[thegrq]

I was reading up on peak oil and I came across this article in science magazine (Science 2004 304: 1114-1115), it's not free but I'll summarize important claims here. Bascially the article says that peak oil is balogna because:

1. Peak oil views fail to take into account the complex reality that will allow reliance on abundant supplies for years to come

2. Hubbert curve assumes that the geological structure of our planet is well known an thoroughly explored

3. The Hubbert curves do not delineate the complex and dynamic nature of oil production and reserves in the world because they are a product of a static model that puts unjustifiable faith in geology and does not consider technology and cost/price functions

4. The models success in the US reflects the peculiar nature of the US in that it is the most intensively explored and exploited in the world

5. Nearly all of the estimates of the world's oil "ultimate recoverable resources" do not take into account non-conventional oils such as the Canadian tar sands

6. Peak oilsters usually quote the fact that new oil discoveries are only replacing 1/4 of what the world consumes every year, but the real issue is that neither major producing countries or publicly traded companies have any desire to invest in oil exploration for fear that oil will dip below $10/bbl like it did in 1986

So, Science magazine isn't known for publishing crap, but I think that a lot of people in this forum would dismiss these claims as crap. The article also shows oil production in Egypt, which looks absolutely nothing like Hubberts curve, although the time scale was 40 years...is this a big enough time frame to look at?

[Chiefrockerbusyb]

The article is available on Energy bulletin at http://www.energybulletin.net/347.html

[0mar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thegrq', '1'). Peak oil views fail to take into account the complex reality that will allow reliance on abundant supplies for years to come

[Berkeley]

Colin Campbell wrote an article about the author of this Science piece here.

[qibu]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('0mar', '
')
Despite that, the Hubbert curve has been pretty right in several countries and thousands of fields/basins. The function doesn't need to be perfect to give a good approximation of what oil depletion can look like.

[RonMN]

Miles does not equal MILES PER HOUR...if we need to go 60 miles, i can walk there...if we need to go 60 MPH i can't (without oil).

It's about SPEED!

Barels in the ground mean nothing...it's Barels per DAY (BPD) that we're talking about (barels does not mean BPD...miles does not mean MPH).

When you add the "time" factor in there...we're in serious trouble!

[ubercrap]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RonMN', 'M')iles does not equal MILES PER HOUR...if we need to go 60 miles, i can walk there...if we need to go 60 MPH i can't (without oil).

It's about SPEED!

Barels in the ground mean nothing...it's Barels per DAY (BPD) that we're talking about (barels does not mean BPD...miles does not mean MPH).

When you add the "time" factor in there...we're in serious trouble!

[RG73]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thegrq', '
')So, Science magazine isn't known for publishing crap,

[WebHubbleTelescope]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RG73', 'I') don't take Science papers altogether too seriously. They're all flash and no substance. Many other less high profile journals are more rigorously peer reviewed and have higher standards. You also have to realize your typical Science or Nature paper is about 2 pages. It is a glorified abstract. It isn't a nuts and bolts 20 page paper with reams of data.

But yes, any number of Science and Nature papers over the years have been crappy. There are good papers and even great papers there too, but merely being in Science doesn't make it gospel.

[thegrq]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')on-conventiol sources lack the flowthrough rate that conventional oil has. non-conventional oil also costs more energy/money to develop and will remain a bit player for most of the industry.

[0mar]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('qibu', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('0mar', '
')
Despite that, the Hubbert curve has been pretty right in several countries and thousands of fields/basins. The function doesn't need to be perfect to give a good approximation of what oil depletion can look like.

[ubercrap]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thegrq', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')on-conventiol sources lack the flowthrough rate that conventional oil has. non-conventional oil also costs more energy/money to develop and will remain a bit player for most of the industry.

[b0nez]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('thegrq', '1'). Peak oil views fail to take into account the complex reality that will allow reliance on abundant supplies for years to come

[lorenzo]

I have long wanted to ask this question, but I fear it may show how naive I still am when it comes to understanding Peak Oil.

Whenever I read this kind of articles, I often think the economists certainly have a point: we don't really know how much oil is out there, because it's not economically interesting to look for more when we have plenty right now. When the economics force us to explore, we will find more.

Now I know that this is too simplistic. I know it's the geology versus economy debate.

That's why I ask if you, more knowledgeable people, have any kind of data on where companies have already drilled. I don't know if this exists. But say, a map of Saoudi Arabia, with all the places that have been drilled and turned up to be empty, and those places that have not been explored yet, with dates and a timeframe.

I think such maps would come in handy to debunk this opposition between what the PO geology guys say, and what the anti-PO economists say.

Such graphic representations would be great tools. You could show a map and say: "see, Iran has drilled all over the place, and this is what they've found; you can't drill any more - there's nothing left to be found".



It would be fairly easy to create such maps, if we have the gridded data, with geographic coordinates. I'm sure geologic services of different countries have already produced this kind of maps. We could make one big interactive one.

[rockdoc123]

Lorenzo
unfortunately all of the maps on Saudi are inaccurate as they are based on the selective information provided by the Saudis. That being said the only areas that are not well-drilled up are in the Rhub a Khali (empty quarter) and perhaps some areas of the offshore northern part of the Arabian Gulf. The Rhub a Khali is likely to be mainly gas given the source kitchen is pretty deep and the exisiting discoveries. Saudis talk about new discoveries in the Ghawar trend but I think those are just appraisals of previous discoveries....high rates but reserves are not significant.
In actual fact we have a very good idea of oil potential around the world. The idea that there are a bunch of countries where political reasons keep us from exploring is bunk.....it may stop Western Companies but it doesn't stop Eastern national companies such as ONGC or CNPC. There are a couple of places that because of territorial disputes noone is prepared to explore such as Somalia and Western Sahara but pretty much every place in the world where there might be hydrocarbons has been explored, some intensely some less so. The only places that come to mind that have not seen exploration that still have potential are Greenland offshore, Antartica. The fact that big companies are increasingly drilling in ultra-deep waters (>2000 m wd) attests to the fact there is little opportunity for large oil onshore or in shallow waters. I think there are a number of misconceptions portrayed by the press with regards to exploration upside worldwide. One of these is that Russia is very attractive from an exploration perspective. This is not entirely correct...there are areas such as remote Eastern Siberia and the Barents Sea that are underexplored but for the most part the Russians did a good job of drilling up every seismic anomaly around.
If you want more info on oil potential around the world go the the USGS website there are a number of excellent studies available, although most people in the oil and gas industry would argue they are optimistic in most areas.

[khebab]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', '
')
That's why I ask if you, more knowledgeable people, have any kind of data on where companies have already drilled. I don't know if this exists. But say, a map of Saoudi Arabia, with all the places that have been drilled and turned up to be empty, and those places that have not been explored yet, with dates and a timeframe.

I think such maps would come in handy to debunk this opposition between what the PO geology guys say, and what the anti-PO economists say.

Such graphic representations would be great tools. You could show a map and say: "see, Iran has drilled all over the place, and this is what they've found; you can't drill any more - there's nothing left to be found".

It would be fairly easy to create such maps, if we have the gridded data, with geographic coordinates. I'm sure geologic services of different countries have already produced this kind of maps. We could make one big interactive one.

[lorenzo]

Thanks Khebab, that's a great map.

I notice that they put Greenland under "North America". Geologically that may be true, but politically, it is European. Hands off, Yankees.

[dougr]

Lorenzo,

Simmons answers your Saudi Arabia question.
Download this (Real Media Player req'd):
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/ ... 040709.ram

or play it from here:
http://webjay.org/iteminfo/1696338/76e9 ... c292407863

Colin Campbell pretty much answers about the rest of the world.
download this (Windows Media player or other mp3 capable player req'd):
http://www.odac-info.org/audio/campbell.mp3
and
accompanying powerpoint slideshow:
http://www.odac-info.org/documents/colin_campbell.ppt

[mjpete]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'I') notice that they put Greenland under "North America". Geologically that may be true, but politically, it is European. Hands off, Yankees.