Tanada wrote:Congrats! I look forward to watching when you get finished with it!
Thanks! We hope to have it out by this summer!
Tanada wrote:Congrats! I look forward to watching when you get finished with it!
Revi wrote: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.
Revi wrote: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.
Revi wrote: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."
ROCKMAN wrote:"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.
ROCKMAN wrote: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.
ROCKMAN wrote:Such as the shales or Deep Water.
Rockman wrote: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.
ROCKMAN wrote:Just as the overemphasis of the unimportant date of global PO is constantly pushed by those most comfortable in one dimensional discussions.
Revi wrote: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.
Revi wrote:
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.
Revi wrote: 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.
ROCKMAN wrote: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.
Rockman wrote: 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.
Rockman wrote:But even at high oil prices there are still geologic limits.
Rockman wrote: 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.
Rockman wrote: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.
ROCKMAN wrote:I never have cared much for his global estimate
ROCKMAN wrote: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.
Rockman wrote: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.
Rockman wrote: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
Rockman wrote: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 wrote:We're at a stage where there seems to be a few holes in the simplicity of Hubbert's curve analysis.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests