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

Unread postby John_A » Mon 29 Jul 2013, 14:23:49

ralfy wrote:We actually have trillions of "something" this and "something" that. The catch is rate of flow:


Fortunately the IEA has calculated that for us as well. No need to rely on bloggers without the kind of data and institutional support and expertise required to do these estimates.

Image
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 John_A » Mon 29 Jul 2013, 14:35:08

Timson wrote: As you know (or don't) prices in a free market economy are set by offer and demand. there may be trillions of barrels waiting to be pumped at 5 usd/barrel. But if the rate is 10 barrels a day and demand is 20 barrels, you have a problem. Someone's got to give.


Absolutely. The problem being that you are using an economic example and it says quite a bit about what happens when demand is 20, supply is 10, and there are 6 trillion laying around somewhere which only requires a capital investment to access. And why the imbalance doesn't get that bad, that fast, and is regulated through price.

The conclusion? Live close to work and boycott any fuel which contributes $$ to Jihadists! Or Canadians.

Timson wrote:I'm saying that the shale gas frenzy cannot fill the gap of the giant oil fields decline.


When you can get more production from the Bakken and Eagleford oil plays than any current production rate from any giant oil field in the Western Hemisphere, the frenzy already HAS filled the gap. And then some. But the question which lies at the heart of the frenzy isn't if they can (because they already have) but how LONG can it go on.

Timson wrote:I have a bike shop and it's summer now. Although my electric motors costs the same now as in winter, I just can't get any because demand is higher dan supply from the manufacturers. That means people waiting. No problem for your bike, but a big problem if for a factory...


People are waiting all the time. Oil rigs are waiting for frac crews. Water hauling, containment crews, roustabouts, hot shot runs. And that's just the oil folks, all sorts of businesses wait for stuff. The smart ones plan in advance, hedge, write long term contracts for supply, it just depends on how their business model works and what their financial capabilities are I suppose.
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 godq3 » Tue 30 Jul 2013, 18:14:04

John_A wrote:Fortunately the IEA has calculated that for us as well. No need to rely on bloggers without the kind of data and institutional support and expertise required to do these estimates.
Image

Image

;)
User avatar
godq3
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri 23 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Tricity, PL

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

Unread postby John_A » Tue 30 Jul 2013, 19:58:55

godq3 wrote:
John_A wrote:Fortunately the IEA has calculated that for us as well. No need to rely on bloggers without the kind of data and institutional support and expertise required to do these estimates.
Image

Image

;)


The question was, "but what around rate! of those trillions of barrels!"

Thank you for providing those changing estimates of rate from all those trillions of barrels. However, they only appear to be peaking out there another decade or two down the road, didn't Fatih say we had already peaked in 2006? Would be nice if they would get their story straight, but hey, until someone comes up with a better way of assembling data they are about the only game in town. So some of those 6-7 trillions must be getting converted into enough rate for those estimates to stay so nice and level. I wonder if Fatih has explained yet how many decades it will take post peak to see peak?

But thanks! It is interesting to see how fast their opinion has changed on what that increasing rate will be. I guess that you can say that in a world where some predict decline, and others increase, they are still on the right side of the break point to date.

Problem with the graph though. If it is based on conventional oil production, it never exceeded about 75 million a day. Not in 2005, maybe today, maybe. And it certainly hasn't declined at all, it is still around 75 million a day. That's why they have call it plateau oil as of late. So you've got mismatched data sets inside the chart.

Here is 5 years of plateau oil from Westexas to prove it. It has gone up as of late, but it is still in the same ballpark. No 75+ day, sorry.

Image

Here is what is happening with the dataset you appear to be using, which looks to include everything, seeing as how you used something hitting 85 million day. I think all liquids have peaked past 90 million a day, but this graph doesn't have that vintage on it, it looks like it is right before the big 9 0 was breached.

Image
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 » Wed 31 Jul 2013, 00:24:56

John_A wrote:
Fortunately the IEA has calculated that for us as well. No need to rely on bloggers without the kind of data and institutional support and expertise required to do these estimates.

