ralfy wrote:I think he is referring to data from the IEA 2008 report.
I know he is.
Chapter 9, Figure 9.10, Page 218.
ralfy wrote:The IEA uses that and other sets of data to come up with the 2010 report, which confirms "Hubbert's concept." This was explained to him in another thread, but he didn't respond.
Whether he did or did not, but it is unlikely they confirmed "Hubbert's concept", whatever you might mean by that. Or he does. But if they did, it doesn't seem likely that the result would show growing oil production, or flat oil production, spanning decades. Which it does.
I recommend both of you wait until the newest WEO 2013 release, and see if you think it confirms "Hubbert's concept" or not. It should be fun watching the two of your wrassle over that one.
ralfy wrote:In short, there's no need to come up with a "competing" cost/supply curve because the IEA already shows, following their own curve and an assessment of resources, that oil and gas production will increase by only 9 pct during the next two decades, and only if various conditions are met. I explained this several times in this thread and in two others.
Explain all you'd like, as John says. All he has to do is wave around a cost/supply curve, nobody is required to like your way of representing how it works in the future any better than IEAs. He can make up how it gets used just like you can, and it becomes a he-said she-said over how fast it gets converted from resource to reserve, and how much does it cost. It is all pretty simple from that perspective. But his point is that you can't refute it, and he is right about that, from a resource perspective. Everything else is debating the econommics of recovery, surface access, NOCs, who owns what, etc etc. None of those are geologically constrained by Hubbert's idea.
This type of analysis, bottom up like the EIA and IEA do, is extremely difficult to do, but ultimately much better of a basis than what TOD has specialized in over the years.
ralfy wrote:Aleklett questioned part of the production level, i.e., crude oil production on fields yet to be found, etc., and argues that this part of production, which essentially leads to the 9-pct increase, may be based on maximum depletion rates. A study was shared in another thread, and John didn't respond to that, either.
Why would anyone who knows something about resources and the geosciences ever pay any attention to what Aleklett thinks on the topic? You happen to know how many oil fields he has found? His work experience in drilling, completions, design or reserve estimations of oil and gas resources? And more important, if the topic is TOD, if his methods of fitting time series data are no different than TOD why wouldn't his results garner the same level of disdain that TODs has?
Aways back, JohnA made some references to people who do this thing for a living, were doing it before Aleklett got involved, are the originators and scientists who have studied this topic since the days Hubbert was involved, some even worked with him, and the people who were his supervisors. Those people are conspicuous by their absence on your peak oil reports list, as well as anything you post on the topic. Why might that be? Why does anything an economist or physics professor have to say on aggregate oil production data have relevance? Because they decided to study it one afternoon? Pretty thin reference when there are so many more qualified out there.
[/quote][/quote]ralfy wrote:Thus, even the best-case scenario for the IEA is based on conditions that will be difficult to meet. Read the 2010 report for more details and my comments in this forum on the matter.
Why would I read the 2010 when the WEO 2013 is due out here in a few months? Between 2010 and 2013, according to Pops, they apparently acquired themselves an actual resource expert, so I would think there would be all sorts of new and cool things in there, if such a person were indeed hired.