will still run out.  And perhaps it's better to squander everyone else's first.
>>
>> It will not run out in a timeframe that matters, which is probably the more important point.
> The first interesting point is where supply cannot meet demand. That point
> has been reached in 2004. The second critical point is where the dropping
> EROEI results in a runaway (depending on the decay function, we seem to
> be on the linear track, not exponential one, which is bad) decline of
> net energy -- not all barrels are created equal. Methane is not oil, oil
> is not tight oil, tight oil is not kerogen, aka oil shale.
>
>> There is little strategic value in cornering a future market that likely will not exist.
>>
>> Also, if the hydrocarbon reserves are likely to exceed what the market will
>> demand over the long term then there is considerable economic benefit in
>> maximizing sales while the prices are still high.
>> The US now has several trillion barrels equivalent of hydrocarbon reserves,
> I think you will find http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10102 analysis
> illuminating. I would be very interested in seeing a detailed financial
> analysis of unconventional oil plays, I suspect they're an investment
> bubble, though the author above thinks they will ROI eventually. We'll see.

> If the model over time develops a growing deficit against actual reported production, this would suggest that newer wells have an 
> improved well productivity relative to the reference well and vice versa. - See more at: 
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10102#sthash.JSkLqwap.dpuf
> If the model over time develops a growing deficit against actual reported production, this would suggest that newer wells have an 
> improved well productivity relative to the reference well and vice versa. 

"and vice versa"?  Semantic parse error.

>
>> and that is largely because the technology to develop those reserves is
>> being invented and deployed in the US first. If applied to the rest of the world,
> The technology is 40 years old, and has only been employed becase
> there are no other options left. This is an option of last resort,
> and is not replicable e.g. in the UK even if they would be desperate
> enough and willing, as tight oil wells are nothing like conventional
> wells. Look at the map, and weep.
>
>> it would not be surprising to see the accessible hydrocarbon reserves
>> of many other countries massively expand in a similar way.
> Do look into the situation in more detail. The more you dig, the less
> you'll like it.

Oil is a messy business, on many levels.
We have a 2.1Kw solar panel now that mostly offsets computers and occasional air conditioning.
Can't wait to buy a Tesla S or better.

I still think that the overhead of nuclear power is mostly waste that could be drastically optimized.  The low EROI is artificial 
and partially irrational.

sdw



More information about the FoRK mailing list