Conventional Wisdom, Unconventional Oil

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

There’s a discussion over at Judith Curry’s excellent blog, about peak oil. I find the whole madness surrounding peak oil to be one more example of our human love for warnings of future disaster. Few people want to hear that tomorrow will be OK, that things will work out. Instead, most folks want to hear some terrible story about what tomorrow holds, whether it’s peak oil or climate meltdown or the coming ice age. Go figure.

conventional oilFigure 1. Conventional oil leaking out of the ground near McKittrick, CA.

One part of the discussion of peak oil that has always bothered me is the division of oil into “conventional oil” and “unconventional oil”. Here’s why I think that division makes no sense with regards to peak oil.

I’ve lived through much of the whole peak oil deal, which near as I can tell has turned into a half-century-long goat roping contest. During the earlier years, people were shouting that the oil would run out, that the top would be very soon now, we’d hit the peak and by gosh, at that point things would turn ugly. Of course, that still hasn’t happened, so the peak oilers were left with the question pondered by failed doomcasters throughout history, viz:

How the heck do I explain the cratering of my position and still maintain some shred of my reputation?

For the peak oil folks, salvation came in the form of “unconventional oil”. Now, we’re assured, oil is still running out, so they were right all along … You see, they say, King Hubbert was right, we’re running out of conventional oil, but as it runs out it is being seamlessly replaced by “unconventional oil”, so we still have oil even though we’re running out of oil. Got it?

The strange part is, when you open a barrel of unconventional oil to see what conventions were broken in its creation, you find it is indistinguishable from conventional oil.

What is unconventional oil? Well, we could start by considering the conventions regarding oil. For literally billions of years the convention was that oil was found in small pools and seeps like you see in Figure 1. Indeed, the discovery of oil in Oil Creek, Pennsylvania, the site of the first US oil well, came about because oil had been seeping out there for untold centuries, and had been known and utilized by the Early Asian Immigrants in the area before the later arrival of the melanin-deficient crowd.

So conventional oil, by ancient hallowed convention handed down through the millennia, is found in tar pits and oil seeps on the surface. Which means that people being so rash as to drill for oil, by definition, would be pumping up “unconventional oil” … but of course, life is not that simple.

As a result, “conventional oil” is not from the conventional method of dipping it up in a bucket from a seep, but by the decidedly unconventional and at that time unheard of method of drilling a hole in the earth to get it to come out …

Things went along just fine like that for years. Then “secondary recovery” methods started to come into use. These were a variety of physical and chemical methods used to squeeze more oil out of existing fields, including fracturing the rock to allow the oil to come out more easily.

Now, about this time, the whole “peak oil” story started to go south, because no matter how much peak oilers howled there was more oil discovered every year. Every year the proved reserves just kept growing. And that process has continued to this very day, with more proved reserves than ever. How were the peak oilers to explain it? Hey, “unconventional oil” to the rescue!

oil will peak in 2012

For example, thinner oils were “conventional”, but thicker, more tarry deposits, despite having been utilized by humans for centuries, were “unconventional” oil, so they weren’t counted regarding the peak.

The real laugher, however, the place where you can see the gears stripping, involves the “conventions” about fracturing the rocks to allow more oil to come out, what we call “fracking”. The fracturing technology was developed about forty years ago, and has been used ever since, mostly for secondary recovery. And for all those decades the oil coming from the fractured rocks has been “conventional oil”. But now people have learned to drill wells horizontally and fracture them … and now suddenly after forty years of fracturing the rock, which gave “conventional oil” when it was done from vertical wells, fracking now only delivers “unconventional oil” simply because the drill hole goes horizontally instead of vertically … does this make any sense to anyone?

The classification of oil from fracking as “unconventional oil” shows clearly the ludicrous nature of the dividing line when we are discussing peak oil. Regarding the putative peak, why is oil from a horizontal well “unconventional” and oil from a vertical well “conventional”? It is all gotten by technology, and none of it is any more “unconventional” than the drilling of the first oil well, a most unconventional act …

Calling oil from horizontal wells “unconventional” is crucial for the peak oil folks, however, because if the oil from fracking were classified as conventional oil, the “peak oil” claims and the “peak gas” claims would sink of their own weight …

Look, folks, the ugly truth is that the world is awash with fossil fuels. To start with, The largest single concentration of fossil energy on the planet is the Powder River coal formation in the Northern US. The world has several hundred years worth of coal. The Canadians have huge amounts of oil … of course it too is called “unconventional” oil, because it alone is enough to blow the “peak oil” claims out of the water. Plus now we have the “tight oil”, oil in the rocks that is, of course, unconventional.

