• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Are you COLLAPSE aware? If not, watch this video

Hado

Member
Aug 13, 2015
3,830
3,463
735

THIS is basically happening right now and SPOILER: It will only get worse.

Our generation(s) won't have it so good like our parents generations had. They fucking can't understand that COLLAPSE will happen, because its happening right now.
 
  • Love
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: DadEggs and V4skunk

Pejo

Gold Member
Jul 1, 2009
10,457
3,616
1,250
Now that's what I call a feel good video.

He's probably right on a lot of points. Mostly being that people are selfish and narcissistic, and that nobody is going to drastically reduce their quality of life to 1/6 to save the planet. Humanity had a good but short run I guess.
 
Last edited:

Hado

Member
Aug 13, 2015
3,830
3,463
735
Now that's what I call a feel good video.

He's probably right on a lot of points. Mostly being that people are selfish and narcissistic, and that nobody is going to drastically reduce their quality of life to 1/6 to save the planet. Humanity had a good but short run I guess.
The funny thing is you can quote any part of that video and won't find any facts or evidence pointing towards the opposite of it.

Forget this Covid thing, THIS is the real danger that the WHOLE world should be fighting against, not developing a bs vaccine.

The only thing a c19 vaccine helps is that some organizations, corporations or nations get incredibly (more) rich by it.
Its never about helping or saving humanity
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pejo

DeepBreath87

Member
Jun 15, 2019
1,111
2,085
395
The funny thing is you can quote any part of that video and won't find any facts or evidence pointing towards the opposite of it.

Forget this Covid thing, THIS is the real danger that the WHOLE world should be fighting against, not developing a bs vaccine.

The only thing a c19 vaccine helps is that some organizations, corporations or nations get incredibly (more) rich by it.
Its never about helping or saving humanity

Here you go. There’s one.
 

FreedomOfSpeech

Gold Member
Dec 4, 2019
1,200
1,765
495
It's how earth will restabilize.

Things are too out of whack. Time to pay the piper consuming eons of solar energy in a few centuries.
That price? BLOOOODDDD
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Dacon

jadedm17

Member
Sep 24, 2009
3,955
461
1,020
Florida
Good video OP.

I've been saying for a long time I think things will get massively more complicated in the coming years.
We're being attacked on every side, from inability to afford housing to job automation to global warming.
That's before you include things like the wealth inequality divide and current civil unrest.

We all need to prepare the best we can as soon as possible.

I agree with the video in thinking we're too far gone for real change, namely in how our culture is built to consume : Look at how many are fighting for rent because people aren't out spending $6 on a beer.

Hope for the best but expect the worst.
 
Last edited:

Tschumi

Member
Jul 4, 2020
734
664
355
If it does, it's for the best. The world needs us gone more than i need a PS5. I of course believe i would survive.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Dacon

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
3,842
5,945
1,740
Montreal, Quebec
That video was only anxiogenic for the sake of being anxiogenix, it wasn't exactly making a very definitive statement.

This argument has one massive problem at its foundation: everyone leaves the progress that will occur between now (2017 in this case) and 2100 out of the equation, technological and otherwise. The next 10-15 years alone will see some drastic changes in consumer tech and societal changes that will be driven by it, good luck factoring in the potential advances that are coming in the next 25, 50 or 75 years.

For example the UN and Bill Gates a few years ago worried the world's population would hit 11.2B by 2100, but some important factors such as fertility are constantly evolving and require a recalculation of those projections. A recent study in The Lancet claimed the population will peak at 9.7B in 2064 before falling down to 8.8B before century's end. That's a significant difference from the projection made in 2017 - same year as this video as luck would have it.

Life and this world is what we make of it. If everyone on the planet is sulking around thinking about doom and gloom then who's going to provide the answers we need? Keep your head up and the gears inside it always turning. We survived the last few hundred years, I'm sure we'll find ways to survive the next few hundred, too.
 

FemdomFilmFan

Neo Member
Sep 13, 2020
250
286
195
39
Dublin, Ireland
That video was only anxiogenic for the sake of being anxiogenix, it wasn't exactly making a very definitive statement.

This argument has one massive problem at its foundation: everyone leaves the progress that will occur between now (2017 in this case) and 2100 out of the equation, technological and otherwise. The next 10-15 years alone will see some drastic changes in consumer tech and societal changes that will be driven by it, good luck factoring in the potential advances that are coming in the next 25, 50 or 75 years.

For example the UN and Bill Gates a few years ago worried the world's population would hit 11.2B by 2100, but some important factors such as fertility are constantly evolving and require a recalculation of those projections. A recent study in The Lancet claimed the population will peak at 9.7B in 2064 before falling down to 8.8B before century's end. That's a significant difference from the projection made in 2017 - same year as this video as luck would have it.

Life and this world is what we make of it. If everyone on the planet is sulking around thinking about doom and gloom then who's going to provide the answers we need? Keep your head up and the gears inside it always turning. We survived the last few hundred years, I'm sure we'll find ways to survive the next few hundred, too.
 
  • LOL
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Naibel and Joe T.

rofif

Member
Sep 13, 2019
3,158
3,984
510
I mean the whole climate change bullshit is unstoppable. Whenever Ikea will produce less plastic or mcdonald will stop giving plastic straws to their sodas (I hate those paper straws) it won't change anything. We already only have shitty summer and shitty non winter in europe. We had all 4 seasons when I was a kid... but I still don't fully believe in global warming lol.
Only rich people can allow to be more green. Poor people are too poor to care or just cannot. And most of the world is poor.
So no matter what we do and how much YOU will try to be green. it won't even make a dent at all as sad as it is.
 
Last edited:

betrayal

Member
Feb 2, 2018
1,223
1,741
395
There is a lot of exaggeration in the video. It seems as if all critical and important topics were taken and then the worst prognosis was taken as given.

Concerning the animal life and the climate, everything is basically correct, but is by far not as bad or "unstoppable" as depicted.

As for energy (oil, gas, coal and renewable energies), most of it is simply wrong and lies. The diagrams in the video, for example, are complete garbage and taken out of context. Oil, gas and coal have not reached a peak due to scarcity. You can simply google that.
 

bender

Bending Rodríguez (22, 1,729)
Apr 12, 2010
5,536
4,339
1,190
We probably aren't fucked but in a few generations...

We've progressed too much scientifically, specifically related to our healthcare. People live too long thanks to medical advancements and a lot of our traditions haven't adjusted to compensate (be fruitful and multiply) and have led to mass overpopulation. All the other issues mentioned in the video are just a byproduct of supporting overpopulation. Having lots of kids made sense when there was a decent chance your kid wouldn't reach adulthood, things like a broken leg could kill you and living into your 40s was considered a long life. Maybe we'll get lucky and have something akin to Cornovirus take out 90% of the world's population or maybe we'll go fallout and just start a nuclear war and decimate the world's population. Things tend to course correct but there is no way that every country in the world will come to a consensus and cut back on consumption.

Maybe China limiting how many kids their citizens could have wasn't such a horrible idea.
 
Last edited:

Stilton Disco

Member
Aug 22, 2014
6,464
6,140
780
England
There is a lot of exaggeration in the video. It seems as if all critical and important topics were taken and then the worst prognosis was taken as given.

Concerning the animal life and the climate, everything is basically correct, but is by far not as bad or "unstoppable" as depicted.

As for energy (oil, gas, coal and renewable energies), most of it is simply wrong and lies. The diagrams in the video, for example, are complete garbage and taken out of context. Oil, gas and coal have not reached a peak due to scarcity. You can simply google that.
Indeed, same with his dismissal of nuclear power, statement on all renewable energy having such negative side effects as to be no solution to our problems, ignorance of improvements in clean battery tech, and belief in the Gulf Stream collapse.

There’s a lot of correct information there, because on a worldwide scale, our current globally connected, multicultural civilisation probably cannot continue to function, but that’s a far cry from the scaremongering of a total collapse of all civilisations this video is portraying.

We will change, and adapt, and not everyone will be able to do so fast enough, but we will continue to thrive, as we always have, one way or another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dacon and Joe T.

Hado

Member
Aug 13, 2015
3,830
3,463
735
We probably aren't fucked but in a few generations...

We've progressed too much scientifically, specifically related to our healthcare. People live too long thanks to medical advancements and a lot of our traditions haven't adjusted to compensate (be fruitful and multiply) and have led to mass overpopulation. All the other issues mentioned in the video are just a byproduct of supporting overpopulation. Having lots of kids made sense when there was a decent chance your kid wouldn't reach adulthood, things like a broken leg could kill you and living into your 40s was considered a long life. Maybe we'll get lucky and have something akin to Cornovirus take out 90% of the world's population or maybe we'll go fallout and just start a nuclear war and decimate the world's population. Things tend to course correct but there is no way that every country in the world will come to a consensus and cut back on consumption.

Maybe China limiting how many kids their citizens could have wasn't such a horrible idea.
Too much positive thinking
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
2,423
1,672
505
Civilization is on a knife's edge. On the one hand we're near the brink of radical world changing progress at an unimaginaginable rate, on the other we're also on the brink of collapsing and regressing back centuries and mass starvation and death.

If we succeeded before this century is over we'd be a space faring civilization. The thing is if we succeeded we'd be colonizing the entire galaxy in a few million years. But the worrying thing is we're unlikely to be the first to reach this stage, and when we look up, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of anyone ever succeeding.

There is a lot of exaggeration in the video. It seems as if all critical and important topics were taken and then the worst prognosis was taken as given.

Concerning the animal life and the climate, everything is basically correct, but is by far not as bad or "unstoppable" as depicted.

As for energy (oil, gas, coal and renewable energies), most of it is simply wrong and lies. The diagrams in the video, for example, are complete garbage and taken out of context. Oil, gas and coal have not reached a peak due to scarcity. You can simply google that.
Conventional oil essentially peaked around 2005(it's in somewhat of a plateau thanks to a few countries offsetting). 90+% of the world has been in decline since about 2010, iirc. A few countries including the US and iraq managed to offset the global losses, primarily the US. The US used the barely profitable, some would say unprofitable(lots of bankruptcies and losses despite cheap low interest money from investors and loans), shale revolution to produce oil

Shale oil wells produce like 90+% of all the oil they'll ever produce within the first few years, so what they've done is drill hundreds upon hundreds of wells year after year to keep the growth going. But it is just a short term fix, US shale is expected to peak in a few years, and there's unlikely to be any comparable global source to replace it.

The US was said to have a century of natural gas, but again this was also based mostly on shale gas and that also has 90+% of its production within the first few years.

Coal I've heard will peak around 2040. Not only is lower eroei coal left, but the issue is not scarcity, there'd probably be as much coal still in the ground as all that's ever been produced by 2040. The problem is rate of production, You cannot keep increasing rate of production till you deplete a resource, the more you claim of a physical resource whatever less gets harder and harder to extract. For example even if there's plenty of oil in the ground, there's only so fast a rate a well can extract it, you can't extract it faster and faster as less and less is left. You could in theory by spending more energy but that defeats the purpose.
 
Last edited:

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
3,379
5,210
645
Conventional oil peaked around 2005. 90+% of the world has been in decline since about 2010, iirc. A few countries including the US and iraq managed to offset the global losses, primarily the US. The US used the barely profitable, some would say unprofitable(lots of bankruptcies and losses despite cheap low interest money from investors and loans), shale revolution to produce oil

Shale oil wells produce like 90+% of all the oil they'll ever produce within the first few years, so what they've done is drill hundreds upon hundreds of wells year after year to keep the growth going. But it is just a short term fix, US shale is expected to peak in a few years, and there's unlikely to be any comparable global source to replace it.

The US was said to have a century of natural gas, but again this was also based mostly on shale gas and that also has 90+% of its production within the first few years.

Coal I've heard will peak around 2040. Not only is lower eroei coal left, but the issue is not scarcity, there'd probably be as much coal still in the ground as all that's ever been produced by 2040. The problem is rate of production, You cannot keep increasing rate of production till you deplete a resource, the more you claim of a physical resource whatever less gets harder and harder to extract. For example even if there's plenty of oil in the ground, there's only so fast a rate a well can extract it, you can't extract it faster and faster as less and less is left. You could in theory by spending more energy but that defeats the purpose.
I've got to challenge you on this one. You're way off base in regards to "peak oil", the shale industry, and the world energy market in general.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
2,423
1,672
505
I've got to challenge you on this one. You're way off base in regards to "peak oil", the shale industry, and the world energy market in general.


The production in the shale oil wells included in the study reach their peak already within a few months after production starts. After this point, production is declining. After one year, production has decreased by 75% and after two years the production is 87%(down) of the peak production.

Eagle Ford shale well life expectancy could be as long as thirty years, according to a recent report from EOG Resources. According to that report, 40% of an Eagle Ford shale well's production will come in the first five years, followed by a long decline curve lasting perhaps as many as thirty years.

It does seem my initial calculations were wrong it's 40% of production within first few years for shale oil wells. But as you can see a 90~% production decline means it will only produce a trickle for a few decades before essentially being closed.

Depending on who you ask shale will peak between 2025-2035~.

9 in 10 US shale oil producers are ‘burning cash’

That was in 2019 prior to covid's price collapse which should have made the situation worse. There have been plenty of articles of a good portion of the shale industry being in the red.

edit:

Here's a link reference on the fast decline rate of shale natural gas.

edit2:
There is debate about peak coal's date. Some sources say 400 years, others 200 years others 100 years. While still others say peak is imminent at least for the US, and probably other nations as well.

“Most U.S. coal is buried too deeply to be mined at a profit and should not be categorized as reserves, but rather as ‘resources.’”
 
Last edited:

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
3,379
5,210
645





It does seem my initial calculations were wrong it's 40% of production within first few years for shale oil wells. But as you can see a 90~% production decline means it will only produce a trickle for a few decades before essentially being closed.

Depending on who you ask shale will peak between 2025-2035~.


That was in 2019 prior to covid's price collapse which should have made the situation worse. There have been plenty of articles of a good portion of the shale industry being in the red.

edit:

Here's a link reference on the fast decline rate of shale natural gas.

edit2:
There is debate about peak coal's date. Some sources say 400 years, others 200 years others 100 years. While still others say peak is imminent at least for the US, and probably other nations as well.

Are you confusing "peak" as in "This is the year when the world consumed the most" with "When the maximum potential output is achieved"?

If your argument is that the world will most likely trend downward in its' potential consumption of crude oil moving forward, I think that is highly likely.

If your argument is that the world has already passed its' potential production peak, I would definitely disagree. There are many sources that are either unused or underused due to the current low market price.

Which of those two are you arguing?

In regards to crude oil; the world is currently in a glut, which is why fuel is extremely cheap as compared to a decade ago. The US shale boom has basically removed the US from the world crude market in a buying capacity (we still import and export, but we are almost neutral on net now), and as a result OPEC has had to reorient themselves to account for that massive loss of sales. While overall consumption worldwide increases modestly (most) years, production expansion outstrips consumption demand.

In regards to coal; the US shale boom has largely removed coal and intentionally drilled Natural Gas from North America. Natural Gas is a byproduct of crude oil drilling in shale, and comes out in such massive quantities that it has become basically "free" for energy companies to purchase. As a result, all over the US coal plants are closing down, with NatGas plants being put up to use the glut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dacon

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
2,423
1,672
505
If your argument is that the world has already passed its' potential production peak, I would definitely disagree. There are many sources that are either unused or underused due to the current low market price.
Oil hovered for around 100$ a barrel from 2008 to 2016. Yet if you watch the previous graphs the great majority of the countries production declined throughout that period. You think they didn't want that juicy 100$ a barrel money? They didn't increase production because they couldn't. It's called the hubbert peak.

The US conventional oil peaked decades ago, and had to increase imports it couldn't increase production. It was only through unconventional more expensive shale recently that production rebounded. And there have been articles about several shale companies being in the red even at times where prices were near 100$ a barrel.

Now how viable was shale? Even with extensive financial help, and even with near 100$ barrel prices and still having trouble to profit. Not to mention the environmental destruction of fracking. And the fact the wells only last a few decades at most, with nearly half of the production in the first few years.

edit:


New oil discoveries peaked decades ago. Most of the world's oil is produced by a few very old giant oil fields that are on decline.

edit2:
In regards to crude oil; the world is currently in a glut, which is why fuel is extremely cheap as compared to a decade ago.
the current glut is due to demand collapse from covid. IF we expect the economy not only to recover but to continue growing, and third world countries to gain our standards of living, oil demand should keep growing for the indefinite future.

edit3:

Regards shale
THE RED QUEEN
Just to keep output steady, the oil companies need to continue drilling a large number of new wells to replace fading output from existing ones.

The problem of decline rates and replacement drilling has been likened by many in the peak oil community to the “Red Queen’s Race” in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking-Glass”.
The Red Queen warns Alice: “It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that.”

Peak oil experts have expressed fears that shale producers would have to employ ever more drilling rigs and bore ever more holes just to keep up with decline rates, and this would ultimately become unsustainable.
In practice, however, North Dakota’s shale producers have been winning the race because they have been able increase productivity faster than output from old wells has declined.

Drilling crews have drilled faster and spent less time moving from one site to site and rigging up.

edit4:
  • The world’s 507 giant oil fields comprise a little over 1% of all oil fields, but produce 60% of current world supply
  • Of the 331 largest fields, 261, or 79%, are declining at 6.5% per year.
  • Techno-fixes have made matters worse because they’ll increase the decline rate to 10% or more, because we’re getting oil now, faster, with new technology that we would have gotten later.
  • And that will make it harder for unconventional oil (tar sands, deep ocean, tight “fracked” oil, etc.) to replace it
 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
55,768
53,161
1,745
The Pentagon
it's projected to flat line and decline as more women are introduced to the pill

we've had this convo on the forum numerous times, the literature is available for all
 
Sep 14, 2014
563
911
545
Overpopulation IS NOT the problem for me. Human nature is, and you have potentially billions of new people who want YOUR stuff, and they will take it from you. They won't care about your knowledge/wisdom or charity. The wolves will eat the sheep. And from that, the problem will not in fact be solved, and the scale of populations here or there will be a massive problem. We could ask them kindly to step back with us and see how that works, except it never will. A patriotic iron fist with an agenda for a sustainable future is the only thing that will produce a desirable outcome in my eyes, whether through stone cold diplomacy or bullets. I wish it weren't so, but that's the nature of the animal. None of the "suicide by soy" Marxist plan to save the environment is going to produce results except fuck over the only people with the power to stop the problem; I think that's my contention as someone who's onboard with protecting the earth. I like things that function well!

It pulls my mind to when people intervene in nature, even with the intent on being nice. Feeding strays etc. All the best intentions. Being nice makes us feel good. Not that I'm a philosopher but what's that guy where he talks about "How we do know if an action is just/justice or good? By outcome or intent?" or whatever. Reality is really cold and you've got to do the hard things to get good outcomes.

 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
3,379
5,210
645
Oil hovered for around 100$ a barrel from 2008 to 2016. Yet if you watch the graphs the great majority of the countries production declined throughout that period. You think they didn't want that juicy 100$ a barrel money? They didn't increase production because they couldn't. It's called the hubbert peak.

The US conventional oil peaked decades ago, and had to increase imports it couldn't increase production. It was only through unconventional more expensive shale recently that production rebounded. And there have been articles about several shale companies being in the red even at times where prices were near 100$ a barrel.

Now how viable was shale? Even with extensive financial help, and even with near 100$ barrel prices and still having trouble to profit. Not to mention the environmental destruction of fracking. And the fact the wells only last a few decades at most, with nearly half of the production in the first few years.

edit:


New oil discoveries peaked decades ago. Most of the world's oil is produced by a few very old giant oil fields that are on decline.

edit2:

the current glut is due to demand collapse from covid. IF we expect the economy not only to recover but to continue growing, and third world countries to gain our standards of living, oil demand should keep growing for the indefinite future.

edit3:

Regards shale


edit4:
Like I said, I think you're way off on the world energy market. You are assuming that countries not overmaxing production during peak oil price times indicates a lack of ability to do so. In reality, worldwide crude production is largely determined by how much OPEC wants to pump. They can and will increase or decrease production outputs to achieve the price they desire. Russia usually produces what it can with what it has (turning off production in Siberia isn't easy), and the US usually produces what it can, as it is more beneficial politically and economically for the US to be a net producer.

In regards to shale, I'm not particularly concerned with "The Red Queen". The industry has undergone massive technological changes and breakthroughs (as it is with any new industry) in the last few years that has increased efficiency drastically year over year. The drilling of new wells is also a feature of the industry, not something to be pointed to as an indicator of decline. These aren't "wells" in a traditional sense, as shale isn't a liquid. It's not as if the wells are all drawings from one giant pool, as with conventional crude oil fields.

The current low oil price should drive out anyone who really shouldn't be in the industry, and the companies that remain should be lean and strong when the price does increase. For the time being, the low price is a boon for consumers.
 

Boswollocks

Member
Apr 19, 2019
7,473
11,657
770
Mars


Conductor, we have a problem.
It makes me sad and angry (sangry?) when i see that my Grandad was knocking about in his prime with only 2.5 billion other people. What a glorious time to be alive.

Fuck population. 95% of people are living like bacteria anyway. Consume, reproduce, consume reproduce.

Over-population is needed to keep the capitalist and globalist gravy-trian running
 

lock2k

Member
Jun 13, 2018
4,690
6,848
635
Brazil
In 50 years, those of us who are still alive will look back and laugh.

I probably won't be alive by then, but doom and gloom predictions are as old as humanity itself.

It will be just fine.

Also, one day the sun will turn into a Red Giant. Why do people even care about the earth if the earth is temporary? Fucking lol. Enjoy your lives.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
2,423
1,672
505
Like I said, I think you're way off on the world energy market. You are assuming that countries not overmaxing production during peak oil price times indicates a lack of ability to do so. In reality, worldwide crude production is largely determined by how much OPEC wants to pump. They can and will increase or decrease production outputs to achieve the price they desire. Russia usually produces what it can with what it has (turning off production in Siberia isn't easy), and the US usually produces what it can, as it is more beneficial politically and economically for the US to be a net producer.

In regards to shale, I'm not particularly concerned with "The Red Queen". The industry has undergone massive technological changes and breakthroughs (as it is with any new industry) in the last few years that has increased efficiency drastically year over year. The drilling of new wells is also a feature of the industry, not something to be pointed to as an indicator of decline. These aren't "wells" in a traditional sense, as shale isn't a liquid. It's not as if the wells are all drawings from one giant pool, as with conventional crude oil fields.

The current low oil price should drive out anyone who really shouldn't be in the industry, and the companies that remain should be lean and strong when the price does increase. For the time being, the low price is a boon for consumers.
So you think the US started importing oil as lowered production continued for decades, because it wanted to? You think the vastly cheaper conventional oil in US has not increased production for unknown reasons? If they could significantly increase cheap conventional oil they wouldn't have to ramp unconventional more expensive shale production.

As I pointed out 60~% of global oil is from giant oil fields, most decades old even 50+year olds, that are experiencing significant decline rate. IT is not that they want to lower production, it is that this is the natural course of resource extraction for conventional oil as happened to the US.

Current evidence on average field decline rates suggests that a minimum of 3 mb per day of new capacity must be brought on stream each year to compensate for declining crude oil production—equivalent to a new Saudi Arabia coming on stream every three years [4,8]. If demand grows and/or decline rates increase, significantly greater annual investment will be required.

At current natural field production decline rates we need to add a new saudi arabia of production every 3 years. Where are these saudi arabias going to come from?

Oil discoveries peaked nearly half a century ago.

Yes we can believe that the world doesn't produce more oil because it doesn't want to, that the natural course observed over fields and countries does not apply. But we need to be realistic here.

The Hubbert peak theory is based on the observation that the amount of oil under the ground in any region is finite, therefore the rate of discovery which initially increases quickly must reach a maximum and decline.
A post-hoc analysis of peaked oil wells, fields, regions and nations found that Hubbert's model was the "most widely useful" (providing the best fit to the data), though many areas studied had a sharper "peak" than predicted.[14]

A 2007 study of oil depletion by the UK Energy Research Centre pointed out that there is no theoretical and no robust practical reason to assume that oil production will follow a logistic curve. Neither is there any reason to assume that the peak will occur when half the ultimate recoverable resource has been produced; and in fact, empirical evidence appears to contradict this idea. An analysis of a 55 post-peak countries found that the average peak was at 25 percent of the ultimate recovery.

What is observed is that countries don't peak in production because they want to, they peak in production because they try to exploit their resources as much as possible and then naturally there are limits to physical resource extraction(There are a few exceptions, for political reasons, but in general that seems to be the case). After limits are reached they reach a decline that has never been reversed with regards to conventional oil. The only thing that would reverse it is a significant new discovery to extract. OR as in the case of the US resorting to expensive unconventional sources, in the case of the US highly destructive to the environment.
 
Last edited:

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
3,379
5,210
645
So you think the US started importing oil as lowered production continued for decades, because it wanted to? You think the vastly cheaper conventional oil in US has not increased production for unknown reasons? If they could significantly increase cheap conventional oil they wouldn't have to ramp unconventional more expensive shale production.
This is the opposite of what I said about the US. I even called out the US and Russia specifically, as they have both have reasons to do what they do. I could call out a couple of other producers in that regard as well, for what it's worth.

If you want to take what I said and spin it to make it fit your narrative, go for it. You still don't understand the industries you're railing on about. :messenger_beermugs:
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
2,423
1,672
505
. You still don't understand the industries you're railing on about
I'm not an expert in the field, I'm just a paserby. But here's the thing, if you look at global production, essentially shale has covered the deficit from declining production and allowed for some growth. But as has been said, MOST of the world production is from a few hundred decaying giant oil fields. We need to bring online a new saudi arabia every 3 years, that is just to maintain production, let alone allow for growth.

For now we've been able to do it, mostly in the US. But can we come up with 2 new saudi arabias within the next 6 years? 4 within 12 years? And 8 within 24 years?

I'm just not as optimistic as you are, that this massive quantity of oil will pop out of thin air or is just sitting there as spare capacity
 
Last edited: