[Revi]

Congrats! I look forward to watching when you get finished with it!

Thanks! We hope to have it out by this summer!

[AdamB]

It's amazing how right on those old models have proven to be. It's also amazing how little we listened to them. Oh well. We are on track to do exactly what they thought. No surprise.

We must be looking at different models.

[AdamB]

It might be really good timing also. We are hoping to put it out to film festivals this summer. Here's the latest from Peak Oil Barrel. Ron Patterson is really good at boiling down the data and he feels that we hit the world peak last July. He had originally predicted April, so he's not far off at all.

http://peakoilbarrel.com/oil-price-and- ... more-11774

2015 will be the year world production of crude oil peaked. The return of higher oil prices, whether later this year or further in the future, will not bring production back to the 2015 level. Ron Patterson, from above.

So are you going to be able to get him involved in the video?

People immortalizing their bad peak oil calls on Youtube is invaluable to folks in the future, and are good for a decent chuckle a couple years from now if nothing else. Keep that in mind with the video, otherwise the value of the concept of living without oil is lost in the entertainment value of more folks making yet more bad peak oil calls.

[Revi]

Adam B, thanks for keeping this thread alive. We are at 2555 now! We are going to get better music and maybe even some help with promotion. Thanks to all who are helping us with this project. It will be entertaining. We are not claiming to predict anything, just 10 years in the life of a person who recognizes resource limits and what they mean.

[ROCKMAN]

"That is what Hubbert thought had happened back in 1970. And some folks, cherry picking oil density just a little to avoid the obvious, say happened back in about 2005." In reality Hubbert's prediction of US oil production was very accurate. But one has to understand exactly what he was predicting: the future production from the existing PROVEN trends he built his model upon. He specifically points out that his model doesn't include future new tends being developed. Such as the shales or Deep Water. His work on future US oil production is constantly misrepresented by both sides of the debate. The fields that he used in his model peaked in 1971 and are producing a rather small amount of oil...just as he predicted.

Just as the overemphasis of the unimportant date of global PO is constantly pushed by those most comfortable in one dimensional discussions.

[Revi]

It seems like we may have hit peak oil, in the absolute sense back in July of 2015. We won't know until a year has passed, and then it may become obvious. We'll see.

http://peakoilbarrel.com/oil-price-and- ... roduction/

The last paragraph from the above:
"2015 will be the year world production of crude oil peaked. The return of higher oil prices, whether later this year or further in the future, will not bring production back to the 2015 level."

[Subjectivist]

It seems like we may have hit peak oil, in the absolute sense back in July of 2015. We won't know until a year has passed, and then it may become obvious. We'll see.

http://peakoilbarrel.com/oil-price-and- ... roduction/

The last paragraph from the above:
"2015 will be the year world production of crude oil peaked. The return of higher oil prices, whether later this year or further in the future, will not bring production back to the 2015 level."

Two things. First a year is way to short of a time horizon. Second while much of OPEC is pumping at full capacity both Iran and Iraq still have a lot of slack available to be developed, and Libya is producing much less than it could be if the country were stable.

[AdamB]

"That is what Hubbert thought had happened back in 1970. And some folks, cherry picking oil density just a little to avoid the obvious, say happened back in about 2005." In reality Hubbert's prediction of US oil production was very accurate.

The key to "very accurate" being the year you choose to compare of course.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... k_1956.png

But one has to understand exactly what he was predicting: the future production from the existing PROVEN trends he built his model upon. He specifically points out that his model doesn't include future new tends being developed.

Can you refer me to the page in his paper where he even uses the word "trend"? This sounds like important information to read up on. Just a page number will do, then I can track down the exact wording.

Such as the shales or Deep Water.

Can you point me to the place in the paper where he denotes what Deep Water is, as compared to the depth he actually did use? Could come in handy, knowing what was "Deep Water" back then, as compared to now.

His work on future US oil production is constantly misrepresented by both sides of the debate. The fields that he used in his model peaked in 1971 and are producing a rather small amount of oil...just as he predicted.

All oil fields today, will far off in the future be producing much smaller amounts of oil. The difference between that statement, and what Hubbert did, was he created the production profile to say how much...and when. I linked to it above so we can all ask a most basic question. If one hump in a bell shaped curve doesn't work out, why can't we just pick as many as we wish off into the future, using the POD concept? There must be an end to this humping somewhere, right? Another hump for oil shales? Another for the hydrates? Good Lord, we could end up with a 4 humped production profile of the US by the time we are through!

A suggestion Rockman, do you think, utilizing the POD concept and all this oil the US has, but isn't going to produce until the price is right (just like the source rock production), should be begin using a sine wave to predict future amounts?

This one has 3 humps, the US could have maybe 4, but I think the graphic demonstrates how we might need to begin using a different function to predict oil production.

Just as the overemphasis of the unimportant date of global PO is constantly pushed by those most comfortable in one dimensional discussions.

I think you'll see them come out of the woodwork aplenty, with the idea of using a different function to model oil production.

[ennui2]

Adam B, thanks for keeping this thread alive. We are at 2555 now! We are going to get better music and maybe even some help with promotion. Thanks to all who are helping us with this project. It will be entertaining. We are not claiming to predict anything, just 10 years in the life of a person who recognizes resource limits and what they mean.

Adam kind of hijacked the thread away from your film and more of a referendum on PO theory circa 2016 instead.

[Revi]

It depends on if this is really a model for oil production, or waves. I really don't think that oil production has ever looked like this. If this is what you are using as some kind of scientific proof of what you are saying, it's time to find some other more scientific type stuff.

[Revi]

I came off as a little snarky in the above post. Hubbert's peak is the top end of a sine wave. I will admit that.
Sorry Adam B.

[AdamB]

It depends on if this is really a model for oil production, or waves. I really don't think that oil production has ever looked like this.

Reference to the 2nd US oil production hump already created, posted upthread.

You could include the idea in your movie, if only to protect yourself from what I will call "the Ehrlich effect", representing someone heavily discredited within their own lifetime. If Malthus taught neo-malthusians anything, it is to push predictions out beyond the claimants current lifespan, so as to not be ridiculed within ones lifetime.

If this is what you are using as some kind of scientific proof of what you are saying, it's time to find some other more scientific type stuff.

I haven't provided scientific proof of anything. Only demonstrated that the US has now produced a sine wave form in its oil production profile, and maybe we need to reconsider the methods used to predict what the future might look like.

And better yet, you can even steal the idea for your movie, I give you permission, and possibly you can be seen as clairvoyant, beating everyone else to such a reasonable method to call the next production cycle.

[ROCKMAN]

Adam - I'll have to dig details later. But in the meantime to a fair degree one can only try to estimate future production from known AND fairly mature trends. Which is exactly what Hubbert did. Not to take anything away from his work but his future production model was based upon trends that had been heavily developed by the time he did his work. He also dealt with a world that had fairly stable oil prices. Consider the US shale boom the last 10 years or so: had oil remained at $30/bbl there would have been no production surge and no new near US PO. It would be foolish for anyone to argue otherwise since we had the tech to drill the shales and known they contained a huge amount of oil/NG for decades.

But even at high oil prices there are still geologic limits. Look at how far into the Gulf of Mexico and Deep water Brazil. But there are no big potential oil plays to be had going further out from the continents: the vast majority of the world's seafloor are igneous rocks with zero commercial hydrocarbon potential. That's why companies are going to one bitch of a drilling environment in the Arctic instead of nice warm water along the equator. And what about other US shales when/if oil prices get high again? There are dozens of other formations besides the Bakken and Eagle Ford. You don't read much about them because they've all been tested by hundreds of wells during the "shale boom" and yet 80%+ of shale production still only comes from the B and EFS. Shales, regardless of high oil prices, don't contain commercial oil deposits. Only certain shales contain the elative rare components that allow them to be developed. Which is one of the reason we saw no major shale play develop overseas during the shale boom.

IOW even if one can figure out how to squeeze blood out of a turnip it's not going to be much help if you can't find anymore turnips. LOL. At any sustainable oil price there are a finite number of reservoirs to be produced. And once those are developed there are no more. PERIOD. IOW no future sine waves. But if we're lucky an undulating plateau that will last long enough for us old farts. The rest of you young farts here? You're screwed. LOL.

[AdamB]

Adam - I'll have to dig details later. But in the meantime to a fair degree one can only try to estimate future production from known AND fairly mature trends.

That isn't what Hubbert did. If he had, he wouldn't have had 60% of the URR he needed to make his system underestimate world oil production peak by 17 billion barrels a year. Nearly 20 years ago.

Admittedly, he was using the resource numbers from others, Weeks, Platt and the USGS, and they most certainly had NOTHING to do with known and mature. They were WAGing away on the continental shelf, pure and simple.

Which is exactly what Hubbert did. Not to take anything away from his work but his future production model was based upon trends that had been heavily developed by the time he did his work.

That isn't what Weeks, Platt or the USGS provided him, so I don't know how he could only use the known and mature, when they were wild ass guessing.

But even at high oil prices there are still geologic limits.

Geologic limits would be used to create an in-place estimate. Have you seen this recent work by the EIA, where they are basically working through the idea that TRR is a variable, quite large in size, and the geologic limits component is determined by in-place? And all this hoopla over the number above economic, and below in-place, can be anything you want it to be, based on technology and price assumptions? Fascinating stuff, and quite interesting, knowing things like this it is no wonder they didn't fall for the old peak oil meme.

https://www.eia.gov/workingpapers/pdf/trr.pdf

Shales, regardless of high oil prices, don't contain commercial oil deposits. Only certain shales contain the elative rare components that allow them to be developed. Which is one of the reason we saw no major shale play develop overseas during the shale boom.

There is no boom overseas. Yet. Why would there be? There resource cost curve isn't like the one here in the US.

Are you aware of what Harold Hamm tells people about why shales only work in the US so far? Just as it took a quarter century between the US research in the late 70's and early 80's into the Devonian in the Appalachian Basin, and the explosion of Marcellus production to unheard of rates, the issue isn't whether or not American exceptionalism applies to sedimentary basins, but when the cost of supply of a particular formation dips below another.

IOW even if one can figure out how to squeeze blood out of a turnip it's not going to be much help if you can't find anymore turnips. LOL. At any sustainable oil price there are a finite number of reservoirs to be produced. And once those are developed there are no more. PERIOD. IOW no future sine waves. But if we're lucky an undulating plateau that will last long enough for us old farts. The rest of you young farts here? You're screwed. LOL.

The Bazhenov isn't a turnip. Neither is the Vaca Muerta. And for some reason, most peakers and doomers aren't young farts. haven't figured out the why on that one yet....

[ROCKMAN]

Adam – When I refer to Hubbert’s analysis I’m referring to US production…not global estimate. In fact I never have cared much for his global estimate because of the data sources you mention. Given much of his data was based upon MATURE Texas production for which he had excellent sources. At the time he made any global predictions he did not have a source of MATURE production data because at the time the global production history was far from mature. In fact it was just beginning to develop.

As far as “in place estimates” by even an operator who is developing a field let alone the EIA (which really doesn’t do much hands on work) mean nothing to the Rockman. Even PROVED PRODUCING RECOVERABLE RESERVE estimates need to be taken with a grain of salt in his HO. LOL.

Overseas shales: as the Rockman has stated before THE primary reason we’ve seen no boom in foreign shales is the companies involved in that game. It was the small to medium PUBLIC COMPANIES in the hunt. How many private and Big Oil companies did we see in the hunt? Except, of course, for Shell Oil’s huge blunder in the eagle Ford which lost the $BILLIONS and led them to abandon all US resource plays once the top man (an explorationist) was replaced by a refinery/marketing guy. The real money made in the shale plays (and it was hugely profitable) was the stock play of those small pubcos. It’s those companies that are lacking in the foreign plays that made the difference. Just a few Big Oils made a halfhearted effort before backing away. And the govt owned companies: totally absent. Go back to what the Rockman has said for years: THE most profitable Eagle Ford player in his opinion was Petrohawk. The put tens of thousands of acres together cheap, drilled a few seed wells and then sold everything for $15 billion. I dare anyone to point to any other EFS play that reports net profits anything close to that number. LOL.

Harold Hamm? I would be careful listening to the sage wisdom of an oil man who lost about $10 BILLION in the oil biz over the last couple of years. LOL

The Bazhenof and the Vaca Muerta aren’t producing a significant amount of “blood” these days. I didn’t say turnips didn’t CONTAIN blood…I was referring to the process of squeezing the blood out of them. Maybe someday they will get squeezed good. You can get back to us when that happens. LOL.

As far as the age of “peakers and doomers” go that’s not the important metric in my opinion. It's how much they understand about the energy dynamics. All the folks the Rockman works with are also old farts and they’ve understood the dynamics of PO for decades just as he has. This PO (we called it the “reserve replacement problem”) situation was recognized more than 40 years ago by us insiders. BTW the Rockman considers anyone under 50 years old to be a young fart. LOL.

[ennui2]

I never have cared much for his global estimate

And yet peak oil as a movement started by taking the so-called success of the Hubbert model with the US and attempting to fit the curve to global production--hence TOD "calling" peak in 2005 which then morphed into "undulating plateau" which then led to shutting the site down.

So you're saying you never cared for his global estimates is to say you've been somewhat off-center on the peak oil talking points since the start...and yet still a doomer?

We're at a stage where there seems to be a few holes in the simplicity of Hubbert's curve analysis. At the same time, backing away from the model and saying everything that happens around us is in some way a "peak oil effect" or a "peak oil dynamic" seems like a very weak correlation-is-causation Church Lady position.

[Revi]

Just because it was delayed by 10 years of funny money causing the "shale boom", that doesn't mean peak oil is a myth.

It is being caused by low prices, not high. That's what the peak oil community didn't understand.

Now the delay is over. Hubbert's inexorable logic still holds sway!

[ROCKMAN]

ennue - But that's the point: the Rockman has never been a "doomer" per se. He just has 40 years of experience hunting for oil/NG and has a pretty good handle on what it takes to succeed at it whether oil is $100/bbl or $30/bbl. He just offers his analysis and doesn't really care if society crashes under the weight of PO or not so there's really no sense of doom on his part. It's just the natural course of the energy extraction business. Which is also why he has never gotten into the foolish game of arguing global peak oil dates since that circle on the calendar is meaningless for the most part. The POD is the POD whether one is optimistic or pessimistic about the energy future.

As the Rockman has said many times: It ain't personal...just business. Oh...and yes: we still ain't your momma either. LOL.

[AdamB]

Adam – When I refer to Hubbert’s analysis I’m referring to US production…not global estimate. In fact I never have cared much for his global estimate because of the data sources you mention.

The data sources I mentioned were for the US. And we all know his global estimate was looney tunes, as was his US natural gas estimate.

As far as “in place estimates” by even an operator who is developing a field let alone the EIA (which really doesn’t do much hands on work) mean nothing to the Rockman. Even PROVED PRODUCING RECOVERABLE RESERVE estimates need to be taken with a grain of salt in his HO. LOL.

Research folks appear to have the most interest in all the component parts of the oil and gas reserve and resource classification system.

Harold Hamm? I would be careful listening to the sage wisdom of an oil man who lost about $10 BILLION in the oil biz over the last couple of years. LOL

Oh, his explanation for why shale development in the US took off had nothing to do with his business model.

As far as the age of “peakers and doomers” go that’s not the important metric in my opinion. It's how much they understand about the energy dynamics. All the folks the Rockman works with are also old farts and they’ve understood the dynamics of PO for decades just as he has. This PO (we called it the “reserve replacement problem”) situation was recognized more than 40 years ago by us insiders. BTW the Rockman considers anyone under 50 years old to be a young fart. LOL.

Some peakers object to being lumped in with doomers. And I'm not sure it has much to do with what they understand about your industry, let alone the geoscientists like Hubbert who participated in and studied it.

Reserve replacement problem has always been a problem, peak oil seems to be of a more modern concern.

I have a feeling you aren't the only one around here older than 50.

[AdamB]

We're at a stage where there seems to be a few holes in the simplicity of Hubbert's curve analysis.

A sine wave form gets my vote! And I think Revi should take all the credit he wants for an innovative idea like that!