If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Peak oil . . . or is it?   (nytimes.com) divider line 43
    More: Interesting, shale oil, peak oils, California Department of Conservation, Center for Biological Diversity, oil reserves, Occidental Petroleum, Energy Institute, Bakken shale  
•       •       •

8060 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2013 at 7:20 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



43 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-05 07:28:15 AM
Ah, a headline referencing peak oil, and and article that doesn't have anything to do with peak oil.

Welcome to Fark.
 
2013-03-05 07:32:45 AM
At least its not another global warming hoax thread.
 
2013-03-05 07:33:01 AM

kryhme: Ah, a headline referencing peak oil, and and article that doesn't have anything to do with peak oil.


That is not dissimilar to any other article referencing "peak oil", especially if it is generated from a government entity.
 
2013-03-05 07:33:28 AM

way south: At least its not another global warming hoax thread.


Everyone point and laugh at Republican Talking Points Man!
 
2013-03-05 07:34:09 AM
As much as I'd love to see us find a new source of oil to tide us over during our transition to renewables, I don't want to see it done at the expense of pristine wilderness, especially so when the methods including fracking which irreparably damage the environment in ways that simple wells do not.
 
2013-03-05 07:34:34 AM

bmihura: kryhme: Ah, a headline referencing peak oil, and and article that doesn't have anything to do with peak oil.

That is not dissimilar to any other article referencing "peak oil", especially if it is generated from a government entity.


Be glad they didn't stick it in the politics tab too.
 
2013-03-05 07:34:36 AM

bmihura: kryhme: Ah, a headline referencing peak oil, and and article that doesn't have anything to do with peak oil.

That is not dissimilar to any other article referencing "peak oil", especially if it is generated from a government entity.


Another Republican Talking Points Man!

/Yep, Piyush was right - the Party of Stupid
 
2013-03-05 07:35:20 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: As much as I'd love to see us find a new source of oil to tide us over during our transition to renewables, I don't want to see it done at the expense of pristine wilderness, especially so when the methods including fracking which irreparably damage the environment in ways that simple wells do not.


Ah, you're a Democrat now!
 
2013-03-05 07:36:11 AM
Thanks, Benghazi.
 
2013-03-05 07:36:19 AM
I thought we decided peak oil isn't a real thing because of the economics involved in energy production.
 
2013-03-05 07:39:41 AM
That picture is not helping
 
2013-03-05 07:39:48 AM
Oil from mountain peaks? Now I've heard everything!
 
2013-03-05 07:41:18 AM
There are two factors in play: Peak oil theory and the cost benefit of exploiting different well types. As the price of oil has increased (ie the side effect of Peak Oil), companies are more willing to exploit fields that cost more to own and operate.

Which says to me that the Peak Oil theory has not been disproven yet.
 
2013-03-05 07:42:22 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: As much as I'd love to see us find a new source of oil to tide us over during our transition to renewables, I don't want to see it done at the expense of pristine wilderness, especially so when the methods including fracking which irreparably damage the environment in ways that simple wells do not.


ok, I'll bite...We are never gonna 'transition' to renewables. we are gonna stumble around, trying to find cheaper energy until we can't find any more burnable oil. then, we're either gonna figure out how to be more efficient, or slide back down the hill and return to banging the rocks together.

I think the solution isn't in finding a new energy source. It's in using the multitudes of sources in the best way we know how. How's that for a laffer?
 
2013-03-05 07:42:33 AM
Yes, it is.  And man made global warming is happening.

Anything else you wanted to know?  Or did you want to go back to your oil company funded articles?
 
2013-03-05 07:48:00 AM
Doesn't matter when we run out of oil. We now know that if we burn it all, we will fill the atmosphere with so much Carbon Dioxide that we'll eventually kill everything on the planet and end up like Venus.
 
2013-03-05 07:50:24 AM

ghare: AverageAmericanGuy: As much as I'd love to see us find a new source of oil to tide us over during our transition to renewables, I don't want to see it done at the expense of pristine wilderness, especially so when the methods including fracking which irreparably damage the environment in ways that simple wells do not.

Ah, you're a Democrat now!


Hardly. If you think that only Democrats care about the environment or want to move Americans off our dependence on oil, your political blinders are too tight.
 
2013-03-05 07:51:28 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: As much as I'd love to see us find a new source of oil to tide us over during our transition to renewables, I don't want to see it done at the expense of pristine wilderness, especially so when the methods including fracking which irreparably damage the environment in ways that simple wells do not.


Agreed. The oil *is* there, but the environmental cost of extraction is huge. If that's the way everyone wants to go then so be it, but it must be done with full knowledge. No weasel words from the oil industry about it being no different from conventional extraction.
 
2013-03-05 07:53:35 AM

Elfich: There are two factors in play: Peak oil theory and the cost benefit of exploiting different well types. As the price of oil has increased (ie the side effect of Peak Oil), companies are more willing to exploit fields that cost more to own and operate.  Which says to me that the Peak Oil theory has not been disproven yet.


That's only one factor.  The market warming up to the idea of going after hard-to-reach deposits like shale with improved technology was very accurately predicted by M. King Hubbert.  He does seem to have underestimated the tech curve as well as the size of shale deposits but otherwise for a prediction made almost SIXTY years ago he's been downright prophetic.  He predicted global production would peak in 1995, but the lesson here isn't how wrong his theories were so much as just how staggeringly ambitious he was to try to make such a prediction in the first place.  Ask anyone in Wall Street to predict ANYTHING sixty years in the future and you'll get laughed at.   Even then, global production has sort of plateaued but the U.S. hasn't seen prices anywhere near what they were in 1995 and will definitely never see them again (unless oil becomes permanently obsolete, which is unlikely for the foreseeable future).  His date estimates were off but he's been dead-on as far as sequence of events go.
 
2013-03-05 07:53:38 AM
No. There is plenty of oil in North America. Some people have a problem with this.
 
2013-03-05 07:58:56 AM

CokeBear: Doesn't matter when we run out of oil. We now know that if we burn it all, we will fill the atmosphere with so much Carbon Dioxide that we'll eventually kill everything on the planet and end up like Venus.


I have a solution for that. Start planting lots of trees and stop the destruction of the rain forests. Or maybe invent a machine that converts C02 to O2.
 
2013-03-05 07:59:38 AM
Obama won't quit until we have $6 a gallon gasoline and the economy is in the dumper. Then more will need handouts, Democrats in power until the fall of the country, which will be soon.
 
2013-03-05 08:11:45 AM
And someone, somewhere, is seriously saying to him or her self, "See? God keeps giving us more so there's no way we could run out."

Fracking the crap out of this shale deposit will bring much oil at some unknown cost until there's some huge problem.
 
2013-03-05 08:16:20 AM

Thunderpipes: Obama won't quit until we have $6 a gallon gasoline and the economy is in the dumper. Then more will need handouts, Democrats in power until the fall of the country, which will be soon.


And then what's their plan after that? Or is that it? Just destruction for the sake of destruction like some comic book super-villians?
 
2013-03-05 08:33:25 AM
Shale oil is a blessing and a curse. Finding huge oil deposits in the continental United States is terrific for the US economy and for our global security, but it also is an easy way out of not doing the hard work of changing to renewable energy that can reduce CO2, global warming and rising sea levels. Being 'Murica, the massive amount of money to be made with the easier choice will dictate the course of events. If we had real considered government we would use the oil and gas efficiently and tax the profits to develop cleaner technologies.

We are currently fracking the shiat out of the wasteland of South Texas. It's probably a good thing that fracking California is more politically
problematic. It may save some petroleum reserves for future generations.
 
2013-03-05 09:08:00 AM
I know everyone on Fark disagrees with the concept of peak oil, but I certainly hope nobody believes there's enough left to last even 50 more years. It's not like oil is produced naturally in a lifetime or even in the entire history of human life on earth.
 
2013-03-05 09:24:41 AM
Perhaps James Howard Kuntsler has not chosen...wisely.
 
2013-03-05 09:35:48 AM
More oil in North America's Shale deposits than any other known souce on the planet. It's just more expensive and environmentally destructive to get it out of the ground than conventional oil.

Is it economically viable to produce shale oil?
At $100/barrel sure it is... that's the point.
Just think how profitable it will be at $500/barrel.
The last barrel will probably cost more than all the oil ever produced.
This is pretty much the point of peak oil... less available/more expensive oil.

Bell curves... how do they work?
 
2013-03-05 09:57:25 AM

ArmanTanzarian: More oil in North America's Shale deposits than any other known souce on the planet. It's just more expensive and environmentally destructive to get it out of the ground than conventional oil.


5000 fracked wells turned Fort Worth into a suburb of Dallas (shudder)
 
2013-03-05 10:02:34 AM

way south: At least its not another global warming hoax thread.


You'd be funny if willful ignorance were funny instead of damaging and sad.
 
2013-03-05 10:04:56 AM
TFA: "Now 40 years later, the technologies have become available to actually get it in a cost-effective way."

I think it may have a *bit* more to do with the dramatic change in the current bar for "cost-effective", but, whatever.
 
2013-03-05 10:09:41 AM

gshepnyc: willful ignorance


Bonus points if you buy your bottled water from Fiji
 
2013-03-05 10:10:59 AM

Thunderpipes: Obama won't quit until we have $6 a gallon gasoline and the economy is in the dumper. Then more will need handouts, Democrats in power until the fall of the country, which will be soon.


You are a masterful troll, sir.
 
2013-03-05 10:32:51 AM
badhatharry
No. There is plenty of oil in North America. Some people have a problem with this.

Define "plenty"


JonnyG
I know everyone on Fark disagrees with the concept of peak oil, but I certainly hope nobody believes there's enough left to last even 50 more years. It's not like oil is produced naturally in a lifetime or even in the entire history of human life on earth.

If every 20 years we find enough oil to last 5 years then that's an infinite supply, or something.


ringersol
I think it may have a *bit* more to do with the dramatic change in the current bar for "cost-effective", but, whatever.

The EROEI of oil 50-100 years ago was 50:1. Shale oil is more like 1.2:1. Then there's all the oil that's technically recoverable, but at a net energy loss. This is a bad plan.
 
2013-03-05 11:03:21 AM

dragonchild: Elfich: There are two factors in play: Peak oil theory and the cost benefit of exploiting different well types. As the price of oil has increased (ie the side effect of Peak Oil), companies are more willing to exploit fields that cost more to own and operate.  Which says to me that the Peak Oil theory has not been disproven yet.

That's only one factor.  The market warming up to the idea of going after hard-to-reach deposits like shale with improved technology was very accurately predicted by M. King Hubbert.  He does seem to have underestimated the tech curve as well as the size of shale deposits but otherwise for a prediction made almost SIXTY years ago he's been downright prophetic.  He predicted global production would peak in 1995, but the lesson here isn't how wrong his theories were so much as just how staggeringly ambitious he was to try to make such a prediction in the first place.  Ask anyone in Wall Street to predict ANYTHING sixty years in the future and you'll get laughed at.   Even then, global production has sort of plateaued but the U.S. hasn't seen prices anywhere near what they were in 1995 and will definitely never see them again (unless oil becomes permanently obsolete, which is unlikely for the foreseeable future).  His date estimates were off but he's been dead-on as far as sequence of events go.


I am in agreement. My initial statement was rushed and poorly written.
 
2013-03-05 11:05:20 AM
<b>Submitter</b> is an idiot in more ways than one. The article has nothing to do with the headline, and anyone who hopes to disprove the peak oil "theory" has their head in the sand. In the USA, oil production peaked in 1970. Peak oil has already happened, it is not a theory but historical fact. None of these new oil fields, whether in California, North Dakota or Wyoming, have any hope of reversing that. It doesn't matter how much oil is in those fields, they're so difficult to extract from that they simply cannot be produced from as fast as the oil being extracted 40 years ago.

Stop trying to have your haha moment over the envirofascist libtards. Its over, you lost, and now you look like a flat earther.
 
xcv
2013-03-05 11:25:03 AM

badhatharry: CokeBear: Doesn't matter when we run out of oil. We now know that if we burn it all, we will fill the atmosphere with so much Carbon Dioxide that we'll eventually kill everything on the planet and end up like Venus.

I have a solution for that. Start planting lots of trees and stop the destruction of the rain forests. Or maybe invent a machine that converts C02 to O2.


With the outdated maximum human population estimates of 10 billion being revised upward to 15 billion by the end of this century, the human race hasn't peaked yet either. Humans are going to need a lot more habitable space, particularly in high-growth rate countries near the equator.

Brown people in tropical rain forest possessing countries are entitled to suburban sprawl and affordable food from cheap farmland too and those trees are in the way. They fed cash crops to North America and Europe for all those past decades and now it's their turn at having a self-entitled middle class.
 
2013-03-05 12:24:31 PM
I do not consider any shale oil deposits that require vast amounts of fresh water to crack it to be a viable source of oil production. And the fact that we are trying to tap these low yield sources only proves that peak oil is upon us.

/if it was easy to refine brent crude, then subby might be on to something
 
2013-03-05 12:54:48 PM
Jeezus christ....the shiat that will get greenlit.  It's clearly about keywords and the propensity to cause outrage vice relevance.

/subby

www.powermomsunite.com
 
2013-03-05 01:43:19 PM

germ78: I do not consider any shale oil deposits that require vast amounts of fresh water to crack it to be a viable source of oil production.


And the corn that requires vast amounts of water to grow is a more viable source of fuel?  There are Master's Theses that have been written about the numbers on water vs production on a given tract of land. Very educational.
 
2013-03-05 02:29:09 PM

SVenus: And the corn that requires vast amounts of water to grow is a more viable source of fuel?


The corn, king grass, algae sources are renewable and take in as much carbon as they release.
Oil is a one time thing and you risk contaminating the remaining water table if you aren't careful.

The fossil fuel era is going to run its course eventually.  The question is if we want to gently unhook ourselves from this train before it runs off the tracks, or do we wait till we have to choose between jumping or being thrown.
Do it early enough and at least you can make a buck by being ahead of the next big trend.
 
2013-03-05 07:02:32 PM

way south: The corn, king grass, algae sources are renewable and take in as much carbon as they release.


Only if phosphorus based fertilizer falls from the skies.
http://grist.org/article/biofuels-and-the-fertilizer-problem/
 
2013-03-05 07:15:30 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: As much as I'd love to see us find a new source of oil to tide us over during our transition to renewables, I don't want to see it done at the expense of pristine wilderness, especially so when the methods including fracking which irreparably damage the environment in ways that simple wells do not.


"pristine wilderness"?  LOL.

http://goo.gl/maps/0G1yd

I mean if a few dislocated insects and reptiles bothers you, ok.  But the areas they are talking about may as well be on mars.  If someone airdropped you there while you were sleeping you would drop to your knees and say "You Maniacs! You blew it up! Ah, damn you! God damn you all to hell! "
 
Displayed 43 of 43 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report