[copious.abundance]

Doomers are going to be using the lack of EIA data as an excuse to claim crude & condensates are still plateauing, even 5, 10 or more years from now, even if IEA close-proximates are clearly showing and end to the bumpy plateau and a clear leg upward. It's as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.

[meemoe_uk]

>How does a normally linear economic supply/price model fail so easily?
Because if oil supply hits it's maximum industrial capacity, it takes nearly a decade to bring oil from new wells from initially hostile countries ( e.g Iraq ) to the market.
You seem to be under the impression that if oil prices go up one month, next month swaths of new wells magically appear over oil fields around the world to keep the supply-price graph in check.

>Your continued ignorance of the fact that statistically we are on a plateau is surprising. Constant focus on such tiny increases in production is causing you to lose the forest for the trees.
There hasn't been in history a sustained increase in supply that didn't start with successive small increments. But now the only rise in supply you are willing recognise is what? An over night jump up of 10Mbpd?

[dolanbaker]

I get the impression that this jump in production is simply down to a bunch of projects that were started during the 2008 price spike, all coming on stream at the same time. If so then should we expect a sharp decline when they come to an end in the next year or so?

[dorlomin]

I get the impression that this jump in production is simply down to a bunch of projects that were started during the 2008 price spike, all coming on stream at the same time. If so then should we expect a sharp decline when they come to an end in the next year or so?

Oil megaprojects

The bull run of the entire 2000s decade probibly made the funding for thse available. 3-5 year lead times seems about the norm though the Khazak megaproject that is coming online now has been in the works for about 10 years.

09 and 10 had just shy 5 million new barrels come online. Nearly ten million barrels over 2 years and we barely squeak above the record. 8 million barrels over the next three years.

Time. We just wait.

[FarQ3]

Hang on a minute meemoe

Mindlessly opposing cornys, ignoring EIA and IEA data when it doesn't support you assertions

Didn't Fatih Birol, chief economist at the IEA state very recently that peak oil occured in 2006.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3201781.htm

And you acuse peak oilers of ignoring the IEA

You'd reckon the chief economist of the worlds leading authority on energy security would have some an idea about this issue It's not that you have to believe what he says as everything must be analysed with an open mind. But you must admit that what Fatih Birol said sounds much more like what many on this site already believe and not much at all like what you and OF2 have been flapping your wings about.

[meemoe_uk]

Fatih Birol "We think that the crude oil production has already peaked in 2006 "

The IEA figures obscure world crude production in their figures. The best that can be done is get world crude and none-opec NGLs combined which is a good proxy to crude.

I notice you didn't include Fatih's figures in your post farq3. I wonder why?

from http://omrpublic.iea.org/archiveresults ... full+issue
Fatih Birol's figures for oil supply 2006 and 2010
by year
2006 - 85.19Mbpd
2010 - 87.30Mbpd
More than 2Mbpd increase

by highest quarter
2006 (3rd ) - 85.52Mbpd
2010 ( 4th ) - 88.3Mbpd
More than 2.7Mbpd increase

Don't bother coming running up to me whining that it's not exclusively crude, phone Fatih Birol, it's his crazy idea not to explict crude.

Fatih Birol's words don't match his agencys figures.
But if I was a high salaried suit selected to work in an agency funded by the big oil companies, and they asked me to tell them what they wanted to hear about PO, then you'd find my words don't match my figures either.

Anyway, that online vid goes on to conclude from fatih's interview...
" No peak oil in sight " ( at 3:35 )
" Potentially 96Mpbd by 2035 " < as long as it's developed >. It sounds to me Fatih was saying it won't be geologic\natural issues which prevent future much higher supply of oil, but maybe political\economic.

It's just one of many PO hype pieces chucked into the media to fool as much of the market into the POisNow scam as possible.

[dsula]

Potentially 96Mpbd by 2035 " < as long as it's developed >. It sounds to me Fatih was saying it won't be geologic\natural issues which prevent future much higher supply of oil, but maybe political\economic.

It's just one of many PO hype pieces chucked into the media to fool as much of the market into the POisNow scam as possible.

I don't get this high intelligent stuff here. Are you saying the planet is in fact infinite? Are you saying, if I claim the earth to be a well-defined ball of finite dimension, it's a scam?

Or do you say because PO happens at 95MB/d in 2035 we won't have a problem feeding 9B people?
Or do you think it will be carhole's singularity to the rescue by 2035?

[meemoe_uk]

dsula, the answer to all 4 of your questions is 'no'.

[rangerone314]

I'm so glad oil supply is so high, it means that oil won't reach $100/bbl.

[dorlomin]

88.2mpd average for 4th quarter

Another quick point. The global economy is supposed to be expanding at about 3% per year.
So to work out how much extra oil we need you need to multiply by 1.03 for every year.
That renders to 88.2 * (1.03)n where n is the number of years. So for 5 years from we need 102.3 million barrels a day.
We also have to account for depletion which appears to have been in the order of 9 million barrels a day over the past two years which even at a linear rate will be 22.5 million barrels total in only 5 years time.
I have posted the megaprojects page.
Where is the 22 million barrels coming from over the next 5 years to account for depletion?
Where is the additional 14 million barrels a day coming from?

[rockdoc123]

The point being; these fields represent the last major effort in SA, fields discovered in the 1960's but shut-in/inactive/held-in-reserve until now. Why? Because the fields are difficult to produce/sell. Khurais contains vanadium, Manifa is heavy, Shaybah is remote in the Rub' Al-Khali/Empty Quarter desert, etc.)

Difficulty translates to expensive (both monetarily and energetically) a characteristic of recent finds. Brazil/Angola/GOM ultra deep water, Caspian Kasagan, biofuels, other non-conventionals, newly/re-registered "reserves" like shale oil, tar sands, TDP, etc ll have their own attendant problems/inefficiencies that render production costs excessive and kill end-user demand in a cyclic fashion. The Law of Receding Horizons tells us this 'high-hanging fruit' will always be too expensive to satisfy our cheap-oil demands. The economy crashes when oil/gdp exceeds 4%.

A quick point of protocol....the graph you show was unabashedly purloined from a post I made a number of years ago. I plotted it up based on the predicted outcome of the major SA projects, not the actual outcome. According to the Saudis Haradh III, Shabah and Khurais are capable of producing more than originally predicted.

And difficulty does not translate to expensive in the case of these fields. The technology to drill the MRC wells, expandable liners, SMART completions etc which all made these projects possible wasn't necessarily expensive when compared to conventional field developments, it just took some time for the technology to get to where it needed to be. As well it was the ability to create million cell full field models with super computers that allowed Aramco to understand how the fields could be best developed. Arguably the fields sat there for so long simply because the Saudis didn't need the production.

[rockdoc123]

Next time copywrite it.

It doesn't have to be protected by copywrite to warrent referencing where you obtained the document. It is standard fare to do so and common courtesy...to do otherwise is called plagirism.

They said they were ready to pump 12 mbd. What a joke. But they have been awfully quite since they hit their production peak and export decline.

I guess you should look closer at the charts you post then. The original reason I put that particular chart together and posted it years ago was to show how when the major projects were completed SA could indeed make their proposed goal of having 12 MMB of spare capcity. According to all accounts (the Saudis, IEA, contractors etc) those projects were completed which means they have the spare capacity....no reason to produce it at this point as there is currently lots of oil out there irrespective of Libya production being shutin.

As if miles of titanium pipes and floating cities don't cost anything. What you consider a mere externality is the PO problem. If we had a better, cheaper, more abundant source of energy to wring the last drops of petroleum from the earth than we'd be home free. But all we have is oil. As long as you dismiss net-energy analysis and EROEI then debating these issues with you is kind of pointless.

You do not seem to understand how oil and gas is produced I'm afraid. Titanium pipes?? exactly where did you get that bit of nonsense? Floating cities??...do you know of any cities that have dimensions in the order of 403 feet X 294 feet which is the size of Atlantis, currently the largest offshore platform commissioned? Perhaps this all happens in Bizarro oil and gas world but not here.

Your obsession with EROEI at the exclusion of what actually happens in the oil and gas industry is perplexing. According to your view no oil companies should be making profits because EROEI is negative, but I'll bet you are one of the people on this site who are always complaining about the profits that oil companies make. Given 90% of them are publically traded they would not be around if they weren't generating profits.

[Doly]

This is an article of mine in The Oil Drum. I imagine you will all be interested in it in this board:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8103

[Graeme]

Solar Power Can Produce Most Of Our Electricity & Half Of All Our Energy By 2060: IEA

Another projection on how much of our power could be produced by renewable energy: A new International Energy Agency assessment of solar power shows that photovoltaics and solar thermal power could provide "most" of the world's electricity and half of all our energy needs by 2060.


The solar findings, set to be published in a report later this year, go beyond the IEA's previous forecast, which envisaged the two technologies meeting about 21 percent of the world's power needs in 2050. The scenario suggests investors able to pick the industry's winners may reap significant returns as the global economy shifts away from fossil fuels. (Bloomberg)

treehugger

[americandream]

They have been saying this for the last 20 years. I don't see investment flowing into startups. One I was involved in was an utter flop. Lots of money raised, many hopes and much money lost.

[Graeme]

IEA economist: ‘We have to leave oil before it leaves us’

The International Energy Agency (IEA)’s annual World Energy Outlook, due for publication on 9 November, will contain alarming research that the world is on track for a catastrophic rise in global temperatures unless fossil fuel subsidies are cut, energy efficiency is improved, and more countries introduce some form of carbon pricing.


You’ve said in the past that you believe that the world has already passed its ‘peak oil’ moment – the point at which the amount of oil already used outweighs the amount left in the ground. How far past that moment do you think we are, and what are the economic and environmental consequences?

We have said that we have seen the peak of commercial oil. There is still uncommercial oil and other forms coming and we will definitely need oil for our mobility systems for cars, trucks and jets and for our economic daily life to continue. However, one day we will run out of oil - not tomorrow or the day after but one day we will. Given its strategic importance for our societies, it is important to prepare our societies for that very day and try to find alternatives to oil especially in transportation systems. These could be electric cars, hybrid cars, natural gas, or biofuels-driven cars, or putting more emphasis on mass transportation.

When we talk about CO2 emissions, people think directly about coal. But if you look at the numbers, the contribution of oil to global CO2 emissions is only a few percentage points lower than coal. Therefore it needs to be taken closely into consideration. We’re not running out of oil today or tomorrow but we need to prepare ourselves for the day that we do. We have to leave oil before it leaves us.

euractiv