ROCKMAN wrote:Zero,
I’ll offer some insights re: this report based upon 34 years as a petroleum geologist. This doesn’t make me an expert but does show I have some base knowledge.
...
...
Whether there are 200 billions bbls of oil left to produce or 200 trillion it won’t effect the supply/demand situation. And it’s that s/d relation that determines the health of the world economies.
Seriously?! You're kidding right?!
So let me get this straight. You're saying if there is 200 trillion bbl of oil left to produce that it won't affect supply and demand?!
ROCKMAN wrote:The basic Hubble concept is really about rate. Some try to extrapolate it to mean much more. Hubble projected that US production would peak on a certain date.
I'm inclined to just ignore the rest of your comment when you say you've been a petroleum geologist for 34 years and you start calling the man Hubble.
Uhm, the man's name is Hubbert. I'll just give you the benefit of the doubt.
ROCKMAN wrote:Now, go to the other extreme: imagine taking a continent which peaked production at 10 million bbls/day but has now declined to 2 million bbls/day. What will you have to do to return this continent’s rate to 10 million bbls/day? Simple: just duplicate the successes you have on this landmass the last 60 years. Not so simple, eh? But you might go to another continent which has been explored very little and find another 10 million bbls/day. But now we’re talking about total global production rate. This is the PO that I refer to: that maximum rate the world will ever produce oil. This is not a theory as the article tries to frame. It is physical and undeniable fact of nature. Remember, we’re talking about how much oil can be produced daily….not how much is left to produce. I can promise you that there is more oil left to produce in the world then the most optimistic have offered. But it means nothing if it’s produced at a rate that does not support the needs of the world’s economies.
First of all continents don't peak. Unless you know every inch of a continent and you drilled every square foot. That should invalidated the rest of your comment.
Addressing what seems to be the main point you are making, I not sure even how to address it. It doesn't seem to make sense unless you'd like to clarify it. It seems you are saying production rate has some sort of limit or something because the global demand will be higher than can be supplied by global production. How can you possibly come to that conclusion? How on earth will people demand oil that isn't there and thereby cause a collapse of global economies?
The world economies that are industrialized will get oil. If the emerging economies need to expand they won't expand if they don't have the energy to expand. Therefore they will not demand oil. They will probably look for an alternative energy source like nuclear power as China and India and Russia are now doing.
Besides you are ignoring political reasons for the supply of oil not increasing or decreasing.
ROCKMAN wrote:We can debate that demand destruction will stretch out the periods between peaks. The decline of the world’s existing oil fields continues regardless of a drop in consumption as we’ve just experienced. Their production rate diminishes every day regardless of the decreased demand…just not as quickly.
Read the paper. There are a variety of reasons why oil production may be declining at particular fields. Some of them have nothing to do with physics or geology but are political.
ROCKMAN wrote:New fields coming on line (off shore Brazil etc), will add to the daily rate potential. But from the first day of production from these new fields they are beginning their own decline. And the old fields keep declining.
Wow what an optimist you are! If those new fields come onlime don't they add to global production rates?