Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on October 12, 2013
Peak Oil Was A Lie
According to M. King Hubbert’s Hubbert peak theory, Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production is expected to enter terminal decline.
Global production of oil fell from a high point in 2005 at 74 mb/d, but has since rebounded setting new records in both 2011 and 2012. There is active debate as to when global peak oil will occur, how to measure peak oil, and whether peak oil production will be supply or demand driven.
The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time usually grows until the rate peaks and then declines sometimes rapidly until the field is depleted. This concept is derived from the Hubbert curve, and has been shown to sometimes be applicable to the sum of a nation’s domestic production rate, but so far the hypothesis has not been shown to be correct for the global rate of petroleum production.
The discovery of new fields, the development of new production techniques and the exploitation of unconventional supplies has resulted in output levels which continue to increase. Peak oil is often confused with oil depletion; peak oil is the point of maximum production, while depletion refers to a period of falling reserves and supply.
M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1971. His logistic model, now called Hubbert peak theory, and its variants have been used to describe and predict the peak and decline of production from regions, and countries, and has also proved useful in other limited-resource production-domains.
According to the Hubbert model, the production rate of a limited resource will follow a roughly symmetrical logistic distribution curve (sometimes incorrectly compared to a normal distribution) based on the limits of exploitability and market pressures.
Read more here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_Oil
8 Comments on "Peak Oil Was A Lie"
LT on Sat, 12th Oct 2013 2:58 pm
Sure, if that make you happy.
shortonoil on Sat, 12th Oct 2013 3:42 pm
Another pundit that can’t tell a BTU from a barrel! There is not only a need for oil, but oil that can power the world’s economy. The world’s total estimated reserve is 4,300 Gb, of that amount 41% of it can supply enough energy to drive contemporary society. The remaining quantity, about 2,540 Gb is essentially useless with the processing capabilities we now possess!
Hubbert was looking at the production of light sweet crude; the primary production of his day. The cumulative production of light sweet is a logistic curve, although that curve is slightly skewed. It is that skewness in the distribution that pushed the “Peak” slightly forward. In his day, that skewness could not have been identified. It could have only be seen in retrospect.
We are now past the Peak of petroleum that can provide a beneficial component to civilization. All the shale oil, extra heavy, whale oil, or corn alcohol in the world is not going to change that fact. From this point forward what we need to do is determine how we can structure a working society in a world of rapidly advancing petroleum depletion! Using the argument that because of its abundance there will never be a shortage of usable oil is as absurd as stating that there will never be a shortage of 30 foot 12X12s because there are plenty of trees!
SilentRunning on Sat, 12th Oct 2013 3:48 pm
The only alternative notion to Peak Oil is “Infinite Oil” – where Oil production can forever increase, year after year.
Even if the entire planet was gigantic oil tank the “Infinite Oil” notion (not even a theory) would be demonstrably false – aka a lie.
So therefore, it is NOT Peak Oil that is the lie – it is “Infinite Oil” that is false and dangerous.
Harquebus on Sat, 12th Oct 2013 9:34 pm
Technology requires cheap and plentiful energy.
mike on Sat, 12th Oct 2013 10:02 pm
let them believe what they want to believe. Techno cultists are going to be going through some severe cognitive dissonance the next few decades. I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to rally everyone against the “green religion” of the other side (holocaust style). Best not to declare an interest in the coming feud and keep yourself to yourself
J-Gav on Sat, 12th Oct 2013 11:12 pm
Just to say – good comments above…
BillT on Sun, 13th Oct 2013 4:06 am
Smile and pass the bottle of oil … er … moonshine.
rockman on Sun, 13th Oct 2013 11:09 am
Y’all have covered this silliness well enough. I’ll just point one completely ignorant statement that’s easily proven wrong:
“The aggregate production rate from an oil field over time usually grows until the rate peaks and then declines sometimes rapidly until the field is depleted”.
Actually it almost universally the opposite: a field typically develops it’s max rate quickly and then slowly declines over time. This is a consistent issue many analysts have difficulty with: the decline pattern of individual wells or fields is not related to the development and decline of a region or trend. A field’s declined is determined by reservoir dynamics. A region’s development profile is dominated by economic factors. The unconventional plays are a perfect example. The oil potential of the Eagle Ford has been known for decades. Horizontal drilling and frac tech was known long before the EFS boomed. What changed was the economics as oil prices boomed. Thus the difficulty of predicting global PO: it requires the integration of geology with accurately predicting future oil prices. Predicting the surge in unconventional production would not have been difficult for geologists 10 years ago if the assumption of $100/bbl oil had been made.
As far as Hubbert’s claimed statements he did not say the any region’s or trend’s curve would be symmetric. In fact he specifically said that not only would such curves not be symmetric but that the shape after peak couldn’t be accurately predicted.
It’s also good to understand that my statement about individual field rate profiles over time does not apply to the fractured shale reservoirs. Despite being called the Eagle Ford et al “fields” they are not fields but trends where individual wells are better described as a “field”. And as such they do not fit a typical slow decline rate of water drive reservoirs from which the great majority has been recovered. But they do fit the rapid decline profile of conventional pressure depletion reservoirs as a result of fracture production dynamics.