[ROCKMAN]

John – yes…sometimes the POD seems so inclusive it can seem to lose relevance as a talking point. I really just threw it out initially just to get off of the focus of a PO date. But everyone reading this post right now should look at what’s around them and find something that doesn’t have a direct connection to fossil fuels. Big direct connections like the electricity powering that computer you’re on. Little indirect connections like that nice tee shirt you might be wearing that was made in Indonesia from cotton grown in India.

Even when you try to get away from the POD, like camping in the high Rockies: no electricity, no cell phone, no street lights, no running water. But look again: a nylon sleeping bag made from NG produced from a frac’d Marcellus well. Maybe getting to the mountains you burned gasoline refined in Nebraska from oil shipped in from Alberta. The air may be nice and sweet on that mountain top but not so much downwind from the Midwest refinery.

Yep…PetE is rather demanding but not as tough at EE or CE. In my experience math is a common choke point for many. I thought about a PetE back in the 80’s but even with a masters in geology I would have had to make up a lot of math. Typically not a strong point for most geologists.

So true about westexas' work...followed it for a few years. What's frustrating is the vast majority of the public won't ever study it. Even those who could appreciate the work (granted probably a minority) won't look at it since they have already set their opinions based on the crap they get feed from the govt, MSM and corporations. They already "know" the answer...don't need to be bothered with those so called facts.

[ROCKMAN]

C8 - Very funny comic. Sometimes situations are so bad all you can do is try to laugh to avoid the tears. Send Oilman and MC to all the hands I know. Thanks

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'W')hat Westexas shared is important. The same goes for increasing consumption for the rest of the world.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'W')hat Westexas shared is important. The same goes for increasing consumption for the rest of the world.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'J')ohn – yes…sometimes the POD seems so inclusive it can seem to lose relevance as a talking point. I really just threw it out initially just to get off of the focus of a PO date. But everyone reading this post right now should look at what’s around them and find something that doesn’t have a direct connection to fossil fuels. Big direct connections like the electricity powering that computer you’re on. Little indirect connections like that nice tee shirt you might be wearing that was made in Indonesia from cotton grown in India.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'W')hat Westexas shared is important. The same goes for increasing consumption for the rest of the world.

[kublikhan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'I') just want to know where those Saudi Arabia's or other countries have come from since 2005, because the oil is certainly still there and being reported as being there month in and month out by the reporting agencies. I didn't think there were enough megaprojects in the world completed between 2005 and 2013 to come up with 30-40 million barrels a day?

[Pops]

It comes from past discoveries.

All your hand waving distracts from the basic premise behind PO:

Production follows discovery, you can't pump what you can't find

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
What is also important is the idea that generalizing about decline rates begs a question which no one has yet answered. Anything according to any of your voluminous sources which show where we have come up with 30-40 million barrels a day of new oil since about 2005?

[ROCKMAN]

ralfy - I'm more impressed by that second chart. Consumption by the PIIGS has dropped to the level it was almost 25 years ago! First, all have had population growth some degree during that time. Second those EU folks have a long history of being much more fuel efficient than us so I doubt increased VOLUNTARY conservation has been a big factor. We hear numbers but they don’t have a big impact to most of us. But imagine the US economy if it had dropped oil consumption by 25% as the PIIGS have compared to using about 8% more over the same time period. We may have cut back on oil consumption recently but we're still gulping down more than we did 25 years ago.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('kublikhan', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '2')005 saw 23 projects come on stream with an aggregate capacity of 3.951 million barrels per day.
2006 saw 30 projects come on stream with an aggregate capacity of 4.092 million barrels per day.
2007 ~3.5 million barrels per day.
2008 ~7 million barrels per day.
2009 ~5 million barrels per day.
2010 ~4.5 million barrels per day.
2011 ~3.9 million barrels per day.
2012 ~3 million barrels per day.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')
All your hand waving distracts from the basic premise behind PO:

Production follows discovery, you can't pump what you can't find

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'r')alfy - I'm more impressed by that second chart. Consumption by the PIIGS has dropped to the level it was almost 25 years ago!

[dolanbaker]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'r')alfy - I'm more impressed by that second chart. Consumption by the PIIGS has dropped to the level it was almost 25 years ago!

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dolanbaker', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'r')alfy - I'm more impressed by that second chart. Consumption by the PIIGS has dropped to the level it was almost 25 years ago!

[westexas]

As noted above, the global oil industry has been working furiously hard to basically keep us on the post-2005 global C+C "Undulating Plateau." And the reason that global crude oil production virtually stopped increasing in 2005 was the difficulty the industry is having in offsetting the declines from older wells.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that "Shale Revolution" extends around the world, and we are able to maintain 75 mbpd or so of C+C production for several years into the future. Let's also assume that the overall global decline rate from existing wellbores climbs up toward 10%/year, as an increasing percentage of total production comes from tight/shale plays. As note above, this would require the industry--in order to maintain a stable production level--to replace the equivalent of 100% of global crude oil production every 10 years.

Also, I suspect that horizontal wells, drilled into thinning oil columns in a lot of older oil fields, has had the net effect of increasing the depletion rate in existing fields, which will sooner or later show up as an accelerating decline rate in many fields.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('westexas', 'A')s noted above, the global oil industry has been working furiously hard to basically keep us on the post-2005 global C+C "Undulating Plateau." And the reason that global crude oil production virtually stopped increasing in 2005 was the difficulty the industry is having in offsetting the declines from older wells.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that "Shale Revolution" extends around the world, and we are able to maintain 75 mbpd or so of C+C production for several years into the future. Let's also assume that the overall global decline rate from existing wellbores climbs up toward 10%/year, as an increasing percentage of total production comes from tight/shale plays. As note above, this would require the industry--in order to maintain a stable production level--to replace the equivalent of 100% of global crude oil production every 10 years.

Also, I suspect that horizontal wells, drilled into thinning oil columns in a lot of older oil fields, has had the net effect of increasing the depletion rate in existing fields, which will sooner or later show up as an accelerating decline rate in many fields.

[TheAntiDoomer]

THE IMPORT LAND MODEL


http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/200 ... model.html

[westexas]

Re: Anti-Doomer & Peak Oil Debunked link

I don't have a lot to add to the comments I made at your link, but it's interesting to see what has and what has not happened since 2009. Here is a link to my paper on the Export Capacity Index (ECI) concept:

http://peak-oil.org/2013/02/commentary- ... ity-index/

The comments following the 2009 Peak Oil Debunked article I always struck me as almost hysterical in their rush to deny a basic mathematical observation, which after all is what the ELM is. It is not subject to debate that given an ongoing production decline in an oil exporting country, unless they cut their consumption at the same rate as the rate of decline in production, or at a faster rate, the resulting net export decline rate will exceed the rate of decline in production and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time. But people will believe what they want to believe, and a lot of Cornucopians seem to want to deny basic mathematical concepts.

In any case, Denmark is a case history of a net oil exporter, showing a production decline, that taxes fuel consumption and that has successfully cut their consumption. Denmark’s 2004 to 2012 rate of change numbers (EIA):

(P = Production, C = Consumption, NE = Net Exports.)

P: -8.0%/year

C: -1.9%/year

NE: -18.7%/year

ECI Ratio (P/C): -6.0%/year

In Denmark’s case, their 2004 to 2005 net export decline rate was 4.5%/year, while their 2004 to 2012 net export decline rate accelerated to 18/7%/year.

In simple percentage terms, a 47% decline in production from 2004 to 2012 resulted in a 78% decline in net exports, even as consumption fell by 14%.

And when we look at the post-2005 CNE (Cumulative Net Export) depletion estimates (discussed in the ECI paper), I don't see how you can't describe the situation as an unfolding crisis.

Incidentally, as you very well know the selected portion of the $8 quote is very misleading. At the time, as you know I said that I did not expect gasoline to actually be at $8 on 8/8/08, but for planning purposes, I said that you should expect $8 gasoline, in the context of my ELP recommendations:

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2011- ... ze-produce

Globally, from 2002 to 2012, we saw two price doublings in annual global crude oil prices, from $25 in 2002 to $55 in 2005 and then from $55 in 2005 to $112 in 2012, with (so far) one post-2002 year over year decline in annual prices, in 2009. The average annual rate of increase in global crude oil prices of 15%/year from 2002 to 2012.

The question is, what was the better advice, circa 2007/2008, that we will soon see a permanent return to low oil prices and to abundant crude oil supplies or plan on much higher crude oil and product prices?