4 ms·

Peak oil theory and short-term supply/demand cycles have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Peak oil theory was created by M. King Hubbert in the 1950s a

by brazzy 17y ago

Peak oil theory and short-term supply/demand cycles have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Peak oil theory was created by M. King Hubbert in the 1950s and accurately predicted local peak oil production for the US around 1970 (it has declined ever since since). It predicted a global peak "in about 50 years" - and there are strong indications that despite all efforts and high prices, global oil production has been stagnating or even declining for about 2 years now.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
- PieSquared 17y ago
  While I am not an expert in the oil industry, I found the above comments quite fascinating; they're spurring me to do a bit of my own research, in fact. I don't know who is right, but I just have to ask: "You obviously have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about." Would you say that to someone in person, too? The Internet is a good place to keep as much civility as possible, since there's so little of it to go around.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- flaub 17y ago
  So I'm a little confused. You cite that the EIA reports 5.22 million BOE per day, an increase from 1991. I'm looking at this page: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus2a.htm http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus2a.htm I might be reading it wrong, but it seems to indicate that in 1991 7.4 million BOE were produced and in 2008 4,9 million BOE. Is there perhaps a different source on that site that you can refer us to? Or are you factually incorrect?
  - eserorg 17y ago
    See here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo
  - sethorion 17y ago
    Also, "U.S. crude output on the rise": http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/6598330.html http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/6598330....
  - sethorion 17y ago
    Also: http://www.petroleumworld.com/story09090312.htm http://www.petroleumworld.com/story09090312.htm Excerpt: <snip> U.S. oil output is benefiting from the addition of major deep-water fields, including BP's Thunder Horse, that are helping offset production declines onshore and in shallower Gulf waters. In many cases, these deep-water fields were discovered years ago but are only now coming on line, given the massive costs and technical challenges associated with them. The combination of favorable factors should lift U.S. crude oil production to an average of 5.22 million barrels per day in 2009, up from 4.95 million barrels per day last year and the first annual increase since 1991, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. </snip>
  - sethorion 17y ago
    Try this graph: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/gifs/Fig12.gif http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/gifs/Fig12.gif
lsc 17y ago
My dad is very interested in this peak oil movement. While they do have some good points (it's harder to extract the second half of oil from a well, doing the math on the energy it takes to extract a barrel of oil, etc..) they are missing some very important points. 1. Oil is not the only energy source. Sure, it is by far the best and most convenient source for transportation, but outside of transportation, almost all our power needs could be met by electricity. One can obtain electricity from many sources; Nuclear fission being the source I am most excited/hopeful about. Countries like France and Japan already meet almost all of their power needs with fission. Also, many of the processes for extracting oil that are impractical if you use oil as the energy source to do the extraction, such as oil sands, become practical if you can use energy created by fission or coal or some other cheaper, more plentiful source. 2. oil demand is not inelastic. The automotive market of the last few years should make that clear. Sure, we'd all like giant luxury vehicles, but this is constrained by economics. Not only can we move from 12MPG SUVs to 50MPG compact hybrids, we can drive a lot less. Sure, I am going to drive to work every day; until it starts costing me more than I'm making, at which point I will obviously stop doing so. Oil demand is extremely elastic. I bet that when gas hits the equivalent of $10/gallon (meaning, in today's dollars) you will see the bottom 40-50% of the us population no longer driving. Sure, I'm not going to be turning my servers off anytime soon, but that's mostly fission and coal, with some natural gas thrown in because California is weird and rich.
- netsp 17y ago
  Oil demand is extremely inelastic. Sure, if oil goes to $300 a barrel and stays there, we'll figure out other ways of getting from A to B. But the next day and the next year, we will be trying to consume the same amount of oil regardless of price. That's why it is not unimaginable for oil to go to such a high price suddenly.
  - lsc 17y ago
    hm. My impression, and this could be wrong, is that there are a lot of people making so little money that if commuting costs more than doubled, it would no longer make economic sense to drive to work. where I live, If I am willing to double commute time, I can use public transit. If you only make $10/hr, it doesn't take much of a price increase before taking the bus starts making sense.

by brazzy 17y ago

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

PieSquared 17y ago
While I am not an expert in the oil industry, I found the above comments quite fascinating; they're spurring me to do a bit of my own research, in fact. I don't know who is right, but I just have to ask: "You obviously have absolutely no clue about what you are talking about." Would you say that to someone in person, too? The Internet is a good place to keep as much civility as possible, since there's so little of it to go around.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
flaub 17y ago
So I'm a little confused. You cite that the EIA reports 5.22 million BOE per day, an increase from 1991. I'm looking at this page: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus2a.htm http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/mcrfpus2a.htm I might be reading it wrong, but it seems to indicate that in 1991 7.4 million BOE were produced and in 2008 4,9 million BOE. Is there perhaps a different source on that site that you can refer us to? Or are you factually incorrect?
- eserorg 17y ago
  See here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo
- sethorion 17y ago
  Also, "U.S. crude output on the rise": http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/6598330.html http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/6598330....
- sethorion 17y ago
  Also: http://www.petroleumworld.com/story09090312.htm http://www.petroleumworld.com/story09090312.htm Excerpt: <snip> U.S. oil output is benefiting from the addition of major deep-water fields, including BP's Thunder Horse, that are helping offset production declines onshore and in shallower Gulf waters. In many cases, these deep-water fields were discovered years ago but are only now coming on line, given the massive costs and technical challenges associated with them. The combination of favorable factors should lift U.S. crude oil production to an average of 5.22 million barrels per day in 2009, up from 4.95 million barrels per day last year and the first annual increase since 1991, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. </snip>
- sethorion 17y ago
  Try this graph: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/gifs/Fig12.gif http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/gifs/Fig12.gif

lsc 17y ago

My dad is very interested in this peak oil movement. While they do have some good points (it's harder to extract the second half of oil from a well, doing the math on the energy it takes to extract a barrel of oil, etc..) they are missing some very important points. 1. Oil is not the only energy source. Sure, it is by far the best and most convenient source for transportation, but outside of transportation, almost all our power needs could be met by electricity. One can obtain electricity from many sources; Nuclear fission being the source I am most excited/hopeful about. Countries like France and Japan already meet almost all of their power needs with fission. Also, many of the processes for extracting oil that are impractical if you use oil as the energy source to do the extraction, such as oil sands, become practical if you can use energy created by fission or coal or some other cheaper, more plentiful source. 2. oil demand is not inelastic. The automotive market of the last few years should make that clear. Sure, we'd all like giant luxury vehicles, but this is constrained by economics. Not only can we move from 12MPG SUVs to 50MPG compact hybrids, we can drive a lot less. Sure, I am going to drive to work every day; until it starts costing me more than I'm making, at which point I will obviously stop doing so. Oil demand is extremely elastic. I bet that when gas hits the equivalent of $10/gallon (meaning, in today's dollars) you will see the bottom 40-50% of the us population no longer driving. Sure, I'm not going to be turning my servers off anytime soon, but that's mostly fission and coal, with some natural gas thrown in because California is weird and rich.

netsp 17y ago
Oil demand is extremely inelastic. Sure, if oil goes to $300 a barrel and stays there, we'll figure out other ways of getting from A to B. But the next day and the next year, we will be trying to consume the same amount of oil regardless of price. That's why it is not unimaginable for oil to go to such a high price suddenly.
- lsc 17y ago
  hm. My impression, and this could be wrong, is that there are a lot of people making so little money that if commuting costs more than doubled, it would no longer make economic sense to drive to work. where I live, If I am willing to double commute time, I can use public transit. If you only make $10/hr, it doesn't take much of a price increase before taking the bus starts making sense.