Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Do you have any sources to back up that 20% claim. I think you are confusing percentage of energy used and percentage of oil used. Over 70% of US oil is used for transportation, and 65% of that is used by cars.

Personally, I think the improvement of vehicle fuel efficiency over the last decade or so will have a more immediate effect on oil demand as more new cars replace less efficient ones. EVs will eventually continue that trend.

Here is an excellent article detailing the breakdown.

http://www.arcenergyideas.com/?p=928

Also, in fairness, I should have written my previous posts to clarify that the 20% number is in relation to smaller consumer vehicles.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Read my posts. I'm talking about growth. And it's not just me, the oil majors are too. And they're saying that the growth outlook is weakening.

The rest of your ranting has been noted.

Coal usage will be replaced with natural gas. A huge win for the environment, but a fossil fuel nonetheless that still spews CO2.

Fuel created from oil will be replaced somewhat by biofuel. Not a lot.

Well at least you finally got your "FOSSIL FUEL DEMAND WILL GO DOWN!" article, even though that's not what it really said.

You are very susceptible to weasel wording, and often miss the point.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Tinordi. Forest through the trees.

It blows my mind that when oil demand is mentioned, immediately people point to electric vehicles as the source of the end of oil.

Oil demand connected to consumer vehicle usage (small cars, suv, etc.) is only 20% of total demand. Even if literally every single car on the road was replaced with an EV, over 80% of demand for oil would remain. Not to mention, those batteries have to be charged by some form of energy. I'm guessing most people aren't going to have solar panels or wind turbines on their roof. So, fossil fuels then.

Will EV usage increase? Of course. I'm not so naive as to think otherwise.

But to just point to EVs as the source of the demise of oil is disingenuous, and does not paint the whole picture. The same thing goes for pointing to solar panels, or wind, or any other renewable energy source. There are meaningful limiting factors to all of those energy sources that always conveniently get glossed over in the frenzy to be environmental boy scouts.

So you agree that EVs could account for a reduction of 20% oil demand. But then you strawman his post into an argument that EVs will be an end to oil?

No one is talking that oil demand will dry up next year. But I guess you'd rather just bury your head in the sand and ignore the very real changes happening in energy use around the world. Let's try to discredit everyone who thinks demand is going to wane with made up arguments.

[IliketoPuck]

How am I even remotely creating a strawman? If you take any one post in isolation, you can wave your arms and claim strawman, however, the entire set of posts today occurred as a direct result of another claim of peak oil imminently being reached.

I questioned the rationality of such, to which I received in rebuttal:

1. Greenpeace research.
2. Coal demand?
3. Wild extrapolations of EVs in China.

To which, I then pointed to an authentic and credible source that provides a sane evaluation of the EV situation, which ties into the overall oil demand and peak oil discussion.

I'm in no way misrepresenting anyone's argument in an attempt to discredit it. Nor am I putting forward an argument that someone did not put forward.

Am I guilty of excessive hyperbole? Sure. But that's because I think ridiculous claims deserve a healthy dose of ridicule.

[accord1999]

There really isn't any change in energy use around the world. The world has been stuck at basically 80% of energy provided by fossil fuels for several years now.

In all likelihood, in 25 years oil, coal and natural gas demand will be higher than it is today.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

How am I even remotely creating a strawman? If you take any one post in isolation, you can wave your arms and claim strawman, however, the entire set of posts today occurred as a direct result of another claim of peak oil imminently being reached.

I questioned the rationality of such, to which I received in rebuttal:

1. Greenpeace research.
2. Coal demand?
3. Wild extrapolations of EVs in China.

To which, I then pointed to an authentic and credible source that provides a sane evaluation of the EV situation, which ties into the overall oil demand and peak oil discussion.

I'm in no way misrepresenting anyone's argument in an attempt to discredit it. Nor am I putting forward an argument that someone did not put forward.

Am I guilty of excessive hyperbole? Sure. But that's because I think ridiculous claims deserve a healthy dose of ridicule.

You are rebutting claims that we are claiming any of these things is going to be an end to oil.. that's your strawman. You are trying to make a claim that anyone agreeing with Shell is claiming oil is done. No one even remotely claimed that but every second post from you is ridiculing opposing positions as outrageous claims that oil demand will be 0 in the near future. There is a very real difference between peak oil and demand reducing and an end to oil. After peak it might be 100 years before demand reaches 0, if ever.

You do realize that Greenpeace's bias would be to discrediting any green energy initiative right? Them providing a report praising China's move to green energy is the same bias as the CTF praising the NDP's tax policies.

The arguments being put forward are the combination of many different initiatives are contributing to a reduction in oil demand in the next 5-15 years. These also aren't made up arguments as many of them are echo'd from energy companies like Shell, not crazy boy scout environmentalists.

Bury your head in the sand, plug your ears and drill baby drill because that $100/bbl isn't going to drop. That really worked for Alberta's energy industry.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by belsarius

You are rebutting claims that we are claiming any of these things is going to be an end to oil.. that's your strawman. You are trying to make a claim that anyone agreeing with Shell is claiming oil is done. No one even remotely claimed that but every second post from you is ridiculing opposing positions as outrageous claims that oil demand will be 0 in the near future. There is a very real difference between peak oil and demand reducing and an end to oil. After peak it might be 100 years before demand reaches 0, if ever.

You do realize that Greenpeace's bias would be to discrediting any green energy initiative right? Them providing a report praising China's move to green energy is the same bias as the CTF praising the NDP's tax policies.

The arguments being put forward are the combination of many different initiatives are contributing to a reduction in oil demand in the next 5-15 years. These also aren't made up arguments as many of them are echo'd from energy companies like Shell, not crazy boy scout environmentalists.

Bury your head in the sand, plug your ears and drill baby drill because that $100/bbl isn't going to drop. That really worked for Alberta's energy industry.

I agree with you. Tying peak oil to no oil is extreme.

But so is extrapolating a small subset of data in China, an article from Shell, a misinterpreted statement from Exxon, and an article from Greenpeace into a definitive conclusion about oil markets 5-15 years in the future.

I am also in no way creating a strawman. The premise of peak oil is the eventual decline (over a long period of time) of the demand for oil to negligible levels as oil becomes un-economical to produce.

What I am rebutting is a cherry picked set of articles that vaguely tie together a world view of declining oil demand (when every major energy forecasting service I know of projects demand increasing by >1MMbbl/d/y for the foreseeable future). So I’m guilty of sarcastic hyperbole, most certainly, but not a strawman.

Demand for oil is primarily driven by transportation, a subset of which is consumer vehicles. Thus, "peak oil" and the point at which oil production becomes no longer economically viable is directly tied to changes in driving technology. That technology is no-where near cost effective or prevalent enough to materially impact global demand for oil from consumer driving, let alone all the myriad other demand sources for oil.

People have been calling for "peak oil" for decades. In fact, Shell, the very company you are trumpeting, in a paper by M. King Hubbert in 1956, called for peak oil production to occur in the U.S. in the 1970's. He might have been off by a few decades, but no matter. Shell is TOTALLY going to nail their prediction this time around.

I am not the first person to challenge certain posters. This is just the latest iteration of the peak oil and EV discussion that occurs every 2-3 months (just look back through this thread), quiets down, and then appears again when it is convenient.

Questioning Greenpeace’s biases should be the first thing done before taking anything published by them as a legitimate source. The fact that you continue to rely on them as a source is concerning.

[IliketoPuck]

Two summer students at Whitecap put together an excellent slide deck (props where props are due), pertinent to the discussion today. I encourage anyone interested in the discussion of the last few pages to give it a perusal.

http://boereport.com/2016/11/02/foss...energy-future/

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Coal usage will be replaced with natural gas. A huge win for the environment, but a fossil fuel nonetheless that still spews CO2.

Fuel created from oil will be replaced somewhat by biofuel. Not a lot.

Well at least you finally got your "FOSSIL FUEL DEMAND WILL GO DOWN!" article, even though that's not what it really said.

You are very susceptible to weasel wording, and often miss the point.

I think coal will be replaced by solar in the long run.

Natural gas is between a rock and a hard place. Literally.

[puckedoff]

Nat gas will not only replace coal power generation, but will eventually be the fuel input to create the Hydrogen to power zero-emission-vehicles of the future.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Azure

Natural gas is between a rock and a hard place. Literally.

Natural gas is in a great place, lower CO2 emissions than coal and increased intermittent renewables penetration in the US means that natural gas becomes dominant as it both replaces coal/nuclear for baseload while natural gas plants can also cycle up and down faster to prevent black outs when wind and solar fail.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by puckedoff

Nat gas will not only replace coal power generation, but will eventually be the fuel input to create the Hydrogen to power zero-emission-vehicles of the future.

...while still creating huge emissions in the hydrogen generation. The C's have to go somewhere. That's why it's annoying when people point to hydrogen as a clean energy source to replace "dirty oil". You have to make it. Electrolysis then you say. Well how do you make the electricity. There is no free lunch. Other than nuclear. It's the only low/zero net emission energy source on the planet that's dense enough to sustain an industrialized society.

Not complaining about you pucked, just elaborating.

I agree though. Thank goodness we have tonnes of natural gas in Alberta.

[para transit fellow]

If coal is so great an energy source, why are coal companies in the USA going bankrupt?

I think the reality is much more complicated.

[para transit fellow]

If opec bands together to reduce production of oil and raise the price, what mechanism stops Northamerican producers from flooding the market and dropping the price again?

[Frequitude]

Not much. Technology has drastically reduced the supply cost curve for producing oil. The ninety five millionth barrel a day doesn't cost $100+ to produce anymore. These shale guys are going to keep a pretty good ceiling n the price of oil for a while. Only thing that makes it break through is increased demand which is a while away.

Does anyone have a good graphic for the current supply cost?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

If coal is so great an energy source, why are coal companies in the USA going bankrupt?

Cheap natural gas, but coal still accounts for 40% of world electricity generation, more than #2 natural gas and #3 hydro combined..

[Frequitude]

Here let me google that for me. Disclaimer: it was the first image on google image search but I think it paints the picture pretty well. Pretty tight ceiling at the $62 mark based on the picture. And pretty good chance that some of those bars can get wider (ie push the supply curve right which means lower price for a given barrel per day).

[Azure]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

If coal is so great an energy source, why are coal companies in the USA going bankrupt?

I think the reality is much more complicated.

If we could find a way to burn the coal without the emissions.....

[para transit fellow]

[QUOTE=accord1999;5987118]Cheap natural gas, but coal still accounts for 40% of world electricity generation, more than #2 natural gas and #3 hydro combined..[/QUOTE

It appears that in North America, coal is a losing proposition. If we keep coal in Alberta, are we going to have to subsidize it in 5years?

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Azure

If we could find a way to burn the coal without the emissions.....

As I understand the numbers, Saskatchewan's clean coal site is double the cost of a regular coal site.