Peak Oil -New definition

[DBoon]

Lets not even get into plug in electric cars. People conveniently forget where the power comes from to power their 'green' machines. that in reality aren't green at all. Just a 'feel good' thing.

What's with the personal attack, Sidecarflip? Seems a bit out of line. You made a statement about "people" - don't stereotype. Get to know who is who, what they are doing and why. Not everyone who has an electric car is rich and drives a Tesla. Some of us drove Chevettes, Saturns SL and Chevy Sonics for 30+ years and then splurged on a big time Chevy Bolt. Maintenance costs are lower, and running costs are 1/3 for electric versus gas (if I was buying electric from the utility, compared to a car that got 40+ mpg). I'm saving money.

Yeah, I invested some up front to do that, but I am able to weather this economic storm requiring very few cash outlays right now. I also get the satisfaction of knowing that my money is not going to countries that pump oil and fund terrorist organizations. My asthmatic lungs (and those like them) appreciate that there is less pollution in the air. And oh yeah, I won't deny it, I do believe climate change is happening and I'd like to do something to give the best possible planet to my nieces and nephews (and their kids). There are lots of shades of green.

I won't bother to respond about all your wrong assumptions about anything solar PV and peakbagger covered it pretty well, in any case.

My philosophy is, what blows your dress up don't blow mine up.

Sounds like a reasonable approach to me. I'm still searching for the comment I made where I must have told you to sell your diesel tractors and trade-in your pickup truck for something that plugs-in. I can't find it, so maybe you can jog my memory.

 

[DBoon]

Something I can extract from the ground, and sell to someone else for a profit is not the definition of worthless.

I've read that the break even price for US majors is on the order of $50/bbl. If oil stays at current prices forever ($45-50/bbl), then there is no business case for owning their stock and expecting appreciation on it and no business case for them drilling new wells. Essentially, at current oil prices the US majors should just pump from the ground while making no new investments. Any lack of willingness to do this on their part is an indication that they don't yet believe oil prices will stay at $45/bbl due to declining demand.

What we are seeing at Exxon Mobil now is a foreshadowing of what is to come. Stock price going nowhere, reduced capital investments, and their management's hope that things will turn around, so they keep investing something in new wells. In another 5 years, they will know that oil usage is in a downward decline by 2030, and new investments will stop. They will take the billions they spent per year and just pay it out in dividends.

They will look a lot like Frontier telephone company - a business that has telephone lines that fewer and fewer people want to pay $60/month for anymore and they just make no investments and pay a 9% dividend.

If the Saudis can pump for $3/bbl, then the last oil used will come from under Saudi deserts.

 

[DBoon]

Just to keep the facts straight, Exxon Mobil was removed from the Dow Jones Industrial Average, not the S&P500.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/25/exxon-mobil-replaced-by-a-software-stock-after-92-years-in-the-dow-is-a-sign-of-the-times.html

Still, considering they were the highest valued publicly-traded company in the world not that long ago, that is pretty amazing.

 

[andym]

There will be some people clinging to the past, as they always do. What I don't understand is the loyalty to oil from people who aren't investors, executives, royalty recipients, etc. More lately, farmers who sell corn for ethanol are stakeholders, too.

I think what compels most people to hang onto fossil fuels is two fold. One being that this is normal. It is all we've known. It is ingrained in us. Think of the initial change from horses to tractors for an illustration.
Secondly is a reluctance to accept or even an outright mistrust of all the so called studies and science that says going carbon free is possible. Each side blames the other for biased claims and paid research. This defaults many people back to point one.

This I just don't get.
We will move forward. We will evolve. It's a natural progression. Any movement backwards is soon overtaken by advancement.
Embracing innovation and looking to a better future is so much more practical, rewarding,...and fun.

Nothing personal here, but a third reason is that too many (if not all) of the big name climate activists have a 'progressive' and 'innovative' agenda that extends far beyond electrifying cars etc. I'm all for innovation, but what kind of innovation are we talking about and at what cost to the lower class American? You only have to follow a few major news stories relating to Covid crackdowns in NY, CA, etc. These are some of the same people who are big time promoting the carbon-free agenda. Let's not 'progress' or 'evolve' to the point of totalitarianism and socialism. There are too many people promoting the destruction of the fundamental values that made America the best nation in the world. Too often they are the same people heavily promoting 'fixing' the climate. That's what scares the average conservative American away. Again I've got nothing personal against anyone here.

 

[SpaceBus]

I think what compels most people to hang onto fossil fuels is two fold. One being that this is normal. It is all we've known. It is ingrained in us. Think of the initial change from horses to tractors for an illustration.
Secondly is a reluctance to accept or even an outright mistrust of all the so called studies and science that says going carbon free is possible. Each side blames the other for biased claims and paid research. This defaults many people back to point one.

Nothing personal here, but a third reason is that too many (if not all) of the big name climate activists have a 'progressive' and 'innovative' agenda that extends far beyond electrifying cars etc. I'm all for innovation, but what kind of innovation are we talking about and at what cost to the lower class American? You only have to follow a few major news stories relating to Covid crackdowns in NY, CA, etc. These are some of the same people who are big time promoting the carbon-free agenda. Let's not 'progress' or 'evolve' to the point of totalitarianism and socialism. There are too many people promoting the destruction of the fundamental values that made America the best nation in the world. Too often they are the same people heavily promoting 'fixing' the climate. That's what scares the average conservative American away. Again I've got nothing personal against anyone here.

This country was made "great" by the labor of slaves and otherwise near slaves. Railroads were laid by immigrant laborers that would work all day for near nothing and do the most dangerous work in the tunnels. The foundations of agriculture and industry were built by literal imported African slaves. The poverty caste of America is what made this country powerful, which is an exploitation by the capitalist caste. Make no mistake, renewable energy will put less money into the pockets of the oligarchs of this country and the world. How will the Saudi Royal family stay in power if they can't exploit African immigrants in the oil fields?

You fear totalitarianism and socialism, but we already live in a Communist Oligarchy with two political factions that are bought by the leaders of industry. The democrats and republicans are one in the same and all work towards the same goals: profit. There are exceptional members among both parties, but they are both 99% full of corrupt, bought politicians. Everyone says they voted for Trump because he is an "outsider" and "different", but he is just another rich white dude running politics like Biden and Bush Jr. Even Obama was just as ruthless and cold as Bush Jr and largely continued the policies left behind by the Bush Regime.

 

[ABMax24]

Sounds like CNRL is a dirtbag company. The assets they bought were unprofitable to start with and if they reduce the cost of production that usually means less pay for employees. I don't actually know if they are dirtbags, but...

There's lot of ways to cut costs without cutting wages, once the equipment exists it's pretty cost effective to workover wells and streamline infrastructure to cut costs. The oil and gas industry is the highest paying in Canada, particularly for blue-collar jobs, CNRL is on par with the other majors in this regard.

Major lending institutions have already spoken on oil and natural gas. No more loans for fracking and that's just the start. The oil in the ground is a net loss if it costs more to extract, if it is extracted at all, than it is actually valued at.

Yes that's what you read online and on the news, in practice that's not what happens. All the bank has to do is lend money to any fund that then invests the money in oil and gas. There's also a lot of anti-oil unions that send their pension money to oil companies for high returns, the Ontario Teachers Pension being one of them, "do as we say, not as we do" I guess.

Even if financial institution lending does stop the industry won't, companies will be taken private by the ultra rich, making them richer yet, or by the Chinese, shipping more domestic profits overseas. Go ahead and advocate for this if you want, but I won't advocate for creating more economic disparities within society, or for increased foreign ownership of our companies or resources.

 

[tbear853]

The climate was changing before man knew the concept, it'll change until the sun dies, Earth will be a burnt out cinder in a cold space (if not consumed) after Sun goes "boom".

 

[begreen]

That's not quite correct, Denmark has stopping issuing new licenses so new "lands" can't be explored and developed, existing licenses can still be explored, drilled and developed.

Part of this is because only one company was interested in acquiring new licenses, probably because the remaining "lands" had little economic value.

Besides the 100,000 bpd Denmark produces is a drop in the bucket, I was working on a SAGD site this spring that is 12,000 bpd, and it was only one of about 20 such facilities in a 60 mile radius.

Though small as a country, Denmark is the largest oil producer in the EU. In addition to ceasing licensing new sites, they intend to cease all oil and gas activities within the next 30 years. It's a decisive step when a country decides to be a front-runner, even if they are not the largest.

 

[begreen]

The climate was changing before man knew the concept, it'll change until the sun dies, Earth will be a burnt out cinder in a cold space (if not consumed) after Sun goes "boom".

That's akin to saying cars have always killed people, we should do nothing to improve their safety.

 

[tbear853]

That's akin to saying cars have always killed people, we should do nothing to improve their safety.

No Sir!
Cars are man's idea, like anything man creates, he's free to continue to improve it to suit his purpose.

 

[begreen]

No Sir!
Cars are man's idea, like anything man creates, he's free to continue to improve it to suit his purpose.

So is the enormous excess of greenhouse gases manmade. It appears we agree then. We need to take responsibility and improve the reduction of output of these gases from mankind's activities.

 

[tbear853]

It appears we agree then.

Don't see that.

 

[begreen]

History. We've known this for quite a while.

 

[andym]

This country was made "great" by the labor of slaves and otherwise near slaves. Railroads were laid by immigrant laborers that would work all day for near nothing and do the most dangerous work in the tunnels. The foundations of agriculture and industry were built by literal imported African slaves. The poverty caste of America is what made this country powerful, which is an exploitation by the capitalist caste. Make no mistake, renewable energy will put less money into the pockets of the oligarchs of this country and the world. How will the Saudi Royal family stay in power if they can't exploit African immigrants in the oil fields?

You fear totalitarianism and socialism, but we already live in a Communist Oligarchy with two political factions that are bought by the leaders of industry. The democrats and republicans are one in the same and all work towards the same goals: profit. There are exceptional members among both parties, but they are both 99% full of corrupt, bought politicians. Everyone says they voted for Trump because he is an "outsider" and "different", but he is just another rich white dude running politics like Biden and Bush Jr. Even Obama was just as ruthless and cold as Bush Jr and largely continued the policies left behind by the Bush Regime.

I mostly agree with your assessment of politics. However I think you are missing some aspects of history. The slave trade was indeed a horrible travesty. All Americans should regret it. But is there any nation that can boast of a clean history? And the majority of the immigrant workers were happy to come here to work for cheap wages. Ever hear of the Irish potato famine? There has been and always will be rich 'oppressors' taking advantage of the poor workers. Socialism only enhances that. But America is unique in that an immigrant can come legally with nothing more than his clothes and in his own lifetime become a successful even wealthy business man. That never has happened under socialism or communism. The real problem in America's workforce today is not wealth inequality or big corporations, it's a lack of willing workers. But now I'm getting away from the original topic.
Begreen: are you implying that wildfires are solely a result of carbon polution?

 

[begreen]

Capitalism v socialism is an artificial construct. There are many shades in between, often successful. It is predatory capitalism that is at risk.

andym, I don't recall saying anything about wildfires.

 

[begreen]

andym, I don't recall saying anything about wildfires.

But now that you brought it up. Note that of the 20 largest wildfires in CA that 17 of them have been in the last 2 decades. The question is not what started them, but why they keep getting bigger. This is the same question asked in WA , CO and OR state, Australia, Russia, Brazil, etc. and the answer is not that someone isn't out there raking the forest.
(broken link removed to https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/11416/top20_acres.pdf)

But this is a diversion from the original thread. Oil consumption is down, it has not been a good year. If the working from home trend continues and more large corps stop renewing office space leases, then the decline will continue. Especially when overlaid with the passing of ICE propelled transportation. Oil companies have seen this coming. They are investing deeply in new plastics refineries as a push to increase consumption in that market. But this too is receiving international pushback.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[andym]

andym, I don't recall saying anything about wildfires

You didn't. The background on the quotes you posted appeared to illustrate that. Or did I miss something. You are correct that it is off topic though.

 

[begreen]

You didn't. The background on the quotes you posted appeared to illustrate that. Or did I miss something. You are correct that it is off topic though.

I'm not the creator of the piece, though I think an indication of scale is what was intended. What started the fires is not as important as why the scale and frequency are growing so rapidly this century.

 

[tbear853]

But now that you brought it up. Note that of the 20 largest wildfires in CA that 17 of them have been in the last 2 decades. The question is not what started them, but why they keep getting bigger. ... etc ...

Poor forest management, squandering funds, population growth into what was wilderness. Used to be they had more frequent but smaller fires that tended to keep forest floors clearer of dry debris. Now, since people have increasingly populated the forest, they don't allow the smaller fires, debris accumulates, then fires that occur grow huge fast.

Maybe more use of brush rakes is in order California?

Also, as I was reminded, lately droughts.

 

[SpaceBus]

Poor forest management, squandering funds, population growth into what was wilderness. Used to be they had more frequent but smaller fires that tended to keep forest floors clearer of dry debris. Now, since people have increasingly populated the forest, they don't allow the smaller fires, debris accumulates, then fires that occur grow huge fast.

Maybe more use of brush rakes is in order California?

That is just one of many theories. The drought is currently the leading contributor to the size of the forest fires. The ground is much dryer than it would be without humans living on it. Drought plus humans depleting water makes for the worst forest fire conditions possible. If anything the leaf litter helped hold more water in the thin layer of soil. Maine had a drought this summer, but water was still to be found in the soil when we dug into the leaf litter in a forest that is largely similar to those in CA.

 

[tbear853]

That is just one of many theories. The drought … etc … Maine had a drought this summer, but water was still to be found in the soil when we dug into the leaf litter in a forest that is largely similar to those in CA.

Drought …….. I meant to include that as well. Without drought, a lot of the Midwest wouldn't have blown away 80 years ago.

They also have those hot dry high winds blowing eastward up the slopes in Ca. that don't help.

 

[begreen]

It's not just CA, but globally. The wildfires in Alaska, Colorado, Oregon, Australia, Siberia and the Amazon have been huge and the size of them keep growing. Much of this area burned is wilderness, not managed forest.

It’s Not Just the West. These Places Are Also on Fire. (Published 2020)

Extreme temperatures and more severe droughts, the result of human-caused climate change, have created a world that’s ready to burn.

www.nytimes.com

 

[SpaceBus]

Drought …….. I meant to include that as well. Without drought, a lot of the Midwest wouldn't have blown away 80 years ago.

They also have those hot dry high winds blowing eastward up the slopes in Ca. that don't help.

The winds are another good point since we are still in El Nino. The dust bowl drought may have been partially caused by the destruction of native grasses, but the drought did lead to the wheat and other shallow rooting plants to die off and let the dry soil blow away. Not quite comparable to the CA disaster, but another example of human caused climate change. To my knowledge most of the development in the majority of CA did not require clear cutting the forest since the land is mostly desert and was pretty much empty.

 

[semipro]

The climate was changing before man knew the concept, it'll change until the sun dies, Earth will be a burnt out cinder in a cold space (if not consumed) after Sun goes "boom".

I totally agree but also believe that to the extent possible we need to take care of what we've been given to provide for our kids and theirs.
I'm not content with throwing my hands in the air and saying we can't do anything about it. I'd like to save the world (for humans) as long as we can.
If you mean to imply that we can't change anything I'd ask that you reconsider that.
Have a look at the timeline at the link below. It's entertaining if nothing else. (the graphic is really tall so you need to click the link to see it all)
And I'd ask you to keep in mind that how fast change occurs is even more important than the total amount of change. For lack of a better comparison right now, consider fertilizer application. A little at a time is beneficial, too much at once kills.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

 

[SpaceBus]

The image does not have enough resolution to zoom in and read it.