For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
What Illum seems to be saying is that if you tried to continue the IEA's production graph (p. 6 of his .pdf) beyond 2030 while keeping the area under the curves consistent with IEA reserve estimates, then you would get very unlikely production curves.
To match the IEA curves up to 2030 he needs to make unreasonable assumptions (Scenario C). This results in a sharp peak followed by a steep decline.
Joined: Nov 21, 2004 Posts: 579 Location: ~170ft/lbs@0rpm (on my bike)
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2004 9:49 pm Post subject:
I just made a (not too coherent) post about this in the PO disscusion forum...
compare and contrast the graph asociated with the EIA's report
Long-Term World Oil Supply Scenarios
to the peak curves we've already seen in countries in terminal decline
Hubbert World 2004.png
I can see pushing the peak back for a few years, but the eia's analysis almost literally has us getting ~2-3 barrels pre-peak to 1 post-peak. It's too late in the game imho to push the peak back that far...
and if world decline follows the same historic curve then the ASPO's graph seems the more likely of the two, given they use the same ~2300-2400 gb estimate.
http://www.peakoil.net/Newsletter/NL48/newsletter48.pdf
edit- nm, that was the IEA, not EIA...
anyhoo, I agree completely with Mr. Illum, if we do invest in a larger supply infrasructure and manage to delay the peak a decade, then we'll be in for an even rougher ride...
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 1243 Location: Suburban tar sands
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:17 am Post subject:
pilferage wrote:
I just made a (not too coherent) post about this in the PO disscusion forum...
compare and contrast the graph asociated with the EIA's report
Long-Term World Oil Supply Scenarios
to the peak curves we've already seen in countries in terminal decline
Hubbert World 2004.png
I can see pushing the peak back for a few years, but the eia's analysis almost literally has us getting ~2-3 barrels pre-peak to 1 post-peak. It's too late in the game imho to push the peak back that far...
and if world decline follows the same historic curve then the ASPO's graph seems the more likely of the two, given they use the same ~2300-2400 gb estimate.
http://www.peakoil.net/Newsletter/NL48/newsletter48.pdf
edit- nm, that was the IEA, not EIA...
anyhoo, I agree completely with Mr. Illum, if we do invest in a larger supply infrasructure and manage to delay the peak a decade, then we'll be in for an even rougher ride...
The graph you were referring to is from the EIA (Energy Information Administration, US - DOE). Illum was referring to an IEA (International Energy Agency) report.
Not to be confused with the AIE (Agence Internationale de l'Energie - French for IEA) or the AIE (Australian Institute of Energy), etc., etc.
Both try to delay the peak, which requires a steep decline. The IEA graph ends at 2030, just when they've used up the "proven reserves" (about 1000 Gb.) and are getting into the "additional reserves" (about 700 Gb., with production at 44 Gb./year).
The EIA graphs (p. 5) show a 50% drop in production about 7 years after the peak. Do these guys get paid for producing this stuff?
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:33 am Post subject: recent reports and forecasts
First of all, I think it interesting that the US government would go so far as to fund a study, with taxpayer dollars, to respond directly to Campbell and Lahererre.
Second of all, the report below:
Long-Term World Oil Supply Scenarios
has to be seen as a politically justified supporting document to rationalize the assumptions made in
In other words, in order to issue the rosy forecast in the second document, an even rosier long-term supply scenario has to be advanced.
The key of the first document above, is Fig 1, in which the authors assume a radically different and more optimistic "recovery rate" than ASPO, something like 45% recovery of certain reserves, rather than 30%.
In the AEO, the forecast for the next couple of years has some interesting assumptions: increase in the fed funds rate to 3.5% (doubling of interest rates) by 2006, pumping of 86 mbod globally by 2007, and an improvement in the energy efficiency of the economy by an average 1.6 per year for the next two decades, which would lead to only about 2% energy demand growth net for the US. 3.2% real GDP growth, Also an increase in the US work force of 5 million workers over the next couple of years, low inflation, and the dropping of the price of oil to $30 per barrel by 2008.
What a great time to be alive!
The point of convergence of both the US-EIA documents and the Illum document above is the assumption of 2% consistent demand growth. Plug 7% in for China and 5% in for India and all bets are off.
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 1243 Location: Suburban tar sands
Posted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:07 am Post subject: Re: recent reports and forecasts
pup55 wrote:
First of all, I think it interesting that the US government would go so far as to fund a study, with taxpayer dollars, to respond directly to Campbell and Lahererre.
The US has an amazing number of "Offices", "Agencies", "Administrations", etc.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