Then we have the discovery of the shale gas resources all around the planet. Even Israel finally has some domestic energy resources. How unconventional is that? Australia just announced a huge find. China has massive gas resources. A preliminary assessment says including shale gas we have enough gas for the next couple of hundred years.

And finally, we have the wild card, the methane hydrates, the “ice that burns”. Estimates of the amount of these are all over the map, but all of them share one feature—they are very, very large, on the order of quadrillions of cubic feet. This is rivals the size of the global natural gas resource …

methane hydrates

Finally, most of these forms of fossil fuels occur in combination and can be converted into one another. Coal, for example, can be converted to a liquid fuel, or to a gas.

Now, because there never was anyone hollering about “peak coal”, there’s no such thing as “unconventional coal”, despite huge changes in mining technology. Coal mining has changed as much or more than drilling for oil … so why isn’t there “unconventional coal”?

But in that case, since all of the coal on the planet seems to be “conventional” coal, if we convert coal to oil, are we making “conventional oil” or “unconventional oil”? Presumably it would matter whether we converted coal to oil horizontally or vertically …

In summary, once you get past the nonsense of “conventional” and “unconventional”, there’s enough coal and gas for a couple hundred years, and enough oil for a hundred years, just with what we know about now, and that’s not even counting methane hydrates. Which is why I pay no more attention to the peak oil alarmists than I do to the climate alarmists. One group claims we have too much oil and we’re gonna burn it all, the other group claims we’ll soon have too little oil to burn, and I treat those two impostors just the same.

Was the division between “conventional” and “unconventional” oil devised to cover up the failure of the peak oilers? No way. The distinction is useful in a variety of ways for analyzing the world of oil sources. I think that the concept was simply appropriated by the peak oilers because it was very useful to them, since it totally obscured the failure of their peak oil predictions. To me, oil is oil is oil, and if you claim the world will run out of oil, you can’t later say that you have redefined things, and that the oil that proves your prediction wrong is some other special kind of oil that doesn’t count as oil but walks like oil and quacks like oil …

w.

… Oh, yeah, the weather report. Late night again, two AM. The wind has changed and is blowing from the southwest, landcasting the fog and the smells of the ocean. The characteristic sea smells of iodine and dimethyl sulfide in the fog draw my thoughts back, back to the many mornings I spent getting out of bed here on the hill at 4 am and going down to the harbor, rigging the boat and setting out in the dark to have the commercial fishing gear in the water for the dawn salmon bite. Sliding out of Bodega harbor in the half-light with my gorgeous ex-fiancee and my good friend, once again motoring between the rock jetties at the harbor entrance, going out to discuss matters of life and death with the ocean. I love the ocean because it doesn’t give a damn about a man’s position and his power and his pretenses. Knowledge and experience mean nothing to the ocean. After a life at sea, if I put one foot wrong, I get just as wet as the landlubber falling off the dock … I take pleasure in that ultimate equality and justice of the ocean. I know that even if it is a California ocean it would kill me without first asking me to share my feelings, so leaving the safety of the harbor is always sobering moment …

rock and the hard place

… sneaking out between Bodega Rock and Bodega Head itself, the little shallow passage the fishermen call “between the rock and the hard place”, where once my heart almost stopped with fear, or at least it started with fear, but other emotions got involved. The channel there is shallow, the sport fishing boat “Mary Jane” was capsized in 1986 with the loss of nine souls by a sneaker wave, “full fathom five thy fishermen lie, of their bones are coral made” …

So when I heard a wave break right behind our little fishing boat one afternoon as we were coming in between the rock and the hard place, my first thought was that we were about to join the folks from the Mary Jane.

We spun around, and aaaah, dear heavens, it wasn’t a breaking wave at all, although a wave was breaking, instead it was my old friend Missus Fishbreath breaking the surface just behind the boat, and breaking my heart with the slow-moving stillness of her majestic beauty, a great gray whale dancing her way three thousand miles from the tropics to Alaska. As we turned and gaped, we were looking her right in the eye, and then she rolled our way and opened her blowhole so close to the boat we could almost look down it, it was as big as a dinner plate, we were close, close enough to count the barnacles clinging to her hull, she was the very picture of natural wildness and glorious beauty and unimaginable power, my heart leapt to see it  … and she blew out a great cloud of gagging mist, a noxious enveloping adherent miasma reeking of the million vanished piscatorial souls of her most recent month’s meals, a clogging, thick effluvium that enveloped the boat and then drifted away to leeward as the lovely lady disappeared beneath the waves …

… leaving me in the strangest condition imaginable, with the boat wandering off course, my jaw hanging down to my umbilicus, a pulse rate well into the triple digits, adrenalin-shocked, awed beyond words, smelling like the dumpster behind a cheap fish restaurant, blasted by the natural beauty I had just witnessed, and uncertain whether I was going to vomit or not, but tending toward the former.

I’m not jonesing to visit that particular emotional place again, once was enough for any man. And on a cold night like tonight, I’m glad I’m not rolling out at four am. I fished the Bering Sea as well, and these days I’m just as happy to see the bergy bits and watch the Bering ice on the “Deadliest Catch” TV show from the safety of my couch  … but ah, dear friends, mostly I’ve just moved my ocean madness to warmer waters, and I wouldn’t have missed it for rubies and pearls …

Sports and gallantries, the stage, the arts, the antics of dancers,

The exuberant voices of music,

Have charm for children but lack nobility; it is bitter earnestness

That makes beauty; the mind

Knows, grown adult.

A sudden fog-drift muffled the ocean,

A throbbing of engines moved in it,

At length, a stone’s throw out, between the rocks and the vapor,

One by one moved shadows

Out of the mystery, shadows, fishing-boats, trailing each other

Following the cliff for guidance,

Holding a difficult path between the peril of the sea-fog

And the foam on the shore granite.

One by one, trailing their leader, six crept by me,

Out of the vapor and into it,

The throb of their engines subdued by the fog, patient and

cautious,

Coasting all round the peninsula

Back to the buoys in Monterey harbor. A flight of pelicans

Is nothing lovelier to look at;

The flight of the planets is nothing nobler; all the arts lose virtue

Against the essential reality

Of creatures going about their business among the equally

Earnest elements of nature.

Robinson Jeffers saw it … when you read those lists of famous last words, nobody ever says “I wish I’d spent more time at the office”. Don’t mail the envelope in, push the envelope, the journey will end long before any of us wish it to. Live your most impossiblessed dreams, my friends, because any other kind is just a dream. Chance the widdershins steps of the tarantella, lift the ancient curses and look under them for old coins and lost loves and dust bunnies with a vest and a gold pocketwatch, opt for an immediate increase in the uncertainty levels, stay away from the world of adrenalin deficit spending, hold your dearest warm under your heart while you dare the icy seas of life, for the night is assuredly coming …

My very best wishes to all, I’m off to sleep.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
444 Comments
February 3, 2013 1:33 am

anarchist hate machine says:
February 3, 2013 at 12:41 am
“I’m surprised no one has brought up the issue of refinery capacity and it’s effects on price. From my understanding no new refineries have been allowed to be built in the United States in 30 years except one …”
Why are new refineries not being built in ND? You would think that’s a no-brainer

Liberal Skeptic
February 3, 2013 1:36 am

If the recession of 2008 showed us anything, it’s how much of the cost of oil is speculation as a result of peak oil worries and the other factors mentioned and how much is actual production costs. If people stopped worrying about peak oil (or taking advantage of it as the ever growing cynic in me says) as a “now” thing we wouldn’t have to spend nearly as much for oil as we do at the moment.

richardscourtney
February 3, 2013 1:39 am

LazyTeenager:
I look forward to the day when you post something sensible on WUWT. Sadly, your post today at February 2, 2013 at 9:26 pm has not been it.
You write to Willis

The solution you are propounding involves more advanced technologies for extraction and conversion of hydrocarbons into the gas we all love.
You see light oil is not the same as heavy oil and is not the same as coal of whatever kind.
These interconversion processes all cost money and make the end product more expensive. This is probably the reason we do not use coal to oil processes even though coal is very cheap and the technology is ancient and well proven.

That is wrong on all counts.
You are thinking of the German Fischer-Tropsch conversion process which is a century-old and was developed into the South African Sasol process.
A method to convert coal to synthetic crude oil which hast competitive cost (n.b. cost and not price) with natural crude has existed since 1994 when demonstration of the LSE process at commercial scale was completed.
My post at February 2, 2013 at 2:57 pm explains how and why the Liquid Solvent Extraction (LSE) process can produce synthetic crude oil at competitive cost. The fact of LSE has strategic value because it constrains the medium and long-term prices of crude oil.
There is sufficient coal for at least 300 years supply (probably 1000 years). Nobody can know what fuels will be needed in 300 years time, but they are unlikely to include oil.
Richard

