Recommended Posts

Here is the immigration guide in plain language.

Immigration for everyone else

As a general rule, citizens of other countries will need a permanent job offer in order to be granted a residence permit. You must normally have found a job first, although there is a permit available for job seekers, with restrictions. What residence permit you should apply for depends on your competence and the type of work you will be doing in Norway.

 

The most common permit is available to skilled workers. This is for people with higher education who will be using those qualifications in the job. The salary must be at least NOK 410,500 pre-tax if the job requires a master’s degree, or at least 381,000 per year pre-tax if the job requires a bachelor’s degree, unless a collective agreement applies. 

 

Successful applications are usually able to bring their immediate family (partner and children) with them. Read our full guide to immigration from outside Europe for more information on who qualifies as a skilled worker, plus all the categories of work permit available including for ethnic cooks, au pairs, and offshore workers.

Practical matters

Relocating to a new country is not a straightforward task. Before you make the move, take some time to begin your Norwegian language education. There are lots of free resources out there to get you started.

The biggest hurdle you’ll face without a good grip on the language is finding a job. While there are jobs out there that require English speakers, most Norwegians speak English fluently anyway, so you have no real advantage.

Learning the language will also be of great help with everyday living such as finding somewhere to live and shopping for goods and services. Don’t forget, most people applying for permanent residence will need to prove their language abilities.

Staying in Norway permanently

At the time of writing, there is no time limit on how long European citizens can stay in Norway once you have registered. Your entitlement to welfare benefits and the state pension depends on how long you’ve lived in Norway and your employment status.

If you’ve been living in Norway for several years with a residence permit, you could consider making your stay more concrete with a permanent residence permit, or even citizenship. The rules for both of these are quite complex and depend on your own personal circumstances.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One in every five immigrants in Norway was a refugee, which corresponds to 2.7 per cent of the population. Norway has refugees from 169 different countries, with most from Somalia, Iraq and Eritrea. Family immigrants of refugees make up just under one- fifth of all family immigrants, i.e. 45 100 of a total of 267 000 family immigrants (see the textbox for an explanation of terms).

https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/how-many-refugees-families-come-to-norway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left is ALWAYS heralding how great europe is. That Norwegian immigration regulation would be just reat here,in,the US OF A?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

One in every five immigrants in Norway was a refugee, which corresponds to 2.7 per cent of the population. Norway has refugees from 169 different countries, with most from Somalia, Iraq and Eritrea. Family immigrants of refugees make up just under one- fifth of all family immigrants, i.e. 45 100 of a total of 267 000 family immigrants (see the textbox for an explanation of terms).

https://www.ssb.no/en/befolkning/artikler-og-publikasjoner/how-many-refugees-families-come-to-norway

Refugees are not subject to the same requirements as others.  Their number is controlled.

https://ec.europa.eu/epale/en/resource-centre/content/reception-centre-labour-market-effective-integration-policy  might be of interest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us know when you start using a Norwegian gardener.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bhyde said:

Let us know when you start using a Norwegian gardener.

:funny:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, warbird said:

The left is ALWAYS heralding how great europe is. That Norwegian immigration regulation would be just reat here,in,the US OF A?

Imagine if the US was more like Mexico .

https://www.justlanded.com/english/Mexico/Mexico-Guide/Visas-Permits/Work-permits

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shortforbob said:

:funny:

They are quick to criticize "illegals," but first in line to exploit the fruits of their labor. Typical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, warbird said:

The left is ALWAYS heralding how great europe is. That Norwegian immigration regulation would be just reat here,in,the US OF A?

Clarity of thought is not one of your specialties, is it? And your typionb skucs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

 thought is not one of your specialties, is it? And your typionb skucs.

Edited for simplicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ishmael said:

Clarity of thought is not one of your specialties, is it? And your typionb skucs.

So the US should not adopt Norwegian style immigration rules? Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

The left is ALWAYS heralding how great europe is. That Norwegian immigration regulation would be just reat here,in,the US OF A?

Europe is great.  I've lived here for 18 years now and I only come back to that shithole country to see family and friends.  I am always happy to come back here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

So the US should not adopt Norwegian style immigration rules? Why?

Nobody can spell their name right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bhyde said:

Let us know when you start using a Norwegian gardener.

Seriously?  They wouldn't know how to deal with flat land and sandy soil.

DSC_1571web.JPG

DSC_1316web.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, warbird said:

The left is ALWAYS heralding how great europe is. That Norwegian immigration regulation would be just reat here,in,the US OF A?

Norway is a gas station, fuel depot  that is rapidly running out of product .

the future does not look good.  Jobs  and oil powered  free stuff will be a historic curiosity 

America is a mixed economy ...the future is very bright.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, warbird said:

So the US should not adopt Norwegian style immigration rules? Why?

For a couple reasons we don’t have a rainy day fund inexcess of a couple years GDP, and the demographic time bomb is pretty nasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, slug zitski said:

Norway is a gas station, fuel depot  that is rapidly running out of product .

the future does not look good.  Jobs  and oil powered  free stuff will be a historic curiosity 

America is a mixed economy ...the future is very bright.

 

 

They've been saying Saudi Arabia is at peak oil for 40 years and twenty years ago, the United States was in deep doo doo. Come back when you have some hard numbers or solid information that sources of energy are drying up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

They've been saying Saudi Arabia is at peak oil for 40 years and twenty years ago, the United States was in deep doo doo. Come back when you have some hard numbers or solid information that sources of energy are drying up.

It's not my conversation but just for clarity, the wells aren't so much vanishing as they are becoming more and more expensive to extract while the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) has been grinding downward for 40 years.  It wasn't peak oil so much as it was peak 'cheep' oil.

For example, at one point, the Saudis were extracting oil at less than $10 / barrel.  It's now around $28.  The Bakken is around $40-50-ish (all normalized values) which has actually set the upper cost for now.  The US ability to turn 'on and off' shale pumps, both mechanistically and through creative finance, is becoming the story of the 21st century energy markets.  And we're exporting that technology to whomever wants to pay for it.

 I've posted the links to this stuff several times now.  The Norwegians are starting to run into the same problem as the Saudis and, if you follow such stuff, using their sovereign wealth fund to probe into other markets and investments.  They have a long runway but it's diminishing returns from here on out - they'll eventually run into the shale limit and their profit margins will go to shit.

The reality is that the US is sitting on 500 years of coal and tar sands under the rockies but the EROEI is less than 10.  We have more than enough oil reserves for 5 centuries but we'd have to dig out the Rocky Mountains to extract much of it, forever squeezing just a little bit more oil out of a progressively drier and drier sponge.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Here is the immigration guide in plain language.

Immigration for everyone else

As a general rule, citizens of other countries will need a permanent job offer in order to be granted a residence permit. You must normally have found a job first, although there is a permit available for job seekers, with restrictions. What residence permit you should apply for depends on your competence and the type of work you will be doing in Norway.

 

The most common permit is available to skilled workers. This is for people with higher education who will be using those qualifications in the job. The salary must be at least NOK 410,500 pre-tax if the job requires a master’s degree, or at least 381,000 per year pre-tax if the job requires a bachelor’s degree, unless a collective agreement applies. 

 

Successful applications are usually able to bring their immediate family (partner and children) with them. Read our full guide to immigration from outside Europe for more information on who qualifies as a skilled worker, plus all the categories of work permit available including for ethnic cooks, au pairs, and offshore workers.

Practical matters

Relocating to a new country is not a straightforward task. Before you make the move, take some time to begin your Norwegian language education. There are lots of free resources out there to get you started.

The biggest hurdle you’ll face without a good grip on the language is finding a job. While there are jobs out there that require English speakers, most Norwegians speak English fluently anyway, so you have no real advantage.

Learning the language will also be of great help with everyday living such as finding somewhere to live and shopping for goods and services. Don’t forget, most people applying for permanent residence will need to prove their language abilities.

Staying in Norway permanently

At the time of writing, there is no time limit on how long European citizens can stay in Norway once you have registered. Your entitlement to welfare benefits and the state pension depends on how long you’ve lived in Norway and your employment status.

