[AdamB]

Peak oil did happen in 2018. As folks have mentioned, time needs to pass before determining if it is indeed THE ONE. There are examples of regions, including the entire world, of peaking...and then 15 or 70 or 100 years later, peaking again. So we'll just tell our children or grand children to keep their eyes open, and let them worry about being able to finally designate....THE ONE, because none of us are going to be around that far out to know for sure.

I think you are ignoring a crucial factor in your statement Adam. I believe "The ONE" and only global peak oil will be when crude prices remain elevated yet world crude production continues to decline.

You can BELIEVE whatever you'd like, the definition of peak oil is about a maximum rate, not prices. If peak oil was about prices, it would be called "peak oil price" or something, and we would be lamenting the "good ol' days" prior to 2008 when that peak price happened and the world ended, or not, or whatever. Also, your definition runs into the classic quandary solved by economists about the relationship between supply and price. There is ZERO requirement that a real, live, as defined by Hubbert on down peak OIL is required to also be higher prices forever onward. It is a possibility, and you are allowed to believe it as some do that the Lord God will come down and scoop them up in the Rapture and leave all the heathens to die horribly, but that is just a belief.

In all those other peaking events high crude price led to a boom in drilling and exploitation which caused supply to go up to a new peak.

All those peaking events I call reel off from memory now weren't global in nature any more than Hubbert's original examples in his 1956 paper. He used regional examples and extrapolated it to the global level, a completely reasonable thing to do. So...your description is more related to that supply/demand macroeconomic issue that your definition attempts to dodge, and now here you are trying to apply those principles correctly...but you want to believe the same won't happen in the future? Notice...in this quote you didn't say "demand", which means you accept the supply/demand response in one way, but then ignore it when convenient.

Exploration is no longer the main driver of new oil production, something that the folks at peak oil barrel still haven't learned, much to their "ever declaring peak because we refuse to learn why we are wrong before" exercises. Except Dennis, his brain appears to function at both technical and economic levels, but he misses completely on the necessary 3rd leg of the problem (3 are required to do this right) and is crippled by lack of high resolution data across all 3 specialties involved.

In the final peak, prices will go up but supply will not be able to grow to a still higher peak even with plenty of profit motive pushing for people to exploit every resource.

The final peak has no more requirement to be scarcity of supply as any of the others. Again, you ignore the relationship that matters in your statement, which has the ability to completely unhinge all of your assumptions about why even THE peak oil happens.

[Doly]

So...your description is more related to that supply/demand macroeconomic issue that your definition attempts to dodge, and now here you are trying to apply those principles correctly...but you want to believe the same won't happen in the future?

Yes, on the principle that when something can't go on indefinitely, it won't. There is a finite amount of oil available on planet Earth. Therefore, at some point supply will run out.

Or, to put it another way, the basic supply and demand principle of economics tells you what happens under the assumption that there is a supply. When there is no supply, there is no financial transaction and economics has nothing to say on the matter.

Exploration is no longer the main driver of new oil production

How is new oil production happening, then, according to you?

The final peak has no more requirement to be scarcity of supply as any of the others.

It isn't required, but since we are considering the possibility that 2018 was the final peak, it's looking like we are seeing scarcity of supply around the time of the final peak.

[C8]

Adam- you are quoting me for stuff Tanada said. If you don't have the time to quote correctly then just don't quote and reply to the general subject.

Exploration is no longer the main driver of new oil production, something that the folks at peak oil barrel still haven't learned

Then what is the driver?

The final peak has no more requirement to be scarcity of supply as any of the others. Again, you ignore the relationship that matters in your statement, which has the ability to completely unhinge all of your assumptions about why even THE peak oil happens.

There is no OFFICIAL definition of Peak Oil- as you well know - but I think the movement developed primarily out of alarm that our modern civilization depended on cheap energy and was heavily built on easily transportable fuel (Suburbia, etc.) so that when the amount of oil extracted declined then SHTF. So Tanada's point in more in the spirit of traditional Peak Oil literature- Peak Oil is when higher prices do not lead to more oil.

Your definition of PO sounds more like a technicality- its just whenever we used the max oil per year but it could be OK b/c it could be that we moved onto new sources of energy. PO was never about being just a technicality, it was about the lack of decent substitutes and societal disruption. I don't know if you have read any of the literature- but your definition would be disputed by most I think.

[jato0072]

Peak oil did happen in 2018. As folks have mentioned, time needs to pass before determining if it is indeed THE ONE. There are examples of regions, including the entire world, of peaking...and then 15 or 70 or 100 years later, peaking again.

Doly, C8; your posts make sense to me. However, I have a difficult time following AdamB. The above clip is completely incoherent. It seems to describe some type of regenerating abiotic oil which can "refill" every 15, 70 or 100 years? IDK??? I usually just ignore him, which is unfortunate.

[AdamB]

So...your description is more related to that supply/demand macroeconomic issue that your definition attempts to dodge, and now here you are trying to apply those principles correctly...but you want to believe the same won't happen in the future?

Yes, on the principle that when something can't go on indefinitely, it won't.

Good thing peak oil isn't about something running out (can't go on) but some arbitrary point along the path between 0 at the beginning, and 0 at the end then. The topic of peak oil does involve the ill-informed continuously claiming the Blessed Event. Just shows that a PhD with knowledge an inch wide and a mile deep might need to become a polymath like you Doly.

There is a finite amount of oil available on planet Earth. Therefore, at some point supply will run out.

And 2+2 =4. Are you supposing that Happy McPeaksters don't know the meaning of the word "finite", or can't do 1st grade math? Or both?

Or, to put it another way, the basic supply and demand principle of economics tells you what happens under the assumption that there is a supply.

It also tells you what happens when there is NO supply. There can be all the demand you like, but price is infinite, and good luck with that. It also tells you what happens when supply begins to undercut demand. Or vice versa. Any reason why when I ask you about resource cost curves you avoid responding?

Exploration is no longer the main driver of new oil production

How is new oil production happening, then, according to you?

Well, there is this thing, the USGS and Hubbert deemed it reserve growth and quite an important topic to them back in the mid 1970's. You might have heard of it. Some even claim that it rules.

The final peak has no more requirement to be scarcity of supply as any of the others.

It isn't required, but since we are considering the possibility that 2018 was the final peak, it's looking like we are seeing scarcity of supply around the time of the final peak.

Scarcity of supply around the time of 2018 peak oil? Okay...lets approach it that way. Peak oil happened and for 2 years no one noticed. Then, one afternoon, a bunch of things happened, Covid, a near coup in the US, a demand side shock, followed by a supply chain cock-up, followed by closed refineries in the world's largest exporter of refined products, a major land war in Europe....and...? Current circumstances are caused by the peak oil 4 years ago? Really?

And when you say "supply", what do you mean? What you can see today? Or that which is available with investment? Hence things like resource cost curves. You do know what they are don't you? Any future modeling involving non-renewable energy resources would seem to require them, unless someone is some kind of hack who just makes things up in any one or all three of the science regimes needed to discuss this question in a holistic fashion.

[Tanada]

Scarcity of supply around the time of 2018 peak oil? Okay...lets approach it that way. Peak oil happened and for 2 years no one noticed. Then, one afternoon, a bunch of things happened, Covid, a near coup in the US, a demand side shock, followed by a supply chain cock-up, followed by closed refineries in the world's largest exporter of refined products, a major land war in Europe....and...? Current circumstances are caused by the peak oil 4 years ago? Really?

And when you say "supply", what do you mean? What you can see today? Or that which is available with investment? Hence things like resource cost curves. You do know what they are don't you? Any future modeling involving non-renewable energy resources would seem to require them, unless someone is some kind of hack who just makes things up in any one or all three of the science regimes needed to discuss this question in a holistic fashion.

IMO and yes this is just an opinion, if it turns out that 2018 was "The One" world peak I would classify the 2019-2021 period as a time of low demand due to Covid and other economic factors. It was only about a year ago in mid 2021 that demand recovered enough to start driving prices upward. It also looks like this time KSA decided that cashing in on high prices was more advantageous than the flood the market strategy they adopted in mid 2014 that led to the price bottoming out in January 2016. That low price period in turn caused a large curtailing of drilling in already leased tight oil areas of the USA which is why world peak shows up in 2018.

I know you don't appear to put much faith in economic factors, or so your last response directly to me seems to have said from my point of view. I however for whatever it is worth think based on my life experiences and following this general topic since 1982 thing economics are the driving factor in all peaks up to the final peak.

Let me give two examples.
1) Let us say Humans suddenly decide to go all electric on transportation and governments everywhere pass regulations and laws requiring that all private and commercial vehicle be plug in hybrid drive trains or pure battery electric vehicles. Over the following 15 years as ICE vehicles cease manufacturing and electric vehicles become standard crude oil demand declines steeply. Because it is a UN/government mandate it doesn't matter than crude is selling for $6.23/bbl at the end of the 15 years, the simple fact is demand no longer supports higher prices. This scenario causes 2018 to become the world peak oil because demand never rises above a low base level which is to a large extent consumed in manufacturing petrochemicals, plastics and asphalt paving with just a little going for transportation use.

2) Let us assume the world government discard the theory of Global Warming, Anthropocene Climate Change or whatever your preferred terminology is. In this scenario world governments fund a long list of government subsidized oil substitutes each based on a target price of $100/bbl adjusting for inflation as time passes. In this world places with abundant natural gas like North America and Iran build Gas To Liquids facilities to reformulate their excess methane production into synthetic gasoline, kerosene and diesel fuels all sold at the fixed government price of $100/bbl. Because the world economy has already adapted to function at this price point additional players enter the market offering synthetic fuels from Lignite to Liquid, Coal to Liquid, Biomass to liquid and even the navy Seawater+CO2 to liquid synthetic fuels. All of these endeavors are profitable at the $100/bbl price point the government has created. This also strongly encourages developments like the Utah oil sands that went bust when the oil price dropped in 2015-2020 below the level of their needed price point to earn a healthy profit. It also encourages a continuing expansion of the Athabasca bitumen sands and a revival of the Venezuelan extra heavy oil reservoirs as governments change over time. Because the price point is set by fiat their is an abundant supply of oil for all uses but as time goes on less and less of that oil is actually a liquid extracted from reservoirs for refining. Under this scenario it turns out that 2018 was actually "The One" world peak in terms of crude oil production, however the vast quantities of substitute synthetic fuels made from cheap abundant Natural Gas, Lignite and Coal for the most part means the crude peak is kind of unimportant other than as a foot note in petroleum geology lessons for students.

The economics driving each of the two scenarios were about as opposed as I could figure out how to make them. In scenario 1) crude oil demand becomes a few million barrels a day and the remaining reserves will last a very long time. In scenario 2) Government stabilization of the price of crude at a significant level supported synthetic fuel production that replaced oil demand faster than growth at that price point required resulting in ample fossil fuel supply with lower demand for crude oil at the same time.

Because we live in a democratic culture where voters demand the cheapest energy they can get most of the time neither is likely because each would require a consistent campaign of education or propaganda to convince the voters that path was the solution to their energy problems. Given the fecklessness of western politicians I find that a low probability even though I think under the mandates stated either scenario is a technical possibility even if they are not politically viable.

Point being in both scenarios economics were very important in setting how high the peak of world production reached even though there was still lots of crude oil left in the ground waiting to be exploited. In both scenarios given a long enough time projection into the future all that remaining crude being a finite resource would eventually be consumed, but because you have substitution via electricity in Scenario 1 and substitution with other abundant fossil fuels in scenario 2 the date when that oil is no longer worth extraction is pushed far into the future.

Over here in 2022 we are still playing at BAU and how long we sustain prices above $100/bbl remains an open question because of economic factors. A major recession would lower demand, a return to government policy supporting fracking would increase supply, the war could end today if Putin decided to just walk away (stranger things have happened historically) or some nutty dictator might drop a half dozen nukes on the major oil shipping terminals around the Middle East and shut down 30% of world supply overnight. It is the future and nobody knows with certainty what events will take place to drive the situation.

"You makes your choice and you takes your chances".

[AdamB]

Adam- you are quoting me for stuff Tanada said. If you don't have the time to quote correctly then just don't quote and reply to the general subject.

I apologize. You are completely correct. Unfortunately, I no longer have the editing ability to rectify my mistake.

[AdamB]

Exploration is no longer the main driver of new oil production, something that the folks at peak oil barrel still haven't learned

Then what is the driver?

Primarily reserve growth, with a oldie but a forgotten goodie kicker.

The final peak has no more requirement to be scarcity of supply as any of the others. Again, you ignore the relationship that matters in your statement, which has the ability to completely unhinge all of your assumptions about why even THE peak oil happens.

There is no OFFICIAL definition of Peak Oil- as you well know - but I think the movement developed primarily out of alarm that our modern civilization depended on cheap energy and was heavily built on easily transportable fuel (Suburbia, etc.) so that when the amount of oil extracted declined then SHTF. So Tanada's point in more in the spirit of traditional Peak Oil literature- Peak Oil is when higher prices do not lead to more oil.

Well, not an official definition no, but for the decades peak oil has been claimed, occurred, been repealed, and occurred again, the argument has been volume. Hence the name. Heinberg tried a "peak oil price day" angle once back in the hayday of peak oil price (2008), but he is has slowly walked away from being overly specific nowadays, while avoiding his bad calls of the past as well.

Your definition of PO sounds more like a technicality

I am sorry again, but for a different reason this time. If you don't understand the difference between a price and a volume, and consider such a distinction a technicality, boy would I like to be your financial advisor. "Sure this penny stock is expensive at the $100 price I'm selling it to you for, for its only one share!!"

- its just whenever we used the max oil per year but it could be OK b/c it could be that we moved onto new sources of energy.

Or it might not be okay because humans would rather just become Amish. Tell me c8, do you believe folks would rather be Amish, or drive EVs and keep a more modern lifestyle, even with the perceived disadvantages they have in the eyes of their detractors? To heck with 'folks", which would YOU choose? Which would people you know well choose?

PO was never about being just a technicality, it was about the lack of decent substitutes and societal disruption.

Not according to the people who explained it, waxed poetic about it, wrote books about it over the years. Social disruption was the claimed consequence of it, not the thing itself.

I don't know if you have read any of the literature- but your definition would be disputed by most I think.

And I, having forgotten more on this barely interesting topic than most people know at this point, could probably recall by 10 to 1 the opposite. Societal disruption was the doomer selling point C8...not the definition fo peak oil accepted by, you know, most everyone.

The definition, with 3 reasonable footnotes, from the everyman source of information. If you aren't familiar with this basic definition spanning, oh, half a century now?, then you really have been out of the loop.

Peak oil is the moment at which extraction of petroleum reaches a rate greater than that at any time in the past and starts to permanently decrease. Peak oil definition.

[AdamB]

Adam- you are quoting me for stuff Tanada said. If you don't have the time to quote correctly then just don't quote and reply to the general subject.

I apologize. To you and Tanada. You are completely correct. Unfortunately, I no longer have the editing ability to rectify my mistake.

[C8]

Adam- PO was never just about the technical max output- that was the 1%. The 99% was about how irreplaceable FF's really are and how any substitutes have massive downsides. PO was about the end of cheap energy that the American lifestyle depends on- the end of our way of life. If PO was just a technicality then there wouldn't have been books written about it and this website wouldn't exist- it would be like "peak cassette tapes" and a triviality.

To reduce PO just to max oil barrel in a year is to trivialize it. Tanada's point about lots more exploration and still high prices embeds the idea of how desperate we will become- which is the entire point of PO that you seem to be missing. It is easy to write all this off as "doomer" stuff but, in fact, PO authors were trying to give a warning to prevent a hard landing. Frankly, their predictions are coming true a lot sooner than global warming forecasts of no Arctic ice or Miami underwater by now.

Also, you need to clarify the reserves vs. exploration point you made. In a prior post, over two months ago, you questioned whether those reported reserves were legitimate. What are you saying?

[AdamB]

Adam- PO was never just about the technical max output- that was the 1%.

I demonstrated the everyman's reference for a reason. Utilizing EIA, Britanica and Investopedia no less. I'm spitballing, but I'm betting Campbell, Laherrere, Deffeyes, Simons, Savinar, the USGS and certainly the EIA are also in that category. Heinberg, Lundberg, Ruppert, TOD, would you like me to continue, or better yet, please provide your list so I can go look them up to make sure ANY of them claim it your way.

The 99% was about how irreplaceable FF's really are and how any substitutes have massive downsides.

Pay better attention to what I wrote. I was specific last time. You are again confusing consequences of peak oil (maximum rate) with peak oil itself. I will admit that the horrifying zombie apocalypse world is where the doomer fascination tends to focus. First they explain peak oil, max volume, declining forever more, etc etc, and then they filled in the cool consequences of their Rapture scenario.

Come on C8, you are better than pretending to be blind on a distinction this basic.

PO was about the end of cheap energy that the American lifestyle depends on- the end of our way of life.

Well, that is one of the songs sung in the pews by the congregation, yes. And it occurs AFTER peak oil (maximum rate) happened.

If PO was just a technicality then there wouldn't have been books written about it and this website wouldn't exist- it would be like "peak cassette tapes" and a triviality.

I agree that a religion has sprung up around Peak Oil, you know, the one defined as maximum rate, with the dogma and mantra of the religion focusing on the consequences.

To reduce PO just to max oil barrel in a year is to trivialize it. Tanada's point about lots more exploration and still high prices embeds the idea of how desperate we will become- which is the entire point of PO that you seem to be missing. It is easy to write all this off as "doomer" stuff but, in fact, PO authors were trying to give a warning to prevent a hard landing. Frankly, their predictions are coming true a lot sooner than global warming forecasts of no Arctic ice or Miami underwater by now.

I have never trivialized peak oil. I have studied it professionally, and dedicated significant chunks of personal and professional time to the component parts that need to be understood in order to attempt to solve it. I DO trivialize the uninformed acolytes who can only read from the Bible that has been handed to them by the Prophets. And I can speak intelligiently on any aspect of the religious, technical, geologic and economic aspects of it.

And who, in your eyes, is a modern "peak oil" author? Do you have any favorites that haven't been discredited by their previous religious writings?

Also, you need to clarify the reserves vs. exploration point you made. In a prior post, over two months ago, you questioned whether those reported reserves were legitimate. What are you saying?

Well, I tend to mean what I say, can you point out the post where I discussed reported reserves being legitimate or not? That doesn't quite strike me as a point I say much about in general. As far as exploration being less meaningful then reserves, that is usually a lead in to a discussion of the value of reserve growth, as opposed to just a general comment on "reserves " (current PDPs, i.e. proven developed producing).

[theluckycountry]

Let me give two examples.
1) Let us say Humans suddenly decide to go all electric on transportation and governments everywhere pass regulations and laws ... Over the following 15 years as ICE vehicles cease manufacturing and electric vehicles become standard crude oil demand declines steeply.

How? Oil is used to make them and the batteries that drive them? And who is going to pay for them, EV's cost a fortune, as we all know, so unless everyone goes into hock for 30 or 50k it can't happen. And then there are all the cars and TRUCKS across the third world and those owners will never be able to afford it.

I think the plan you suggest has a good chance of coming to pass though, and oil consumption will plummet, but because the vast majority of people driving now won't be in 15 or 20 years.

[AdamB]

How? Oil is used to make them and the batteries that drive them?

Silly mining colony citizens. Oil isn't used to make batteries, energy and combinations of carbons and hydrogens are. Oil is great at providing cheap carbons and hydrogens, but there is zero requirement that the particular arrangement of carbons and hydrogens come from oil. Geez....too much to ask that mining colony slaves ever took an organic chemistry class I suppose...flee while you still can to a decent, western, and educated country like New Zealand, hell you ought to be able to swim there, like Cubans trying to get to the US when they realized they were in a pickle like yours.

[C8]

Adam- it must suck that all those PO writers that you keep mocking seem a lot more relevant today than your put downs.

[AdamB]

Adam- it must suck that all those PO writers that you keep mocking seem a lot more relevant today than your put downs.

Really? Relevant in what way?

And can you name any of these now relevant but perhaps once discredited writers, or does such a meager challenge cause you as much trouble as finding one that made the mistake of defining peak oil as a consequence of some sort, rather than a well defined event? Other than you of course.

[Doly]

Really? Relevant in what way?

And can you name any of these now relevant but perhaps once discredited writers

Relevant in the sense that even the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has said that there is a peak in oil supply.

I can name the Global Oil Depletion report by UKERC, that can be found here, published in 2009:

https://ukerc.ac.uk/publications/global ... roduction/

[Newfie]

Reading if Germanys “oh shit” response to the Russian threat to close Nordstream 1 it sounds like they are NOW acutely aware of resource depletion effects.

[AdamB]

Really? Relevant in what way?

And can you name any of these now relevant but perhaps once discredited writers

Relevant in the sense that even the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has said that there is a peak in oil supply.

And he did this in what year? Because any time since 2018 anyone claiming it, 2018, is allowed to. Saudi Ministers back around 2005 were also part of the peak oil choir. I can't say they are reliable, and for completely different reasons than the academics and internet bobble heads doing it, those folks have skin in the game on both sides.

I can name the Global Oil Depletion report by UKERC, that can be found here, published in 2009:

https://ukerc.ac.uk/publications/global ... roduction/

An excellent piece of compared to the rattle trap nonsense most folks kick out. Out of date on reserve growth obviously, but those advancements came after this document was released. And when you peruse the footnotes, they are of higher quality than nearly anything you find in Happy McPeakster land in general. Unfortunate that Bentley chose to pitch in recently with Laherrere and Hall doing the run of the mill Happy McPeakster routine here recently in Environmental Sustainability or some such "gee can I please not be reviewed by experts in the field" pub.

[Doly]

Unfortunate that Bentley chose to pitch in recently with Laherrere and Hall doing the run of the mill Happy McPeakster routine here recently in Environmental Sustainability or some such "gee can I please not be reviewed by experts in the field" pub.

You are being near impossible to parse again, Adam.

Because I'm kind of persistent, I figured that Environmental Sustainability is a peer-reviewed scientific journal (definitely the opposite of "gee can I please not be reviewed by experts") and that you are referring to this paper:

https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/p ... 0727185300

Thanks for the clouded reference, but is it too much to ask that you give up on your "peak oil isn't happening" badass attitude? Since you obviously don't believe in it?

[AdamB]

Really? Relevant in what way?

And can you name any of these now relevant but perhaps once discredited writers

Relevant in the sense that even the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia has said that there is a peak in oil supply.

I can name the Global Oil Depletion report by UKERC, that can be found here, published in 2009:

https://ukerc.ac.uk/publications/global ... roduction/

Sorry Doly, but I wrote two replies to this, one better than the other, and yet the second one I thought I saved is no longer here.

This is an excellent source you've provided, and I've dumped into it before. It explains far more than the normal peak oil pablum, and has authors that appear to know some things (Bentley being better than the likes of Colin and Jean by far). It has footnotes of quality and from people who certainly were active during this time frame and knew what they were doing. There was also this guy, one of the authors...with a suspiciously familiar name.