William Astley
February 3, 2013 1:50 am

The amount of estimated “natural” gas is orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of commercially recoverable CH4. It is interesting to note the lag in the update of the world’s natural gas reserves.
Why did nature bless Russia with the world’s largest “natural” gas reservoirs?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/06/focus
There have been massive CH4 fields found in Canada, with deep drilling techniques.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/bc-emerges-as-major-natural-gas-player/article1247539/
Now, his proposed $3-billion Kitimat liquid natural gas project has the backing of some of the biggest names in the business – including the world’s largest gas importer, Korea Gas Corp., and U.S. gas producers EOG Resources Inc. and Apache Corp. , two key players in the Horn River.
The change from an import to an export facility is emblematic of the changing B.C. economy and the province’s emerging role as a significant gas producer on a global scale.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/99/17/10976
The scientific problem of the genesis of hydrocarbons of natural petroleum, and consequentially of the origin of natural petroleum deposits, regrettably has been one too much neglected by competent physicists and chemists; the subject has been obscured by diverse, unscientific hypotheses, typically connected with the rococo hypothesis (1) that highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules of high chemical potentials might somehow evolve from highly oxidized biotic molecules of low chemical potential. The scientific problem of the spontaneous evolution of the hydrocarbon molecules comprising natural petroleum is one of chemical thermodynamic-stability theory. This problem does not involve the properties of rocks where petroleum might be found or of microorganisms observed in crude oil.
Natural petroleum is a hydrogen–carbon (H–C) system, in distinctly nonequilibrium states, composed of mixtures of highly reduced hydrocarbon molecules, all of very high chemical potential and most in the liquid phase. As such, the phenomenon of the terrestrial existence of natural petroleum in the near-surface crust of the Earth has presented several challenges, most of which have remained unresolved until recently. The primary scientific problem of petroleum has been the existence and genesis of the individual hydrocarbon molecules themselves: how, and under what thermodynamic conditions, can such highly reduced molecules of high chemical potential evolve?
The evolution of multi-component systems at high pressures: VI. The thermodynamic stability of the hydrogen–carbon system: The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum, By Kenney, Kutcherov, Bendeliani, and Alekseev
http://origeminorganicadopetroleo.blogspot.ca/2011/01/thomas-gold-professional-papers.html
The following is an excerpt from Thomas Gold’s book the Deep Hot Biosphere which that outlines some of the observations he believes supports an abiogenic origin (non-biological, primeval origin), for petroleum and natural gas.
(1) Petroleum and methane are found frequently in geographic patterns of long lines or arcs, which are related more to deep-seated large-scale structural features of the crust, than to the smaller scale patchwork of the sedimentary deposits.
(2) Hydrocarbon-rich areas tend to be hydrocarbon-rich at many different levels, corresponding to quite different geological epochs, and extending down to the crystalline basement that underlies the sediment. An invasion of an area by hydrocarbon fluids from below could better account for this than the chance of successive deposition.
(3) Some petroleum from deeper and hotter levels almost completely lack the biological evidence. Optical activity and the odd-even carbon number effect are sometimes totally absent, and it would be difficult to suppose that such a thorough destruction of the biological molecules had occurred as would be required to account for this, yet leaving the bulk substance quite similar to other crude oils.
(4) Methane is found in many locations where a biogenic origin is improbable or where biological deposits seem inadequate: in great ocean rifts in the absence of any substantial sediments; in fissures in igneous and metamorphic rocks, even at great depth; in active volcanic regions, even where there is a minimum of sediments; and there are massive amounts of methane hydrates (methane-water ice combinations) in permafrost and ocean deposits, where it is doubtful that an adequate quantity and distribution of biological source material is present.
(5) The hydrocarbon deposits of a large area often show common chemical or isotopic features, quite independent of the varied composition or the geological ages of the formations in which they are found. Such chemical signatures may be seen in the abundance ratios of some minor constituents such as traces of certain metals that are carried in petroleum; or a common tendency may be seen in the ratio of isotopes of some elements, or in the abundance ratio of some of the different molecules that make up petroleum. Thus a chemical analysis of a sample of petroleum could often allow the general area of its origin to be identified, even though quite different formations in that area may be producing petroleum. For example a crude oil from anywhere in the Middle East can be distinguished from an oil originating in any part of South America, or from the oils of West Africa; almost any of the oils from California can be distinguished from that of other regions by the carbon isotope ratio.

richardscourtney
February 3, 2013 1:54 am

TimTheToolMan:
In your post at February 2, 2013 at 9:38 pm you write

My main beef with Willis on this is that he flatly refuses to believe that there is any chance that production will drop by assuming “human ingenuity” will prevail irrespective of any reality of increasing scarcity of the resource and production cost associated with maintaining that production rate.