Image


The problems are the forecasts for fields yet to be found and yet to be developed, which does not involve historical flow rates.

Aleklett deals with that in this feature:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK730U0Q4NU

What makes matters worse is that even if historical flow rates are ignored, the total produced will not be enough according to the IEA. That is, the increase will only be around 9 pct for the next two decades, but the world needs to increase demand by 2 pct a year to maintain economic growth, or the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years.

The IEA also adds that economies should have prepared for transition to other sources of energy at least a decade ago. The implication is that there is a lag time and an energy trap involved in transitions.

That means an increase in energy from non-conventional production will have to deal with lower energy returns, decline curves, increasing demand from a growing global middle class, an eventual decline in conventional production, and an energy trap as one has to switch to non-fossil fuel sources.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4776
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

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

Unread postby ralfy » Wed 31 Jul 2013, 00:33:10

John_A wrote:The question was, "but what around rate! of those trillions of barrels!"

Thank you for providing those changing estimates of rate from all those trillions of barrels. However, they only appear to be peaking out there another decade or two down the road, didn't Fatih say we had already peaked in 2006? Would be nice if they would get their story straight, but hey, until someone comes up with a better way of assembling data they are about the only game in town. So some of those 6-7 trillions must be getting converted into enough rate for those estimates to stay so nice and level. I wonder if Fatih has explained yet how many decades it will take post peak to see peak?

But thanks! It is interesting to see how fast their opinion has changed on what that increasing rate will be. I guess that you can say that in a world where some predict decline, and others increase, they are still on the right side of the break point to date.

Problem with the graph though. If it is based on conventional oil production, it never exceeded about 75 million a day. Not in 2005, maybe today, maybe. And it certainly hasn't declined at all, it is still around 75 million a day. That's why they have call it plateau oil as of late. So you've got mismatched data sets inside the chart.

Here is 5 years of plateau oil from Westexas to prove it. It has gone up as of late, but it is still in the same ballpark. No 75+ day, sorry.

Image

Here is what is happening with the dataset you appear to be using, which looks to include everything, seeing as how you used something hitting 85 million day. I think all liquids have peaked past 90 million a day, but this graph doesn't have that vintage on it, it looks like it is right before the big 9 0 was breached.

Image


I think the 75+ refers to an average. Some details may be found in the second chart of this transcript:

http://crudeoilpeak.info/abc-tv-intervi ... -of-growth

Oil production per capita might be more helpful, as we are looking at production that serves a population, and a global capitalist system that is ultimately dependent on increasing consumption per capita to maintain economic growth:

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com.au/ ... k-oil.html
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4776
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Future Production OTSF Changing Views about Peak Oil

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 31 Jul 2013, 07:34:29

ralfy - And I would bet oil consumption per capita by country will be even more meaningful then production per capita. We all know how unequally oil is distributed in the world. Beyond that it might be worthwhile to try to normalize that stat. X bopd per capita of consumption in China, with a population much greater than the US, doesn't tell the whole story very well. Maybe a stat like percentage change would be even more informative. That takes into account population growth (or lack thereof) and consumption increases/decreases. Don't have the time to research it now but I would guess that number has moved in opposite directions for the China and the US in recent years...and probably most of the rest of the world. And with China spending 100's of $billions upfront to secure larger percentages of future oil production such a rate of change stat may be rather useful in predicting the future. As we discussed before how much oil the world produces isn't nearly as important as how it gets distributed. If a country can acquire the energy it needs at a price it can afford then PO becomes something of a non-issue for them...at least compared to the have-nots.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10976
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

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

Unread postby John_A » Wed 31 Jul 2013, 08:20:32

ralfy wrote:The problems are the forecasts for fields yet to be found and yet to be developed, which does not involve historical flow rates.


How is that a problem? Hubbert did the exact same thing.

ralfy wrote:What makes matters worse is that even if historical flow rates are ignored, the total produced will not be enough according to the IEA. That is, the increase will only be around 9 pct for the next two decades, but the world needs to increase demand by 2 pct a year to maintain economic growth, or the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years.


Then they should stop showing stable or growing oil production immediately. Which they don't. Therefore, they believe that new fields and production will come from somewhere, just as Hubbert did. And their model is also a bottom up economic one, so they obviously analyze the information well enough to decide that for a given economic scenario, this is the production it requires, therefore it works.

ralfy wrote:That means an increase in energy from non-conventional production will have to deal with lower energy returns, decline curves, increasing demand from a growing global middle class, an eventual decline in conventional production, and an energy trap as one has to switch to non-fossil fuel sources.


1) I didn't see the IEA referrencing net energy anywhere, 2) if net energy advocates are to be believed we have already been transitioning because we turned on the Canadian tar sands years ago, so welcome to the transition, 3) of course the IEA deals with decline, it is right there on their chart, and 4) they fill in the gap the same way Hubbert did.

And I doubt the IEA used the term "energy trap" either, even economists tend to know better than to buy into pet ideas from those without any actual experience in resource extraction. So you are using other peoples pet ideas to try and refute what experts in the field are saying at some fundamental level which hasn't worked in the past, but you have hopes will work in the future. At the end of the day the result is the same, the IEA says that they can convert those trillions of barrels of stuff into rate, it has happened before, it is happening already, they have ever right to expect it will continue to happen, and you haven't been able to refute it yet with anyone elses cost/supply curve. That is all it would take, so, has Aleklett assembled one to refute the IEAs or not?
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 » Thu 01 Aug 2013, 01:47:43

John_A wrote:
How is that a problem? Hubbert did the exact same thing.



I thought he did the opposite. Otherwise, he would have argued against peak oil.

ralfy wrote:
Then they should stop showing stable or growing oil production immediately. Which they don't. Therefore, they believe that new fields and production will come from somewhere, just as Hubbert did. And their model is also a bottom up economic one, so they obviously analyze the information well enough to decide that for a given economic scenario, this is the production it requires, therefore it works.



Your argument doesn't make sense: they shouldn't, but they didn't, and therefore they are right?

I am not sure if Hubbert did the same.

The last part, that the model is an "economic one," is right. And yet the IEA argues that the increase will not be enough for economic reasons as well. See my video linked earlier for details.


1) I didn't see the IEA referrencing net energy anywhere,



They should, and yet they didn't, which means they are right in not doing so?


2) if net energy advocates are to be believed we have already been transitioning because we turned on the Canadian tar sands years ago, so welcome to the transition,



But this proves my point again.


3) of course the IEA deals with decline, it is right there on their chart,



But from what you wrote above, they should not have done so.


and 4) they fill in the gap the same way Hubbert did.



Are you referring to the adjustment he did referring to the global peak? That is,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY

But that's based on the effects of the previous oil shock.


And I doubt the IEA used the term "energy trap" either, even economists tend to know better than to buy into pet ideas from those without any actual experience in resource extraction. So you are using other peoples pet ideas to try and refute what experts in the field are saying at some fundamental level which hasn't worked in the past, but you have hopes will work in the future. At the end of the day the result is the same, the IEA says that they can convert those trillions of barrels of stuff into rate, it has happened before, it is happening already, they have ever right to expect it will continue to happen, and you haven't been able to refute it yet with anyone elses cost/supply curve. That is all it would take, so, has Aleklett assembled one to refute the IEAs or not?


The IEA doesn't use the term but implicitly uses it as the basis for their argument, i.e., economies should have prepared at least ten years ago. See the video linked earlier for details. As for Aleklett's refutation, it's also found in the same video and the Crude Oil Peak link.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4776
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Future Production OTSF Changing Views about Peak Oil

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Thu 01 Aug 2013, 08:17:41

Ralfy – I don’t have time right now to go back to the original work but his projection was based upon just the trends that have been discovered. IOW one can make a fairly decent projection of field development in a trend with some history. He couldn’t include the Deep Water GOM in his projection because there was no history established at the time. Even if he had a vision of DW oil potential when he made his projection the engineering tech didn’t exist to exploit the trend as is being done today. His projection was based upon known plays only. The productivity of many of the shale plays, as well as that of the Bakken, was known when he did his projection. What he didn’t know at the time was the ability of horizontal drilling combined with higher prices to bring such plays to the forefront. Look at the debate today over exactly how much oil the shales will add and someone wants to fault him for not making an accurate projection 40 years ago? Rather childish IMHO.

Hubbert made a projection of future oil production from known trends at the time. By all accounts he did an excellent job of answering that question. The problem today is that so many critics don’t understand what the original question was.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10976
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

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

Unread postby John_A » Thu 01 Aug 2013, 09:00:44

ralfy wrote:
John_A wrote:How is that a problem? Hubbert did the exact same thing.
I thought he did the opposite. Otherwise, he would have argued against peak oil.

No wonder you are always providing links with no independent thought.

Read the original work. There is this big number, bigger than current reserves, he calls it "FUTURE DISCOVERIES" to paraphrase. And then he builds out an increasing flowrate until flowrate balances against discovered stuff and future to be discovered stuff. The IEA is doing the same thing, relying on undiscovered stuff to forecast a future flowrate.
ralfy wrote:I am not sure if Hubbert did the same.

Of course you aren't. Based on precedent it is unlikely you actually read the links you provide. You in the past have been unaware of when they were written, the details contained therein and it leads you to places you would just as soon not be when someone takes the time to read them and understand them.
ralfy wrote:
1) I didn't see the IEA referrencing net energy anywhere,
They should, and yet they didn't, which means they are right in not doing so?

It means that until the forecasting experts consider the idea to have merit, it certainly might not. Rockman has provided insight as to the uselessness in industry of this metric, it is therefore not a surprise that other experts ignore it.
ralfy wrote:
2) if net energy advocates are to be believed we have already been transitioning because we turned on the Canadian tar sands years ago, so welcome to the transition,
But this proves my point again.

As best I can tell, you have no point. So if you consider yourself to have proven it, yet again, I won't disagree.
ralfy wrote:
3) of course the IEA deals with decline, it is right there on their chart,
But from what you wrote above, they should not have done so.

Apparently you not understanding your own links applies to what everyone else writes as well.
ralfy wrote:
and 4) they fill in the gap the same way Hubbert did.

Are you referring to the adjustment he did referring to the global peak? That is,

Of course not.
ralfy wrote:
That is all it would take, so, has Aleklett assembled one to refute the IEAs or not?

The IEA doesn't use the term but implicitly uses it as the basis for their argument, i.e., economies should have prepared at least ten years ago. See the video linked earlier for details. As for Aleklett's refutation, it's also found in the same video and the Crude Oil Peak link.

Has anyone, anywhere, built a cost/supply curve to refute what the IEA published? If not, the answer to my question is "no", and yet another video link to someone saying something which is supposed to sidestep the issue is irrelevant. Disputing the IEA work is easy..show the ASPO or Alekletts cost/supply curve for resources capable of creating liquid fuels and presto...we can talk about it. Until then, there is no other information of value on this topic. One graph is all it takes....why doesn't Aleklett have one? Why doesn't someone else have one, and why isn't that in your box of cut and paste links?
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 » Thu 01 Aug 2013, 09:15:00

ROCKMAN wrote:Ralfy – I don’t have time right now to go back to the original work but his projection was based upon just the trends that have been discovered. IOW one can make a fairly decent projection of field development in a trend with some history. He couldn’t include the Deep Water GOM in his projection because there was no history established at the time. Even if he had a vision of DW oil potential when he made his projection the engineering tech didn’t exist to exploit the trend as is being done today. His projection was based upon known plays only. The productivity of many of the shale plays, as well as that of the Bakken, was known when he did his projection. What he didn’t know at the time was the ability of horizontal drilling combined with higher prices to bring such plays to the forefront. Look at the debate today over exactly how much oil the shales will add and someone wants to fault him for not making an accurate projection 40 years ago? Rather childish IMHO.

Hubbert made a projection of future oil production from known trends at the time. By all accounts he did an excellent job of answering that question. The problem today is that so many critics don’t understand what the original question was.


Rock, here is the original paper from 1956. Do you see discovery process modeling in here anywhere?

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf

He certainly did some, discovery per foot of drilling, field growth stuff, but his original paper doesn't have a peep about it. He uses multiple sources for how much oil there is to be found, ranging from Weeks, the USGS, Jenkins, and Pratt, he starts discussing how he gets to the US number on labeled page 15.
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 » Thu 01 Aug 2013, 23:06:28

John_A wrote:
No wonder you are always providing links with no independent thought.

Read the original work. There is this big number, bigger than current reserves, he calls it "FUTURE DISCOVERIES" to paraphrase. And then he builds out an increasing flowrate until flowrate balances against discovered stuff and future to be discovered stuff. The IEA is doing the same thing, relying on undiscovered stuff to forecast a future flowrate.



P. 9 refers to resources of a "fixed magnitude." He also refers to an "ultimate cumulative production" that is less than "the quantity of resources initially present" from which he derives production curves. He does refer to adjustments on p. 16 but I think that is already inputted in his calculations, which means a peak for crude oil in 1995.

The IEA counters this argument by showing that conventional production will flatten out.


Of course you aren't. Based on precedent it is unlikely you actually read the links you provide. You in the past have been unaware of when they were written, the details contained therein and it leads you to places you would just as soon not be when someone takes the time to read them and understand them.



I read the report in the past and am reading it again, and I don't see what you are claiming. Fig. 20 (p. 22) shows ultimate global oil production not flattening out but dropping after 1995.

Perhaps you are referring to nuclear energy mentioned in p. 36?

ralfy wrote:It means that until the forecasting experts consider the idea to have merit, it certainly might not. Rockman has provided insight as to the uselessness in industry of this metric, it is therefore not a surprise that other experts ignore it.


You're confusing three things: the industry that uses profitability as its metric, those who look at rate of flow, and those who look at production based on reserves.

For oil producers, it's the first that matters. For those in the real economy, it's the second. For pollyannas, it's the third.


As best I can tell, you have no point. So if you consider yourself to have proven it, yet again, I won't disagree.



But you merely repeated what I am arguing, i.e., "welcome to the transition." Will the transition allow for business as usual? According to Hubbert, we should have moved to nuclear. According to the IEA, the transition should have started at least a decade ago.


Apparently you not understanding your own links applies to what everyone else writes as well.



To recap, Hubbert did not refer to conventional production flattening out. The IEA did not follow what Hubbert did. In addition, the IEA argues that even with conventional production flattening out, total production won't be enough to meet increasing demand needed for economic growth.


Of course not.



Then, what are you talking about? Hubbert refers to ultimate crude oil peaking and dropping, not flattening out. The IEA argues that crude oil won't be dropping.


Has anyone, anywhere, built a cost/supply curve to refute what the IEA published? If not, the answer to my question is "no", and yet another video link to someone saying something which is supposed to sidestep the issue is irrelevant. Disputing the IEA work is easy..show the ASPO or Alekletts cost/supply curve for resources capable of creating liquid fuels and presto...we can talk about it. Until then, there is no other information of value on this topic. One graph is all it takes....why doesn't Aleklett have one? Why doesn't someone else have one, and why isn't that in your box of cut and paste links?


I'll look for it for you and share it in my next message.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4776
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Future Production OTSF Changing Views about Peak Oil

Unread postby ralfy » Thu 01 Aug 2013, 23:13:50

"Spin slips off oil production numbers – World Energy Outlook 2010 is a cry for help"

http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2010/11/1 ... -for-help/

which refers to

"The Peak of the Oil Age"

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... report.pdf

IEA forecast, fig. 1

Uppsala outlook, fig. 15

Thus, the IEA should consider the possibility that crude oil production will not flat line but drop.

Finally, don't forget to look at production per capita, as mentioned earlier:

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com.au/ ... k-oil.html
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4776
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Future Production OTSF Changing Views about Peak Oil

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 07:09:50

John – Thanks. That was my point if it wasn’t too subtle. Hubbert based his projection on the historical activity of known trends. If a trend hasn’t been drilled there is no statistical basis for a projection. Folks talk about Hubbert’s projection being wrong. In reality it was pretty dang accurate given it was done about 40 years ago. In 2008 the production from the trends he used in his analysis (doesn’t include the shales and Deep Water) was 1.46 billion bo. His high side estimate, confirmed by the peak daily volume in the early 1970’s, was 1.2 billion bo. In my book being that close in a 40 year forward projection shows he well understood the system he was dealing with.

Of course we’re currently producing more oil than he predicted but that has nothing to do with his work. He was predicting the future production of known trends at the time. What is rather amazing is that while he doesn’t include the Canadian oil sands or the oily shales in is analysis he clearly identifies the reserve potential.

And what’s even more amazing is what his report predicts for coal production. Folks seem to gloss over that while discussing oil. About 4 decades ago he predicted the increase in coal production we’ve seen since then. And predicted increasing coal production well into the future. A prediction IMHO that will be substantiated by PO and the decrease of cheap oil that will push the worldy to utilize even more coal then we are doing today.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10976
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

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

Unread postby John_A » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 07:55:02

ralfy wrote:
John_A wrote:Disputing the IEA work is easy..show the ASPO or Alekletts cost/supply curve for resources capable of creating liquid fuels and presto...we can talk about it. Until then, there is no other information of value on this topic. One graph is all it takes....why doesn't Aleklett have one? Why doesn't someone else have one, and why isn't that in your box of cut and paste links?


I'll look for it for you and share it in my next message.


I await your response with baited breath, certainly comparing this IEA information to anyone elses is the key to verifying, or disputing, the amounts used by the IEA going forward.
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 » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 21:52:51

John_A wrote:
I await your response with baited breath, certainly comparing this IEA information to anyone elses is the key to verifying, or disputing, the amounts used by the IEA going forward.


I already did.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4776
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Future Production OTSF Changing Views about Peak Oil

Unread postby ralfy » Fri 02 Aug 2013, 22:08:26

There's one more point I'd like to add, which was mentioned in the comments here:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7102

and which was taken from the fourth paragraph in

http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2010/11/1 ... -for-help/

a link that was shared in my previous message. That is, according to Aleklett,

The IEA notes that, since 1980, we have consumed oil faster than we discover it. We now consume 30 billion barrels per year which is more than double what we find. Amazingly, the IEA asserts we will need to find an extra 900 billion barrels of oil over the next 25 years to meet demand. But at the current discovery rate of only 10 billion barrels it would take 90 years! To meet the IEA’s demand prognosis, by 2035 the non-OPEC nations will need to have produced more oil than currently in their reserves. Furthermore, in 2035 they must still be producing oil at 46 mb/d!
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4776
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Future Production OTSF Changing Views about Peak Oil

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 08:16:54

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.

Second is the assumption that the industry doesn't do a fine job of finding the big reserves early on. Folks will look at the chart showing all the huge reserves found 30 and 40 years ago and see the rapid fall off and not truly appreciate what their eyes are showing them. The also don't tend to appreciate that the combination of new tech and high prices yields flow rates that are disproportionally high for the reserves left in the ground. As you point out you can't save you cake and eat it to. The faster we produce to meet growing demand we'll have to find even more reserves than we have in the last 60 years. Even with the new tech and higher prices common sense should dictate the unlikely chance of that happening.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10976
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

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

Unread postby John_A » Sat 03 Aug 2013, 13:07:06

ralfy wrote:
John_A wrote:
I await your response with baited breath, certainly comparing this IEA information to anyone elses is the key to verifying, or disputing, the amounts used by the IEA going forward.


I already did.


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.
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

PreviousNext

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 8 guests