[thuja]

^
When I say "non-peak oiler" I mean someone who doesn't think oil production will peak any time in the foreseeable future. Or if it does, it will peak because a better alternative has been found.

Who knows - maybe they'll perfect a viable electric car someday and develop fusion power, and therefore oil production will decline because oil demand will decline. A "non-peak oiler" might hold a view like that. And/or perhaps they believe there is still another several trillion barrels of recoverable oil left in the ground, and therefore we don't have to worry about oil production peaking for a very, very long time.

Oil-finder I'm afraid you are very alone on this issue- when you say we don't have to worry about oi production peaking for a very very long time I wonder about how much research you have done on this issue. Even the most conservative folks suggest that we have a couple decades at best and most people who are realistic say we are in the plateau phase right now and perhaps have only a few years to go before serious declines set in.

So we're talking a range of 15-20 years between hardcore "doomers" and wild-eyed idealists. 20 years. Not a very very long time. In that view you will find next to no one...because there is no way that can be emprically validated. Again- Chevron, BP, even Exxon, the IEA, even CERA, are acknowledging imminent Peak Oil. Its not a question of when, its a question of impact...

If you want to be a good cornucopian, read some of John Denver's posts. He believes we can transition to an electric/nuclear world in the time we have left.

But the idea that oil production will not peak for a very very long time? I'm afraid you need to research the topic a bit more.

[Oil-Finder]

thuja, as I said I am very well versed on this from many debates on other internet forums. I've been doing this for at least 3-4 years.

No, CERA does not believe the peak is "imminent," in fact they say it's more like 30-40 years. I suspect that's also the case with some of the others on your list.

[thuja]

thuja, as I said I am very well versed on this from many debates on other internet forums. I've been doing this for at least 3-4 years.

No, CERA does not believe the peak is "imminent," in fact they say it's more like 30-40 years. I suspect that's the case with some of the others on your list.

I'm sorry did you read the page you sent me? Here's a quote...

"The new report describes CERA’s liquids supply outlook as “not a view of endless abundance.” However, based on a range of potential scenarios and field-by-field analysis, CERA finds that not only will world oil production not peak before 2030"


2030. That's 22 years away. And CERA are the most "wild eyed" optimistic of the bunch. Again. Not a very very long time. Have another citation?

[JohnDenver]

most people who are realistic say we are in the plateau phase right now and perhaps have only a few years to go before serious declines set in.

I have yet to see any credible evidence that "serious declines" are likely in the near future.

It's true that peak oilers widely believe oil production will collapse very soon (in the next few years), but that's likely due to the fact that they want it do so, as Oil-finder's poll shows. The hard evidence for a near-term steep decline is basically non-existent.

[Oil-Finder]

I'm sorry did you read the page you sent me? Here's a quote...

"The new report describes CERA’s liquids supply outlook as “not a view of endless abundance.” However, based on a range of potential scenarios and field-by-field analysis, CERA finds that not only will world oil production not peak before 2030"


2030. That's 22 years away. And CERA are the most "wild eyed" optimistic of the bunch. Again. Not a very very long time. Have another citation?

It is you who did not read it.

It says, "oil production not peak before 2030." In other words, it will peak after 2030. 22 years is just a bare minimum, after which production will plateau for quite a while.

This is hardly the "imminent" scenario you depicted them as saying.

[joewp]

I said "No", but really I don't have any choice. It's gonna happen whether we want it or not.

[thuja]

It is you who did not read it.

It says, "oil production not peak before 2030." In other words, it will peak after 2030. 22 years is just a bare minimum, after which production will plateau for quite a while.

This is hardly the "imminent" scenario you depicted them as saying.

Really don't want to argue over the date of "Peak". Its a tired subject- but...

CERA have been backpedalling as of late and are inching towards a much closer date- but if you look at the graph it shows a peak at the latest around 2037- (30 years).

Is that what is making you a cornucopian- that you're hoping for 30 years of time left? By the way- CERA believes we will discover 5 more Saudi Arabia sized discoveries...who knows? Maybe we'll find that creamy nugget of ever-replenishing oil as well.

Most solid minds (and that includes the heads of the major oil comapnies)- see a much more imminent peak- but really we are getting way from things.


The issue is that you said that you are "someone who doesn't think oil production will peak any time in the foreseeable future." And I said even the silliest of the bunch, CERA, believe that we will be peaking soon- they used to say things like you said and now they are qualifying with the 2030 thing- its inching up closer each time they have a press release.

So- again- if you want to be cornucopian, say something like...

"My guess is that we have hopefully a couple decades left of increasing oil production. That is ample time for us to build lots of nuclear plants and switch to an electric grid that will support a new fleet of electric transportation."

That's a fine place to start debate. JD does this a lot. I'd say it borders on immensely unlikely but still in the realm of the possible. But- saying that you are "someone who doesn't think oil production will peak any time in the foreseeable future." That's just ludicrous I'm afraid and even CERA wouldn't agree with you.

[thuja]

most people who are realistic say we are in the plateau phase right now and perhaps have only a few years to go before serious declines set in.

I have yet to see any credible evidence that "serious declines" are likely in the near future.

It's true that peak oilers widely believe oil production will collapse very soon (in the next few years), but that's likely due to the fact that they want it do so, as Oil-finder's poll shows. The hard evidence for a near-term steep decline is basically non-existent.

I should make myself more plain when I say serious declines- by that I mean anywhere from 2-4% per year. That may not seem like much but will add up to a sh!tstorm wiothin a few years when you couple it with increased demand.

You overstate your case when you say we believe that production will "collapse". Most say we are in an undulating plateau phase that might last a few more years. Then we are likely to see the decline-

To remind you- IN the 70's the Saudis took about 5% of oil production off the market and the world went into a recession marked by serious inflation and high interest rates throughout the 70's. 5 %.

Now take 3% off the market year after year after year. Not a collapse...a steady and persistent decline...and god forbid we decline at the rate that the North Sea fields have...

Now that would be a collapse of monumental proportions....

[Oil-Finder]

thuja-

Well this is getting off-topic.

I never got the impression that the graph on CERA's link was supposed to be taken literally, bump-for-bump. They show a period until around 2030 or so when production will increase, and then after wards it will be an "undulating plateau." Some of those "undulations" could be new peaks sometime after 2030.

I don't find it too hard to believe they can find 5 new Saudi Arabia's. In fact, if you include unconventional sources, I can find you much more than that.

But I'll save that for another thread.

[Revi]

Peak oil is already ocurring. I think that we could live just as good a life with a lot less oil, if we wanted to. Some will adapt, and a lot won't. I am a bit distressed at how badly my country is managing the transition, but with new leadership we might be in a better position.

I voted no on the question, but I think that whether we want it to occur isn't what matters.

I am pretty sure that the captain of the Titanic wouldn't have chosen the iceberg.

What matters now is the grace with which we deal with the calamities that are sure to befall all of us.

[thuja]

thuja-

Well this is getting off-topic.

I never got the impression that the graph on CERA's link was supposed to be taken literally, bump-for-bump. They show a period until around 2030 or so when production will increase, and then after wards it will be an "undulating plateau." Some of those "undulations" could be new peaks sometime after 2030.

I don't find it too hard to believe they can find 5 new Saudi Arabia's. In fact, if you include unconventional sources, I can find you much more than that.

But I'll save that for another thread.

Well we don't get too many folks who believe the CERA folks here so again- kudos to you for sticking around. I don't know if even JD believes CERA info. and he has been the most ardent non-believer here...

Anyways- as I said- we're quibbling over a few years---a blip---

And yeah the evidence is stacking up rather neatly towards a much more imminent peak. We have been in an "undulating plateau" since about 2004. We may be able to strecth out a few more million but going from 84 mbd to 130 mbd as CERA suggests? Pretty fantastic...

Anyways like I said- we're quibbling over a few years when the fact remains- Peak Oil is a geological given- and is certain within a short space of time.

You want to argue the merits of nuclear, electric transportation, efficiency...then sure...

But believeing that adequate oil will be produced for a very very long time...

Time to change that line of reasoning. Its not going to help you win any rational arguments...

[JohnDenver]

I should make myself more plain when I say serious declines- by that I mean anywhere from 2-4% per year.

Where did you get those numbers? What sort of proof do you have that world production must decline at that rate? World oil production might plateau for 15 years, and then decline at 1% a year. How do you know it won't? What hard evidence do you have to rule that out?

[thuja]

I should make myself more plain when I say serious declines- by that I mean anywhere from 2-4% per year.

Where did you get those numbers? What sort of proof do you have that world production must decline at that rate? World oil production might plateau for 15 years, and then decline at 1% a year. How do you know it won't? What hard evidence do you have to rule that out?

Well some very smart minds have been contemplating it. Here's some links:

A little complex but a good read...he discusses production erosion and its effects:
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/oil ... 2007B.html

You can also find it at
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3203

with discussion afterward. As you can see I am being generous with the 2 % figure and lets hope we don't veer into the 6 % realm...it really would be horrific...so fast...

BUT JD I know there is nothing you will believe in this regard so we will just have to disagree. As I said to Oil-finder- the best best case scenario, outlined by CERA, still will be Peak and Decline Oil within a few decades...

No GetOutofJailFree card here...

[Oil-Finder]

Well some very smart minds have been contemplating it. Here's some links:

A little complex but a good read...he discusses production erosion and its effects:
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/oil ... 2007B.html

You can also find it at
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3203

Those are just production declines from existing fields, not total worldwide oil production declines. Contrary to popular belief, there *are* new oil production projects coming online.

[thuja]

Well some very smart minds have been contemplating it. Here's some links:

A little complex but a good read...he discusses production erosion and its effects:
http://www.321energy.com/editorials/oil ... 2007B.html

You can also find it at
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3203

Those are just production declines from existing fields, not total worldwide oil production declines. Contrary to popular belief, there *are* new oil production projects coming online.

Production erosion is at the base of the discussion of decline rates. We need new production to make up for declining fields. Read on to the comments section at the oildrum site. They specifically discuss how this relates to decline rates.

Take a look at this site and read it through to have a better understanding of Peak Oil...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

Here is an excerpt...

World oil production growth trends, in the short term, have been flat over the last 18 months. Global production averaged 85.24 mbbl/d in 2006, up 0.76 mbbl/d (0.9%), from 84.48 mbbl/d in 2005.[51] Production in Q3 2007 was 85.08 mbbl/d, down 0.62 mbbl/d (0.7%), from the same period a year earlier. Average yearly gains in world oil production from 1987 to 2005 were 1.2 mbbl/d (1.7%), with yearly gains since 1997 ranging from -1.4 mbbl/d, (-1.9%; 1998-1999) to 3.3 mbbl/d (4.1%; 2003-2004).[51]

Of the largest 21 fields, about 9 are already in decline.[52] Mexico announced that its giant Cantarell Field entered depletion in March, 2006,[53] as did the huge Burgan field in Kuwait in November, 2005.[54] Due to past overproduction, Cantarell is now declining rapidly, at a rate of 13% per year.[55] In April, 2006, a Saudi Aramco spokesman admitted that its mature fields are now declining at a rate of 8% per year, and its composite decline rate of producing fields is about 2%

[Oil-Finder]

Of the largest 21 fields, about 9 are already in decline.[52] Mexico announced that its giant Cantarell Field entered depletion in March, 2006,[53] as did the huge Burgan field in Kuwait in November, 2005.[54] Due to past overproduction, Cantarell is now declining rapidly, at a rate of 13% per year.[55] In April, 2006, a Saudi Aramco spokesman admitted that its mature fields are now declining at a rate of 8% per year, and its composite decline rate of producing fields is about 2%

Yes, and once again, these are declines in existing fields.

What about new fields?

Here is a chart showing supply additions from various oil megaprojects throughout the world:


Source

And that's only from certain "megaprojects," it does not even include many, many smaller projects.

[thuja]

Those new projects are wonderful, because they offset the rapid declines happening in the major fields. But as you can see by the flattening of worldwide production, its getting harder and harder for those new projects to keep up with the rapid decline.

If it weren't for these new projects, we would experience a dramatic worldwide decline rate. That was the point of the article I suggested reading. For example, Cantarell- one of the largest fields in the world, is declining at a 13% rate per year. There are only a few of these big boys in the world. Another is Burgan in Kuwait (declining) and Ghawar in Saudi Arabia (most likely declining).

We have not made a discovery of a massive field like these for decades. We are now exploting a lot of smaller fields and working on the harder to access and more difficult to refine fields.

All of this leads to some very scary prospects. Like I said, if it weren''t for those new fields you are talking about we may be looking at decline rates in the double digits.

[wisconsin_cur]

Concerning the... difficulty of putting together hard numbers for the mega projects please check out this oil drum article.

However, a number of people suggested to us in email that an additional confounding factor is that the megaproject lists we were relying on had enough issues that one should hesitate to draw conclusions from them. Although the jury is still out on this question, there does seem to be some evidence for the idea. It would be understandable - maintaining a megaproject list is a mammoth task for any one person in their spare time.

As a result, Khebab and I decided last week to start an open megaprojects list. We're doing this in the form of a Wikipedia page, since

* The Wikipedia already has collaborative editing facilities, allowing anyone motivated to help fix and extend the list
* it makes the list broadly accessible, since it's of potentially general and lasting importance
* it helps us move in the direction of improving Wikipedia coverage of peak oil (by enlarging the corpus of TODers that know how to work on Wiki pages something Ransu urged last week).

You can see our effort so far over at the Wikipedia. Be warned that the page is presently in active construction; it's incomplete, inconsistent, and changing very frequently. In particular, at the time of writing, we are ranked #88 for most actively edited Wikipedia pages at wikirage.

In the interest of full disclosure the article goes on to say that understating of new projects has, in the past, been a problem.

The overall problem seems to be that the data that is out there is unreliable. It isn't that new finds can not put off peak for a while but that we don't really know if they will or not. I don't know how to parse the odds in an atmosphere of unreliable data.

As a consequence is it more prudent to prepare for an imminent energy decline that may not happen or whistle into a decline that may happen? Perhaps I am too risk averse. I would rather be prepared for an imminent decline since even a later decline is still possible within my life time.

[Oil-Finder]

We have not made a discovery of a massive field like these for decades.

Actually, that's not true.

But we'll save that for another thread.

[dinopello]

I think the problem is when you assign and figure in a probability for each of those new production events in the timeframe predicted, it turns out to not be all that much in the scheme of things.