Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

World oil reserves and future production

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

Re: Future Production OTSF Changing Views about Peak Oil

Unread postby John_A » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 14:17:55

ROCKMAN wrote:ralfy - excellent numbers. Such projections always fail on two pivotal points IMHO. First, predicting the existence of reserves before you find them. I don't fault them for trying...that's how exploration geologists make their living. But presenting those numbers as "facts" takes the process too far IMHO.


Rock, this is EXACTLY what Hubbert did. So was it okay for him to do it because he was an expert and all (and therefore by extension real experts are allowed to do the same, USGS, Lahherrere, IEA, EIA, MMS?) or should everyone just NOT do it?
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 20:16:36

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Unread postby ralfy » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 23:55:21

John_A wrote:Where? I didn't see the chart anywhere? Just to be clear, here is the IEA chart. Just whip out the one you claim disputes it. Certainly that isn't yet another link which you may or may not have read, and then assigned conclusions to which may or may not be accurate, if someone built one of these to dispute the IEA...DO THIS:

Image

I can explain how if you don't know how.


The study and other articles are linked here:

future-production-otsf-changing-views-about-peak-oil-t68551.html#p1157024
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4817
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Future Production OTSF Changing Views about Peak Oil

Unread postby ralfy » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 23:57:17

John_A wrote:
Rock, this is EXACTLY what Hubbert did. So was it okay for him to do it because he was an expert and all (and therefore by extension real experts are allowed to do the same, USGS, Lahherrere, IEA, EIA, MMS?) or should everyone just NOT do it?


I don't think he did that, as I explained to you here:

future-production-otsf-changing-views-about-peak-oil-t68551.html#p1157023

You also missed Rockman's second point, plus others I raised previously, such as production per capita.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4817
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Unread postby John_A » Sun 04 Aug 2013, 01:14:47

ralfy wrote:The study and other articles are linked here:

future-production-otsf-changing-views-about-peak-oil-t68551.html#p1157024


Do you not know what a cost/supply curve looks like even after being provided an example, or is a person reading the posts to you in a foreign language not translating correctly, what is the deal here?

Here is the IEA cost supply curve.

Image

It explains nearly EVERYTHING required to begin a conversation on oil flowrates, origin, resource quantities, cost to consumers, you can build models on these things, make economic assumptions, disparage them at will if you discover a scientific reference calling into question a resource size, all of it.

The correct answer does not require random speculation, analysis from a blog, youtube videos, or the senseless assembly of random links on other topics. This piece of information either exists somewhere to contradict the IEA, or it does not.

If it does, just slap up a copy of it. If it does not, just cowboy up and admit it. That's it. Simple, single chart answer, doesn't even require words.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 20:16:36

Re: Future Production OTSF Changing Views about Peak Oil

Unread postby John_A » Sun 04 Aug 2013, 01:23:52

ralfy wrote:
John_A wrote:
Rock, this is EXACTLY what Hubbert did. So was it okay for him to do it because he was an expert and all (and therefore by extension real experts are allowed to do the same, USGS, Lahherrere, IEA, EIA, MMS?) or should everyone just NOT do it?


I don't think he did that, as I explained to you here:


Oh, you certainly claimed it. But were wrong. Again, this isn't something which requires the convoluted parsing you appear to substitute for analysis. Hubbert did something, and said something very specific. Says so right on his graph, which was referenced. You certainly devoted quite a bit of time trying to roll back what he wrote on his graph, certainly you didn't succeed.

You do realize that the beauty of starting with the finding of, and then utilization of, a single critical fact early in an explanation makes it much easier to comprehend for the viewing audience, and also much harder to refute. Hubbert said something very specific, and I can use exactly what he said and wrote versus those who try an reframe said fact because it doesn't fit into their random conclusion to follow. You can have, and apparently do, all the conclusions you wish Ralfy, but you don't get to make up your own facts.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 20:16:36

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Unread postby ralfy » Sun 04 Aug 2013, 23:13:17

John_A wrote:
Do you not know what a cost/supply curve looks like even after being provided an example, or is a person reading the posts to you in a foreign language not translating correctly, what is the deal here?

Here is the IEA cost supply curve.

Image

It explains nearly EVERYTHING required to begin a conversation on oil flowrates, origin, resource quantities, cost to consumers, you can build models on these things, make economic assumptions, disparage them at will if you discover a scientific reference calling into question a resource size, all of it.

The correct answer does not require random speculation, analysis from a blog, youtube videos, or the senseless assembly of random links on other topics. This piece of information either exists somewhere to contradict the IEA, or it does not.

If it does, just slap up a copy of it. If it does not, just cowboy up and admit it. That's it. Simple, single chart answer, doesn't even require words.


The IEA presented a production rate forecast and not an oil-supply cost curve in their interview with the ABC.

To recap, you argued that the the portion for fields yet to be found and fields yet to be produced are consistent with what Hubbert did. But it was explained to you earlier that Hubbert didn't do the same, and you've not responded to that.

So, where did those portions come from? Perhaps you can explain it using the oil-supply cost curve you presented?

Next, I presented Aleklett's study (not just a blog entry but a blog entry and a link to his study), and you've given no response regarding that, but Rockman did (thanks!). I've read the study, and from what I gathered, the data for currently producing fields are consistent with Hook's analysis (p. 5), but not for the other two fields (see pp. 5 to 16 for details) in terms of depletion analysis. The conclusion on p. 17 is that what the IEA presents can take place in theory given "the maximum depletion rate," but the "plateau production level" is usually lower than what is theorized.

So, how is achieving a level of production with "the maximum depletion rate" and following only URR possible? This is where I think the idea of economic growth, decreasing demand, etc., comes in, as mentioned by Aleklett in his brief comment. That is, the IEA is assuming that the global economy will grow at a significant pace, such that increased credit will allow for a theoretical production level for conventional production.

Unfortunately, even that won't be enough. As Birol points out in the interview, in order to ensure economic growth (which ironically is needed to ensure the level of production for fields yet to be discovered and yet to be found), demand for oil has to go up, and at a rate faster than what the IEA forecasts for production.

This is probably why an oil-cost supply curve isn't helpful. Increased production costs in dollars can be negated by increasing credit, and thus maintaining production levels, but it also increases demand while increasing by itself through financial speculation. Hence, a global economy with an unregulated derivatives market of around 1.2 quadrillion dollars.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4817
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Future Production OTSF Changing Views about Peak Oil

Unread postby ralfy » Sun 04 Aug 2013, 23:16:18

John_A wrote:
Oh, you certainly claimed it. But were wrong. Again, this isn't something which requires the convoluted parsing you appear to substitute for analysis. Hubbert did something, and said something very specific. Says so right on his graph, which was referenced. You certainly devoted quite a bit of time trying to roll back what he wrote on his graph, certainly you didn't succeed.

You do realize that the beauty of starting with the finding of, and then utilization of, a single critical fact early in an explanation makes it much easier to comprehend for the viewing audience, and also much harder to refute. Hubbert said something very specific, and I can use exactly what he said and wrote versus those who try an reframe said fact because it doesn't fit into their random conclusion to follow. You can have, and apparently do, all the conclusions you wish Ralfy, but you don't get to make up your own facts.


I've already pointed out the arguments and page numbers from reports by Hubbert and Aleklett. I hope you can do the same and explain what that "something" is.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4817
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Unread postby John_A » Mon 05 Aug 2013, 08:21:07

ralfy wrote:
John_A wrote:The correct answer does not require random speculation, analysis from a blog, youtube videos, or the senseless assembly of random links on other topics. This piece of information either exists somewhere to contradict the IEA, or it does not.

If it does, just slap up a copy of it. If it does not, just cowboy up and admit it. That's it. Simple, single chart answer, doesn't even require words.


Next, I presented Aleklett's study (not just a blog entry but a blog entry and a link to his study), and you've given no response regarding that, but Rockman did (thanks!).


and there was no cost/supply curve there...this isn't hard Ralfy, just grab the graphic showing the cost supply curve.

ralfy wrote:So, how is achieving a level of production with "the maximum depletion rate" and following only URR possible?


Don't know, don't care, the question was a competing cost supply curve rather than trying to get around it through text explanations which can't substitute for such a wonderfully packaged and all encompassing product.

ralfy wrote:Unfortunately, even that won't be enough. As Birol points out in the interview, in order to ensure economic growth (which ironically is needed to ensure the level of production for fields yet to be discovered and yet to be found), demand for oil has to go up, and at a rate faster than what the IEA forecasts for production.


