Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Reader Comments

at 5/6/2008 6:26:56 AM, cjwirth said:
Peak Oil is going to may you cry. Google a report on Peak Oil at peak oil associates, read it and then you will read cry.

at 5/6/2008 8:36:24 AM, Jason Smith said:
Peak Oil happens to an individual field when the energy cost of getting barrel of crude out of the field is more than the energy cost which that barrel of crude can provide - after all inefficiencies are taken into account. There is good evidence that oil shale and tar sands cannot be energy efficient. The comparison with flint is not appropriate. I am not a luddite. I think that engineering and science have a great deal to offer the world as the inevitable decline in liquid and gas takes serious hold.

at 5/6/2008 11:53:14 AM, Meredith Poor said:
I'm not sure about the flint. Every time I try to get one for my lighter they're out.

at 5/6/2008 12:00:01 PM, Meredith Poor said:
1. We know how to make hydrogen from water. 2. We know how to make carbon monoxide from graphite and CO2 (heat it to 800 degrees and pass the CO2 over the carbon). 3. The two of these combined is called synthesis gas, and it's used to make any alkane you want to name: methane, propane, hexane, decane, paraffin, whateverane. All this stuff was known by 1930. Hydrogen can be produced by hydrolysis from wind turbines, solar panels, hydroelectric, or nukes. Solar concentrators can raise the temperature of anything to 800 quite easily. FT synthesis is used all the time, it's application in oil refininig is as common as table salt. We will run out of oil when we run out of sunlight. At that point we'll be worried about other problems, for anyone still around.

at 5/6/2008 12:12:49 PM, Gas guzzler said:
OIL WILL NEVER EVER GET EXPENSIVE!!

at 5/6/2008 1:12:28 PM, enlightened one said:
The vast majority of the world's oil is produced from giant fields, and some have been in production for 60+ years. The largest oilfield in the world, Ghawar, in Saudi Srabia, produces almost 7% of global subbly, on the order of 5 million barrels a day. This field is already aging though and in decline, and the "advanced extraction" techniques you speak of can only slow the decline rate. Despite billions of dollars of investment, the oil sands in canada produce maybe 200,000 barrels per day, and the oil produced there must be upgraded with conventional crude to make it usable. Shale oil has the energy density of baked potatoes. Peak oil means peak energy, any way you look at it.

at 5/7/2008 9:37:57 AM, karlof1 said:
Talk about Straw Man; you're being ad hominum. The reality is more likely you're scared out of your wits for your future wellbeing and that of your children. And you should be. As an engineer, you will have to come up with solutions that allow doing more with less. Europeans use 50% less oil per capita than US and Canadians. It's time you got to work upgrading things to that level of efficiency than bashing a whole lot of well intentioned folks.

at 5/7/2008 9:47:32 AM, Svante said:
Peak Oil is not about "running out of oil", only stupid people think that. It is about not being able to replace the declining fields with new ones, so the total production goes down. It is inevitable. And sure, we can make oil from any energy source, but by taking a look at the distribution of energy sources today (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption), you will notice that renewables have a long way to go.

at 5/7/2008 10:04:34 AM, Scott Benson said:
You are an uninformed dimwit.

at 5/7/2008 10:30:50 AM, Phil said:
Those soccer moms can't trade in the SUVs fast enough since apparently they aren't as stupid as the author. $120 oil and climbing, and day by day there are fewer cornucopians remaining.

at 5/7/2008 10:51:44 AM, RC said:
Neither Rako nor Julian Simon, to whom Rako links, has a grip on today's reality in world wide oil production. I'd be interested to see how they explain away the very credible predictions made by the German Energy Watch Institute and others.

at 5/7/2008 11:01:29 AM, KELLY A said:
Thanks for the laugh. I haven't read anything this silly in a long time. You crack me up. May Peal Oil bite you in the ass!

at 5/7/2008 11:17:01 AM, Tug said:
Paul Rako will never run out of oil as long as he can liposuction his ass and convert the fat to biodiesel. With enough Twinkies and Big Macs...

at 5/7/2008 11:18:39 AM, LJR said:
Hey wideboy! Profound observations for a fat man.

at 5/7/2008 11:39:09 AM, Timmah said:
"Straw Man" "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..." Not only do you misuse it, but you go on to employ a number of straw man arguments in your piece. These include: people who disagree with you want people to live in caves. people who disagree with you think that there is a big hollow chamber that we take oil out of. people who disagree with you think that liquid fuels don''t have nice energy density. You fall into the trap of technology=energy. We can always produce more technology, so lets just keep building unsustainable suburbs, escalades, and giant air conditioners and wait for the big technological breakthrough to save us. Would you buy stock in a company based on a plan to develop a technology later on? This is what you are asking us to do here.

at 5/7/2008 11:41:44 AM, Delrik said:
I find it interesting that this article begins with a well founded appreciation of the energy density of liquid fuels. It''s a very good point, as is the recognition that for the forseeable future, the vast majority of cars will be run on gasoline. Clearly the author recognizes the importance of "technology that makes economic sense." And yes, right now gasoline is what makes economic sense. But just because that''s so now doesn''t mean that it will always be the case. The point on which he misses the mark is that the concept of peak oil - which he is so quick to deride - is not widely disputed. Government, industry and scientific experts all agree that it will occur. Only the timing is in dispute. Most governement and industry experts believe that a production peak is decades away, leaving lots of time to transition to alternatives. Like cooking oil. Or maybe even electric, hydrogen fuel cell or some other technology. Let''s hope those experts are right, and the dissenting analysts - many of them industry insiders and petrolium geologists - are wrong. If they''re not, a global production peak is already occuring. New discovies and technologies won''t be able to keep pace with production declines in existing oil fields. Over the next few years, the price of oil has the potential to dethrone gasoline as the fuel of choice, and the alternatives haven''t even made it to the starting blocks yet. Those canny engineers making cool gasoline powered robots and designing next year''s mini-vans may find themselves hard pressed to keep up with the pace of current events.

at 5/7/2008 11:45:28 AM, DSC said:
Actually peak oil was a concept coined by M.King Hubbert, a geophysicist working for Shell and later the USGS, and by the way, not a luddite. He correctly predicted that the US would peak in oil production around 1970. You should probably spend a little more time researching and a little less stalking soccer moms.

at 5/7/2008 1:58:18 PM, Matt said:
You are right, we will always be able to produce energy dense fuels one way or another. However, the energy return on those other methods is such that they cannot support our current society. No viable alternative is on the horizon. I have to assume this article is a propaganda piece. If you''re really a tech editor, you couldn''t possibly be so ignorant about basic physics. Cooking oil!? Producing cooking oil consumes more energy than you get back burning it. Even ethanol and biodiesal are marginal compared to gasoline, and totally impractical for other reasons. Those of you who want to know why you''re paying $4 / gallon - instead of sticking your head in the sand like this guy advocates, you should look at theoildrum.com or some similar site.

at 5/7/2008 2:05:17 PM, Cherenkov said:
Physics is not the writer's strong suit. There is "x" amount of oil. Soon we will be at "x/2." After that point the energy returned on energy invested will decline, substantially. It took millions of years to concentrate sunlight into oil. We have gone through half that legacy in 150 years. The last half will obey log scales and disappear much faster. The sad thing is that writers like this can say amazingly inaccurate stuff, because they will not be around to kicked in the butt for getting it so blindingly wrong. Fortunately, physics will chug along, and my guess is that he will get his butt kicked by reality. When gasoline is ten dollars a gallon and all of the techno-hype he is touting fails to magically appear, he will just be another starving schmoe. And I bet he will not be writing specious columns for a living. I see something in the service industry for him, perhaps something in the pleasure industry.

at 5/7/2008 5:04:15 PM, Oily said:
Oh dear, looks like none of your readers agrees with you. Guess you just got this one wrong. Stick your head back in the sand buddy, where it causes least offence.

at 5/7/2008 6:21:02 PM, DrOil said:
I always find dim bulbs like Rako entertaining. He is obviously someone who has done very little research into energy issues and is laughably ignorant of the facts. Read his article as if you are watching a late-night comedy show.

at 5/8/2008 12:04:01 AM, Andrew Reye said:
Your words, but really it applies to you, "a stunning ignorance of natural resources and their extraction". I would suggest doing some very basic research, look at oil discovery rates over the last 100 years, and take note of the discoveries and their sizes for the last 10 years (also look at the level of exploration expenditure). Then look at the oil production rates of the USA over the last 100 years, then the world production rates over the last 100 years. It is not about running out of oil, it is about declining production. That should show you the problem very plainly. If not, then you will never understand.

at 5/8/2008 2:05:52 AM, Robert Marston said:
Simply put -- you are an idiot who cannot see his nose despite his face. Peak oil is happening now. Since 2005, world oil production has peaked and is now fighting a vicious decline rate. In any case, I've used a word appropriate for your kind of analysis. But history will be a far better judge of you than I.

at 5/9/2008 3:16:29 PM, oiler said:
You are confusing a geological peak with a political peak. Peak oil isn't about running out of what is in the ground. It's about being unwilling or unable to get it out. The effect is the same though.

at 5/13/2008 10:47:44 PM, mike3 said:
To The Blogger: 1. SUVs are "safe"? They can tip over, silly. 2. Who said anything about living in caves? Now that's a straw man. 3. You say this: "There is a whole range of extraction technologies that can get ever more oil out of the ground, *albeit with a higher price*." So you've just said it: the price will just keep going up. I.e. it gets harder and harder to use. To Everyone Else: Quit laughing and making fun of this ignorant guy. When you make fun of anyone you are feeding YOUR dark side and therefore YOU are being part of the problem TOO. That's the big words: YOU TOO. If he doesn't want to fill his ignorance with knowledge feel pity, since he'll get the hard route (forced to come around by the reality becoming overwhelming as the oil crashes).

Post a comment

Display Name
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above: