no.......It isn't going to be pretty and I have small children. enjoy today and prepare for the future.

Amen brother we're going over a cliff. I'm in the SUV up front and you're on my tailcoat riding your bike.

It's a wonderful world.

That last sentence is unsupported opinion. It's not clear that it's getting harder and harder to keep up with decline. It's very common for large multi-country blocks to plateau for decades. North America, for example, has been on an undulating plateau of about 14-15mbd for almost 30 years.

1979 13578kbd
1980 14063
1981 14344
1982 14790
1983 14838
1984 15226
1985 15304
1986 14792
1987 14730
1988 14642
1989 14014
1990 13856
1991 14182
1992 14050
1993 13899
1994 13807
1995 13789
1996 14052
1997 14267
1998 14182
1999 13678
2000 13904
2001 13906
2002 14069
2003 14193
2004 14137
2005 13695
2006 13700

Canada and Mexico kept up just fine with the decline of the U.S. for almost 30 years. So if it was getting "harder and harder", it was clearly doing so very very SLOWLY.

The FSU managed a plateau of about 12 years from 1978-1990 at roughly 12mbd:
1978: 11531
1979: 11805
1980: 12116
1981: 12260
1982: 12330
1983: 12403
1984: 12297
1985: 12040
1986: 12442
1987: 12655
1988: 12601
1989: 12298
1990: 11566

Asia-Pacific has been on a plateau of 6-7mbd for almost 20 years. South/Central America has logged a couple of long plateaus, most recently a plateau of about 6.5mbd for 10 years. Non-Opec has been on a plateau of roughly 35mbd since 1997:

1997 34925
1998 35028
1999 34887
2000 35507
2001 35415
2002 35933
2003 35673
2004 35661
2005 35343
2006 35162

Clearly, it's not so hard to "hold a plateau", so to speak.



The case where we don't bring on new projects is irrelevant to the real world, for obvious reasons. The only thing that matters is the net decline rate after new projects are added. And the latest word from the really smart people is that the world will decline at a rate of less than 1% for 10 years after peak, and less than 2% for 20 years:
Hubbert Theory says Peak is Slow Squeeze

Technical reading, but well worth the effort thuja, if you really want to bring yourself up to speed on peak oil.



EIA C&C stats for Mexico after its peak in 2004 look like this:

2004: 3383kbd
2005: 3334
2006: 3256
2007: 3126 (9-month average)

That's an annual decline rate of 2.8%, not 13%. Even Mexico (during the collapse of Cantarell!) doesn't collapse like Cantarell. So why do you think that the decline rate of Cantarell has anything to say about the net decline rate of the world? It barely affects Mexico, let alone the world.



If Ghawar is declining, it's clearly nothing to worry about because Saudi Arabia has been on a level plateau for most of the last year. I also don't believe that you know whether Ghawar is declining, and thus (again) you are trying to pass off unsupported opinion as evidence.


You haven't made any argument, or produced any data, to show that a scary outcome is PROBABLE. The U.S., Canada and Mexico have been operating on 90% small fields for decades, and they're still on the same plateau. All you have is a couple of really tired examples like Cantarell, and a big "What if?" That's it.


Yes, but with those new fields -- which are in fact there! -- we'll be looking at decline rates of 0, or even growth. There's not going to be a year where oil from new fields suddenly stops, and you need to incorporate that into your thinking if you want to be a realist. The decline in oil from new fields, when it happens, will be slow and incremental. It's not going to drop from 8mbd one year to 0 for all years thereafter, unless we get hit by an asteroid etc.

JD,
And what about EROEI of these smaller or unconventional fields?
We may end up with the same or slowly falling nominal output for long time, but less and less of oil will remain available to the market.

Undesirable for overall life support system of the Earth.

Argumentation above borders with absurdity.
You are perhaps confusing "pollution" with physical destruction of the Earth in Star Wars fashion.


Again, you are confusing "pollution" with physical destruction of the planet.

From Finding Needles in a Haystack by WebHubbleTelescope, who posts here on occasion.



The OD article thuja linked to is called Estimating the World Production Decline Rates from the Megaproject Forecasts.

I doubt anyone is going to find a new Ghawar, let alone five. That would be like expecting the entire geological profession to suddenly slap their foreheads and say "Oh shit, we missed a spot!" I give credit where it is due when it comes to professional competence.