Not interested in what Fatih said, he says all kinds of things, I'm just looking for the cost/supply curve to refute the one HIS organization put out. ASPO is bound to have one somewhere, you claimed they exist and it was just my sheer inability go read through all the unrelated links...so fine, just post the cost/supply curve and THEN you can try and weasel around what it says any way you'd like

ralfy wrote:This is probably why an oil-cost supply curve isn't helpful. Increased production costs in dollars can be negated by increasing credit, and thus maintaining production levels, but it also increases demand while increasing by itself through financial speculation. Hence, a global economy with an unregulated derivatives market of around 1.2 quadrillion dollars.


Isn't helpful...because you can't find one to compete with IEAs, even after saying you had provided it.

How about we try honesty Ralfy? The IEA provides a critical piece of information related to the potential for supply and cost spanning the next half century. It shows that we haven't produced anywhere near 50% of the resource, that the cost of supply of that resource is not very much higher than what we already pay, and now you admittedly can't find anything to demonstrate these same issues from an opposing view without launching off into a explanation exercise, because YOU need to shuck and jive, and that cost/supply curve does not.

Your opinion remains your opinion without one, this type of cost/supply curve from a major institution with capabilities far beyond your own has meaning in all the arenas necessary to discuss this issue, and you have words, with occasional forays into credit this or economic that, when NONE of those are needed.

Provide a competing cost/supply curve, THEN you can explain how your version is better than the IEAs, and why, and point to the cost/supply curve as the basis for that opinion. But without it? You have no basis, you obviously aren't an economist because you would know immediately why this is so important, particularly within Rockmans POD concept, and trying to replace it with supposition, hyperbole, superstition, and long winded and off topic explanations as to why you really have one, but won't provide it, and now admit it doesn't exist, and therefore must not be important, just don't carry any weight.
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 20:16:36

Re: Changing Views about Peak Oil over the Last 5 Years?

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 06 Aug 2013, 01:55:29

John_A wrote:and there was no cost/supply curve there...this isn't hard Ralfy, just grab the graphic showing the cost supply curve.


Because it wasn't presented by Birol when he was interviewed by the ABC. Pay attention, John.

Don't know, don't care, the question was a competing cost supply curve rather than trying to get around it through text explanations which can't substitute for such a wonderfully packaged and all encompassing product.


That is the problem: you don't know, and you don't care. This was shown in your wrong interpretation of Hubbert's report and in your failure to explain why an oil-supply cost curve is important in validating the production levels for fields yet to be found and yet to be discovered.

Not interested in what Fatih said, he says all kinds of things, I'm just looking for the cost/supply curve to refute the one HIS organization put out. ASPO is bound to have one somewhere, you claimed they exist and it was just my sheer inability go read through all the unrelated links...so fine, just post the cost/supply curve and THEN you can try and weasel around what it says any way you'd like



Actually, the supply cost curve you presented is not supposed to refute the IEA forecast for production but validate it. Or are you claiming that the curve is supposed to lead to higher production levels? If so, is there any report that you can present that shows such?

Again, what you need to look at is the IEA forecast for production and not the supply cost curve. Remember, both sets of data come from the SAME organization, but it is the former that is important because it shows production levels. Your claim that the supply cost curve explains production levels is not true. Or are you claiming that the IEA production forecast is wrong?


Isn't helpful...because you can't find one to compete with IEAs, even after saying you had provided it.



Again, you don't need a supply cost curve. In fact, that was implicit in your first reaction, when you insisted that the IEA simply follows what Hubbert did in determining forecasts for fields yet to be found, etc. Or are you now claiming that Hubbert used such curves prominently in his report?

It was only when you were proven wrong about Hubbert that you argued that the IEA supply cost curve proves their production forecast for conventional production, which flat lines for the next two decades. But you did not explain in any of your messages how the two are connected.

That's why I decided to look at what Aleklett said, which you mistakenly thought presented his analysis in a blog entry but was proven wrong. According to Aleklett, the production forecast for fields currently being used is correct, but the rest appears to follow a maximum depletion analysis and URR, which takes place theoretically.

So, you see, the next logical step is for you to show the connection between the IEA supply cost curve and the IEA production forecast. Can you do that?


How about we try honesty Ralfy? The IEA provides a critical piece of information related to the potential for supply and cost spanning the next half century. It shows that we haven't produced anywhere near 50% of the resource, that the cost of supply of that resource is not very much higher than what we already pay, and now you admittedly can't find anything to demonstrate these same issues from an opposing view without launching off into a explanation exercise, because YOU need to shuck and jive, and that cost/supply curve does not.



Can you prove that it is a "critical piece of information" by showing what the new production forecast for "the next half century" should be based on the IEA supply cost curve? The IEA presented its production forecast up to 2030 based on the same supply cost curve and shows only a 9-pct increase in energy produced from oil and gas sources.

Is the IEA forecast wrong?


Your opinion remains your opinion without one, this type of cost/supply curve from a major institution with capabilities far beyond your own has meaning in all the arenas necessary to discuss this issue, and you have words, with occasional forays into credit this or economic that, when NONE of those are needed.



One more time: the IEA has a supply cost curve, and with that, shows a 9-pct increase in energy produced from oil and gas sources until 2030.

Are you saying that the the 9-pct increase is too high, too low, or correct? Can you give reasons why?


Provide a competing cost/supply curve, THEN you can explain how your version is better than the IEAs, and why, and point to the cost/supply curve as the basis for that opinion. But without it? You have no basis, you obviously aren't an economist because you would know immediately why this is so important, particularly within Rockmans POD concept, and trying to replace it with supposition, hyperbole, superstition, and long winded and off topic explanations as to why you really have one, but won't provide it, and now admit it doesn't exist, and therefore must not be important, just don't carry any weight.


Re: Rockman's "POD concept," you might want to read this:

future-production-otsf-changing-views-about-peak-oil-t68551-20.html#p1157175

Finally, don't forget to look at oil production per capita.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4817
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Future Production OTSF Changing Views about Peak Oil

Unread postby John_A » Tue 06 Aug 2013, 10:31:05

Sorry Ralfy, still no cost curve. Maybe Aleklett will get around to it next decade? Or Hook? Amazing that they want to discuss anything about resources without one, it is a pretty basic piece of information,covers resource size and cost, hell if ECONOMISTS can figure this out, what is holding the physicists back? Or peak oil people?
45ACP: For when you want to send the very best.
John_A
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2011, 20:16:36

BP’s Twisted Timeline Of Oil And Gas’ Future

Unread postby AdamB » Wed 14 Mar 2018, 19:59:33

Spencer Dale, BP’s (NYSE: BP) group chief economist, isn’t trying to predict the future—whether it’s the doomsday scenarios of peak oil demand or the advent of electric vehicle (EV) “carmageddon.” At Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, the unabashedly candid economist presented BP’s Energy Outlook 2018, which is interwoven with what appears likely to happen and thought experiments on how badly things could go haywire. “The value of an exercise like this isn’t to predict the future, it’s to better understand the uncertainty you face,” he said. Underscoring that uncertainty, Dale addressed topics such as autonomous vehicles, peak oil, investment in oil production and tight oil volumes by saying no less than five times, “I don’t know.” That’s not necessarily a bad thing. On peak oil demand, for instance, Dale cannot see the summit out to 2040 which is “quite important,” he said. “There’s


BP’s Twisted Timeline Of Oil And Gas’ Future
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: World oil reserves and future production

Unread postby Zarquon » Sat 05 May 2018, 04:06:22

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/04/clim ... lling.html

Not sure if it's been discussed elsewhere on this board, but does anyone expect significant new discoveries in the US offshore in places where drilling has been prohibited?
Zarquon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri 06 May 2016, 19:53:46

Re: World oil reserves and future production

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 07 May 2018, 10:53:45

Z – “…but does anyone expect significant new discoveries in the US offshore in places where drilling has been prohibited?” The Rockman does not. Of course, that depends on your definition of “significant”. Decades ago stratigraphic test wells were drilled off the east coast and offshore west FL. The primary problem was the lack of sufficient oil source rocks. Same problem with PORTIONS of the US Arctic waters. The west coast obviously had oil source rocks. But we know that because of the “significant” amount of oil already produced for several decades. But unlike Deep Water GOM there is no DW west coast: only igneous rocks that far out. That Pacific subduction plate if your familiar. And speaking of DW GOM: that’s a rather mature play. Some fields left to find but over 170 fields have been discovered and developed over the last 35 years. Offshore GOM oil production has increased but I suspect that party will be winding down soon: offshore fields, especially DW, tend to deplete relatively fast.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11031
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Previous

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests