“Among the big energy stories of 2013, “peak oil” — the once-popular notion that worldwide oil production would soon reach a maximum level and begin an irreversible decline — was thoroughly discredited. The explosive
development of shale oil and other unconventional fuels in the United States helped put it in its grave.
As the year went on, the eulogies came in fast and furious. “Today, it is probably safe to say we have slayed ‘peak oil’ once and for all, thanks to the combination of new shale oil and gas production techniques,” declared Rob Wile, an  energy and economics reporter for Business Insider. Similar comments
from energy experts were commonplace, prompting an R.I.P. headline at Time.com announcing, “Peak Oil is Dead.”
Not so fast, though.
The present round of eulogies brings to mind Mark Twain’s famous line:
“The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.” Before obits for peak oil theory pile up too high, let’s take a careful look at these assertions.”

 

7 Comments on "Peak Oil becomes an Issue Again after the IEA Revises its Predictions"

ronpatterson on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 6:40 am 



You only posted the lead to this story. The entire article can be found here:
http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/peak-oil-becomes-an-issue-again-after-the-iea-revises-its-predictions/

rockman on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 6:44 am 



“Today, it is probably safe to say we have slayed ‘peak oil’ once and for all, thanks to the combination of new shale oil and gas production techniques,” declared Rob Wile, an energy and economics reporter for Business Insider”. I could understand such a foolish position from an engineer or a geologist. But Rob boy is a freaking “economics reporter”. He doesn’t deal with wells heads, frac trucks or mineral owners. He deals with ECONOMICS. Like the economic impact of US consumers not spending about $630 billion/yr for oil compared to just $230 billion/yr just 10 years ago. Or that the rise in oil prices has led the world to pay at least $5 trillion MORE for its oil consumption then if prices hadn’t increased. Or the fact that while the US has decreased the amount of oil we import we are sending more $’s out of the country to buy that oil then when we were importing more bbls.

But many in the PO community have themselves to blame. They constantly focused on production rates and date predictions and did not pay enough attention to the financial dynamics of PO. No one (consumers or oil producers) really care per se how many bbls are coming out of the ground or when the magical PO date is or isn’t reached. What they care about is the cash flow…both in and out. That’s what impacts everyone’s economies. The fact of which casts more shame on Rob’s reporting IMHO.

ghung on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 7:48 am 



“Republished from Oilprice dot com” (Michael T. Klare)

Plantagenet on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 10:45 am 



M. K. Hubberts peak oil concept always included economics along with geologic constraints. Its an EMPIRICISM, not a rigid numerical model where all inputs are precisely defined.

wildbourgman on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 12:25 pm 



One thing I found yesterday showed that shale fields such as Bakken and the Eagleford only achieve 5% recovery of oil in place. I don’t know how accurate the statistic is, or the metric used in getting that number, but one thing that I find intriging is the question what if they can just figure out how to double that number and get to 10%? That extra 5 percent would be a big deal for a little while, just as shale is a big deal now.

Does anyone know the average recovery percentage in conventional wells including secondary recovery?

bobinget on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 12:48 pm 



Even if an educated writer had a wider view of our current extraordinary complicated energy situation,
how could one confine our subject to a few understandable sentences?

I’ve noticed it’s often what’s Not Said that contain the most truth.

Here’s a for-instance; President Obama today promised
Japan, (he’s in Japan) to back Tokyo in their claims on certain islands in the China Sea where ownership with China is in contention. IOWs presumably, the US is prepared to back Japan militarily over a few rock out droppings. (the word ‘oil’ is never mentioned) I’m serious, when you read or hear reports of these
‘islands’ in contention, the reason, oil is almost by agreement, Never Mentioned.

In the news today we also see the Pentagon is sending anti-tank weapons to ‘certain’ Rebel groups
in that never-to-end proxy ‘civil’ war in Syria. Sending anti aircraft missiles is also in discussion. Iran, Russia, KSA, now the US will fight till the last Syrian is dead or exiled. Sending weapons that are almost certain to be used against the West later, only serves to prolong the horror.
You guessed it, that ‘oil’ word never comes up in rare
news coverage of this horrific disaster.

Hogging the news is the other “non oil” story, Ukraine.
Sending weapons to Syrian Rebels knowing the rebellion is a lost cause is openly intended to show Putin we are on to his plot to encircle global oil markets. Doubtless this is what President Obama told
the King of Saudi Arabia on his recent visit. ‘We’ will not abandon KSA with more dogs in this fight then Westminster.

rockman on Thu, 24th Apr 2014 7:24 pm 



Wildman – The simple and smart ass answer is that there is no average recovery in fact. I can point you to trends with 100’s of billions bbls of oil with 10-15% recovery and other trends with 60%+ recovery. One could look at a limited area, like the onshore Gulf Coast, and try to develop a weighted average. And as best as I can remember you’ll be the first. LOL.