[dissident]

"Russia's massive offshore Arctic oil and gas discovery could dwarf Gulf of Mexico and Middle East reserves"
https://www.rt.com/business/509711-rosn ... ry-arctic/

Add this to the potential oil to be produced in the future. I don't see geological Peak Oil necessarily happening this decade, but economic, social, and/or geopolitical factors could mean this is it.

Those GoM and ME reserves must be really small. Taking 514+800 = 1314 bcm and dividing just by the amount Russia exports to the resentful EU saps, 150 bcm, one gets about 9 years of supply. If you look at the combined annual consumption by Russia and the EU, you have 444+470 = 914 bcm. So these new reserves are worth 1.4 years.

The end really is nigh.

[Pops]

BP estimates the overall decline rate at 4%, Rystad at 4.4%.
So EXXONs ~7% is notable I think.
Hardly surprising though, LTO declines at what? 40%? It is the only thing that has prevented PO to this point, so its importance is hard to overstate.

The BP forecast is kind of an outline of the green new deal wet dream. I'm surprised to find only one link to it here. I remember back in the day the site was all a-titter over its "Beyond Petroleum" marketing. Anyway the outlook couches the peak in reduced demand, carbon reduction, blah, with slower energy growth than the historic 2%. Could happen that we make huge strides in renewables and efficiency now that the deconstruction of the state will be temporarily halted but I'm not so sure.

At the same time it forecasts a quick rebound in LTO for 10 years or so. Demand falling faster than supply is a wonderful thing—but supply is in surplus only because of fracking. Hard to frack with the market in surplus and the price very low.

BP also forecasts OPEC share of market increasing, I assume because everyone else peaks and declines. Obviously BP thinks lots of carbon will be stranded and so is selling its assets and this is a marketing document to its shareholders to back that theory. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to think it possible that oil will go out like buggy whips, just not sure it can be as orderly as BP makes it out. Or even that a demand peak is any more real than all the other peaks forecast around here. Supply is going to decline, that's the news everywhere, the only question seems to be will the decline be out of disinterest or disability.

[dcoyne78]

Pops,

If we assume demand peaks later (say in 2030) and use an Oil shock model with a 3100 Gb URR for World C+C the peak could easily be 2030 instead of 2018. Chart below compares a "best guess" oil shock model with the BP outlook BAU scenario converted to Mb/d of C+C.



Supply may peak first (in 2028) with a rise in oil prices that accelerates the transition to electrified land transport. My expectation is that by 2035 we may see demand for oil falling faster than the supply of oil and oil prices may start to fall driving higher cost oil from the market (new developments of extra heavy, tight, deep water offshore, and Arctic oil will cease under such a scenario).

[Pops]

Supply may peak first (in 2028) with a rise in oil prices that accelerates the transition to electrified land transport. My expectation is that by 2035 we may see demand for oil falling faster than the supply of oil and oil prices may start to fall driving higher cost oil from the market (new developments of extra heavy, tight, deep water offshore, and Arctic oil will cease under such a scenario).

Hi Dennis, been meaning to say that it's nice to see you posting.

I'd be happy with your plot if the conservation/substitution is voluntary.
Conversely, even the BP BAU shallow slope (-1%/yr?) will be painful without a universal carbon-reduction buy-in.

Just wondering, do you consider LTO, X-heavy, etc as separate curves as Laherrere has done?

[dcoyne78]

Hi Dennis, been meaning to say that it's nice to see you posting.

I'd be happy with your plot if the conservation/substitution is voluntary.
Conversely, even the BP BAU shallow slope (-1%/yr?) will be painful without a universal carbon-reduction buy-in.

Just wondering, do you consider LTO, X-heavy, etc as separate curves as Laherrere has done?

Thanks Pops,

I imagine in a free market where prices are allowed to freely adjust to supply and demand that it is always a choice that individuals make when deciding how their resources are allocated. So when peak supply is reached at an given price level, if consumers want more of the good they will bid up the price until demand at the new price level matches demand.

I also expect that more and more people will choose plugin hybrids and EVs as their TCO will likely be lower than ICEVs as supply of batteries ramps up and economies of scale and innovation drive battery prices lower.

Yes my shock model has three parts, a conventional oil model (all C+C except tight oil and extra heavy oil), my best guess for conventional URR is 3000 Gb (note that a 2015 USGS analysis has a mean estimate for TRR of conventional World oil at 3500 Gb and Laherrere's recent estimate is about 2700 Gb, so my estimate is roughly midway between these two).

For tight oil my URR is 80 Gb and for extra heavy oil is 200 Gb.

The three separate models (conventional, tight, and extra heavy oil) are added together for my World Oil Shock Model. Much of this can be found at

https://geoenergymath.com/2018/11/02/ma ... gy-update/

[Tanada]

Hi Dennis, been meaning to say that it's nice to see you posting.

I'd be happy with your plot if the conservation/substitution is voluntary.
Conversely, even the BP BAU shallow slope (-1%/yr?) will be painful without a universal carbon-reduction buy-in.

Just wondering, do you consider LTO, X-heavy, etc as separate curves as Laherrere has done?

Thanks Pops,

I imagine in a free market where prices are allowed to freely adjust to supply and demand that it is always a choice that individuals make when deciding how their resources are allocated. So when peak supply is reached at an given price level, if consumers want more of the good they will bid up the price until demand at the new price level matches demand.

I also expect that more and more people will choose plugin hybrids and EVs as their TCO will likely be lower than ICEVs as supply of batteries ramps up and economies of scale and innovation drive battery prices lower.

Yes my shock model has three parts, a conventional oil model (all C+C except tight oil and extra heavy oil), my best guess for conventional URR is 3000 Gb (note that a 2015 USGS analysis has a mean estimate for TRR of conventional World oil at 3500 Gb and Laherrere's recent estimate is about 2700 Gb, so my estimate is roughly midway between these two).

For tight oil my URR is 80 Gb and for extra heavy oil is 200 Gb.

The three separate models (conventional, tight, and extra heavy oil) are added together for my World Oil Shock Model. Much of this can be found at

https://geoenergymath.com/2018/11/02/ma ... gy-update/

I think the dwindling number of active posters here is causing a bit of common knowledge to be overlooked. Americans are still incredibly spoiled by low road fuel prices compared to almost anywhere else n Earth. We have way more slack still in our system in North America. Back in 2007-08 when road fuel was $4-5/gallon we saw people suddenly getting interested in fuel efficiency and we saw a lot of what is once again over the road cargo get shifted to railroad cargo as the price differential strongly encouraged going with energy efficiency.

Thhose changes hung on for several years as prices crashed in late 2008 and rebounded to the $3.50/gallon range in 2009 where they stayed for five years. Unfortunately when KSA crashed prices in late 2015 through 2016 all those energy saving tactics faded away in the euphoria of cheap fuel returning. Now here we are almost six years later and the short term American memory has us wasting fuel by using just in time over the road cargo nearly as much as we did back in 2006 before the C+C peak drove prices upward crushing demand.

I have always been a moderate when it comes to long term peak effects because of the adaptation strategies we display when prices sustain a higher level. In all honesty I am quite surprised that the major refiners in North America did not use lower crude prices to pad their profit margins by keeping road furl at least in the $2.50/$3.50/gallon range. Instead they have allowed supply to drive prices down as low as $1.75/gallon last spring and around here prices have consistently remained under $2.25/gallon during all the shut down disruptions to demand. Fracking supply has flooded the market for years even after the USA lifted regulations restricting oil exports. Right now we have at least a $2/gallon slack space in road fuel prices and that gives us a big breathing space to rebound despite the weak covid economy. As prices resume the climb companies can easily shift back to more efficient rail cargo and more airlines can be shut down in the expectation that higher ticket prices will kill the remaining casual flying demand.

Personally all these factors together leads me to believe demand can fall a lot in the short run as we top the peak, and switching to PHEV+EV combined with increasing the CNG fuelling for things like city bs fleets and cab company fleets can keep us from going all mad max on the world. A CNG city or school bus might not be as convenient as diesel due to the more frequent need to fill up, but its not the end of the world. Whatever else happens I expect methane to remain cheap for a long time going forward. For a brief period we had a gas station about 4 miles from my house with a CNG filling station. If you had a CNG vehicle it was just as fast and convenient to use as a liquid fuel pump, you pulled up, locked the hose end on your filling spout and the compressed CNG filled you tank to capacity easy peasy. Back in 2015 Cincinnati, OH was in the process of converting buses and refuse trucks over fleet wide before the KSA price crash disrupted all those kinds of plans. Given the lifetimes of commercial vehicles the ones they had already purchased before the crash are still in use so they have not lost the skills in operating and maintaining their existing fleet. That will make resuming the conversion easier than the first steps taken back in 2013-14 when the whole idea was new and scary. That same reality goes for all the other cities that had started to switch fuel choices before prices dropped.

Peak Oil 2020 is a lot less stressful than 2008 because we know so much more about alternatives than we used to know. On a culture wide scale we gave a lot more cumulative experience to draw upon to adapt.

[JuanP]

In Miami the vast majority of city buses run on CNG, and I love the clear air coming out of their exhaust pipes. The old diesel ones made huge clouds of horrible smoke that looked, smelled, and tasted like shit; thank god you hardly ever see them now. Running buses on CNG is obviously easily achievable.

[REAL Green]

In Miami the vast majority of city buses run on CNG, and I love the clear air coming out of their exhaust pipes.

What does that have to do with PO I am wondering???

[Pops]

Thanks Dennis.
Your model output reminds me of my "artist's concept" from ca2012 of the Shark Fin curve. (I don't do math just graphics) The rationale being we flattened the peak and extended the plateau. The upshot is lower, longer peak/plateau but then steeper decline.




Ditto this, again from 2014-ish, the idea being fracking is a huge headfake to the market. The promise of happy motoring for the 10-? years of the boom as all the while, natural decline erodes the base resource. Then when the frack evaporates there is a large decline over a very few years, equal to LTO decline but also the C+C decline going on in the background unnoticed. This shows just the US but there has been declines globally as it turns out.



---
Generally I'd think prices will remain low for a period as the economy tries to recover—or enters a tailspin. I assume there are LTO DUCs to blast and infill to fill in when demand and price does come up, but OPEC will have something to say about price, keeping it below LTO profit namely. Upshot is, your model of a peak around 2030 makes sense.

---
Point is, without some forward thinking here in the US, consumers will do nothing toward greater mitigation because there will be no price signal to conserve. In fact, we're ending a period of gratuitous environmental deregulation —I hope— removing the flow restriction on multiple shower heads, put in place 25 years ago, is the perfect, idiotic, nonsensical example. Forty percent of the population has become so contrarian and anti-science, anti-everything that they would rather wear a surgical mask than admit GW or PO is a thing—and they'd rather die than wear a mask! LOL

Renewable energy has past the buggy-whip threshold, it's now the full cycle price winner, or close to it. That is a huge thing because it means reducing carbon is profitable to investors, not just "virtue signaling" by librals. What's good for fighting GW is good mitigation for PO. I don't think even the gop can stop RE now.

I think EVs are great. But they only have a tiny penetration in the US and maybe 2-3% globally, and that won't grow much during this low oil price period without government prompting. Again, half the US is not just unbelieving, but ideologically opposed, not just to "regulation" but to the entire premise of GW and will actively work to oppose the very mitigations required.

Sorry for the long post, that's what happens when I can't upload, LOL
.

[REAL Green]

Renewable energy has past the buggy-whip threshold, it's now the full cycle price winner, or close to it. That is a huge thing because it means reducing carbon is profitable to investors, not just "virtue signaling" by librals. What's good for fighting GW is good mitigation for PO. I don't think even the gop can stop RE now.

Full cycle price winner as long as fossil fuel and NUK baseline and back up is around to hold its hands. This whole notion net-zero-30 is bogus at least as far as current capabilities and economics are concerned. Seasonal and longer term storage is inadequate. The economics of energy of any kind is compressing. Renewables will not change that. In fact renewables will just make it worse at some point where they are pushed to do more than they can do.

Unlike many who talk renewables but don't have any I have them. I have a big investment in them and I can tell you they do not perform like people think they do. I am very satisfied with mine but I would be hard pressed to be off grid and live like I do. My biggest slap in the face for techno optimist is human behavior today could be adapted to make the coming energy decline much easier but instead it is business as usual. The liberals are always pointing their fingers at the conservatives when the liberals are as bad or maybe worse. I say worse becuase they are self-righteous about green. They are fake green wanting their cake and eat it. They want to continue to live the affluent life and act like it can be greened up. This is just plain false.

[JuanP]

Pops, I posted an article on the Electric Vehicle thread related to your comment above. It's the one about the declining price and increasing quality of batteries leading to EVs matching ICEVs IN 2023. I think once EVs can compete with ICEVs economically a lot more people will start buying them because they are more quiet, clean, comfortable, and convenient to use for most uses.

I can't post the link here because it's against the forum's rules.

[Ibon]

The liberals are always pointing their fingers at the conservatives when the liberals are as bad or maybe worse. I say worse becuase they are self-righteous about green. They are fake green wanting their cake and eat it. They want to continue to live the affluent life and act like it can be greened up. This is just plain false.

When you bring up the left you always sound so wounded? Where you scorned by some hippy girlfriend in your past? haha

We live off the grid and have 6 buildings powered by an 8KW micro hydro plant. In the beginning when I came here I was in many ways your typical spoiled consumer in terms of energy use and throwing things away instead of recycling.

For those of us who are immersed in using renewable energy it is the adaptation to optimizing and living within the boundaries of the power you generate. So before buying any appliance you look at the back of the toaster or coffee pot to check on the power consumption. You learn to juggle high power consumption appliances like electric hot water tanks or coffee mills that run on electric motors that require high amps to start up. Dessicant dehumidifies that dry coffee on timers that run at night when power can be diverted there. Etc. etc. etc. All of this is not inconvenient but rather highly creative in how you manage.

But you cant have this knowledge ahead of time. This happens as you learn to use it. A lot like organic gardening. It is a process of many years engaging intimately with the bio region where you live.

I don't have an answer how you move a spoiled population socialized on mindless consumption to adapt. I think pricing and legislation has to herd and force adaptation. You will not get folks there willfully, whether they are political right or left or white or black or rainbow colored.

[Plantagenet]

I don't have an answer how you move a spoiled population socialized on mindless consumption to adapt. I think pricing ... has to herd and force adaptation. You will not get folks there willfully, whether they are political right or left or white or black or rainbow colored.

Exactly right.

We need a carbon tax to nudge everyone to use less power and emit less carbon.

However, unfortunately, the Biden administration has ruled out a carbon tax even before taking office.

Just like prior administrations, the Bidenoes prefer to make grandiose statements about climate change rather then doing the tough things that have to be done.

Cheers!

[mousepad]

We need a carbon tax to nudge everyone to use less power and emit less carbon.

I'm wondering if carbon tax actually reduces carbon.
I would think the state getting new tax revenue will be eager to spend it all and consume instead of the man being taxed. The tax only shifting consumption from one man to the next.

[AdamB]

We need a carbon tax to nudge everyone to use less power and emit less carbon.

I'm wondering if carbon tax actually reduces carbon.
I would think the state getting new tax revenue will be eager to spend it all and consume instead of the man being taxed. The tax only shifting consumption from one man to the next.

I think you are quite right. And no experts were harmed in this meeting of the minds!!

Remember cap and trade? That was a similar sort of carbon tax scheme, but it included a top level CO2 emission number, and then to prevent what you've just suggested, it would lower the limit with time. Buying someone else's carbon allowance gets more difficult with time, and expensive, causes the folks wanting to emit Co2 the most to be incentivized to reduce their own emissions. It sounded pretty good. If memory serves, it was once speculated that this was part of the reason Al Gore was running around with his movie, as he was trying to corner this market and get Bill Gates rich by getting in on the ground floor.

[mousepad]

And no experts were harmed in this meeting of the minds!!

[Pops]

Full cycle price winner as long as fossil fuel and NUK baseline and back up is around to hold its hands.

FF will be around for a long time, just not at the essentially free price point we've enjoyed. With scarcity will come higher price, and higher price demands higher utility from every drop: think repairing/replacing windmills, not a trip to the quick-sac for a six-pack.

But yeah, we'll likely never replace life as we've known it.

I think once EVs can compete with ICEVs economically a lot more people will start buying them because they are more quiet, clean, comfortable, and convenient to use for most uses.

I hope it will begin that soon, Juan. Biden promised a few hundred thousand charging stations, that would be big as there are just 10s of thousands now <100k I think.

Where you scorned by some hippy girlfriend in your past? haha
...
I don't have an answer how you move a spoiled population socialized on mindless consumption to adapt. I think pricing and legislation has to herd and force adaptation. You will not get folks there willfully, whether they are political right or left or white or black or rainbow colored.

LOL, damn hippy chicks!

Agree completely. We have a few Tesla 3s out there, some metal straws (waiting to hear about one of those piercing someone's brain pan) but that's about it. Hgh oil price, regulation or EVs as convenient, cheap & reliable as ICEs is the only way to transition.

--

[ralfy]

In 2006, the IEA stated in one feature that peak oil won't take place for around three decades, that any lack of supply will be due to above-ground problems, and that by 2015 world demand would reach around 115 Mbd thanks to robust economic growth, and that oil producers would easily meet it.

Today, it has barely reached 100 Mbd, and that's five years after 2015. And that's likely because high oil costs plus debts (partly needed to cover the former) led to a crash which also led to weak economic growth across a decade, and which in turn led to lower oil demand.

In short, we experienced one of several effects of peak oil without even being aware of it.

[Plantagenet]

Hgh oil price, regulation or EVs as convenient, cheap & reliable as ICEs is the only way to transition.

There is another way and its the simples and best way of all.....The Biden administration should grow some gonads and come out for a carbon tax. This very simple measure would raise the cost of all fossil fuels and force innovation and competition in the marketplace to determine the best way to replace ICE cars.

Personally, I think hydrogen fuel cells will turn out to be cheaper and better for the environment then battery EVs.

IMHO it would be best to let the marketplace make the decision rather then have the government put a thumb on the scale through regulations or subsidies supporting just one specific technology, i.e. battery EVs.

Cheers!

[REAL Green]

Hgh oil price, regulation or EVs as convenient, cheap & reliable as ICEs is the only way to transition.

There will be no transition IMO but a transformation into a steady but slow (I hope) decline into a new world of economic abandonment, dysfunctional networks, and irrational policy. Some regions will fare better than others this is clear. Places in severe overshoot with population and consumption plus located poorly for an energy starved world are in trouble. There are no silver bullet for the consequences of overshoot. Techno optimism is only a siren song leading us further into a demise. Behavior is the issue and techno optimism is just more of the same human feeling of exceptionalism. Until humans get out of exceptionalism and into humility this will not change. Humility will come with decline and collpase and then it is too late.

There is another way and its the simples and best way of all.....The Biden administration should grow some gonads and come out for a carbon tax.

Carbon taxes are another niche action but these things are always circumvented. In today's world of moral hazard a carbon tax will just be a window dressing of marginal results. I do think they are worth instituting I just think they will not achieve much. Yet, considering how much needs to be done we need a "suppressive fire" of options.

Personally, I think hydrogen fuel cells will turn out to be cheaper and better for the environment then battery EVs.

I am excited about hydrogen and fuel cells but again they are likely only a niche player as are BEV. The build up is too great to make them a transition player. Hydrogen has so many drawbacks but again I get back to "suppressive fire" If the world is going to transform into a world that manages decline we will need many different approaches when none of them are completely adequate.