I am back to work and moving the rig this week so I have time to compose a rebuttal to Collapsenik’s allegations. First as Brokor said comparing qualifications is irrelevant to the facts of the debate. While I agree with that in principle we have to look at how Collapsenik is promoting himself. He states that "peak oilers" don't want to argue facts, yet he himself presents none. All of his posts have figures and statements that have no supporting documentation. The only links he has posted are opinion pieces with nothing to support his claims. He states that he knows what he is talking about, and by inference we should take his word for it, because of his "vast industry knowledge". So he has made it about qualifications. So let's look at that. The oil industry is known as "The Dark Industry" due to the fact that most people outside the industry really have no idea how wells are drilled, how oil is produced and marketed and they are certainly in the dark as to the infrastructure and operating structure. Whenever I am involved in a conversation with people outside the industry I always try to use analogies that they will be familiar with to explain the intricacies of our industry. For example I was recently involved in a conversation with some people who couldn't understand how engineers, who have been to college and have advanced degrees, could possibly make far less money than someone in my position who are generally lacking of any formal education. I only reference salaries to illustrate the importance of a position in relation to the overall importance to the operation. The more important the position, the higher the salary. There is a very great animosity in this industry due to that. I illustrate it this way. Imagine you have a housing developer that wants to create a new housing division. He goes to and architect who uses his education to design a house and draw up blue prints for it. He calculates the load structures and knows how far the spacing on joists has to be etc. The developer pays him a few thousand dollars for the plans. Then he hires an experienced homebuilder to build it. The builder in general lacks the formal education of the architect but he has been building houses for years and he knows how to take the blueprints and make them a reality. The first thing he does is start making changes to it. No house in history has ever been built exactly to specs. The architect can design a house but he cannot build one. The builder doesn't change anything structurally but he knows that the outlets can't go on this wall they have to go on that one, the water lines are running through the same wall as the electrical lines and that won't work. The outlets in this room are too low and need to be higher to clear the counter tops etc. So he makes the necessary changes and builds the house. The developer pays him tens of thousands of dollars for the finished product, much more than was paid to the architect. This is exactly how the oil industry works. A drilling engineer draws up a well plan and makes a drilling program. Then it is given to an experienced well driller and he makes it a reality. Then you have Production engineers that take the completed well and do the fracking and the production work to make it flow. Like a finisher would come in and install the carpet, the cabinets and appliances. Then you have a Reservoir Engineer who oversees the development, production and distribution of the field. Much like a real estate agent will start selling the houses. Each one of these jobs is an integral part of the process. But if you want to discuss the construction business, and you are using only your personal experience as your qualification and justification for your position, then who would you want to listen to? Whose experience is more relevant to the discussion? Now I have never said that I am an expert on the entire oil industry or that I have the final word on the peak oil debate. But I started this thread with the statement that I have been in the industry, on the front lines of the industry, for over 30 years and it was my first hand observation that peaked my interest in the peak oil theory. A pop quiz; What is the largest oil field ever discovered on the planet? What is the second largest field? The largest oil field in the world is the Gahwar field of Saudi Arabia. It is the field that put Saudi on the world stage as a, or the, major oil player. I was drilling wells in the Gahwar field in the 90's and have stated on here that at that time they would run the pipe line to the location before we even moved the rig in and started drilling. You could not drill a dry hole. As soon as we finished drilling the production guys would come in, perforate the pay zone and open the valve and the well would produce an average of 20,000 barrels of oil a day. And produce at that rate for years. The well would recoup the costs of drilling it and be on 100% profit after only 8 days. The rate in the U.S. at that time was an average of 8 years. Now today the Gahwar field has the largest water flood project in the world. They pump over 7 1/2 million barrels a day of sea water into it to flush out the remaining oil. The wells that are still producing are down to less than 5,000 barrels a day. That is first hand, on the battle lines info. The second largest field in the world, the Canterell, peaked in production in, IIRC, 2005 and has been losing an average of 150,000 barrels of production every year since. I have personally drilled wells in many of the big plays responsible for the recent upswing in US domestic production. I have seen them come on strong only to deplete and decline in as little as two years. These unconventional, high pressure fracked wells are not the wells we drilled in the past. Wells