If you’ve been living in Norway for several years with a residence permit, you could consider making your stay more concrete with a permanent residence permit, or even citizenship. The rules for both of these are quite complex and depend on your own personal circumstances.

 

Come on now! Are you saying Liberal elites are hypocrites ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

It's not my conversation but just for clarity, the wells aren't so much vanishing as they are becoming more and more expensive to extract while the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) has been grinding downward for 40 years.  It wasn't peak oil so much as it was peak 'cheep' oil.

For example, at one point, the Saudis were extracting oil at less than $10 / barrel.  It's now around $28.  The Bakken is around $40-50-ish (all normalized values) which has actually set the upper cost for now.  The US ability to turn 'on and off' shale pumps, both mechanistically and through creative finance, is becoming the story of the 21st century energy markets.  And we're exporting that technology to whomever wants to pay for it.

 I've posted the links to this stuff several times now.  The Norwegians are starting to run into the same problem as the Saudis and, if you follow such stuff, using their sovereign wealth fund to probe into other markets and investments.  They have a long runway but it's diminishing returns from here on out - they'll eventually run into the shale limit and their profit margins will go to shit.

The reality is that the US is sitting on 500 years of coal and tar sands under the rockies but the EROEI is less than 10.  We have more than enough oil reserves for 5 centuries but we'd have to dig out the Rocky Mountains to extract much of it, forever squeezing just a little bit more oil out of a progressively drier and drier sponge.

 

Their 17 billion trade surplus and sovereign fund is built on oil.  Most of it has been accumulated and invested only since the 70s.  Petroleum export products make up more than their balance of payments surplus.

https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/nor/  has a nice graphical representation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Saorsa said:
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

It's not my conversation but just for clarity, the wells aren't so much vanishing as they are becoming more and more expensive to extract while the EROEI (energy return on energy invested) has been grinding downward for 40 years.  It wasn't peak oil so much as it was peak 'cheep' oil.

For example, at one point, the Saudis were extracting oil at less than $10 / barrel.  It's now around $28.  The Bakken is around $40-50-ish (all normalized values) which has actually set the upper cost for now.  The US ability to turn 'on and off' shale pumps, both mechanistically and through creative finance, is becoming the story of the 21st century energy markets.  And we're exporting that technology to whomever wants to pay for it.

 I've posted the links to this stuff several times now.  The Norwegians are starting to run into the same problem as the Saudis and, if you follow such stuff, using their sovereign wealth fund to probe into other markets and investments.  They have a long runway but it's diminishing returns from here on out - they'll eventually run into the shale limit and their profit margins will go to shit.

The reality is that the US is sitting on 500 years of coal and tar sands under the rockies but the EROEI is less than 10.  We have more than enough oil reserves for 5 centuries but we'd have to dig out the Rocky Mountains to extract much of it, forever squeezing just a little bit more oil out of a progressively drier and drier sponge.

 

Their 17 billion trade surplus and sovereign fund is built on oil.  Most of it has been accumulated and invested only since the 70s.  Petroleum export products make up more than their balance of payments surplus.

https://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/nor/  has a nice graphical representation.

Considering that Saorsa posted a graph showing the projected Norwegian oil peak, he is amazingly resistant to the common sense approach

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In norway oil money polluted the work ethic, inflated salaries and  the cost of living and made citizens wards of the state.

The transition from  being a fuel station into a.competitive ,economically diverse,   state will  not tolerate 33 hour work weeks, free stuff , state mandated diversity,  or any other liberal fantasies 

IMG_7833.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

In norway oil money polluted the work ethic, inflated salaries and  the cost of living and made citizens wards of the state.

The transition from  being a fuel station into a.competitive ,economically diverse,   state will  not tolerate 33 hour work weeks, free stuff , state mandated diversity,  or any other liberal fantasies 

IMG_7833.PNG

god you are a great poster to point college kids to "see kids, if you follow your dreams and just sail, you'll end up an old bitter dumb shit spewing about shit he can't comprehend on a message board"

shitforbrainzitski railing on an oil country encouraging the purchase of non-fossil fueled vehicles to be powered by their non-fossil dependent grid (> 90% of norwegian electrical production is hydro). goddamn you are special kind of stupid slug, but so wonderfully illustrative of the "business" animal spirits  in old white men that have been released by Trump. If it's liberal it's bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hillary said:

Capture.JPG

Thought we were talking about Norway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slug zitski said:

IMG_7835.PNG

So what you are saying is that petrol-based economies are not happy places when oil prices drop. Well, duh. Check with Venezuela and even Canada. The Norwegians were wise enough to sock away huge sums of money for when a rainy day happens. Bet Venezuela wishes they had done the same rather than selling subsidized fuel oil to poor Americans. The headline says that scores of foreign workers ( 1 score = 20; so lets say 10 score leave, that is 200, 100 score is only 2000) have left Norway. Explain to me why this is bad for Norway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Ishmael said:

Nobody can spell their name right.

Why bother???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

Why bother???

We know you can't spell anything right, so it's not an issue to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

We know you can't spell anything right, so it's not an issue to you.

Attack the messenger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Considering that Saorsa posted a graph showing the projected Norwegian oil peak, he is amazingly resistant to the common sense approach

-DSK

There is oil somewhere or there isn't.  Oil production and exploration and exploitation is a function of price.  That Norway has cut theirs back doesn't mean there isn't any oil there.  They just don't want to be the first to be forced to restart further exploration at high cost for limited return.

Globally,(oil is a commodity, it can come from anywhere) tell us when we will actually run out of oil at whatever you consider the highest price anyone would ever pay.

Here is a site to start your research.

Looks like it's been up to around $160 and folks kept paying.  If it goes back up to that level, I'll guarantee that these mothballed exploration platforms will be back at work.

DSC_0581cweb.jpg

 

BTW, why don't you tell us what your definition of PEAK OIL is.  Any number of places can stop production for any number of reasons so make it an actual economic argument.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

So what you are saying is that petrol-based economies are not happy places when oil prices drop. Well, duh. Check with Venezuela and even Canada. The Norwegians were wise enough to sock away huge sums of money for when a rainy day happens. Bet Venezuela wishes they had done the same rather than selling subsidized fuel oil to poor Americans. The headline says that scores of foreign workers ( 1 score = 20; so lets say 10 score leave, that is 200, 100 score is only 2000) have left Norway. Explain to me why this is bad for Norway.

 

This is quite similar to what happened to US jobs, in the residential Real Estate, and the Corporate Incentive Travel industries, in SE CT, in the Great Recession of '07 - '08.  Jobs that had been steady, decent income, for 2+ decades, dried up and vanished overnight, never to return.  Ten years on, there are still many people trying to sell their homes, that have been on and off the market going on ten years now.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

So what you are saying is that petrol-based economies are not happy places when oil prices drop. Well, duh. Check with Venezuela and even Canada. The Norwegians were wise enough to sock away huge sums of money for when a rainy day happens. Bet Venezuela wishes they had done the same rather than selling subsidized fuel oil to poor Americans. The headline says that scores of foreign workers ( 1 score = 20; so lets say 10 score leave, that is 200, 100 score is only 2000) have left Norway. Explain to me why this is bad for Norway.

Its bad for the bearded snowflakes, social justice warriors and  swivel eyed Bernie Sanders voters who believe that free stuff is a sustainable way to operate society. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Saorsa said:

There is oil somewhere or there isn't.  Oil production and exploration and exploitation is a function of price.  That Norway has cut theirs back doesn't mean there isn't any oil there.  They just don't want to be the first to be forced to restart further exploration at high cost for limited return.

Globally,(oil is a commodity, it can come from anywhere) tell us when we will actually run out of oil at whatever you consider the highest price anyone would ever pay.

Here is a site to start your research.

Looks like it's been up to around $160 and folks kept paying.  If it goes back up to that level, I'll guarantee that these mothballed exploration platforms will be back at work.

DSC_0581cweb.jpg

 

BTW, why don't you tell us what your definition of PEAK OIL is.  Any number of places can stop production for any number of reasons so make it an actual economic argument.

 

Is the amount of oil in the earth infinite?

As I stated, the words "peak oil" is a term used to refer to what has been observed in oil production from single wells, from fields, from countries. Generally follows a bell curve over time as the well is enlarged/deepened, pumps added, then the oil recedes, and eventually stops.

Is eastern Pennsylvania still one of the worlds largest oil producers? They were for a long time, a long time ago. Why aren't those wells still gushing?

Why did the graph -you- posted yourself show a peak in Norway's oil production? As for price, if the price goes up and more wells are put into production, does that increase the amount of oil in the ground?

https://www.google.com/search?q=global+oil+production+graph+by+year

Graphs are certainly not uniform BUT you will see that the rate of increase has slowed down. Most going up into the 20-teens are projections based on guesswork because many countries started classifying their oil production in the early 2000s...... surely that's a sign that they are finding more oil than ever, and they're sitting on a super-abundance?

Basically, unless you believe that the amount of oil in the earth is infinite, and that all oil is as easy to get as that first gusher, then "peak oil" follows QED.

Once you grasp some of the basics, we can go into "Energy Return on Energy Invested" which is also a relatively simple concept and explains why the oil boom years produced such a huge leap forward in standard of living.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

Is the amount of oil in the earth infinite?

As I stated, the words "peak oil" is a term used to refer to what has been observed in oil production from single wells, from fields, from countries. Generally follows a bell curve over time as the well is enlarged/deepened, pumps added, then the oil recedes, and eventually stops.

Is eastern Pennsylvania still one of the worlds largest oil producers? They were for a long time, a long time ago. Why aren't those wells still gushing?

Why did the graph -you- posted yourself show a peak in Norway's oil production? As for price, if the price goes up and more wells are put into production, does that increase the amount of oil in the ground?

https://www.google.com/search?q=global+oil+production+graph+by+year

Graphs are certainly not uniform BUT you will see that the rate of increase has slowed down. Most going up into the 20-teens are projections based on guesswork because many countries started classifying their oil production in the early 2000s...... surely that's a sign that they are finding more oil than ever, and they're sitting on a super-abundance?

Basically, unless you believe that the amount of oil in the earth is infinite, and that all oil is as easy to get as that first gusher, then "peak oil" follows QED.

Once you grasp some of the basics, we can go into "Energy Return on Energy Invested" which is also a relatively simple concept and explains why the oil boom years produced such a huge leap forward in standard of living.

-DSK

There are plenty  resources on earth...the problem is that they are unrecoverable. 

Humans are presently limited to scratching the surface for resources.

the deep water oil tragedy was about attempting to harvest " unrecoverable " resources

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, slug zitski said:

There are plenty  resources on earth...the problem is that they are unrecoverable. 

Humans are presently limited to scratching the surface for resources.

the deep water oil tragedy was about attempting to harvest " unrecoverable " resources

I dunno what you mean by "unrecoverable." Given a high enough level of technology, it's all recoverable. At some point in the not-too-distant future, oil companies will be drilling thru the Arctic ice and bringing in wells in Antarctica.

The question is, how much energy does it take to make these deeper wells in less-accessible places? It costs more, in money and in energy (whowever that energy is priced). This is why EROEI is a very important factor. Pre-peak oil wells have tremendous EROEI, possibly the highest of any power source we'll ever have by a large margin....... fusion might be better, or it might not, or it might never happen anyway.

Deepwater Horizon is feasible with 2010 technology. Problem is,  BP was trying to push for the highest possible return and cutting corners. Considering the tremendous ecological damage, we citizens should have zero tolerance for that. With 2030 technology, we should be able to "recover" oil from the Gulf floor with a greater degree of safety...... if standards are kept up. But that's another argument, on the "workers are expendable" and "fuck the environment" issues. One right-wing fallacy at a time, please  :D

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I dunno what you mean by "unrecoverable." Given a high enough level of technology, it's all recoverable. At some point in the not-too-distant future, oil companies will be drilling thru the Arctic ice and bringing in wells in Antarctica.

The question is, how much energy does it take to make these deeper wells in less-accessible places? It costs more, in money and in energy (whowever that energy is priced). This is why EROEI is a very important factor. Pre-peak oil wells have tremendous EROEI, possibly the highest of any power source we'll ever have by a large margin....... fusion might be better, or it might not, or it might never happen anyway.

Deepwater Horizon is feasible with 2010 technology. Problem is,  BP was trying to push for the highest possible return and cutting corners. Considering the tremendous ecological damage, we citizens should have zero tolerance for that. With 2030 technology, we should be able to "recover" oil from the Gulf floor with a greater degree of safety...... if standards are kept up. But that's another argument, on the "workers are expendable" and "fuck the environment" issues. One right-wing fallacy at a time, please  :D

-DSK

When the deep water well head failed they were not able to use the normal procedures to cap the well.   If that accident had happened in shallow water it would not have turned into a disaster. You might consider many deep water resources as unrecoverable . The reason why east coast continental  shelf oil will be valauble is that its recovery   is possible with conventional technology 

Resources like uranium, cobalt ?  Plenty around, but not recoverable.  

One country , Kazakstan, produces 35 percent of global supply 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, slug zitski said:

When the deep water well head failed they were not able to use the normal procedures to cap the well.   If that accident had happened in shallow water it would not have turned into a disaster. You might consider many deep water resources as unrecoverable . The reason why east coast continental  shelf oil will be valauble is that its recovery   is possible with conventional technology 

Resources like uranium, cobalt ?  Plenty around, but not recoverable.  

One country , Kazakstan, produces 35 percent of global supply 

1- in the relatively near future, we will have better well heads and

2- there are already better procedures for working with cases like Deepwater Horizon and

3- if BP had not gone cheap-ass on much of the project, they would not have had the cascade of problems leading to catastrophic failure. The well head fracture was a big problem but it was not the sole cause of the disaster.

However that's all somewhat of a side issue. The main issue remains- is the supply of oil infinite? Simple yes or no. Is the oil production we already have tapering off in production? That's not even yes or no, that's "do you believe in reality or do you believe in the tooth fairy."

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Is the amount of oil in the earth infinite?

As I stated, the words "peak oil" is a term used to refer to what has been observed in oil production from single wells, from fields, from countries. Generally follows a bell curve over time as the well is enlarged/deepened, pumps added, then the oil recedes, and eventually stops.

Is eastern Pennsylvania still one of the worlds largest oil producers? They were for a long time, a long time ago. Why aren't those wells still gushing?

Why did the graph -you- posted yourself show a peak in Norway's oil production? As for price, if the price goes up and more wells are put into production, does that increase the amount of oil in the ground?

https://www.google.com/search?q=global+oil+production+graph+by+year

Graphs are certainly not uniform BUT you will see that the rate of increase has slowed down. Most going up into the 20-teens are projections based on guesswork because many countries started classifying their oil production in the early 2000s...... surely that's a sign that they are finding more oil than ever, and they're sitting on a super-abundance?

Basically, unless you believe that the amount of oil in the earth is infinite, and that all oil is as easy to get as that first gusher, then "peak oil" follows QED.

Once you grasp some of the basics, we can go into "Energy Return on Energy Invested" which is also a relatively simple concept and explains why the oil boom years produced such a huge leap forward in standard of living.

-DSK

That's ludicrous.

The earth is finite therefore oil cannot be infinite.  If somehow we could quantify it all I'm sure we could create a normal curve plotting total oil for assumed consumption.  I'm not sure why you even raise that.  Wouldn't you have to assume some rate of consumption and growth of consumption to plot vs. the volume?

I guess you can't extend your thinking from the limited set which you end at political divisions.  Those countries exploit oil as a natural resource and sell it on the open market.  Therefore, you would need to quantify oil globally to determine when "Peak Oil" was reached.  But how do you determine that value and what do you do with whatever value you come up with?  It is basically irrelevant except for political control.  We don't know how much there is of anything until we explore and discover it we don't know how much we will use unless we compare it with demand.

