Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Improving Peak Oil Credibility

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 12 Feb 2018, 20:31:05

Plantagenet wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:
Image
LOOK! Oil production from US tight Oil shale is playing a role in keeping global oil production from peaking.

Cheers!

An over simplification.


How are the actual numbers showing the source of actual global oil production an oversimplification? The data is simply the data. As the chart shows, the actual data on global oil production clearly shows that US production from TOS is playing a big role right now in allowing global oil production levels to slowly increase.

vtsnowedin wrote:.... the vast reserves of Saudi Arabia , Kuwait, Iraq and Iran ....
The exact amount of those reserves is a closely guarded secret and estimates of how much KSA has left vary from a year or two to decades.


Peak Oil isn't about reserves. Peak Oil is about production rate. A country can have absolutely huge reserves, but still be quite incapable of producing them. For instance, look at the ongoing production collapse in Venezuela.


vtsnowedin wrote: Until one or more of these mega producers comes to a point where they can't increase production when they want to we will not see a real peak oil. Throw Russia into the equation and it becomes even more difficult to estimate oil supply more then a few months out. No amount of shale oil drilling could ever make up for a shortfall from the middle east.


Exactly right.

And since the known super giant fields in KSA, Russia etc. have already been producing for decades, it is inevitable that they will peak and decline, sooner rather then later, just as Cantarell in Mexico peaked and quickly declined several years ago.

In fact, there is reason to believe that Ghawar, the largest oilfield in the world, is nearing the end of its life. Its already been producing for over 50 years, and the water cut in production wells is increasing. A collapse in production at Ghawar would remove ca. 5 million bbls/day from the global oil market.....and that is an interesting thing to contemplate.

CHEERS!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20884
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 12 Feb 2018, 21:53:05

Plantagenet wrote:
How are the actual numbers showing the source of actual global oil production an oversimplification? The data is simply the data. As the chart shows, the actual data on global oil production clearly shows that US production from TOS is playing a big role right now in allowing global oil production levels to slowly increase.

It ignores the fact that KSA and others could just open the taps and make that LTO unneeded as we have just seen during the recent glut.
vtsnowedin wrote:.... the vast reserves of Saudi Arabia , Kuwait, Iraq and Iran ....
The exact amount of those reserves is a closely guarded secret and estimates of how much KSA has left vary from a year or two to decades.


Peak Oil isn't about reserves. Peak Oil is about production rate. A country can have absolutely huge reserves, but still be quite incapable of producing them. For instance, look at the ongoing production collapse in Venezuela.
While you can have reserves and not produce them a la Venezuela, without reserves no amount of effort or investment will produce anything.


And since the known super giant fields in KSA, Russia etc. have already been producing for decades, it is inevitable that they will peak and decline, sooner rather then later, just as Cantarell in Mexico peaked and quickly declined several years ago.

In fact, there is reason to believe that Ghawar, the largest oilfield in the world, is nearing the end of its life. Its already been producing for over 50 years, and the water cut in production wells is increasing. A collapse in production at Ghawar would remove ca. 5 million bbls/day from the global oil market.....and that is an interesting thing to contemplate.

CHEERS!

Interesting to contemplate but there is no hard evidence it will be sooner rather then later. Also Russia has vast areas in Siberia that have yet to be explored or developed. They perhaps will balance declines elsewhere for decades, Or not.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8471
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby spike » Tue 13 Feb 2018, 06:09:21

EIA says C+C is 81.2 mb/d, latest data. This graph seems wrong.
User avatar
spike
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon 15 Nov 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby tita » Tue 13 Feb 2018, 09:32:08

spike wrote:EIA says C+C is 81.2 mb/d, latest data. This graph seems wrong.

This graph is from 2013, and World C+C in august 2013 was at 76 mb/d.

feb 2007: World C+C (73.26) - US Shale (0.52) = 72.74 mb/d
dec 2010: World C+C (75.93) - US Shale (1.02) = 74.91 mb/d
aug 2013: World C+C (76) - US Shale (3.34) = 72.66 mb/d
oct 2016: World C+C (82.4) - US Shale (4.42) = 77.98 mb/d
sept 2017: World C+C (81.2) - US Shale (5.11) = 76.09 mb/d

source: eia, I just retreated the 0.8mb/d from the eia dpr data (permian 2007 production). So the shale numbers are not exact.

So... the graph is correct. But it is old, the world added quite a lot of C+C production outside shale since 2013. Even the US with the GOM. It's anyway impressive that around 50% of the production increase since 2007 account just from US shale. But we also have to take account of the performance of global C+C outside shale, not only replacing production from depleting fields, but also increasing it. A difficult task at a rate of 72 mb/d, made easier with a period of high prices. If the peak of conventional oil really happened as some still believe, things would be very different.

So, picking old graphs to make some point doesn't work. But it will be quite interesting to see how World C+C production will do after 3 years of low prices. The October 2016 production appears like an optimum, unreachable outside the predicted growth from US shale.
User avatar
tita
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri 10 Jun 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 13 Feb 2018, 10:43:36

tita wrote:
spike wrote:EIA says C+C is 81.2 mb/d, latest data. This graph seems wrong.

This graph is from 2013, and World C+C in august 2013 was at 76 mb/d.


Precisely. You have to read and understand the numbers on both the ordinate and abscissa to understand what the data on the graph is showing.

In this case the graph showed what happened to global oil production during the key time interval when US shale oil production grew rapidly and caused global oil production to rise, in spite of cutbacks in oil production from conventional sources.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20884
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby spike » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 07:57:15

Plantie, one problem with peak oil credibility is that monthly, short-term production fluctuates a lot and interpreting any given drop as the all-time peak has several times proven mistaken.
User avatar
spike
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 291
Joined: Mon 15 Nov 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 12:16:57

spike wrote:EIA says C+C is 81.2 mb/d, latest data. This graph seems wrong.


If you check where the graph comes from, it originates from a Happy McPeakster location. So it has probably been modified to reflect their cherry picked information and definitions of oil, they've been doing that alot as of late.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 12:20:22

tita wrote:So, picking old graphs to make some point doesn't work.


Doesn't work if you've got functioning neurons. Rarely do folks accuse peakers of having any of those.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 12:25:39

shortonsense wrote:Once PO gets painted with the crackpottery brush, convincing any regular person of its value is more than difficult.


Precognitive quote of the week, and pretty much what happened.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 12:31:58

shortonsense wrote:
mos6507 wrote: You're here to mirror JD's position in peak oil debunked, which is that peak oil is real, but nothing to worry about.


Actually, I am here because I believe that resource depletion is an important economic issue, and I am distressed that the topic is being sullied by crackpottery.


Indeed!!

This is apparently a conversation between two perma banned folks, and yet it is obvious that they had chunks of what has been going on for years now?

shortonsense wrote:Momma didn't raise no fool. I am doing just fine and dandy in THIS peak oil because I paid close attention during the LAST one.


Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you....

Image

So now we have someone who knew the jig was up...in real time to it happening, but before it became obvious to everyone else. Now it probably is worth going through this entire thread and seeing how much this person knew, because since then the world has come to realize that this peak thing is a crock, and this person was saying it first.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 3989
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 14 Feb 2018, 12:45:12

spike wrote:Plantie, one problem with peak oil credibility is that monthly, short-term production fluctuates a lot and interpreting any given drop as the all-time peak has several times proven mistaken.


Spikie, of course you are right.

Of course every short term drop in oil production shouldn't be considered to be the all time peak in oil production. Even over the long term oil production can go up and down dramatically. For instance, oil production in the US just exceeded the level it hit almost 50 years ago in 1970---. That means M. King Hubbert and many others who claimed the peak in US oil production was in 1970 were absolutely, totally and completely wrong.

Get it now?

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20884
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 15 Feb 2018, 07:29:49

Plantagenet wrote: That means M. King Hubbert and many others who claimed the peak in US oil production was in 1970 were absolutely, totally and completely wrong.


That is a gross overstatement. That seventy years of technological advancement has allowed us to improve recovery rates enough to create a second uptick in US production does not negate the validity of Kings work. He often acknowledged the possibility of such advances and the margins of error they created.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8471
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 15 Feb 2018, 11:27:05

vtsnowedin wrote:
Plantagenet wrote: That means M. King Hubbert and many others who claimed the peak in US oil production was in 1970 were absolutely, totally and completely wrong.


That is a gross overstatement. That seventy years of technological advancement has allowed us to improve recovery rates enough to create a second uptick in US production does not negate the validity of Kings work. He often acknowledged the possibility of such advances and the margins of error they created.

That's true.

OTOH, the "peak is now" club tends to often discount advances in technology, thus projecting the downward slope (when it occurs) to be steeper to much steeper than it is likely to be (even to the point of fast-crash doom, at times).

Technology gains, efficiency gains, etc. should greatly help on the downside, (just as, sadly, the constant BAU growth in population and global energy demand hastens the day the downside arrives through increased demand).

Somehow the broad strokes making the big picture often tend to get lost or discounted, IMO, in the constant bickering over peak or not, doom or not, and trying to pick a specific date for the peak. If, for example, we're on some sort of undulating plateau (which seems reasonable to me), trying to pick THE peak won't be possible until it's clear we're on the far side of the plateau. Or arguing that oil obtained via technology X "doesn't count" somehow, although the things that consume FF's don't care as long as blending occurs to handle API requirements of refineries, etc.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4619
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Thu 15 Feb 2018, 11:52:31

You start off by picking the low hanging fruit. When you can't reach any more you go get a ladder. When you have reached all you can with that ladder you go get (or build) a taller ladder but eventually you will get to the top of the tree and more or taller ladders won't help. The market gets complicated when the guy in the next orchard has more low hanging fruit to sell when you have already had to start using ladders.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8471
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 15 Feb 2018, 12:33:51

vtsnowedin wrote:
Plantagenet wrote: That means M. King Hubbert and many others who claimed the peak in US oil production was in 1970 were absolutely, totally and completely wrong.


That is a gross overstatement.


Not at all.

We've just exceeded the 1970 peak in US oil production. M. King Hubbert's claim that US oil production peaked in 1970 is incorrect.

I repeat----we are producing more oil in the US now then we did in 1970. M. King Hubbert said the US peaked in 1970 but we didn't.

Look at the numbers. The US didn't peak in 1970.....we are now producing a larger amount of oil then we did then.

More oil. Bigger number. Now more then 1970. Put the two numbers beside each other and the current number is bigger then the production number for 1970.

Its bigger now. More oil being produced now.

Bigger.

BIGGER.

B I G G E R.

B I G G E R.

B I G G E R

Image

Image

Image

CHEERS!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20884
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 15 Feb 2018, 12:37:51

Outcast - "That seventy years of technological advancement has allowed us to improve recovery rates enough to create a second uptick in US production does not negate the validity of Kings work." Yes and no. The monopolistic control of oil prices by the Texas Rail Road Commission kept the price of oil under $35/bbl from the 40's to early 70's. This was the pricing structure that Hubbard knew he was constricted with. Imagine if such control had continued until today: would and of the tech (shale production, Deep Water production, etc) exist today? Look at the chart: oil price booms (along with expensive new tech) and slumps came after the TRRC lost control of oil pricing:

https://www.google.com/search?q=inflati ... 8715219829

Oil development has existed in two very different universes for the last 70 years. Hubbard's universe disappeared in the early 70's. Not really fair to criticize him for oil development in a universe that could not be predicted when he did his analysis, is it?
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10781
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Thu 15 Feb 2018, 14:10:36

ROCKMAN wrote:Outcast - "That seventy years of technological advancement has allowed us to improve recovery rates enough to create a second uptick in US production does not negate the validity of Kings work."

Just for clarity, I agreed with this statement, but I didn't make it. That was vtsnowedin
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4619
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Plantagenet » Thu 15 Feb 2018, 15:10:54

Outcast_Searcher wrote:
ROCKMAN wrote:Outcast - "That seventy years of technological advancement has allowed us to improve recovery rates enough to create a second uptick in US production does not negate the validity of Kings work."

Just for clarity, I agreed with this statement, but I didn't make it. That was vtsnowedin


Again, I must disagree. Hubbert's work has no validity today---its proven to be wrong.

People seem to think that Hubbert's contribution was the idea of peak oil. That isn't true.

Its common knowledge that finite resources run out. Athen's silver mines were depleted 2000 years before Hubbert, numerous mines were depleted since then, and when the oil age started in Pennsylvania the shallow oil fields in Pennsylvania quickly peaked and were depleted in the 19th century. When the oil in Pennsylvania started to run out people claimed that was the peak in global oil production---and that was back in the mid-19th century!! Since then many people have predicted or claimed oil was peaking at various times due to events in Texas or other areas. But they all were wrong----just as wrong as Hubbert has turned out to be with his predictions of when oil production would peak. Oil is a finite resource and if we exploit it long enough and use it up then it will run out. Thats obvious. But determining exactly when oil production will peak remains a major question.

The reason Hubbert's claims gained more credibility then those of other people in the 19th and 20th century who claimed oil was peaking, is that Hubbert claimed that he had derived an EQUATION that allowed him to predict when oil reserves would peak and then decline. M. King Hubbert is famous for the 1970 US oil peak because he PREDICTED it in advance using his simple equation. And then he went on to predict global oil production would peak in ca. 2000 using his simple equation. I agree Hubbert's work was important---Hubbert deserves credit for being the first person to attempt to use a scientific appoach to predicting the timing of peak oil.

But now we know his equation is wrong---it actually doesn't predict future oil production. Rather then going down since 1970 as Hubbert's equation predicted, US oil production has recently exploded upwards, exceeding the 1970s peak. Similarly, Hubbert's prediction of global peak oil in ca. 2000 has been proven wrong.

Face facts--- Hubbert's claim that he could predict when oil resources on a local, national and global level would peak and decline has been proven wrong.

People really need to be honest enough to accept the facts, IMHO.

Image
M. King Hubbert said he could predict the timing of peak oil using a simple equation. He has been proven wrong.

Cheers!
"Its a brave new world"
---President Obama, 4/25/16
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 20884
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby Cog » Thu 15 Feb 2018, 16:27:51

If you say that oil decline is terminal and can never be reversed, as Hubbert did, then you have to question his assumptions and validity.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9965
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Improving Peak Oil Credibility

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 15 Feb 2018, 17:52:58

But now we know his equation is wrong---it actually doesn't predict future oil production. Rather then going down since 1970 as Hubbert's equation predicted, US oil production has recently exploded upwards, exceeding the 1970s peak. Similarly, Hubbert's prediction of global peak oil in ca. 2000 has been proven wrong.


that is incorrect, there is nothing wrong with his formula what was incorrect was the assumptions. His assumptions for total reserves were much smaller than what has been discovered and even though he noted there was already a double peak in Illinois historically he simplified the model to deal with only one peak. It is the volume of total oil that drives the peak calculation have that wrong and you can't possibly be right.

And what many either don't know or forget is that Hubberts real claim to fame was in the development (along with Rubey) a complete understanding of pore fluid pressure and how it assisted in the creation of rock failure through fracturing. It was this original work published in the fifties that lead to the basic concepts employed in fracking...which is what created the second peak in the US.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5769
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests