Let's Discuss Peak Oil For A Change

[Keith_McClary]

with the peak value shown as 81.73 million barrels, with the EIA, among others, listed as a source.
To the average person, and taking into consideration that honesty prevails in our social fabric, the pretty graph above can easily be viewed as the truth, and the need to question the facts behind the picture is not very apparent.

But for starters, world oil production in 2008 was 85,494,789, barrels according to the Energy Information Administration.

Before making accusations of dishonesty, the writer should have checked the sources of the graphs. The difference is probably due to including biodiesel, synthetic oil from coal, etc. in the definition of "oil".

[John_A]

Since PO has been nearly devoid of peak oil discussion, I feel compelled to post this article from Seeking Alpha discussing how 2010 was not a peak for petroleum production. I hope this re-kindles the po discussion, but at the very least, it will start the ad homs flowing again.
Seeking Alpha

Peak oil happened in 2006.

http://www.good.is/post/international-e ... d-in-2006/

It was awful. But practically speaking, it hasn't been able to stop a damn NASCAR race, so of course the concentration has been on cooler stuff, politics, the weather, natural disasters, and different flavors of financial pontification.

The idea that we might actually start talking about peak oil again is so..alien..?

[kublikhan]

Hey Kub, why don't you address the numbers being presented. You know, the same numbers
my buds rocdoc and oilfinder so patiently present week after week.

What numbers are you talking about? Are you trying to prove to me peak oil did not happen in year x? I never said it did. Peak oil will only be know for sure many years after it happens. Pointing at a failed prediction date and laughing does not invalidate peak oil theory. Anymore than throwing a pie in the air and declaring gravity does not exist invalidates gravitational theory. Eventually it is going to come back to smack you in the face.

[peeker01]

Ah-ha, the old pie in the face theory! Now I get it.

[John_A]

Peak oil will only be know for sure many years after it happens.

That sure isn't how Hubbert did it. He called it 15 years in advance. Well. One anyway. But if the bell shaped curve has any predictive power whatsoever, you should be able to predict peak at least a few years in advance. Like Deffeyes did, using Hubbert's method.

Pointing at a failed prediction date and laughing does not invalidate peak oil theory.

True. Claiming it can only be predicted after the fact does that.

[peripato]

Since PO has been nearly devoid of peak oil discussion, I feel compelled to post this article from Seeking Alpha discussing how 2010 was not a peak for petroleum production. I hope this re-kindles the po discussion, but at the very least, it will start the ad homs flowing again.
Seeking Alpha

One, the production figures quoted are for All Liquids. A lot of that stuff is not oil.
Two, counting reserves is spurious. It's production figures that matter.
Three, the EIA is a politicized American government agency, just like all the others, so it pretty much lies all the time.

Peak Oil was confirmed IEA head Fatih Birol on April 28, 2011, who said in this interview on the Australian science show Catalyst, that conventional crude oil production peaked in 2006.

Growth is now being sustained by bogus and expensive non-oils; tar sands, natural gas liquids and biofuels.

Which leads to point Four; the laws of physics trump denial and all bullshitting, which is reflected in $100 a barrel oil (er, or is that Liquids?)

What peak oil looks like...

[peeker01]

Good post. Nice to see someone who is willing to even consider the numbers.....
But let me ask you this. Is a car going down the street on deep oil or shale oil or propane on CNG any different from shallow oil? Hubbert struck out in 1995. What's the point in trying to prove a defunct theory? It's over. If we see supply peak sometime in the future, so what? If it includes deep gas or oil, it's not Hubbert.

[Carlhole]

I'm going to throw this thread off on a bit of a tangent, the only reason I'm doing so is because I received a PM about it. I was originally going to reply directly via the PM, but perhaps this will be read and appreciated by others. Apologies if this tangent annoys you. ...
I'm willing to discuss things further via PM but this thread isn't the place to continue any discussions on this matter.
FoT

I always liked the way he signed off of here.

...and an excellent source of quickly getting the knowledge that FoT is talking about is this.

[peripato]

Good post. Nice to see someone who is willing to even consider the numbers.....
But let me ask you this. Is a car going down the street on deep oil or shale oil or propane on CNG any different from shallow oil? Hubbert struck out in 1995. What's the point in trying to prove a defunct theory? It's over. If we see supply peak sometime in the future, so what? If it includes deep gas or oil, it's not Hubbert.

Hubbert's curve is reflecting basic physics, so in what way, exactly, has this been made defunct?

That other s*** is expensive, dirty and hard to produce. If you look at this IEA graph from 2010, you'll notice a growing gap between all this bogus stuff and conventional oil which just gets worse and worse. Try running your car of the future under those conditions.

[John_A]

Good post. Nice to see someone who is willing to even consider the numbers.....
But let me ask you this. Is a car going down the street on deep oil or shale oil or propane
on CNG any different from shallow oil?

It doesn't matter in the least. If a consumer has a car fueled by gasoline, he/she doesn't care if that gasoline comes from conventional, sweet light, California heavy, Venezuelan extra-heavy, natural gas liquids, or cougar crap and donkey dung. As long as they can attach that hose to their tank, pump some in, and drive away, it is irrelevant. This distinction in the peak oil community is a red herring designed to cover up the transition to fuels created from other stuff. The instant peakers find out you can build fuels from all sorts of stuff, well, holy bejesus would they flip out.

Hubbert struck out in 1995. What's the point in
trying to prove a defunct theory? It's over. If we see supply peak sometime in the future,
so what? If it includes deep gas or oil, it's not Hubbert.

Hubbert, Smubbert. Peak oil happened, nobody noticed, lets all talk about Obama!

[John_A]

Hubbert's curve is reflecting basic physics, so in what way, exactly, has this been made defunct?

Hubbert's curve has not much of anything to do with physics. I open the faucet in the sink, measure how much water comes out over time, and pretend that this past rate will predict how much will flow through the valve in the future? What if I've choked back a water canon? What if I do this to the flow through a straw, and you don't take into account how many more straws my factory can make?

Yeah, not much to do with physics.

[peripato]

Hubbert's curve is reflecting basic physics, so in what way, exactly, has this been made defunct?

Hubbert's curve has not much of anything to do with physics. I open the faucet in the sink, measure how much water comes out over time, and pretend that this past rate will predict how much will flow through the valve in the future? What if I've choked back a water canon? What if I do this to the flow through a straw, and you don't take into account how many more straws my factory can make?

Yeah, not much to do with physics.

You have a finite resource, you tap it, it declines. The more or less you draw it down affects how quickly so. Seems pretty basic to me.

[peeker01]

1995

[peripato]

1995

???

[Keith_McClary]

This distinction in the peak oil community is a red herring designed to cover up the transition to fuels created from other stuff. The instant peakers find out you can build fuels from all sorts of stuff, well, holy bejesus would they flip out.

Peakers have long said that it will be difficult to ramp up alternatives fast enough once the decline starts. Of course we're aware of the "other stuff", it's a question how long it will take for the technologies to mature and contribute significant quantities, and how high energy prices will have to go to attract the necessary investment.

[John_A]

You have a finite resource, you tap it, it declines.

Actually, first it goes up. Then it declines. Or maybe it goes up, and stabilizes? For years. And then declines. And the increases again. And then increases alot! And then declines. And declines some more. And then goes up some more!
It isn't quite so simple as Hubbert demonstrated I think.

The more or less you draw it down affects how quickly so. Seems pretty basic to me.

Me too. Well, except for all the ups, and downs, and trying to calculate in advance which ones matter, which ones don't, how long a trough can go on, is it a peak or a plateau. The combinations might be endless!

[Keith_McClary]

Actually, first it goes up. Then it declines. Or maybe it goes up, and stabilizes? For years. And then declines. And the increases again. And then increases alot! And then declines. And declines some more. And then goes up some more!

Get out your crayon and draw a curve of future production like that. You will find that the area under the curve represents much more oil than experts think is recoverable. But, what do they know.

[babystrangeloop]

Global oil production increased by 1.8 million b/d in 2010 or 2.2%
BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2011 / Oil Section

In 2010, world oil production grew by 1.8 Mb/d and surpassed the level reached in 2008. Growth was the largest since 2004 and was divided evenly between OPEC and non-OPEC. ...

Anybody who glances at the 2008 - 2010 data will see what an utter misrepresentation those statements are.

full excel workbook from 1965-2010 (almost 2 MB)

Total world oil production in thousand barrels per day and million tonnes

Code: Select all

Year Barrels Tonnes
2008  82015  3933.7
2009  80278  3831.0
2010  82095  3913.7


Tonnes fell from 2008 to 2010 by 20 while barrels increased by 80? Must be lite crude. Hooray for supreme growth!

[dissident]

That IEA graph is hilarious. Magic undiscovered will increase perfectly in the next 25 years to produce a flat crude oil production. The graph actually admits that the peak happened around 2005 and we are declining in crude oil production already. All the talk about plateau is a confusion about natural gas liquids and unconventional. Moving the goal posts serves only to obfuscate.

But politicians actually can't tell the difference. Here in Canada, the Harper regime thinks that Canada is the new Saudi Arabia because of the tar sands. Funny how the forecast of 5 million barrels per day of synthetic crude production by 2020 has fallen to 3 million. The global oil Titanic is sinking and Canada's drop in the bucket is not going to make it super rich when it can't even supply itself. That's right, eastern Canada *imports* 1.3 million barrels per day and Alberta's synthetic crude (from the bitumen sands) goes to the USA. As global oil production falls together with domestic production in the USA, Canada will be a one province export joke. The Canadian government can't even tax the tar sands properly since Alberta's provincial politicians threaten to secede. The stink over national energy program when Trudeau was prime minster was incredible. Since the federal government panders to Quebec "sovereignty" all the other provinces get a windfall of power.

[Pops]

If anyone is interested in an article without the ad hom, Gail has an outline of one pending publication in the journal Energy here, it's basically the same info as her 2 previous posts on peak energy and peak debt here and here. I think they were also posted on TOD and picket up on quite a few blogs.

As for peak oil in general the facts are obvious,
Cheap conventional oil production has peaked and is in decline. Simply observe the price for evidence.

Expensive oil is the only available substitute. Simply observe the price for evidence.

In the "developed" economies built on cheap conventional oil, rationing by price is obvious in falling demand for the last several years. Rationing is rationing whether it's by licensee plate number or available budget.

Falling demand is corresponding with severe economic problems in developed countries. The prolonged recession/depression along with commodity inflation - "sgaflation" can be at least in part credited to the higher price of energy over the last decade and it's effect on consumption and the inability of economies to rebound.

One item most notable in food price is the effect of oil price on ethanol production and commodity prices across the board from milk to beef to Cheerios. The basics of food and energy are eating into other spending and increased exporting of dollars to oil producing countries is reducing available dollars even more. Not hard to understand why the economy is stagnant.


I guess one can choose to ignore all that for the sake of argument and poking doomers in the eye, not sure about any other reason.