I have seen the UKCS decline rate go from 6-7% immediately post-peak to more like 10%, 12% these last couple of years, which is pretty easy for anyone to do, the numbers are an important economic indicator and tend to be buried monthly in a one-line item in a newspaper. That's what technology does the world over. I never doubted that the last drip of new additions would bring the global average decline rate down to 3% or so, but over a long period that's quite bad enough.

We are still on the bumpy plateau, clearly depletion in existing fields is still being offset by new additions. If we don't roll off the plateau next decade, I will admit I backed the wrong horse on timing these last ten years. But that has yet to be put to the final test. It will be interesting to see what happens. As Campbell says, all numbers are wrong, the question is by how much? I will have a much better idea in another five years. You live and you learn.

That oughta do it. Thanks very much, Ray. Keep up the good work

JD- a few points- one is that I am glad to see at least you are not siding with any CERA hogwash. You seem to embrace that we are in a plateau phase now. As to a long extended plateau- I think (and hope) for that possibility. I think that will make the difference between the possibility for some transition and utter collapse. So lets hope you are right.

Even with that model- where decline rates are quite modest for a decade or two- there is still the very dire problem of demand outpacing supply. We are experiencing that problem right now and we have only just begun. I am not as doomeristic as many here (I live in a city!) but I see that even modest declines or just a long term plateau spells trouble.

In terms of Cantarell I'm just going to have to say you are wrong on that one. Here's a link...

Cantarell

that talks about that 13% decline. It looks worse this year...

And that is what puts the fear of God in me- its those gigantic fields that look very precarious. Since you read The Oil Drum, here is a piece earlier this year about a drop in Saudi production most likely caused by Ghawar declining...

Ghawar

Anyways- no need to get nasty- like I said I am glad you are not as cornucopian as Oil-Finder who has dreams of 5 undiscovered Ghawars out there. I am open to the idea that we could have a long plateau- and I think a number of others here are open to it as well.

But I will say that the link you gave me of Stuart's paper is more than two years old and new data has come in...most distinctly the declines in the big fields. So lets hope for your model but I think we need to be prepared for decline rates that are a little worse in the future. We'll see...

Ghawar, Burgan, North Sea- these were all discovered back in the 40's, 50's and 60's...

Cantarell was discovered in 76- over 30 years ago. The big boys have been found. Sorry no 70 billion barrel Ghawars undiscovered out there...

At least JD understands this...

By the way- JD could you source your production levels for US and Canada. I think you are mixing in Nat. gas as well. From my reading US oil production has dropped much more significantly since its peak in 1970.

If you are not making much money even a long bumpy plateau is a nightmare. The have nots aren't even in the game. They were hoping that a rising tide would lift all boats, and that they could get that scooter and start using a little gas next year. As things get even a little tougher we will see things get really bad for those on the bottom, while the upper classes barely notice.

Right now heating oil is at $3.24 and holding. It actually went down last year, but this year it seems like it may even rise from there. A lot of people can't afford even to heat their houses at that price. Meanwhile I'm sure that there are lots of houses down on the coast of Maine that are heated year round while their owners are in Monaco trying their hand at the baccarat tables and drinking pastisse.

Even a plateau is a drag if you are on the edge. Some people fall off quicker than others. Maine is on the edge, so we can see it happening already.

No, I don't want peak oil in the "reasonably near future" (whatever that means.)

What I do want, that will be brought on by less oil availability is
1. relocalization of economies/communities
2. re-establishment of values based on relationships (people-to-people, people-to-nature, people-to-higher power, etc), NOT on things
3. the instrinsic value of work as a means of establishing and maintaining self-esteem, lessening the incidence of depression, etc (all of this based on our built-in need to be productive)
4. decline in debauched life-styles that are based on "disposable-item consumerism"

and some more stuff that I don't have time to type out right now ... but you get the idea.

Lumpy

Thuja,


At this point, Oil Finder will make a new thread about '800 billion barrels of Chinese Oil Shale' and various other massive P2 and P3 deposits. He will talk about new and more economically feasible oil that can be produced and how we will carry on for centuries to come (unscathed).

Wow- I don't know how I missed him- is he our only CERA believer here? If so he is a precious find...lets not be too mean...