If we weren't using oil, we would be using other sources of energy.  The issue then would be "Peak Energy" of which oil is only a part.  In fact we wouldn't even be concerned about the term Peak Oil.  It just happens to be one of the cheapest at the moment.

Pumping and price do not rely on peak oil any more than does Peak Diamonds.  So, again, it has no value.  If oil becomes rare the price will rise and other forms of energy will take it's place.  We could have a DeBeers of oil (OPEC has tried) to control supply but there is simply too much oil for it to really function well. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

If somehow we could quantify it all I'm sure we could create a normal curve plotting total oil for assumed consumption. 

Just as an FYI.  This was a nice paper from a few years ago that takes a stab at estimating the stored biomass on the planet, approaching it as an engineering problem.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/31/9511.full.pdf

According to the authors, we have somewhere around 1000 years worth of saved biomass left before we're forced to be at equilibrium (and can't tap the battery anymore because it's effectively empty).  And no, they're not a bunch of greenies so to speak - just engineers.  For example:

"Moreover, whereas some deployment of solar systems (e.g., over roofs, roads, and parking lots) causes little direct reduction of biomass, greater deployment will undoubtedly result in increasing indirect biomass consequences to both fabricate and install solar collectors and other infrastructure. The earth-space battery paradigm clarifies why the total upfront and ongoing energy investments in solar and other renewables need to be balanced with the energy produced, i.e., greater energy return on energy investment (4, 35), and why their production and installation must not negatively impact the remaining biomass budget of earth.".

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2018 at 10:18 PM, Ed Lada said:

Europe is great.  I've lived here for 18 years now and I only come back to that shithole country to see family and friends.  I am always happy to come back here.

Racist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Just as an FYI.  This was a nice paper from a few years ago that takes a stab at estimating the stored biomass on the planet, approaching it as an engineering problem.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/31/9511.full.pdf

According to the authors, we have somewhere around 1000 years worth of saved biomass left before we're forced to be at equilibrium (and can't tap the battery anymore because it's effectively empty).  And no, they're not a bunch of greenies so to speak - just engineers.  For example:

"Moreover, whereas some deployment of solar systems (e.g., over roofs, roads, and parking lots) causes little direct reduction of biomass, greater deployment will undoubtedly result in increasing indirect biomass consequences to both fabricate and install solar collectors and other infrastructure. The earth-space battery paradigm clarifies why the total upfront and ongoing energy investments in solar and other renewables need to be balanced with the energy produced, i.e., greater energy return on energy investment (4, 35), and why their production and installation must not negatively impact the remaining biomass budget of earth.".

 

 

Edible foodstuffs are pretty easy to grow and process.  This was supposed to happen years ago and then came the green revolution (which has it's own problems).  It would be more interesting if the biomass were just considered calories and we then determine which fast growing crops can produce the calories needed to support human life.  I think 2250 per day is about average to maintain weight.  It might not be interesting but it would support life.

I'm pretty sure we could crop beans a couple of times a year all around the world and the sun would still continue to support photosynthesis (a continuing input to the energy cycle). 

The other component for photosynthesis though is water and that will be a tougher problem than the biomass.

It's an interesting thought but depends on the usual geometric progressions.  They cite "the biological imperative of the Malthusian-Darwinian dynamic" and yet Malthus has been shown to be a poor predictor and Darwin gives us an excuse to kill each other off to survive.  I reject them as imperatives.

Then, there is always soylent green.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

That's ludicrous.

The earth is finite therefore oil cannot be infinite.  If somehow we could quantify it all I'm sure we could create a normal curve plotting total oil for assumed consumption.  I'm not sure why you even raise that.  Wouldn't you have to assume some rate of consumption and growth of consumption to plot vs. the volume?

I guess you can't extend your thinking from the limited set which you end at political divisions.  Those countries exploit oil as a natural resource and sell it on the open market.  Therefore, you would need to quantify oil globally to determine when "Peak Oil" was reached.  But how do you determine that value and what do you do with whatever value you come up with?  It is basically irrelevant except for political control.  We don't know how much there is of anything until we explore and discover it we don't know how much we will use unless we compare it with demand.

If we weren't using oil, we would be using other sources of energy.  The issue then would be "Peak Energy" of which oil is only a part.  In fact we wouldn't even be concerned about the term Peak Oil.  It just happens to be one of the cheapest at the moment.

Pumping and price do not rely on peak oil any more than does Peak Diamonds.  So, again, it has no value.  If oil becomes rare the price will rise and other forms of energy will take it's place.  We could have a DeBeers of oil (OPEC has tried) to control supply but there is simply too much oil for it to really function well. 

 

 

COMMENTARY

MARKET TREND

STOCK LISTS

RESEARCH

NEWS

IBD VIDEOS

HOW TO INVEST

LEADERBOARD

SWING TRADER

MARKETSMITH

STORE

SIGN IN

Earth Is An Oil-Producing Machine — We're Not Running Out

KERRY JACKSON

11/04/2015

Reprints

Ever since M. King Hubbert in the 1950s convinced a lot of people with his "peak oil" theory that production would collapse and we'd eventually exhaust our crude supplies, the clock has been running. And running. And it will continue to run for some time, as technology and new discoveries show that there's still an ocean of oil under our feet.

 

Engineering and Technology Magazine reported this week that BP — the company that once wanted to be known as "Beyond Petroleum" rather than "British Petroleum" — is saying "the world is no longer at risk of running out of resources."

 

"Thanks to investment into supercomputers, robotics and the use of chemicals to extract the maximum from available reservoirs, the accessible oil and gas reserves will almost double by 2050," Engineering and Technology said.

 

A BP official told the magazine that "energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared."

 

Things are so good, in fact, that Engineering and Technology says "with the use of the innovative technologies, available fossil fuel resources could increase from the current 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent to 4.8 trillion by 2050, which is almost twice as much as the projected global demand." That number could even reach 7.5 trillion barrels if technology and exploration techniques advance even faster.

 

This information backs up the idea that Earth is actually an oil-producing machine. We call energy sources such as crude oil and natural gas fossil fuels based on the assumption that they are the products of decaying organisms, maybe even dinosaurs themselves. But the label is a misnomer. Research from the last decade found that hydrocarbons are synthesized abiotically.

 

In other words, as Science magazine has reported, the "data imply that hydrocarbons are produced chemically" from carbon found in Earth's mantle. Nature magazine calls the product of this process an "unexpected bounty " of "natural gas and the building blocks of oil products."

 

So don't feel guilty about exploiting this "bounty." There seems to be plenty to go around — and there will probably still be a lot left when technology, not hurried by government mandates and subsidies but guided by market forces, produces practical and affordable renewable energy.

 

But for now, enjoy our cheap, abundant and efficient "fossil" fuels.

KERRY JACKSON | ibdnews@investors.com

TODAY'S SPOTLIGHT

IBD’s Getting Started

Get started making money with IBD and make smarter investing decisions. Take a tour to find out how!

Try SwingTrader Free

The last 12 of 15 trades are in the green! Check out what’s on SwingTrader now!

Full Access: CES 2018

Get a sneak peak at all the exciting new tech products arriving in 2018.

MORE NEWS

Fierce Bitcoin Critic Now Has 'Regret'; Kodak Joins Blockchain Wave

Q4 Earnings Preview: Who Joins Facebook On List Of Stocks Expecting 50%-Plus Growth?

Looking to Bet Big on "BAT"? Here's How.Promoted Content ByDIREXION

SPECIAL REPORT

CES 2018 News: The World's Largest Consumer Tech Show

CES 2018, the world's largest consumer electronics trade show, will showcase the latest technologies to watch from Nvidia, Intel and other tech leaders.

TRADING CENTER

INVESTING RESOURCES

FREE TRIAL

Get instant access to exclusive stock lists, expert market analysis and educational tools with a free trial to IBD Digital.

IBD VIDEOS

Get market updates, educational videos, webinars, and stock analysis.

GET STARTED

Learn how you can make more money with IBD's investing tools, top-performing stock lists, and educational content.

IBD Stock Charts

IBD Stock Checkup

Stock Quotes

MarketSmith

How to Buy Stocks

How to Read Stock Charts

When to Sell Stocks

IBD Retail Locations

Ad Choices

ABOUT US

 

ADVERTISING

 

CONTACT US

 

TERMS OF USE

 

PRIVACY POLICY

 

SITE MAP

Stock Market Today

The Big Picture

Economic Calendar

Investing Workshops

New to IBD

Economy

Technology

Politics

Editorials

Co-Browse

Connect With Us On

 

 

 

 

 

Notice: Information contained herein is not and should not be construed as an offer, solicitation, or recommendation to buy or sell securities. The information has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable; however no guarantee is made or implied with respect to its accuracy, timeliness, or completeness. Authors may own the stocks they discuss. The information and content are subject to change without notice.

*Real-time prices by Bats®. Volume delayed. Real-time quote and/or trade prices are not sourced from all markets.

© 2000-2018 Investor's Business Daily, Inc. All rights reserved

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please trim when you cut and paste.

However the idea that the process of producing oil has somehow stopped doesn't make sense.  The tectonic plates are still in motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Amati said:

For Amati

Quoted from Investors Business Daily

Ever since M. King Hubbert in the 1950s convinced a lot of people with his "peak oil" theory that production would collapse and we'd eventually exhaust our crude supplies, the clock has been running. And running. And it will continue to run for some time, as technology and new discoveries show that there's still an ocean of oil under our feet.

Engineering and Technology Magazine reported this week that BP — the company that once wanted to be known as "Beyond Petroleum" rather than "British Petroleum" — is saying "the world is no longer at risk of running out of resources."

"Thanks to investment into supercomputers, robotics and the use of chemicals to extract the maximum from available reservoirs, the accessible oil and gas reserves will almost double by 2050," Engineering and Technology said.

A BP official told the magazine that "energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared."

Things are so good, in fact, that Engineering and Technology says "with the use of the innovative technologies, available fossil fuel resources could increase from the current 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent to 4.8 trillion by 2050, which is almost twice as much as the projected global demand." That number could even reach 7.5 trillion barrels if technology and exploration techniques advance even faster.

This information backs up the idea that Earth is actually an oil-producing machine. We call energy sources such as crude oil and natural gas fossil fuels based on the assumption that they are the products of decaying organisms, maybe even dinosaurs themselves. But the label is a misnomer. Research from the last decade found that hydrocarbons are synthesized abiotically.

In other words, as Science magazine has reported, the "data imply that hydrocarbons are produced chemically" from carbon found in Earth's mantle. Nature magazine calls the product of this process an "unexpected bounty " of "natural gas and the building blocks of oil products."

So don't feel guilty about exploiting this "bounty." There seems to be plenty to go around — and there will probably still be a lot left when technology, not hurried by government mandates and subsidies but guided by market forces, produces practical and affordable renewable energy.

But for now, enjoy our cheap, abundant and efficient "fossil" fuels.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Please trim when you cut and paste.

However the idea that the process of producing oil has somehow stopped doesn't make sense.  The tectonic plates are still in motion.

Oil is produced over time periods measured in the hundreds of thousands and millions of years - a little slow to be of any practical value to people or the Shell company. It is sort of like much of the climate change debate, some people do not a good sense of varying time magnitudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Oil is produced over time periods measured in the hundreds of thousands and millions of years - a little slow to be of any practical value to people or the Shell company. It is sort of like much of the climate change debate, some people do not a good sense of varying time magnitudes.

We may well be pumping it faster than it is being produced at present but there are a billion years or two already in the ground.

However, it's nice for someone with knowledge and the facts step up.  Please provide us with the following information.

 

  • Production rate of crude oil at the rate of current geologic processes.
  • The date production started.
  • From those two pieces of information we can determine the total volume of oil ever in existence.  With those we can construct a normal curve to determine the highest point and call it "Peak Oil".  OBTW, please label the x and y axes since I'm not to sure what good this number is.
  • The amount oil have we actually pumped out and used to date broken down by year.    You can start in 1859 for obvious reasons.  We need this to plot actual consumption and then create a hockey stick graph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are making the same mistake that Hibbert did and that is ignoring the cost of production of oil. If we want $10 oil then the reserves will be quite small, with $100 oil they will be much larger, and with $1000 oil much greater again. I think at some point, well after any of us are still alive the future population will come to think people today were behaving very strangely burning oil when it is much valuable and essential as an industrial raw material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I think you are making the same mistake that Hibbert did and that is ignoring the cost of production of oil. If we want $10 oil then the reserves will be quite small, with $100 oil they will be much larger, and with $1000 oil much greater again. I think at some point, well after any of us are still alive the future population will come to think people today were behaving very strangely burning oil when it is much valuable and essential as an industrial raw material.

I already pointed out upthread that folks were willing to pay up to 160 per barrel in living memory and the prices at the gas pump were equally horrific.  I don't recall how high they got in Maryland during the embargo of the Carter years but I don't believe it went over the amount that Europeans routinely pay today.

There has been a runup in the price of crude in last few months from the 50s to 60s but, if it were really scarce it wouldn't be that cheap and price changes would reflect cost of production, not demand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Saorsa said:
20 minutes ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

I think you are making the same mistake that Hibbert did and that is ignoring the cost of production of oil. If we want $10 oil then the reserves will be quite small, with $100 oil they will be much larger, and with $1000 oil much greater again. I think at some point, well after any of us are still alive the future population will come to think people today were behaving very strangely burning oil when it is much valuable and essential as an industrial raw material.

Zackly. There's a heck of a lot of stuff you can make out of crude oil........ OTOH some the stuff that's in it isn't good for much besides burning.

However you're making a mistake in thinking that somehow offering more cash on the barrelhead somehow makes more oil. There are a lot of wells out of production because they are not particularly profitable unless crude prices go up, but those wells are also past their peak flow

I already pointed out upthread that folks were willing to pay up to 160 per barrel in living memory and the prices at the gas pump were equally horrific.  I don't recall how high they got in Maryland during the embargo of the Carter years but I don't believe it went over the amount that Europeans routinely pay today.

There has been a runup in the price of crude in last few months from the 50s to 60s but, if it were really scarce it wouldn't be that cheap and price changes would reflect cost of production, not demand.

 

So, to recap..... you posted a graph of Norway's  oil production, which has already begun to drop. This graph was projected into the future and included a shaded area of the graph showing potential future oil discoveries; but it still showed production declining. Immediately after posting this graph which clearly showed "peak oil" for Norway, you derided the concept of "peak oil" as a libby-rull fantasy

What does a past run-up in price have to do with future global oil production (hint: the economic term is "elasticity")? Prices are set by current supply vs current demand, with a slight fudge factor for people who like play futures. Also, you might want to do a little math before you get serious about any conjecture that the earth might hold 7+ trillion barrels.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

So, to recap..... you posted a graph of Norway's  oil production, which has already begun to drop. This graph was projected into the future and included a shaded area of the graph showing potential future oil discoveries; but it still showed production declining. Immediately after posting this graph which clearly showed "peak oil" for Norway, you derided the concept of "peak oil" as a libby-rull fantasy

What does a past run-up in price have to do with future global oil production (hint: the economic term is "elasticity")? Prices are set by current supply vs current demand, with a slight fudge factor for people who like play futures. Also, you might want to do a little math before you get serious about any conjecture that the earth might hold 7+ trillion barrels.

-DSK

How many barrels does the earth hold then?

The picture I posted was a group of oil exploration rigs which are laid up.  They are laid up because the production rigs are producing enough oil to meet demand and they don't need exploration at present.  You can look to the operations and quarterly reports of the service companies like Halliburton or Schlumberger for more discussion on exploration.  Or try this link https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Rig-Count-Shoots-Up-As-Oil-Nears-70.html 

Oil is pumped to meet need.  It is pumped by a number of suppliers.  It costs money to pump and store oil.  If there is no demand folks limit their prodcution voluntarily.   If there are a lot of suppliers who want/need cash instead of oil the price drops because the needy will sell for less and try to make it up on volume.  Others, like Norway, have sufficient funds and can conserve their sources for future production.  Therefore, they pump less and production falls.

