Even if true, it’s irrelevant. AMOUNT is relevant to “how much oil we have in total” but peak oil asks about something else, what’s the maximum RATE per year of extraction. Shale and tar sands have huge amounts that (in addition to environmental destruction, but even if you ignore that) come out at much much s-l-o-w-e-r rates , not many mbd (millions barrels per day) so not enough to avoid peak (time of and level of,maximum RATE of extraction)

See http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php

Even if true, it’s irrelevant. AMOUNT is relevant to “how much oil we have in total” but peak oil asks about something else, what’s the maximum RATE per year of extraction. Shale and tar sands have huge amounts that (in addition to environmental destruction, but even if you ignore that) come out at much much s-l-o-w-e-r rates , not many mbd (millions barrels per day) so not enough to avoid peak (time of and level of,maximum RATE of extraction)

See http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php

Good lordy, thank heavens for that one, we are all saved for another 40 years now aren’t we, I think not!

In the millions of years that the human race has evolved on this earth, while the oil (and coal, gas, peat, uranium….) lay beneath untouched, what does it matter if oil peaked last weak or peaks in the next decades, it is still finite isn’t it?. We will never be able to tap into the last fraction as extraction costs go up dramatically along with the CO2 emissions, it is not like the oil comes out of a convenient underground tank.

Why should we keep gulping oil up as quick as we can, wouldn’t it be better to go down the slope slowly or do you prefer the fastest possible decline and crash? Of course reducing use ASAP would mean switching extensively to renewable energy but that would be just what your Al Gore demon wants so we better do the opposite.

Good lordy, thank heavens for that one, we are all saved for another 40 years now aren’t we, I think not!

In the millions of years that the human race has evolved on this earth, while the oil (and coal, gas, peat, uranium….) lay beneath untouched, what does it matter if oil peaked last weak or peaks in the next decades, it is still finite isn’t it?. We will never be able to tap into the last fraction as extraction costs go up dramatically along with the CO2 emissions, it is not like the oil comes out of a convenient underground tank.

Why should we keep gulping oil up as quick as we can, wouldn’t it be better to go down the slope slowly or do you prefer the fastest possible decline and crash? Of course reducing use ASAP would mean switching extensively to renewable energy but that would be just what your Al Gore demon wants so we better do the opposite.

Rather than oil running out, its more a case that the energy cost to recover it is too high.

But as one finite energy source peaks, I’d expect we advance the peak date of the next finite resource we move to.

I wonder how this impacts oil from tar sands because they have a huge energy cost.

At a recent UMass Amhurst peak energy presentation, peak natural gas, uranium and even coal were all considered as happening well before 2040.

Rather than oil running out, its more a case that the energy cost to recover it is too high.

But as one finite energy source peaks, I’d expect we advance the peak date of the next finite resource we move to.

I wonder how this impacts oil from tar sands because they have a huge energy cost.

At a recent UMass Amhurst peak energy presentation, peak natural gas, uranium and even coal were all considered as happening well before 2040.