[GHung]

Rock says; "The doomers will eventually have their day. But it ain't today, tomorrow or even in the next few years."

I'm not so much of a doomer as a student of history. Current oil production and demand is being propped up by central bank policies, and they are running out of tricks up their sleeves. As you say, time will tell.

[Revi]

before we spend too much time talking about a Seneca Cliff perhaps we should wait at least until we can see over the top of the Seneca Hill. Don't you agree? After all we'll have plenty of time later to run around like our hair is on fire. But for right now we're still in the shower washing it. LOL. The doomers will eventually have their day. But it ain't today, tomorrow or even in the next few years.

I agree. Let's see what happens. This whole peak oil thing is looking a little more like a roller coaster lately. Lots of interesting curves and drops to go still.

[AdamB]

AdamB said; "We already know that Hubbert's curve doesn't work..."

In what way? I don't know that.

Really? Well, here is a single chart showing it not working, as best I can figure, the last one that DID work (it already having failed at the world oil level, and US natural gas level).

This graph has some forecast in it, but it turns out that the forecast underestimated where US oil production ended up before lower prices killed it.

[AdamB]

I appreciate the way Adam B gets the discussion going, but I really don't understand his points. He is really into tearing down our idols. I guess that makes him an iconoclast, sort've.

The world we live in is based on scientific advancement. Scientific advancement requires understanding what does, and does not work, and facing it with objectivity. Idols? Science doesn't tear those down, a religion does. Science tears down (or supports), ideas.

Here is an idea....how about we dispense with it as having any value in the discussion of natural gas production rates? After we agree that, yep, that idea didn't work so well, and why, we can discuss other ideas that don't work, perhaps oily ones.

[GHung]

AdamB said; "We already know that Hubbert's curve doesn't work..."

In what way? I don't know that.

Really? Well, here is a single chart showing it not working, as best I can figure, the last one that DID work (it already having failed at the world oil level, and US natural gas level).

This graph has some forecast in it, but it turns out that the forecast underestimated where US oil production ended up before lower prices killed it.

As usual, Adam, you are being obtuse as to what Hubbert was actually predicting and what that was based on. You can't even build a good strawman. Ultimately, I don't even know why you are so focussed on proving Hubbert wrong when even our definition of what oil is has changed. Seems to me that the whole concept of peak oil scares the crap out of you, as much time and effort that you put into debunking the concept. Me? I really don't care since I'm busy getting past my oil addiction while you are busy defending your 19th century energy source. Maybe your time would be better spent conjuring up more reserves rather than trying to prove some dead guy was wrong. That's where your problem is, going forward. Seems the Fed is running out of cheap funny money to keep your production up (something that couldn't happen in Hubbert's time).

[ROCKMAN]

"Well, here is a single chart showing it not working...". As already pointed out this is not Hubbert's curve. It one plots the production of the trends he was plotting it turns out his projection was surprisingly accurate.

Ghung - and back to my Seneca Hill of global oil productions. Notice I didn't call it a Seneca Mountain. The Seneca Cliff is a bad enough inflammatory exaggeration.

But looking at the chart of US oil production a Seneca Pikes Peak might be appropriate. LOL. Especially when you consider how fast the backside might decline.

[sparky]

.
something which might go Senecca way is that the conventional super giants are about done ,while the offshore fields have a pretty steep depletion curve , tigh oil is even worst .
one could conceive all the depletions coming together while few new oil giants are put into production .

As you said even when depleted oil wells still produce ,
but the real killer is that they were contributing to production while the total amount was increasing ,
living off depleting fields is a bumer and a half , secondary extraction is a weak substitute to opening new provinces

[ROCKMAN]

Sparky - "...secondary extraction is a weak substitute to opening new provinces". Actually many of those old giant fields you referred to are still producing a significant amount of their reserves thanks to enhanced recovery techniques such as pressure maintenance (Mexico's Cantarell Field), water floods (most of the Permian Basin fields) and infield drilling of horizontal wells (Ghawar Field) which includes the Rockman's field that went from 12 bopd to 500 bopd thanks to such wells. Although not all technically defined as EOR methods they are utilized for the same reason. But this is also why old field production will never see a Seneca cliff: once these fields have reached this stage their depletion rates are very, very low.

As you and others have mentioned the shales and the Deep Water GOM fields are a very different dynamic. Every individual shale well is its own Seneca cliff. But collectively they have actually developed a Seneca Mountain when viewing the US chart. And now that lower oil prices have cut the rig count we've started down the back side of this Seneca Mountain. But it's important to remember that the great majority of shale wells have entered a much lower decline rate phase. As a result while we are beginning to slide down the back slope of the Seneca Mountain there won't be a Seneca cliff ahead for the EXISTING production. OTOH a plot of new production might look more like a Seneca cliff.

Projecting DW GOM is trickier. Here's the yearly production since 1985.

https://www.data.bsee.gov/homepg/data_c ... ummary.asp

You'll see it plateaued around 2002 around 350 million to 450 million bbls per year. But the combination of relative short COMMERCIAL lives (6 to 8 years) and long lag times between discovery and first production makes projecting difficult. As a result it wouldn't be a surprise to see increased DW GOM oil production increase the next few years despite lower oil prices. Once $billions have already been spent companies will keep on schedule. Bottom line from 1985 to 2002 the DW GOM climbed an impressive Seneca Mountain from zero to 450+ million bbls of oil per year. Now on a plateau. Some DW projects early in their development phase could stall with the current lower oil price. But there's no detailed data available to make even a rough guess.

[SumYunGai]

Ghung - So much of the debate seems to focus on a relatively rapid decrease in oil production due to the current LOWER oil price.

No, it doesn't. You are attempting a shark jump with a straw man.

Thus when folks argue the current price of oil will cause a "cliff in oil production" it can be difficult to understand what the are implying.

What folks have suggested a "cliff in oil production"? This thread is about a Seneca Cliff for civilization. Rapid collapse.

Bottom line: oil price could fall 50% from $45/bbl and it would have an insignificant affect on the production rate from EXISTING WELLS. So no "Seneca cliff". Which implies nothing about production rates from wells NOT DRILLED YET. That's a different dynamic. If starting tomorrow not a single bbl of oil were brought on line EVER AGAIN oil production would not "fall off a cliff". The current decline rate of existing global production doesn't come close to a "cliff" profile.

Like I said, no one is suggesting that global oil production is about to fall off a cliff just because of current low oil prices. Well, except for this suggestion: Global oil production will become a "cliff profile" when the entire financial/economic system gives way due to falling total energy. Production will quite naturally fall off a cliff as civilization rapidly collapses.

[sparky]

.
I'm a bit uneasy about the term "cliff" , this suggest a vertical drop , that will not happen
on the relationship between price and production
looking at rockman link ,it can be observed that a severe decrease in production followed the late 1980ies first bout of price drop ; I.E. a dip from 21Mb to 1989 10Mb , .
production took of again with the price , no such effect took place this time , so I guess it's a toss .

while it's intuitive and anecdotal to believe there is a direct strong link , as I do !
it's not really obvious if one looks at the numbers

[ROCKMAN]

SYG - Don't preach to me...go bitch at the folks posting oil production charts. Apparently you weren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation. LOL.

[SumYunGai]

SYG - Don't preach to me...go bitch at the folks posting oil production charts. Apparently you weren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation. LOL.

I am not preaching, ROCKMAN. I just noticed (I do hope it is okay to notice stuff) that you cleverly changed the subject from Seneca Cliff to a Seneca cliff in oil production due to the current low oil prices. I went back and checked again (pretty easy since this thread is only on page 2), and I was right the first time. You were the one who subtly shifted the topic.

I agree that we are not likely to see a Seneca cliff in oil production because of the current low oil prices, at least not until civilization itself falls off the cliff. What do you think of the topic of this thread, i.e. that civilization is likely to experience a Seneca Cliff because of falling total energy?

[dissident]

The cliff is way more likely than some gradual decline (BTW, cliff =/= infinite slope). The amount of both conventional and accessible unconventional oil in the ground is fixed. Extract it faster and you have less left and what is left is typically harder to recover, hence extraction rates fall with time (keyword: rates). The flattening of the Gaussian or the current plateau is due to high rates of extraction even under weak oil prices. (But some of the fracked oil production is down).

In order to have a gradual global production decline the extraction rates have to decline too. Mirroring the past increase in extraction rates. This is not happening. Extraction rates will be forced to fall in the future due to physical constraints (extraction of hard to get dregs). But for now this limiter is not kicking in. So the plateau must, by conservation of mass of potentially recoverable oil, come at the price of future production. The future production is being repartitioned to current production. By definition, the gradual Gaussian slope is made sharper and sharper with a jump from a plateau to a thin tail.

The only way out of this constraint is to have significant discoveries of new supply in the future. It is clear that this is not likely given the 40 year trend in discoveries.

[ROCKMAN]

SYG - "...you cleverly changed the subject from Seneca Cliff to a Seneca cliff in oil production." And once more play attention and you'll notice I was posting in response to the posts of others. And besides the vasdvasdt majority of the "Seneca" conversations are focused on predicted steep declines in oil production.

A better question is why are you changing the conversation from the Seneca dynamic to why the Rockman is posting what he's posting. Seems like wasted space IMHO. LOL.

[AdamB]

"AdamB said; "We already know that Hubbert's curve doesn't work..."

The primary reason that anyone would say that is probably because they don't understand the difference between a CDF and a PDF.

The primary reasons someone would say this is because it is true.

According to the EIA, the cumulative production of 1335.37 Gb between 1960 and 2009 deviated from the logistic function (Hubbert's curve) by 0.07 Gb. That is an amazingly accurate determination. It is an error of 0.005%.

Amazingly accurate according to shortonoil. Let us guess, you helped design the trajectory of the recent European Mars Lander, and it was amazingly close to being successful, as long as you ignore the fact that instead of touching down gently on the surface it left a relatively large crater?

In either case, there is a reason why you won't do a graph of the residuals between bell shaped curves and the resulting production rate, because seeing is believing, and your claim of (amazingly accurate!) doesn't hold water, but it is good for a laugh I suppose....amazingly accurate bell shaped curves....yup...better luck next misrepresentation?

[AdamB]

SYG - Don't preach to me...go bitch at the folks posting oil production charts. Apparently you weren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation. LOL.

I am not preaching, ROCKMAN. I just noticed (I do hope it is okay to notice stuff) that you cleverly changed the subject from Seneca Cliff to a Seneca cliff in oil production due to the current low oil prices.

I dare you to attempt to refute the supply response to price in the US.

[GHung]

SYG - Don't preach to me...go bitch at the folks posting oil production charts. Apparently you weren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation. LOL.

I am not preaching, ROCKMAN. I just noticed (I do hope it is okay to notice stuff) that you cleverly changed the subject from Seneca Cliff to a Seneca cliff in oil production due to the current low oil prices.

I dare you to attempt to refute the supply response to price in the US.

Great response, Adam. As usual, you and Rock view everything through your oily lens. Take a broader subject like an all-encompassing decline scenario and reduce it down to what you know; run home to momma oil. Of course, there's a complex set of failing arrangements that make oil production possible, just as oil makes those other failing arrangements possible. Compartmentalising any of these things and not incorporating them into a much bigger picture is largely useless.

[dashster]

Ugo Bargi has been pimping this idea pretty hard. Just another blogger who got it wrong the last time around, trying to recycle yet another version of already discredited ideas.

What did he get wrong the last time around? Which of his ideas have been already discredited?

[AdamB]

As usual, Adam, you are being obtuse as to what Hubbert was actually predicting and what that was based on. You can't even build a good strawman. Ultimately, I don't even know why you are so focussed on proving Hubbert wrong when even our definition of what oil is has changed.

The definition of oil has not changed. What appears to have happened is that people redefined oil based on the price or technology needed to extract it. That is not a change in the definition of oil. When oil from shale formations was being produced in the late 1880's, no one was claiming it was "unconventional". This is a recent event, and has only happened because peak oilers were otherwise left with egg on their face based on peak oil predictions for 1989, 2000, 2005, 2006, and 2008.

And then it turned out that oil production (oil...long chain molecules of carbons and hydrogens...the same today as they were in the late 1800's) kept going up.

Seems to me that the whole concept of peak oil scares the crap out of you, as much time and effort that you put into debunking the concept.

Which concept? The one from 1886? 1919? Hubbert's first US claim in 1938? His later one in 1956? Jimmy Carter's running out of the 80's? Colin's peak oil in 1989? Ruppert and Savinar's in 2000? Deffeyes or Simmons in 2005? IEA in 2006? TOD in 2008? The EIA in 2037? You tell me which one I am supposed t be afraid of because seriously, while some people might have the luxury of being endlessly terrified of things claimed before they were born and all throughout their lifetime, I just don't have the time.

Me? I really don't care since I'm busy getting past my oil addiction while you are busy defending your 19th century energy source.

Getting past your addiction? I filled the wife's Ford the other night, it had half a tank in it but decided that after nearly 6 months and 2000 miles, it was time to add a fresh 6 gallons. I'll put her 333 mpg addiction up against yours any day of the week.

Maybe your time would be better spent conjuring up more reserves rather than trying to prove some dead guy was wrong.

Rockman and his ilk are doing it every day, and they don't need any help as evidenced by those little prices down at the local gas station...run on down there and see for yourself. The wife's car won't need to go back until spring break, so I won't even care...but you appear to. of course, the glut already created is covering those who still cant figure out how to crack the 100 mpg barrier, let alone the 300+ mpg one.

[AdamB]

SYG - Don't preach to me...go bitch at the folks posting oil production charts. Apparently you weren't paying attention to the flow of the conversation. LOL.

I am not preaching, ROCKMAN. I just noticed (I do hope it is okay to notice stuff) that you cleverly changed the subject from Seneca Cliff to a Seneca cliff in oil production due to the current low oil prices.

I dare you to attempt to refute the supply response to price in the US.

Great response, Adam. As usual, you and Rock view everything through your oily lens.

Economic lens. And when your concept is right, why not keep using it? The idea that geology dictates production rate has been thoroughly destroyed by just recent events, so what is wrong with applying the correct ideas?

Take a broader subject like an all-encompassing decline scenario and reduce it down to what you know; run home to momma oil.

The key word being "scenario". Said scenario having been claimed for how long now? Ehrlich and the Population Bomb? Limits to Growth? Malthus himself? You got any better guess at which CENTURY this mythical event will take place in? And this isn't about oil, other than oil is the commodity that peak oilers have been claiing is going to peak for decades, and hasn't, and there is no reason that the same people are any more right about anything else, so...which century? We're about 3 deep now after Malthus, you want to give him and all the other TEOTWAWKI gang members another couple, just to be on the safe side?

Of course, there's a complex set of failing arrangements that make oil production possible, just as oil makes those other failing arrangements possible. Compartmentalising any of these things and not incorporating them into a much bigger picture is largely useless.

So...how many more centuries, now that the claims of the past couple didn't work out?