[ROCKMAN]

"Here is an example of why it will be hard to ever put a definitive date on PO": Not really: PO US oil production was in 1971. We’ve had periods where US oil production has increased year over year but we have yet to exceed the rate we had in 1971.

And "That is the point where C+C peaks and begins to decline... forever." I won't quibble if that's how you want to define it. But I'm Old School: PO is the date from which oil production never reaches that level again. It might decline continuously or have periodic increases as has happened in the US from time to time since 1971. But we've yet to reach a new peak in production. If we ever do exceed the 1971 rate then we’ll have a new PO date. Until then it remains 1971.

[Ron Patterson]

Rockman, I agree completely with what you wrote. However I was speaking of world peak oil, not the USA peak. If oil declines forever, which is what I wrote, then it will never reach that high point again. That is the same thing.

[Pops]

But I'm Old School: PO is the date from which oil production never reaches that level again.

As measured by whom?

There is a larger variation between various reporting agencies than increase or decrease over the last 7 years.

So who's number do you choose? Which date is the Real Peak Date? And does it matter which day?

I don't think there will be a day or even year, more likely a decade that will be known as peak.

[Ron Patterson]

Well I guess we all have different opinions about when the peak will occur. But if it lasts a decade then I think it was the decade that just past. I believe that oil production will decline slow at first, perhaps one perecent per year for a couple of years, then get faster and after four or five years the decline rate will hit five percent or somewhere in that neighborhood.

The reason for a swifter decline rate will be producing nations hoarding their oil. Oh they won't stop exporting but they, knowing that their own supplies are limited, will want to keep as much of it as they can for themselves.

And I believe the peak will be within the next two or three years.

[Pops]

Ron, I'm simply pointing out that the various reporting agencies can't agree on the true amount of production at any point in time, Staniford's chart shows that plainly. You can only get so much resolution if the data doesn't match.

So my opinion is that since we can't pin down the flow any closer, we are essentially at peak now for all intents and purposes. We've been there since 05. The flow may go up or down a percent or 2 like it has over the last 7 years but it's done rising 2-3%/yr. That's peak in my book.

My WAG is by the time US LTO peaks in a couple of years and the pull-back in IOC investment starts to bite in what, 3 - 5 years, that we'll begin the decline.

I hope it is slower than 5%, Ron, but I would just be guessing.

[zaphod42]

Decent discussion... what will the decline rate be? Of course, we know that some oil will never be recovered; other plays will be recoverable at high cost. I visualize in 15 or 20 years, investors looking for Rockman in the wilds of Houston, Texas, and begging him to, "Please come back, Mr. Rockman. We need you."

Hah... finally a peak oil scenario that puts a smile on my face!

:>)

Craig

p.s.: No offence intended, Rock.

[dashster]

Dashter, I think you are missing the forest looking for a tree.

I think posters are trying to read too much into my original post. It should be looked at as a statement followed by two questions that completely are regarding that statement. As opposed to looking for hidden or implied meanings or beliefs that deviate from those of the reader. If it is felt there are hidden or implied beliefs that create a desire to counter, I think it would be better to ask for specification, clarification and elaboration before speaking towards the unstated.

[dashster]

How can they be saying the same thing? One says peak in 2005, once says peak after 2005

This is what I was talking about. Bandying about terms.

The sentence you quoted does not seem to align with your comment.

Okay, so there must be a 'real' peak, which is the absolute maximum 'conventional' production of crude oil ever. That will be what it is by its definition. There is also a 'peaking phenomena' that represents an 'undulating plateau' of production, at an average peak rate. When this ends, there will be a fall off in 'conventional' recovery. What practical difference does it make what you call it, or how you define it. The reality of the concept is that of limited resources in a closed environment.

Taking someone to task because they used a looser definition of 'peak oil' or a different one does not contribute to the underlying dilemma of of needing to find an alternate way to maintain our civilization as various resources peak and decline. Instead we engage in pedantic display and waste time.

I don't think that authoritative, broad-brush, end-of-discussion statements on this forum will solve Peak Oil any sooner than statements that you feel are too concerned with irrelevant details.

You have also introduced a term of which I am not familiar - 'average peak rate'.

[ROCKMAN]

Pops - Righto...there's part of the confusion. There really is no such thing as "peak oil". There is US PO, Texas PO, Saudis Arabia PO, Global PO, Looking back on the various posts some fools (like me) were misinterpreting what some meant by "PO". But if we stick with GPO (global PO) we are also going to have to clarify what "O" means. For me oil is crude oil + condensate (which is oil). Then it gets more complicated if we mean PLH (peak liquid hydrocarbons) which I suppose includes all biofuels. So now when we see PO, even when it's specified as global production it needs to be specified: peak oil, peat oil + condensate, peak oil + condensate + biofuels. And the then looking at the stat in the time domain make sure we know whether the definition had been redefined during the period specified. And, of course, always be on guard for those bastards that like to slip in boe...bbls of oil equivalent which includes stuff other the liquid hydrocarbons.

There we go...all cleared up now? LOL.

[ralfy]

We should also look at the point when production cannot meet demand or can only increase at higher energy costs to do so. Given that, some of the effects of PO take place even before production peaks or drops.

[Simon_R]

Having lurked on this forum for a while, it seems the definition of peak oil is fairly subjective, if not downright emotional, eg.

Cornucopians : Anything that can be turned into the same end product as conventional reservoir crude is by definition oil, so (with fusion etc etc bla bla) we will never peak.

Middle of the Road : When a basket of various liquid fuels (to be decided) peaks, I have not seen many of them, we seem to be polarising.

Doomer : Zombies

it seems to be a sliding scale with each group waiting in breathless anticipation to either drive air cars on the moon, or grapple with zombies in a mad max style clash.
My personal definition :- was conventional reservoir oil, so we have peaked, now we are sliding down the other side, I don't see zombies (or dead people everywhere) but with each hike in price a new form of liquid fuel will become economical and the debate will start over again (joy joy happy joy).

I do not have the quote handy so excuse the paraphrasing but I saw it on this site and it went something like.

Peak oil is the steady erosion of your lifestyle.

Just my tuppence

[ROCKMAN]

Simon – Good post IMHO…you should chime in more often. I don’t think the conversation should get too confusing just as long as folks don’t accept a “peak” number without fully understanding what the stat refers to. There’s a validity to looking at peak liquids especially in the US for those liquids used to make motor fuels since our society depends so heavily on transport. Especially individual vehicles. And we can dissect it even more when you think of imports. For example how much does it matter to the US if some country that exports very little oil to the US has peaked? Indonesia not only peaked long ago but several years ago went from oil exporter to net oil importer. That switch had virtually no direct impact on the US. OTOH consider Canada which has had significant increases in oil production in recent years with nearly all exported to the US. But what if they continue increasing gross production but begin exporting more to other countries? Canada may be many years away from the current surge peaking but that doesn’t mean the US will be able to take advantage of that condition.

It’s handy to use “peak whatever” to drop a 1 or 2 line snip. But any serious discussion should hit the details. At that’s where I see the real value of our very broad knowledge base here at PO.com.

[Pops]

We should also look at the point when production cannot meet demand or can only increase at higher energy costs to do so. Given that, some of the effects of PO take place even before production peaks or drops.

I think that's right Ralfy. In the overall scheme we're seen the effects already, obviously the high price of crude is the main signal. Real average oil prices have been never higher, longer, than at any time in the past what - 3 years now? I just did a quick check of my Brent spreadsheet and the average price since march 2007 is $92!

Demand destruction and real changes in habits have been happening in the most profligate countries for years now and to varying degrees, based on your particular assumptions, economic and social effects are ongoing worldwide.

Even looking at the extraction business itself there are lots of changes happening, first the lack of new production, then the boom in fracking as if there were no place else to drill. The high crude price paid for huge investments in exploration but this time there was no great surge of flow from new conventional wells. In fact it doesn't look like there was much payback at all from the great techno-promises either, i.e. sub-salt, arctic & ultra-deep. Now we're following the news of what appears to be an investment pull back by major IOCs in order to protect their share price.

For those of us with nothing better to do, arguing the minutia seems to be entertaining. But in the big picture, the exact date doesn't matter, especially at the resolution of 100's or 1,000, or 100,000's of barrels per day. Or, for that matter how much of the kitchen sink the reporting agencies decide to count. Was it last February or sometime in 2005 or maybe June 10, 2019?

Doesn't matter, nothing will happen that day. People won't say Oh! PO! Governments won't say Oh! PO! PO.com won't be overrun by sheep and the Walmarts won't all close. LOL

PO happened when the market switched from demand constrained to supply constrained. Everything else is detail.

[zaphod42]

Dashter wrote:

I don't think that authoritative, broad-brush, end-of-discussion statements on this forum will solve Peak Oil any sooner than statements that you feel are too concerned with irrelevant details.

My appologies; did not mean to end but maybe 'steer'(?) We could talk forever and argue what 'peak' means, what 'oil' means, and what 'peak oil' means, in a literal sense. Am I the only person who wonders what good it does, even if we all agree on each of those terms. About all I see coming from that is at some time the possibility of someone saying, "Yup! I was right."

I stumbled on peak oil sites about 7 or 8 years ago, trying to get my mind around several crises I saw developing. There were other topics involved, and they all seemed entwined. I suppose the hope was that if I could define what was happening it would be controlled. More and more I realize that, yes, the crises are entwined. And, yes, they are still converging - covering environmental degredation and AGW, resource depletion, moral and morale decay, increasing anger and incivil behaviors, political polarization, and economic chaos.

We see it on blogs with antipodal opinions, trolls and spammers. And we are unfortunately entwined in it ourselves and often do not recognize when we (read I) take 'Authoritarian" positions and make broad, sweeping, conversation ending statements.

So, sorry for doing that.

Oh, by the way,

You have also introduced a term of which I am not familiar - 'average peak rate'.

Part of the discussion mentioned a multi-year period of peak. Since there are no totally smooth charts, I invented the term, "average peak rate," indicating the average rate of production over a period of years that together constitute an undulating peak. Okay?

:>)

Thanks for contributing.

Craig

[dashster]

And we are unfortunately entwined in it ourselves and often do not recognize when we (read I) take 'Authoritarian" positions and make broad, sweeping, conversation ending statements.

So, sorry for doing that.

It's all good. No apologies necessary. From my side, I will go into "message forum argumentative mode" too easily.

[sparky]

.-
First , some self congratulation
this site is probably the premier open discussion site on "Peak Oil "
thus it is proper to dance around definitions

IT is canonical to consider "conventional "
ie : liquid hydrocarbon lighter than water under normal temperature and pressure
this include lease condensates , for better or worst

I don't believe ethanol should be considered as such but as " Synthetic fuels "
in this ( not so new ) category I would put coal to liquid also

There is plenty of issue , what is Orinoco tar oil , what is Canadian tar sands
For me , they are also " Synthetics ",
they require some treatment ( natural gas ) to make them useful

Sure enough put into a furnace they would burn , but so would a log or corn straw
combustion is not the issue
refining into useful product is

Probably we will not know when the Peak has happened , afterward
forget before
considering the rubbery numbers , unreported or confusing extraction
a rolling decade average is probably the best index .
there are others ,
my own is when the airline industry will contract in passengers miles per year
this is a bell-weather indicator .

everyone can think of their own

[dashster]

Based on the graphs on the current front page news article:

http://peakoil.com/production/eia-world ... ion-update

It doesn't seem that conventional crude production could have peaked in 2005 as Stephen Kopits said. The earliest would be 2008, as that was higher than 2005 and there appears to be no gain in tar sands or shale oil during 2008.

[ROCKMAN]

Let's try another angle on the peak of "conventional oil". To the point: the energy consumers on the planet don't buy or consume oil be it conventional, unconventional or whatever. They buy and consume refined products. I think many of us realize that most of the public neither understands or cares about oil production per se and the debate over the timing of various peaks. They couldn't care less about the compositional breakdown of the current all time high production of liquid hydrocarbons on the planet IMHO. They care about the production of motor fuel and other refined products. Production which is currently at an all time high. The peak of that production may not be far down the road. But we aren't there yet. And that's the Peak Date that's important to the vast majority of the world.

[dashster]

Why do you guys care when people talk about the peak of conventional oil? If you don't care about it like the vast majority of the world, just ignore the discussion.