No!
You are flatly refusing to recognise that “human ingenuity” HAS solved what you perceive as a potential problem. Or, to be precise, that potential problem has been solved for the next at least 300 years. And it cannot be known what – if any – oil will be needed 300 years in the future.
This is explained in my post at at February 2, 2013 at 2:57 pm.
Richard

February 3, 2013 1:57 am

E M Smith writes “Willis is absolutely correct in how typical energy commodities respond over time to prices signals. Raise the price, more total production comes into existence.”
From my understanding of Willis’ articles on peak oil, Willis at his heart doesn’t believe in it. He believes we’ll always be able to produce oil from “other sources” and that we’ll be able to do it at a rate that matches demand.
He says “I am making a more fundamental argument, which is that the size of a given resource is a function of the humans, rather than a function of the physical world.”
Well we are seeing price rises and no associated production increases right now. For the economists out there, once the hedging contracts expire I would expect to see prices at the pump begin to increase.
I hope to hell I’m wrong and these price spikes and production plateau are temporary. I really do.
E M Smith says this is due to a global conspiracy of which OPEC plays a part and all the other producers play along rather than increasing supply to ease prices. Apparently the oil cartels aren’t making enough money. And apparently this global conspiracy is conspiring to keep our economies in the holes they’re in because its in the interests of the producers to do so. I dont subscribe to that point of view myself but YMMV.

John Marshall
February 3, 2013 2:25 am

Peak oil has been the cry since oil was first used. We have more oil reserves now than ever due to better exploration and exploitation. Technology will improve faster than the oil is used.
A couple of years ago the USGS surveyed oil spills around the coastal waters of the US and found that 90% were from unknown oil fields. So still oil to find

February 3, 2013 3:05 am

The whole point though is not whether we have carbon fuel or not…….But whether we intend to use it. Britains energy policy explained here, with easy to follow diagrams….
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/the-habit/

richard verney
February 3, 2013 3:57 am

E.M.Smith says:
February 2, 2013 at 10:42 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
On a previous post by Willis on Peak Oil, I commented upon oil extraction from coal process at about US$80 per barrel. For many years it was suggested that this would act as a long stop on the market cost of oil, ie., that long term the market cost of oil would not exceed US$80 pbbl. Obviously, inflation adjustment would become a factor.
The present cost of oil has little to do with the cost of extraction, and more to do with markets which in turn take account of real or imagined geopolitical concerns. Oil companies would, even today, still make healthy profits if the market cost fell by half (eg., down to about US$55pbbl). It is political cartels that are keeping the price artificially high. This is madness: it is mad that the world is forced to needlessly endure unnecessarily high energy costs. It is difficult to put a price on the human missery that has been needlessly caused by this.
It is probably because many still consider that the market price of oil is presently artificially high and will drop in the not too distant future that there is not more investment in the oil from coal extraction. The fact that this technology exists and that oil can be extracted from that process with viable returns at around the US$80 level, and the Icelandic example referred to by Björn says: February 2, 2013 at 8:46 pm, will inevitably mean that long term, the market cost of oil will be kept down.
The geopolitical landscape has now completely changed in view of the extensive discoveries of shale and tar sands all over the world. This will inevitably drive down prices.
By definition, there must inevitably be a Peak, but given that we can theoretically make anything (it being merely a question of how much energy the process requires and thus just a question of price and technology), and the ‘new’ shale and tar finds that Peak has been kicked into the long grass.
As long as the sun shines, we will never, if truly needed, run out of anything. Man’s history shows that it is the advent of new technologies that renders past essentials reduntant. It is the advent of new technologies that will define when Peak Oil is reached.

MorningGuy
February 3, 2013 4:14 am

Willis Eschenbach says:
February 3, 2013 at 1:02 am
MorningGuy, if you believe that I think that you better provide a quote, I don’t ever recall saying “price of extraction is not an issue”.
Correct me if I’m wrong but your whole effective premise is that we’ve got endless reserves… well the point of the peakists is that we’ve run out of the easy stuff and are left with the hard to extract stuff – the point you’re missing is that it doesn’t matter that we have effectively endless reserves of methane hydrates as it can’t be extracted economically, and I dare say won’t ever be extracted. Not due to greenies or climate change or anything like that but due to cold hard economics as renewables and solar are getting to cheap.

February 3, 2013 4:15 am

Willis writes “and I’m supposed to ignore all that because you don’t have imagination?”
I do think we’ll diversify our energy sources as we go along but I dont think its all going to be about oil. My gut says that once we do hit peak oil (of the conventional variety plus whatever non-conventional stuff exists) then oil’s days will be numbered and we’ll be increasingly transitioning away from it. I think human ingenuity extends beyond maintaining oil production.
Ultimately my imagination extends to other technologies entirely not to a pond filled with algae.

Björn
February 3, 2013 4:35 am

E.M.Smith
February 2, 2013 at 10:00 pm
Thanks for the link to the zeolite primer.
Yeah I agree with you, it’s better to use the electricity directly if possible
than use it to convert chemicals to hydrocarbons as there is bound to be a good
deal of kwhr lost in the process. However Iceland outranks all other nations of
the world in installed electric power capacity per capita by large margin at
around 9 Kw installed per head ,it’s f.ex. roughly 3 times the installed
capacity per capita in the U.S.A and 4 times the same for Denmark the often touted
capital of the renewable electricity from birdblenders, and I think we are headed
for a double digit number in this context whithin foreseable future. Around 80%
of this is hydro the rest mostly geothermal the use of which we went in for in
big way orginally to heat buildings and provide hot running water etc, after the arab
oil embargo last century and the steam that came out of the drillholes was so
much warmer than what was suitable for the orginal purpose intended that it had
to be cooled down.Some brigth headed enginer involved with one of the projects found
out that there were an off the shelf closed system electricity generating turbines available
that could be inserted into the cooling process and presto a 10 Mw on the side electric plant
became a reality, at rather insubstantial extra cost to his project, and I think all
the geothermal plants built save the latest one were built mainly to provide hot water with the electricity generation as a kind of side show. Well enough of that I, what I really wanted
say was that i think this methanol project was started orginally as a result of a marching order to our governmment from the European Union in Bruxcelles (Iceland is not an EU member nation, but we are a party to an wider European agrement that allows the ogres of the Behemouth in Belgium to order our government about sometimes ) to mandate that the gasoline sold here was blended with some preordained percents of renewable fuel asap ,and the methanol plant is the outcome of some shopping around for ways to fullfill that order ( and in my view its a better way to go about it than topping up the tank with foodstuff) , but was designed for bigger capacity ,than we need to use internally to keep Bruxcelle happy, to optimize the plants economy, that has then lead to ideas of building another and a far bigger one, for diesel generation to use for our fishing fleet which is the biggest user in the country of that fuel type. I do of course not know what the end there result will be, but if the crude price comes tumbling down within the next year or two , as I suspect it might if the future market players get a case of nerves, i suppose that idea might remain just an idea for the next few years to come, but if it can really be done to a a stable and sustainable tune of half the current crude price it might survive an become a reality.

Paolo
February 3, 2013 4:52 am

The arguments offered by Thomas Gold in his book “The Deep Hot Biosphere” (especially chapters 3, 4 and 5) seem to me as clear and thorough as they are compelling. I have never seen them rebutted in any way other than by dogmatic offhand dismissals that avoid addressing the arguments themselves — an all too familiar technique. The book is a must read (and a very pleasant one) for anyone with a genuine interest in the matter, regardless of where they stand and what they believe they know.
Some Amazon reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Deep-Hot-Biosphere-Fossil/product-reviews/0387985468/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

John Doran
February 3, 2013 4:57 am

I love this site. I learn shedloads.
I’ve learned peak horse[snip]. 🙂 Thanks Jimbo, Feb 2 4.04pm.
I’ve learned the eco-freaks have cost us 280 billion dollars. 🙁 ThanksEW3, Feb 2 8.42pm.
Thanks for this post Willis, most enjoyable, most informative, what more can a man ask?
Dont answer that one.:)
The needles are chalk cliffs eroded by sea action into spires near the Isle of Wight off the UK south coast, though I expect you’ve googled that already.
What credence if any do you give to the theory that the Global Warming Scare Scam is tied in with UN Agenda 21, a plan to depopulate this Earth by about 80% – 90%?

Kurt in Switzerland
February 3, 2013 5:05 am

To everyone inclined to take cheap shots at Willis for not willing to “accept” that oil has peaked:
My interpretation of his argument is that the dividing line between “conventional” and “unconventional” is constantly moving. Much of what was unconventional / uneconomical yesterday is conventional / economical today. Some of what is still unconventional / uneconomical today will be conventional / economical tomorrow. Since the extraction costs of petroleum is driven by ingenuity and the sale price is driven by market conditions, look for ingenuity to establish a new benchmark whenever the market price comes to a new level.
As long as the total world production is still on the rise, claiming that oil has peaked sounds rather daft.
Perhaps bar charts comparing quantity extracted as a function of estimated extraction cost per barrel (e.g., by decade over the past half century) would be helpful to visualize the process.
The assumption is that the chart for 1960s would show one or two tall bars at the left, followed by a steep drop off. The chart for the 2010s would show shorter bars at the far left, more bars just to the middle, then a drop off. Look for this “flattening” trend to continue.
Kurt in Switzerland

wsbriggs
February 3, 2013 5:46 am

There’s a reason that hydrocarbons are rated in BOE – Barrels of Oil Equivalents. There are at least two reasonably efficient methods of extracting BOEs from coal. There are processes to extract BOEs from tar/tar sands. These two areas send the “Peak Oil” date out so far that you need a perpetual calendar to log it.
Before the POs get their unmentionables in a wad – IT PROBABLY WON’T HAPPEN AT THE CURRENT PRICE POINT!
Willis, if a publisher hasn’t got you under a contract already for what most of us here think is a fantastic life story, TANJ! Your writings and life story have got to be work upper six figure $s.
The whale blowhole story is the best single written anecdote I’ve ever read.

Gail Combs
February 3, 2013 5:53 am

“The fracturing technology was developed about forty years ago, and has been used ever since, mostly for secondary recovery. And for all those decades the oil coming from the fractured rocks has been “conventional oil”.”
Actually “fracking” was invented just after the Civil War.

Shooters – A “Fracking” History
For more than 100 years, nitroglycerin detonations increased a well’s production from petroleum bearing formations. Modern hydraulic fracturing technology can trace its roots to April 25, 1865, when Civil War veteran Col. Edward A. L. Roberts received the first of his many patents for an “exploding torpedo.”
In May 1990, Pennsylvania’s Otto Cupler Torpedo Company “shot” its last oil well using liquid nitroglycerin – abandoning nitro but continuing to pursue a fundamental oil field technology.
Although President Rick Tallini remains in the business of improving oil wells’ production, today’s fracturing systems are much advanced from Lt. Col. Edward A. L. Roberts’ original 1865-1866 patents…..
Today, about 30 percent of U.S. recoverable oil and natural gas reserves are accessible through hydraulic “fracking” – about seven billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas….

An ice history of “fracking” and the technological advances of oil field production.

David L. Hagen
February 3, 2013 5:58 am

Willis
The benefit of multi-hubbert analyses is in predicting the likelihood of availability of fuel from given resources.
See: Exponential growth, energetic Hubbert cycles, and the advancement of technology, Tad W. Patzek, Archives of Mining Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences, May 3, 2008 http://gaia.pge.utexas.edu/papers/PatzekManuscriptRevised.pdf
Economist James Hamilton documents the oil production in each of the US States/regions. See:

Oil Prices, Exhaustible Resources, and Economic Growth. This paper explores details behind the phenomenal increase in global crude oil production over the last century and a half and the implications if that trend should be reversed. I document that a key feature of the growth in production has been exploitation of new geographic areas rather than application of better technology to existing sources, and suggest that the end of that era could come soon. The economic dislocations that historically followed temporary oil supply disruptions are reviewed, and the possible implications of that experience for what the transition era could look like are explored.

Note that the International Energy Agency 2012 now shows crude oil production peaked in 2005.

richardscourtney
February 3, 2013 6:03 am

fenbeagleblog:
re your post at February 3, 2013 at 3:05 am
In case some people missed the chance to click your wonderful link, I copy it here to give them another opportunity to have the joy of it.
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/02/the-habit/
Absolutely brilliant! I really did need the laugh today so many thanks.
Richard

richardscourtney
February 3, 2013 6:18 am

MorningGuy:
I do like optimism but I balk at stupidity.
Your post at February 3, 2013 at 4:14 am asserts

the point you’re missing is that it doesn’t matter that we have effectively endless reserves of methane hydrates as it can’t be extracted economically, and I dare say won’t ever be extracted. Not due to greenies or climate change or anything like that but due to cold hard economics as renewables and solar are getting to cheap.

Wind, solar and animal (including human) power were abandoned when the cheaper energy of the high energy intensity in fossil fuels became available by use of the steam engine.
But hydro continued to be used because it is efficient, is available on demand and samples the high energy intensity in flowing water so is “cheap”.
Wind, solar and animal power are inefficient, unreliable and expensive: they always will be unless somebody finds a way to by-pass the laws of physics.
It is rare that one can make a confident prediction of the future, but I can and do confidently predict that the use of fossil fuels will not be displaced by cheaper energy from solar, or from wind, or from unicorn farts.
Richard

Bill_W
February 3, 2013 6:30 am

The arguments against “peak oil” are NOT that oil and other fossil fuels are not in limited supply, NOR that the price won’t go up, and not even that production will not decrease in some places over time.
The argument is against the same kind of “catastrophic” thinking bull[snip] that goes on in so many other areas. You need to look at all sides of the issue and think about possibilities, not just extrapolate an exponential curve or assume something is a Gaussian curve. It may be possible with changes in price and technology, for a curve to have more than one peak. US oil production or Natural gas production may go higher again in the future.
You have to remember that governments do affect the price of oil and regulate where it can be drilled. You have to realize there is a world market in oil and that if oil is very cheap in some places in the world, then it makes sense to use that oil and therefore production of slightly more expensive oil may go down in some countries until the cheaper oil finally becomes scarce OR until technology catches up to make other sources competitive. You need to consider all these things at once: price, technology, gov’t policy.
Peak oil fears as they are often expressed are typically of the catastrophic kind. That once a country or two hits that peak level, soon all countries will, and then we will run out and the price will be 1,000’s of dollars per barrel and we will all starve if some smart progressives don’t plan it all out for us and save us.
In addition to the above, the other things that get left out of “peak oil” or peak anything conversations is that there are substitutes and things in competition (also through the price system/market).
Oil from petroleum is in competition and can be substituted for SOME uses with whale oil, palm oil. For electricity generation, all types of fossil fuels can substitute, so natural gas, coal, unconventional oil, etc. all come into play in the price/supply equation. Even solar, nuclear, wind come into play if fossil fuel prices go too high. If we do start to run out, oil will be replaced naturally over a 20-50 year time span. This is what people who object to “peak oil” are actually saying.
As usual, the alarmists only want to focus on one thing at a time and even on one type of “conventional” oil. Then they want to pretend (or maybe they really are this rock-headed) that anyone who disagrees with them doesn’t know that oil is in limited supply and can increase in price.

manicbeancounter
February 3, 2013 6:55 am

Well done Willis for showing the arbitrary distinction between “conventional” and “uncoventional” oil. It strikes me that there are a lot of arbitrary distinctions made in “climate” that help keep the whole catastrophic global warming show on the road.
– Scientist / non-scientist, forgetting that a Phd is not a professional qualification, or that promoting policy involves many disciplines, including statistics, economics, forecasting and public policy-making.
– Peer review / non-peer review – forgetting that the peer review is far from being an unambiguous quality control standard.
– Clean / dirty energy. Wind turbines have nasty chemicals in the manufacture. An electric car may use “dirtier” energy than an efficient diesel. Nuclear is “clean” in some respects, but leaves the ultimate in “dirty” residues.
The distinctions made might be useful for non-specialist understanding, but ultimately they do not reflect reality in all its richness. What is more, the fundamental questions of catastrophic global warming are not not either / or, but future projections of magnitude and likelihood. This involves being able to assess the quality and relevance of the science and supporting data.

Grey Lensman
February 3, 2013 7:12 am

Morning guy says
Quote
Correct me if I’m wrong but your whole effective premise is that we’ve got endless reserves…
Unquote
Nope just endless human ingenuity. We have vast reserves of all sorts of things. We are finding how to use one to make another. An example given by Bjorn, citing how Iceland uses relatively free electricity to make methanol. This can not only be used as a fuel but can be used as a feedstock to make plastics, yarns, etc.
If instead of running out, we find we have a 100 years supply to meet current growth patterns, then all we have to do is look back a hundred years to see what might happen. Then it was horse manure. 60 acres of every hundred acres of farmland used to feed horses. Actually it looks like we have at least 300 years supply at max consumption.
So we not only have 100 years to find new energy sources, we are doing it now. cheap solar and wind is a myth, a distraction, from those ideas and concepts that really work, geothermal being a classic.

DirkH
February 3, 2013 7:25 am

TimTheToolMan says:
February 3, 2013 at 1:57 am
“E M Smith says this is due to a global conspiracy of which OPEC plays a part and all the other producers play along rather than increasing supply to ease prices.”
A conspiracy is hidden. OPEC is a cartel and not hidden. Therefore no conspiracy. The interests of OPEC are clear: Maximize profit, and prevent development of alternatives (It becomes harder over time for them to do that. In the 80ies they lowered the price to stop the first shale oil boom in Colorado; successfully in that case.).
” Apparently the oil cartels aren’t making enough money.”
Saudi Arabia and other arab nations have a population explosion; GDP/capita is falling. Of course they want to maximize oil revenue to be able to give goodies to millions of unemployed angry youths.
” And apparently this global conspiracy is conspiring to keep our economies in the holes they’re in because its in the interests of the producers to do so. I dont subscribe to that point of view myself but YMMV.”
They don’t want to “keep us in the hole”; they want to continue to milk us. They would LOVE it if we became so rich we could afford to pay them 200 instead of 100 USD a barrel. But it looks like every time the price goes up that high the US (and other nations) go into recession; as further growth would be uneconomic (profits being wiped out by the fuel cost).
Over time, efficiency improvements allow to extract more GDP Dollars from one barrel of oil, justifying a higher price ceiling. But it’s a slow process (the yearned for “decoupling of GDP from fossil fuel use”. This decoupling looks more like a slow shift towards higher value extraction over time – much slower than desired growth rates of 3% a year or so)

1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 17