that you could drill for 1 or 2 million dollars and would produce oil for 20 or more years. These wells today are costing as much as 15 million dollars to drill and even with regulated and restricted flow rates they are only producing for 2 or 3 years. You constantly have to drill more wells to replace those depleting in order to keep your production rates up. And you can only drill these wells as long as the price you can sell the oil for makes it economically feasible to do so. But Collapsenik tells us from his vast experience that; "I've produced century old shale wells personally as a production engineer with an old independent in the Appalachia Basin, so do you mean "at least for a century" when you say "in just a few years"? No I mean only a few years. Those wells were drilled vertically in soft shales and are not even comparable to the tight shales we are doing high pressure fracs on today. Anyone with vast experience would know the difference. Collapsenik also says; "I was doing multi stage frac jobs in shales in the late 80's when oil was $15/bbl and making money at it, and drilling horizontals in the early 90's when prices were about the same." and; "Cost to surface in the Bakken, using horizontal wells, 20-30 frac stages, all the modern technology to develop light/tight oil runs about $25-$30/bbl depending on the geology involved. " The amount of profit per barrel is a very weak indicator for gauging the profitability of a well. The oil industry reinvests more profit back into future production than any other industry. IIRC, it is on average of .70 cents per every dollar of profit has to be put back into the exploration, drilling and producing of future wells to maintain a production rate that will make it economically feasible to continue drilling that field. You can check the links below and you will find that the estimated break even point on Bakken wells is around $60 a barrel. But breaking even doesn't drill the next well. This is firsthand knowledge from the front lines. If I want to understand warfare I would listen to the soldier on the front lines not a REMF. So we have Collapsenik who has made statements that raise red flags for anyone who is familiar with the industry. Collapsenik states that "a company man with enough experience to have been there when MWD replaced single shots." Umm. Well that is very telling as single shot surveys have never been replaced. They are used on every well drilled. A single shot survey gives you an indication of the degree of inclination at the bottom of the well. It is done with a pendulum effect that is only accurate out to about 18 degrees. It is useless in a highly deviated or a horizontal well. MWD (Measurement While Drilling), is the technology that has made accurate horizontal drilling possible. A tool is run in the drill string as close to the bit as possible. It generates data and sends it via the drilling fluid to the surface where it is captured by equipment that transmits it to a "shack" set near the rig where a couple of techno geeks, usually college kids, take the data and feed it into a computer program that gives us the inclination of the well, as well as the direction the bit is going ( in a 360 degree radius) and the azimuth to the target that we are trying to hit. This data is given to the Directional Driller who takes it and does calculations to determine if a course correction is needed to keep the well on the right path to hit the designated target zone. He then takes that to the Company Man who may or may not approve it. DD's are notorious for wanting to hit a "bullseye". We may have a 50' radius target and if I let them they will waste valuable rig time, and unnecessary twists and turns, trying to look good and hit dead on center. Many times I tell them “no we aren't going to do that”. One foot inside the target is a "bullseye". But they will be gone when the holes drilled and they won't have to fight to get the production string to bottom through all of their course corrections. Another red flag is raised when he says; "Fracture pressures of underground formations are nothing to triplex pumps and don't require any more "energy" than is needed to even run the mud systems on the drilling rigs themselves. And those ion industry have been doing that for more than a century now." OK. Where to start? Yes we have been fracking these low frac gradient wells for years. They are not the high pressure frac jobs being done in these unconventional tight shales of today. The fracs we are doing where I am now are taking up to 15,000 psi of surface pressure. Try doing that with a tri-plex rig pump and you will have parts flying around like a grenade. I have some of the largest mud pumps in the country and they are only rated at a maximum of 5,000 psi working pressure and at 7,500 psi you are in real danger of catastrophic failure. Companies like Halliburton had to develop special high pressure pump units to handle these kinds of high pressures. Those pumps were not around 20 years ago. It's like saying that a modern automobile is the same thing as a horse drawn buggy. Yeah well I guess they both have wheels. Collapsenik states later that he did indeed work for a short time as an MWD tech, probably while he was in college. Then when he got his degree he got a job as a production engineer. He says he comes home every night and gets to see his kids every day. So that tells me he works for a domestic company, probably a smaller independent producer, and manages one area that that company owns interest in. A larger domestic may have interests in a few different plays but mostly the engineers will work on one or two local fields. They sit in their cubicle and draw up plans and programs to manage, produce, and distribute oil from their particular field. So again let's put this into a perspective that more people can understand. Basically Collapsenik worked for a company that installed the toilets on the space shuttle. Then he went to work for a waste management company. He sits in his cubicle and manages the collection, treatment and disposal of the waste on the international space station. Now I am not denigrating the job. It is an important part of the program. And I appreciate anyone who holds down a job, supports their families and contributes to society. But when they claim that because of this experience they are an astronaut and we should take their word on anything to do with space travel, and that they know more than the guy who has piloted the space shuttle for years then it becomes relevant to the discussion. But let’s get to the facts. Collapsenik says that peak oilers don't like to discuss the facts. But what facts has he presented? Let's take a look. First he derides anything to do with M. King Hubbert. He makes several claims that are just flat out wrong. First he says; "Hubbert predicted peak oil in the US in 1950" Hubbert was a geologist for Shell Oil and only started his career with them in 1947. It wasn't until he published a paper in 1956 that the now famous "Bell Curve" model was ever introduced. It would have been impossible to predict a 1950 peak. The "peak" of production was not even common terminology until that time. He was illustrating a model that he had created to take into account all the known factors, and even to incorporate unknowns such as new discoveries and technologies, to determine the life span of a particular field or area. His model had been so successful in individual field predictions that he applied it to U.S. domestic production. His model showed that domestic oil production would peak in a time frame from about 1967 to 1972. In 1970 an article appeared in one of the trade papers ridiculing that "crazy geologist" who had predicted that the US would peak. US production hit the all-time high in 1971. But then in 1972 production dropped. Remember that peak oil can only be seen in the rear view mirror. You can't say "Aha, it happened today". It is not until the production rate begins to fall each year that a decline is evident. And that is exactly what happened. US domestic oil production peaked in 1972. It had a small plateau (again a term Hubbert used in his 1956 paper, contrary to another bogus claim by Collapsenik that it was made up by peak oilers) and then continued to decline until the last couple of years when this new frenzied rush to exploit new technologies allowed us to increase our production rate. But it is still nowhere near what it was at the peak in 1972. The "rosy" pictures painted by media hype were the great news that we were now producing as much as we were in 1985. My posts pointed out that you have to examine that in the proper context. In 1985 we had been in decline for over a decade. And the other "great" news story was that we would soon surpass Saudi Arabia in production. Again look at that in context. Saudi Arabia's production has been in decline for some time now and they are not producing what they once were. So the news that our return to 1985 production levels were meeting Saudi's falling production rate is not such a rosy picture after all. It is a false hope that all is well, we don't have a problem anymore, go back to sleep. Another bogus claim that raises red flags where Collapsenik is concerned is when he says that peak oil has occurred many times. He says; "I figure any other peak oils will look like past ones. Predicting them are a bit of a bore, does it really matter when the next arrives? Seems like it is more important how many MORE of them there might be?" "Whatever it is, it has happened multiple times now. It would seem that any prediction of peak oil should also answer the question why it didn't work out all the OTHER times" This is just a plain contradiction and shows a total ignorance of what peak oil is. The definition of Peak Oil is the point in a field or area where it produces the most oil it will ever produce and goes into decline no matter what is done to maintain it. If a peak occurred and was later surpassed then it wasn't a peak at all. A small plateau or even an upswing in production, if it doesn't surpass the production rate at the peak, is not proof that no peak occurred. I think he substitutes price fluctuations with "peaks". Many of his statements just do not make any logical sense at all. Prices are going down so that is proof that no peak occurred. That is just ludicrous. Another wild claim is that his vast experience tells us that producers can make a profit on oil at as little as 4$ a barrel. There is absolutely no data that even comes close to that statement. He says; "The reason why, to those of us with experience in and around the industry in 5 decades and 2 centuries now, is because operating costs (after the capital has been sunk) isn't that high…and even at $4/bbl there is usually enough cash flow to exceed OpEx" "Cost to surface in the Bakken, using horizontal wells, 20-30 frac stages, all the modern technology to develop light/tight oil runs about $25-$30/bbl depending on the geology involved." He likes to toss out the occasional oilfield terminology to bolster his credibility so let me revert to common oilfield vernacular, he's talking out his ass. He states; "Hubbert predicted peak oil in the US in 1950" No. His paper presenting his bell curve theory wasn't even published until 1956 "Other than the peak oilers had been discredited…again…as the world began to produce more oil after the 1979 global peak, and we didn't run out like the experts said we would then either." There never has been a global peak of any type in 1979. Domestic in 1972, global in 2009. The vast North Sea oilfield did peak in 1979 so maybe he is confusing that with "Global peak". He doesn't seem to have a very good grasp on the concept. Maybe the "many" peaks he refers to are the individual fields and areas that have undeniably peaked and gone into decline. "I figure any other peak oils will look like past ones. Predicting them are a bit of a bore, does it really matter when the next arrives? Seems like it is more important how many MORE of them there might be?" It is not a peak if production levels are surpassed. "Whatever it is, it has happened multiple times now. It would seem that any prediction of peak oil should also answer the question why it didn't work out all the OTHER times" Once for domestic and once for global. What other peaks is he talking about? "Global peak oil happened in 1979 or so, did it bother you much while growing up? Took about 15 years to recover back to prior levels and needed the invention of the SUV to do it." This one gives me a headache trying to decipher. SUV's? Back to prior levels. WTH are you talking about? "Oil and gas aren't energy sources" Umm, OK. No comment on that one. "Fracking has nothing to do with the lateral section of horizontal wells, horizontal wells aren't unconventional" Really? So all the reports of these high pressure frac jobs on these unconventional horizontal wells are what? Made up? Fantasy? Just because we were fracking soft rock formations and drilling horizontal wells for years before this new high pressure fracking of unconventional tight formation shales doesn't mean anything. It doesn't take "vast industry knowledge" to understand that we are talking about two very different things. I work in the "Unconventional Drilling Division" of my company's Exploration Drilling Department. I guess I should inform them that they are wrong. According to Collapsenik's vast industry experience the horizontal wells we are drilling are not unconventional. "Fracture pressures of underground formations are nothing to triplex pumps and don't require any more "energy" than is needed to even run the mud systems on the drilling rigs themselves. " Yeah, obviously has never seen a tri-plex pump blow apart from too much pressure on it. "one with experience spanning as many decades as me would know darn well that horizontals wells aren't themselves part of fracking. He would know, just as I do, that costs for drilling those horizontals has dropped in a HUGE way." Again, nope. I would expect someone with experience "spanning decades" to know that the current upswing of production is due to fracking horizontal wells in unconventional tight shales and the costs for that are astronomical. Yes they have improved somewhat with better methods but the average Bakken well costs 12-15 million dollars to drill and bring to production. Compared to 2-3 million I was spending on Vicksburg sand wells in S. Texas just 8 years ago, or the 5 million I was spending to drill and frac Haynesville Shale wells in N. Louisiana. So tell us again how costs have dropped in a "huge" way. "a company man with enough experience to have been there when MWD replaced single shots." Single shot surveys are the standard in the oilfield and have never been replaced. But I can see where an MWD techno geek, privy to only his one small part of the whole could make that erroneous assumption. "some peak oilers have an inordinate fascination with the oil and gas industry" Umm, peak oil is about the peak of oil and gas production, what other industry would a "peak oiler" be studying? " yet no one seems to notice that the same thing happened to Colin Campbell's prediction for peak in about 1989" I asked in an earlier rebuttal for a link to substantiate this claim. If true it would be the earliest instance of anyone mentioning global peak oil. Not saying it couldn't be but I never heard of anyone discussing peak oil in the '80's. Again, true to form, more statements with zero corroboration. Now I could go through these ridiculous statements one by one and show how asinine they are but he says he wants facts so let's look at the facts. Hubbert peak theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Why oil prices might not stay lower for too long - Fortune Marion King Hubbert Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Marion King Hubbert Dream of U.S. Oil Independence Slams Against Shale Costs - Bloomberg http://online.wsj.com/articles/fracking-firms-get-tested-by-oils-price-drop-1412899027 U.S. Shale-Oil Boom May Not Last as Fracking Wells Lack Staying Power - Businessweek Drill Baby Drill! The Fracking Bubble is Bursting! Arthur Berman, Shale Is Magical Thinking - Business Insider Fuel Fix » Oil slump means canceled projects as investment declines http://online.wsj.com/articles/frac...ir-own-success-1413996836?mod=dist_smartbrief Oil Producers Cramming Wells in Risky Push to Extend Boom - Businessweek Oil price falls and questions rise | TheHill Fuel Fix » Schlumberger CEO: Oil will recover, spur E&P spending This Little-Known Region Could Soon Be The World's #1 Offshore Oil Field - Yahoo Finance Peak oil in a nutshell - Here comes the nutcracker Break-Even Points for U.S. Shale Oil - Bloomberg Oil at $80 a Barrel Muffles Forecasts for U.S. Shale Boom - Bloomberg Predictions Of 'Peak Oil' Production Prove Slippery Fuel Fix » WTI rebound above $80 holds as Goldman Sachs sees no oil glut Oil tankers to China jump to nine-month high amid crude rout Shale Drillers Feast on Junk Debt to Stay on Treadmill Shale Drillers Feast on Junk Debt to Stay on Treadmill - Bloomberg OPEC Finding U.S. Shale Harder to Crack as Rout Deepens http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323997004578642391718255534 As Oil Prices Drop, Canadian Oil Sands May Be Wasted Investment As Oil Prices Drop, Canadian Oil Sands May Be Wasted Investment - NASDAQ.com He claims that many peaks have come and gone. And that the peak predicted by Hubbert never materialized. And that someone was predicting a peak in 1989. He also says that "Global Production" peaked in 1979. Here are the facts. U.S. domestic production peaked in 1972 and we have never been able to reach that level again. We were in a steady decline for 4 decades until we began to increase our production rates due to new high pressure fracking methods used in unconventional hard shale formations that horizontal drilling has allowed us to tap in to. But we are still nowhere near our peak production and with the short lives of these wells and the high cost of drilling them we are not likely to ever reach that level again. So that was the peak. Global production reached its peak in 2009 and we have been in decline every year since. And nothing we have done has brought us back to that level. I have done some research on Collapseniks online profile and it is quite telling. He seems to be the David Mabus of the peak oil boards and peak oil is his "Amazing Randy Challenge". For those who don't know David Mabus is a well-known, one topic poster who trolls forums and mass posts very disjointed diatribes against this "Amazing Randy" and his debunking of paranormal phenomena. Collapsenik, as he has done on this forum, only posts on peak oil boards and forums. He has made no other contribution to this forum. He posts his opinions and beliefs with no outside corroboration or resources. It seems to be his mission in life to debunk peak oil. His windmill that he tilts at on any forum that allows him to post in. He is the Gunkid of the PO world. I don't mind someone with a different perspective. Someone who will debate the merits of any topic. I have had many very in depth, and really quite enjoyable debates on here with people of completely different mindsets and philosophy’s than mine. But when someone comes on and starts to spout nothing that can be confirmed, only his personal bias, and then tell us that we should accept his view because of his vast experience, that turns out not to be that vast after all, then that I have to counter. And especially when they imply that I have no knowledge of the topic and my opinions or observations are not reliable. All I can say to that is if the toilet backs up, I'll call you. This is not a peak oil board. This site is dedicated to survival and prepping. We discuss many potential threats and how we can prepare for them. Climate change, social upheaval, societal collapse, worldwide pandemic. Peak Oil is another scenario that we need to be aware of and to be prepared for. Will the direst predictions come true? Maybe, maybe not. The prudent path as in all things is to take the middle road. The truth lies probably somewhere in the middle between the direst doom and gloom and the cornucopian all is well philosophy. The preppers motto is always to” prepare for the worst, pray for the best”. Nothing Collapsenik has posted, here or anywhere else, does anything to help people to do that. He is a one track poster who as I said seems to have made it his life’s mission to debunk anything about peak oil. I would say that the mission has been an unmitigated failure. In my mind he is a troll and has no valid contribution to the topic and I have wasted the last of my time refuting his diatribes. The truth is that both our own domestic production and now world production has peaked and has been in severe decline for years. The hoopla around this recent upswing in production is dangerous if not looked at in a critical light. If it is sustainable, and that doesn't look to be very likely, and it continues to rise, to a level over that reached by domestic production in 1972 and world production in 2009 only then will those two peaks prove to have not been peaks at all. And that is great. Cheap fuel built this nation and our entire economy is dependent on cheap fuel. But to adopt the attitude that there is no such thing as peak oil, that we will always have affordable fuel, that our lives will never be affected by falling production rates is nothing more than sticking your head in the sand. If you can't see it, it doesn't exist. I quoted Matt Savinar on here before "Deal with reality or reality will deal with you". Does that mean that we will soon be seeing all the dire predictions? All the worst case scenarios? Will we soon be seeing millions of people drop dead from uncontrolled viral infections? Will we see people starving due to worldwide crop failures? Will we see citizens rounded up and put in camps by an out of control tyrannical government? Will we see rioting in the streets due to a worldwide financial collapse? These are the things we look at it here. These are the things we talk about and prepare for. Some are more convinced of the possibility of one or more of those scenarios than others are. Some are more passionate about prepping for it than others may be. But to try to convince the members here that there is nothing to worry about and you are wasting your time thinking about it, preparing for it. That is a dangerous mindset to have and certainly a dangerous one to promote. If Collapsenik wants to debate certain aspects of the peak oil scenarios or have a discussion on the topic, I welcome that. But all I have seen on here and the other boards he frequents is a running diatribe against anything he personally doesn't believe in. And he presents no corroborating evidences to support his claims. And to be blunt a lot of his claims and statements are pure BS. I am waiting for the tactical wheelbarrow discussion to start. Or maybe the tactical oil drum.