You seem to be confusing the existence of a mineral with the market forces regarding the price.  Here is an example.  During the Irma evacuation a lot of Florida gas stations ran out of gasoline.  Now, you can run around screaming that there is no gasoline and believe that it's all used up and there will never be anymore gasoline ever or, you can understand that the data from a single source does not reflect a global reality.

I can call up yahoo finance or my broker and find out the cost of a barrel of oil in multiple grades as a spot price or a future contract.  You don't seem to be able to answer the questions in regard to total volume in existence.  Hint, it's finite so there must be a number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, By the lee said:

Fun fact, Hitler's nieces and nephews emigrated to America and became gardeners.

They wouldn't have lasted long in Norway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

How many barrels does the earth hold then?

The picture I posted was a group of oil exploration rigs which are laid up.  They are laid up because the production rigs are producing enough oil to meet demand and they don't need exploration at present.  You can look to the operations and quarterly reports of the service companies like Halliburton or Schlumberger for more discussion on exploration.  Or try this link https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Rig-Count-Shoots-Up-As-Oil-Nears-70.html 

Oil is pumped to meet need.  It is pumped by a number of suppliers.  It costs money to pump and store oil.  If there is no demand folks limit their prodcution voluntarily.   If there are a lot of suppliers who want/need cash instead of oil the price drops because the needy will sell for less and try to make it up on volume.  Others, like Norway, have sufficient funds and can conserve their sources for future production.  Therefore, they pump less and production falls.

You seem to be confusing the existence of a mineral with the market forces regarding the price.  Here is an example.  During the Irma evacuation a lot of Florida gas stations ran out of gasoline.  Now, you can run around screaming that there is no gasoline and believe that it's all used up and there will never be anymore gasoline ever or, you can understand that the data from a single source does not reflect a global reality.

I can call up yahoo finance or my broker and find out the cost of a barrel of oil in multiple grades as a spot price or a future contract.  You don't seem to be able to answer the questions in regard to total volume in existence.  Hint, it's finite so there must be a number.

Infinite is a poor word .    The earth has massive energy reserves.

But much is Non recoverable....for whatever reason...

perhaps future technology helps,

perhaps extraction is so dangerous  that they outlaw it.

Consider gas, methane hydrates. Enormous deposits.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Can-Fire-Ice-Solve-Japans-Energy-Problem.html

 

 

 

 

 

IMG_7853.PNG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Saorsa said:

How many barrels does the earth hold then?

The picture I posted was a group of oil exploration rigs which are laid up.  They are laid up because the production rigs are producing enough oil to meet demand and they don't need exploration at present.  You can look to the operations and quarterly reports of the service companies like Halliburton or Schlumberger for more discussion on exploration.  Or try this link https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Rig-Count-Shoots-Up-As-Oil-Nears-70.html 

Oil is pumped to meet need.  It is pumped by a number of suppliers.  It costs money to pump and store oil.  If there is no demand folks limit their prodcution voluntarily.   If there are a lot of suppliers who want/need cash instead of oil the price drops because the needy will sell for less and try to make it up on volume.  Others, like Norway, have sufficient funds and can conserve their sources for future production.  Therefore, they pump less and production falls.

Or, they are still pumping full-force and less is coming out?????? I think you should take a look at "recovery operations" and well flow rates, although you seem to be absolutely determined to ignore what seems like a pretty obvious reality. Is Texas pumping as much as in 1970? Crude is a heck of a lot more now, why would they curtail? The Saudis and Norwegians are hurting for money, why would they cut back production now? Do you suppose that they will simply "ramp down"their pumping all the way to zero, as projected in the graph that YOU posted?

You seem to be confusing the existence of a mineral with the market forces regarding the price.  Here is an example.  During the Irma evacuation a lot of Florida gas stations ran out of gasoline.  Now, you can run around screaming that there is no gasoline and believe that it's all used up and there will never be anymore gasoline ever or, you can understand that the data from a single source does not reflect a global reality.

I can call up yahoo finance or my broker and find out the cost of a barrel of oil in multiple grades as a spot price or a future contract.  You don't seem to be able to answer the questions in regard to total volume in existence.  Hint, it's finite so there must be a number.

 

Yes, it's finite (as I said earlier...... interesting that you want to switch positions). Not only is it finite, it must be a number less that the overall volume of the earth. If you want to get even fancier, consider the density of oil and the mass of the earth. Most reasonable projections I've seen from oil geologists suggest that it's somewhere between 2 and 3 trillion barrels. If it's 2, we're more than half-way done.

Most people who try to suggest "there will always be plenty of oil" which goes hand in hand with "the globe may be warming but people have nothing to do with it" simply are not familiar with the numbers. How much oil is pumped on a daily basis? How much is burned? What year did we start this merry game? Once you learn more of the real story, it's more difficult to believe in fairy tales.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Saorsa said:

 

Edible foodstuffs are pretty easy to grow and process.  This was supposed to happen years ago and then came the green revolution (which has it's own problems).  It would be more interesting if the biomass were just considered calories and we then determine which fast growing crops can produce the calories needed to support human life.  I think 2250 per day is about average to maintain weight.  It might not be interesting but it would support life.

I'm pretty sure we could crop beans a couple of times a year all around the world and the sun would still continue to support photosynthesis (a continuing input to the energy cycle). 

The other component for photosynthesis though is water and that will be a tougher problem than the biomass.

It's an interesting thought but depends on the usual geometric progressions.  They cite "the biological imperative of the Malthusian-Darwinian dynamic" and yet Malthus has been shown to be a poor predictor and Darwin gives us an excuse to kill each other off to survive.  I reject them as imperatives.

Then, there is always soylent green.

Relative to energy production, there's been a number of calculations for biofuels and how much energy can be gleaned from photosynthesis using fast growing 'c4' type plants etc.  I put that link up a few months ago.  Plants fall into the 'some assembly required' as an energy source but biomass to energy is a pretty decent scheme but would require regulatory change and there is a debate about water availability and quality.  That's why there was so much excitement around algae for a little white but ultimately, the EROEI for algae is bad - it's just too hard to get the water out for the energy that can be recovered.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, slug zitski said:

Since biomass is CO2 intensive it is falling out of favour in Europe

Back to my idea that we have to keep track of time scales. If you take ..energy from algae or fast-growing trees the CO2 that is released was already in the atmosphere a few months ago or a few years (or even decades) ago. Also we can assume that when the algae or trees are harvested they will be replaced quite quickly so the CO2 will be taken out of the atmosphere quickly - the next effect is negligible. This is totally different from fossil fuels since they contain carbon that has been out of the atmosphere for many tens or hundreds of millions years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

Yes, it's finite (as I said earlier...... interesting that you want to switch positions). Not only is it finite, it must be a number less that the overall volume of the earth. If you want to get even fancier, consider the density of oil and the mass of the earth. Most reasonable projections I've seen from oil geologists suggest that it's somewhere between 2 and 3 trillion barrels. If it's 2, we're more than half-way done.

Most people who try to suggest "there will always be plenty of oil" which goes hand in hand with "the globe may be warming but people have nothing to do with it" simply are not familiar with the numbers. How much oil is pumped on a daily basis? How much is burned? What year did we start this merry game? Once you learn more of the real story, it's more difficult to believe in fairy tales.

-DSK

Where have I ever presented oil as infinite?  That was, as pointed out, your interpretation not mine.  Where have I said there will always be plenty of oil?  Are you suggesting that there are no alternatives in terms of providing the energy the human race demands?

"What most people try to suggest" are weasel words on your part permitting you to interpret what you wish I had said and respond to yourself.

You may resume your mental masturbation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Back to my idea that we have to keep track of time scales. If you take ..energy from algae or fast-growing trees the CO2 that is released was already in the atmosphere a few months ago or a few years (or even decades) ago. Also we can assume that when the algae or trees are harvested they will be replaced quite quickly so the CO2 will be taken out of the atmosphere quickly - the next effect is negligible. This is totally different from fossil fuels since they contain carbon that has been out of the atmosphere for many tens or hundreds of millions years.

Plankton are one of if not the largest body of carbon based life on the planet. They die, sink to the depths and sequester their carbon for the next batch of petroleum.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

Back to my idea that we have to keep track of time scales. If you take ..energy from algae or fast-growing trees the CO2 that is released was already in the atmosphere a few months ago or a few years (or even decades) ago. Also we can assume that when the algae or trees are harvested they will be replaced quite quickly so the CO2 will be taken out of the atmosphere quickly - the next effect is negligible. This is totally different from fossil fuels since they contain carbon that has been out of the atmosphere for many tens or hundreds of millions years.

As you say, it's time scales.  All the biomass would die and rot releasing CO2 anyway.  A wood fired steam engine just hastens the process like someone worrying about pumping all the oil out of the ground.

This is really about our demands for energy.  Whether it is biomass, petro or nuclear we have, and will continue to develop, sources for energy to maintain and improve our lives.

How many of you know a  cruising sailor whose boat is tricked out with

  • a wind generator,
  • solar panels,
  • an alternator on their engine,
  • a generator and
  • a shore power cord.

The wonder of nature though is that we can drop the lines, hoist the sails and use

  • a towable or
  • none of the above.

BTW, we aren't using all of the other sources of energy currently available to us and are  only just beginning to consider harvesting energy from the sun from space based collectors.

I'm an optimist, not a Malthusian with a hockey stick.  The future you predict is not the one that will arrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

As you say, it's time scales.  All the biomass would die and rot releasing CO2 anyway.  A wood fired steam engine just hastens the process like someone worrying about pumping all the oil out of the ground.

This is really about our demands for energy.  Whether it is biomass, petro or nuclear we have, and will continue to develop, sources for energy to maintain and improve our lives.

How many of you know a  cruising sailor whose boat is tricked out with

  • a wind generator,
  • solar panels,
  • an alternator on their engine,
  • a generator and
  • a shore power cord.

The wonder of nature though is that we can drop the lines, hoist the sails and use

  • a towable or
  • none of the above.

BTW, we aren't using all of the other sources of energy currently available to us and are  only just beginning to consider harvesting energy from the sun from space based collectors.

I'm an optimist, not a Malthusian with a hockey stick.  The future you predict is not the one that will arrive.

Look into the EROEI of all the above (except the genset, which of course depends on petro fuel). Solar panels are getting a lot better.

Given the vast increase in efficiency of electrical devices, and the potential for continued improved efficiency, it's possible that our civilization will be able to maintain it's comfortable lifestyle on renewable, post-petro energy sources.

Space-based solar energy? The US Navy was looking into that in the 1970s. Among other things, the hi-density electric motors came out of that research. Great potential. Fusion would be better IMHO.

Meanwhile, have you backed away from your saying that "peak oil" is a libby-rull fantasy?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

Meanwhile, have you backed away from your saying that "peak oil" is a libby-rull fantasy?

-DSK

Something else pulled from the depths.  Peak oil is just a meaningless statistic. When oil gets too expensive it will be replaced. 

That may be the point of your energy return on investment but you would need to contemplate the 'energy' part of that statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Something else pulled from the depths. 

Oh yeah? Well, it doesn't matter that much. I could pull up your actual quote but you'd probably just get mad

Peak oil is just a meaningless statistic. When oil gets too expensive it will be replaced. 

With what? How is the EROEI going to compare?

If "peak oil" is a meaningless statistic then 1- why did you point to it (inadvertently, it seems) to show how undesirable it would be to move to Norway just now, and 2- why do so many oil-exporting countries fudge or simply hide their oil production numbers? Why was Vice Pesident Dick Cheney (a noted libby-rull) so vocal about depletion allowances? Some people seem to think it's pretty important.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Steam Flyer said:

With what? How is the EROEI going to compare?

If "peak oil" is a meaningless statistic then 1- why did you point to it (inadvertently, it seems) to show how undesirable it would be to move to Norway just now, and 2- why do so many oil-exporting countries fudge or simply hide their oil production numbers? Why was Vice Pesident Dick Cheney (a noted libby-rull) so vocal about depletion allowances? Some people seem to think it's pretty important.

-DSK

You were the first to mention peak oil.  Not I.

BTW, Norway will probably be pumping more oil.  Shell has announced that it's moving out of the mid-east in favor of the North Sea.

https://finance.yahoo.com/m/08f4a513-13c4-3dd3-8cb5-a7835519d433/ss_[%24%24]-shell-bids-a-long.html

Where did I say it was undesirable to emigrate to Norway?  I even posted their immigration requirements for you.

The world of your delusions must be really great and highly entertaining to me at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

You were the first to mention peak oil.  Not I.

BTW, Norway will probably be pumping more oil.  Shell has announced that it's moving out of the mid-east in favor of the North Sea.

https://finance.yahoo.com/m/08f4a513-13c4-3dd3-8cb5-a7835519d433/ss_[%24%24]-shell-bids-a-long.html

Where did I say it was undesirable to emigrate to Norway?  I even posted their immigration requirements for you.

The world of your delusions must be really great and highly entertaining to me at least.

Ah pardon me. I misinterpreted what you did say, something to the effect that Norway is suffering declining oil revenue which is what props up their benevolent socialist bliss. The world of my delusions seems to include a lot more factual references to actual things in the actual non-internet (ie real) world. So much so, that it is hardly delusional at all. I can not only make numbers add up, I can avoid contradicting myself and I very rarely stub my toes trying to insult other peoples' viewpoint. Try it some time.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Ah pardon me. I misinterpreted what you did say, something to the effect that Norway is suffering declining oil revenue which is what props up their benevolent socialist bliss. The world of my delusions seems to include a lot more factual references to actual things in the actual non-internet (ie real) world. So much so, that it is hardly delusional at all. I can not only make numbers add up, I can avoid contradicting myself and I very rarely stub my toes trying to insult other peoples' viewpoint. Try it some time.

-DSK

Their revenue is declining because not as much oil is being pumped.  It appears that shell will be back pumping again as they drop their operations in Iraq for political reasons, not lack of oil.

OPEC and others agreed to cut production. Like many, Norway budgeted on one oil price and didn't get the anticipated revenue.  It had to do with cash flow not a lack of oil.

Political and cartel agreements are the factors not a lack of oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Their revenue is declining because not as much oil is being pumped.  It appears that shell will be back pumping again as they drop their operations in Iraq for political reasons, not lack of oil.

OPEC and others agreed to cut production. Like many, Norway budgeted on one oil price and didn't get the anticipated revenue.  It had to do with cash flow not a lack of oil.

Political and cartel agreements are the factors not a lack of oil.

Really? And you know this, how? Seems like oil production all over the North Sea basin is down. In fact it looks like it all peaked at about the same time, and is following the same slope. Why would a country suffering a cash shortfall curtail production? Ah you say "to raise prices" but that's not working is it? And that doesn't explain why even the non-signatory countries are slowing down.......

So, what does explain it?

Similarly, we know that oil production STOPS at some point, for individual wells. We've observed that it does for overall oil fields, too. So, does it slow down as it approaches the stopping point? We've already established that oil is not infinite, it doesn't just gush out of the ground forever.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Saorsa said:

As you say, it's time scales.  All the biomass would die and rot releasing CO2 anyway.  A wood fired steam engine just hastens the process like someone worrying about pumping all the oil out of the ground.

This is really about our demands for energy.  Whether it is biomass, petro or nuclear we have, and will continue to develop, sources for energy to maintain and improve our lives.

How many of you know a  cruising sailor whose boat is tricked out with

  • a wind generator,
  • solar panels,
  • an alternator on their engine,
  • a generator and
  • a shore power cord.

The wonder of nature though is that we can drop the lines, hoist the sails and use

  • a towable or
  • none of the above.

BTW, we aren't using all of the other sources of energy currently available to us and are  only just beginning to consider harvesting energy from the sun from space based collectors.

I'm an optimist, not a Malthusian with a hockey stick.  The future you predict is not the one that will arrive.

But, but, if they keep using up all of the sunlight to generate solar power, we will eventually endure a new ice age!  Conserve sunbeams!   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Really? And you know this, how? Seems like oil production all over the North Sea basin is down. In fact it looks like it all peaked at about the same time, and is following the same slope. Why would a country suffering a cash shortfall curtail production? Ah you say "to raise prices" but that's not working is it? And that doesn't explain why even the non-signatory countries are slowing down.......

So, what does explain it?

Similarly, we know that oil production STOPS at some point, for individual wells. We've observed that it does for overall oil fields, too. So, does it slow down as it approaches the stopping point? We've already established that oil is not infinite, it doesn't just gush out of the ground forever.

-DSK

I'm not sure why you brought this up or continue it.  Norway won't run out of energy.  Most of it's power is hydro or geothermal.  They only have one operating plant that uses Natural Gas (they have two others that have been mothballed) and it can be replaced.  They are running pilots on tidal energy now.   They have two realtively small refineries to supply their fuel needs.  They don't need north sea  oil to function as a nation.

So far as emigrating to Norway (the actual point of the post), they survived on agriculture and fishing and boatbuilding before the discovery of North Sea oil.  They have dealt with the oil windfall well by investing in their sovereign wealth fund.

If you want to find a problem with emigrating to Norway consider the long, cold, dark winters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Saorsa said:

I'm not sure why you brought this up or continue it.  Norway won't run out of energy.  Most of it's power is hydro or geothermal.  ...

And how much of that do they export?

I'm not sure why you can't seem to get the point, other than your desire to cling to your delusion that "peak oil" is some kind of libby-rull snow job.

I've been to Norway. It's lovely at the right time of year. But personally I am not planning on moving there unless global warming really speeds up.

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Well, they already have agreements with Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands.  They are planning a supply cable to the northern british islands.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/mar/28/oil-and-gas-norways-fossil-free-energy-renewables-oslo

 

Maybe because the Norwegians themselves believe that the oil is slowing down, and they want to supplant oil exports as an income base?

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

And how much of that do they export?

I'm not sure why you can't seem to get the point, other than your desire to cling to your delusion that "peak oil" is some kind of libby-rull snow job.

I've been to Norway. It's lovely at the right time of year. But personally I am not planning on moving there unless global warming really speeds up.

-DSK

Where did I use the words libby-rull? That's is the kind of an affected stupidity that you don't need.  I didn't use snow job either.  Again, you are pulling this out of your own ass.

I simply pointed out that 'peak oil' is a silly number with limited utility.  Kind of like the average daily balance that the bank uses to calculate interest.  It's a number that can be calculated from some set of parameters but my actual balance is not likely to have ever been that number at any point in the month or ever.

We will never know when we are actually at 'peak oil'.  What would you use the number for?  Oil prices will drive folks to other forms of energy.  If and when oil gets more difficult to find and produce the price will go up and other energy sources would come in to play to replace it.  In fact, those other sources are already coming online, reducing the demand for oil and shifting 'peak oil' further away while reducing the price.  That makes 'peak oil' so dependent on other factors that it is even less useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Maybe because the Norwegians themselves believe that the oil is slowing down, and they want to supplant oil exports as an income base?

-DSK

They've done well for years with agricultural products and had a sound economy prior to the oil boom.  They are a country that lives within its means.

The folks I met and talked to were prouder of their ability to catch and market exports of Cod.  Curiously, Nigeria spends a pretty fair amount of their oil money on cod heads.

The view on oil?  Meh, that's just money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

I'm not sure why you brought this up or continue it.  Norway won't run out of energy.  Most of it's power is hydro or geothermal.  They only have one operating plant that uses Natural Gas (they have two others that have been mothballed) and it can be replaced.  They are running pilots on tidal energy now.   They have two realtively small refineries to supply their fuel needs.  They don't need north sea  oil to function as a nation.

So far as emigrating to Norway (the actual point of the post), they survived on agriculture and fishing and boatbuilding before the discovery of North Sea oil.  They have dealt with the oil windfall well by investing in their sovereign wealth fund.

If you want to find a problem with emigrating to Norway consider the long, cold, dark winters.

What about the diet? Not a big fan of the Norwegian food I have had. I would move to France instead and die with a smile on my face from the food. If I was 30 years old I would move to New Zealand, but I digress ...

Norway's winters are not particularly cold, blame the Gulf Stream as long it lasts, which is a problem for also silly climate change promoters. Consider that in Tromso, with a latitude of almost 70°N the mean January temperature is -3.5°C and the coldest January day they have ever had is -18°C. It was a lot colder than that in Toronto last week at latitude 43°N. The winters are not very long but the summers are not very warm and it would be damp in winter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty interesting lecture. Roy Beck points out that taking the best from other countries only handicaps those countries thus making the situation worse for third world countries (begins at 3:00 minutes in).  

Since out country is so well off, shouldn't we be concerned about bringing in those that need training and don't have nearly as much opportunity as those that live in the US?

I would think so.

 

Well worth the 6 minutes to watch the whole lecture.

 

Forgot the link:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a pretty poor piece of propaganda.  He is saying let's help people in their own country. We do that already, it's called foreign aid.  He says we can only help a small percentage of those people by allowing them to immigrate.  We can do that too.  It isn't either or, both things are possible and we already doing them. We just need to allow more immigrants because even if we help a few here that's better than none.  And we don't have to take the best and the brightest either, we can leave them in their countries to help if that's their desire.  The old argument is if you can only help a minuscule number of people, it isn't help is bull shit.  There is a very good analogy to help illustrate that point.  A man was walking along a beach after a big storm.  The storm had washed tens of thousands of starfish well above the tide line.  As he walked, he saw another man coming from the opposite direction.  The other man would stop frequently, bend over, select a starfish and  throw if into the ocean.   As the two men drew opposite of each other they exchanged greetings.  Then the first man said to the second, "I notice you throwing starfish back in the water, what's up with that?"  The second man said "I am saving their lives, they will die up here on the beach above the high tide line."  "But", the first man replied, "There must be tens or even hundreds of thousands of starfish here, you can't possibly save them all.  What difference can you make, your just one man."  The second man smiled a little, bet over and picked up another starfish and flung it into the sea like a frisbee. "I made a difference to that one."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

What about the diet? Not a big fan of the Norwegian food I have had. I would move to France instead and die with a smile on my face from the food. If I was 30 years old I would move to New Zealand, but I digress ...

Norway's winters are not particularly cold, blame the Gulf Stream as long it lasts, which is a problem for also silly climate change promoters. Consider that in Tromso, with a latitude of almost 70°N the mean January temperature is -3.5°C and the coldest January day they have ever had is -18°C. It was a lot colder than that in Toronto last week at latitude 43°N. The winters are not very long but the summers are not very warm and it would be damp in winter

I live in Florida.  I get frostbite below 55 degrees.

The diet?  Well some of it is not politically correct.

Whale_1252.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bristol-Cruiser said:

What about the diet? Not a big fan of the Norwegian food I have had. I would move to France instead and die with a smile on my face from the food. If I was 30 years old I would move to New Zealand, but I digress ...

Norway's winters are not particularly cold, blame the Gulf Stream as long it lasts, which is a problem for also silly climate change promoters. Consider that in Tromso, with a latitude of almost 70°N the mean January temperature is -3.5°C and the coldest January day they have ever had is -18°C. It was a lot colder than that in Toronto last week at latitude 43°N. The winters are not very long but the summers are not very warm and it would be damp in winter

I prefer Sweden ....better vodka, better hockey, better looking women

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/15/2018 at 1:15 AM, SloopJonB said:

They wouldn't have lasted long in Norway.

The Quislings wouldnt like them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Saorsa said:

they survived on agriculture and fishing and boatbuilding before the discovery of North Sea oil.  

They had that whole viking thing going too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have our boat in Grenada now and there seem to be a very large number of Norwegian boats there, often with families rather than older couples. I guess they don't like the long, dark, damp winters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites