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 8
    More: Interesting, shale oil, peak oils, California Department of Conservation, Center for Biological Diversity, oil reserves, Occidental Petroleum, Energy Institute, Bakken shale  
•       •       •

8062 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-03-05 07:53:35 AM  
2 votes:

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 08:33:25 AM  
1 votes:
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 07:59:38 AM  
1 votes:
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 07:51:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:42:22 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:36:19 AM  
1 votes:
I thought we decided peak oil isn't a real thing because of the economics involved in energy production.
2013-03-05 07:34:09 AM  
1 votes:
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 07:28:15 AM  
1 votes:
Ah, a headline referencing peak oil, and and article that doesn't have anything to do with peak oil.

Welcome to Fark.
 
Displayed 8 of 8 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report