[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', 'W')e actually have trillions of "something" this and "something" that. The catch is rate of flow:

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timson', ' ')As you know (or don't) prices in a free market economy are set by offer and demand. there may be trillions of barrels waiting to be pumped at 5 usd/barrel. But if the rate is 10 barrels a day and demand is 20 barrels, you have a problem. Someone's got to give.

[godq3]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')Fortunately the IEA has calculated that for us as well. No need to rely on bloggers without the kind of data and institutional support and expertise required to do these estimates.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('godq3', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')Fortunately the IEA has calculated that for us as well. No need to rely on bloggers without the kind of data and institutional support and expertise required to do these estimates.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
Fortunately the IEA has calculated that for us as well. No need to rely on bloggers without the kind of data and institutional support and expertise required to do these estimates.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')The question was, "but what around rate! of those trillions of barrels!"

Thank you for providing those changing estimates of rate from all those trillions of barrels. However, they only appear to be peaking out there another decade or two down the road, didn't Fatih say we had already peaked in 2006? Would be nice if they would get their story straight, but hey, until someone comes up with a better way of assembling data they are about the only game in town. So some of those 6-7 trillions must be getting converted into enough rate for those estimates to stay so nice and level. I wonder if Fatih has explained yet how many decades it will take post peak to see peak?

But thanks! It is interesting to see how fast their opinion has changed on what that increasing rate will be. I guess that you can say that in a world where some predict decline, and others increase, they are still on the right side of the break point to date.

Problem with the graph though. If it is based on conventional oil production, it never exceeded about 75 million a day. Not in 2005, maybe today, maybe. And it certainly hasn't declined at all, it is still around 75 million a day. That's why they have call it plateau oil as of late. So you've got mismatched data sets inside the chart.

Here is 5 years of plateau oil from Westexas to prove it. It has gone up as of late, but it is still in the same ballpark. No 75+ day, sorry.



Here is what is happening with the dataset you appear to be using, which looks to include everything, seeing as how you used something hitting 85 million day. I think all liquids have peaked past 90 million a day, but this graph doesn't have that vintage on it, it looks like it is right before the big 9 0 was breached.

[ROCKMAN]

ralfy - And I would bet oil consumption per capita by country will be even more meaningful then production per capita. We all know how unequally oil is distributed in the world. Beyond that it might be worthwhile to try to normalize that stat. X bopd per capita of consumption in China, with a population much greater than the US, doesn't tell the whole story very well. Maybe a stat like percentage change would be even more informative. That takes into account population growth (or lack thereof) and consumption increases/decreases. Don't have the time to research it now but I would guess that number has moved in opposite directions for the China and the US in recent years...and probably most of the rest of the world. And with China spending 100's of $billions upfront to secure larger percentages of future oil production such a rate of change stat may be rather useful in predicting the future. As we discussed before how much oil the world produces isn't nearly as important as how it gets distributed. If a country can acquire the energy it needs at a price it can afford then PO becomes something of a non-issue for them...at least compared to the have-nots.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '
')The problems are the forecasts for fields yet to be found and yet to be developed, which does not involve historical flow rates.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
How is that a problem? Hubbert did the exact same thing.

[ROCKMAN]

Ralfy – I don’t have time right now to go back to the original work but his projection was based upon just the trends that have been discovered. IOW one can make a fairly decent projection of field development in a trend with some history. He couldn’t include the Deep Water GOM in his projection because there was no history established at the time. Even if he had a vision of DW oil potential when he made his projection the engineering tech didn’t exist to exploit the trend as is being done today. His projection was based upon known plays only. The productivity of many of the shale plays, as well as that of the Bakken, was known when he did his projection. What he didn’t know at the time was the ability of horizontal drilling combined with higher prices to bring such plays to the forefront. Look at the debate today over exactly how much oil the shales will add and someone wants to fault him for not making an accurate projection 40 years ago? Rather childish IMHO.

Hubbert made a projection of future oil production from known trends at the time. By all accounts he did an excellent job of answering that question. The problem today is that so many critics don’t understand what the original question was.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'H')ow is that a problem? Hubbert did the exact same thing.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'R')alfy – I don’t have time right now to go back to the original work but his projection was based upon just the trends that have been discovered. IOW one can make a fairly decent projection of field development in a trend with some history. He couldn’t include the Deep Water GOM in his projection because there was no history established at the time. Even if he had a vision of DW oil potential when he made his projection the engineering tech didn’t exist to exploit the trend as is being done today. His projection was based upon known plays only. The productivity of many of the shale plays, as well as that of the Bakken, was known when he did his projection. What he didn’t know at the time was the ability of horizontal drilling combined with higher prices to bring such plays to the forefront. Look at the debate today over exactly how much oil the shales will add and someone wants to fault him for not making an accurate projection 40 years ago? Rather childish IMHO.

Hubbert made a projection of future oil production from known trends at the time. By all accounts he did an excellent job of answering that question. The problem today is that so many critics don’t understand what the original question was.

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
No wonder you are always providing links with no independent thought.

Read the original work. There is this big number, bigger than current reserves, he calls it "FUTURE DISCOVERIES" to paraphrase. And then he builds out an increasing flowrate until flowrate balances against discovered stuff and future to be discovered stuff. The IEA is doing the same thing, relying on undiscovered stuff to forecast a future flowrate.

[ralfy]

"Spin slips off oil production numbers – World Energy Outlook 2010 is a cry for help"

http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2010/11/1 ... -for-help/

which refers to

"The Peak of the Oil Age"

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... report.pdf

IEA forecast, fig. 1

Uppsala outlook, fig. 15

Thus, the IEA should consider the possibility that crude oil production will not flat line but drop.

Finally, don't forget to look at production per capita, as mentioned earlier:

http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com.au/ ... k-oil.html

[ROCKMAN]

John – Thanks. That was my point if it wasn’t too subtle. Hubbert based his projection on the historical activity of known trends. If a trend hasn’t been drilled there is no statistical basis for a projection. Folks talk about Hubbert’s projection being wrong. In reality it was pretty dang accurate given it was done about 40 years ago. In 2008 the production from the trends he used in his analysis (doesn’t include the shales and Deep Water) was 1.46 billion bo. His high side estimate, confirmed by the peak daily volume in the early 1970’s, was 1.2 billion bo. In my book being that close in a 40 year forward projection shows he well understood the system he was dealing with.

Of course we’re currently producing more oil than he predicted but that has nothing to do with his work. He was predicting the future production of known trends at the time. What is rather amazing is that while he doesn’t include the Canadian oil sands or the oily shales in is analysis he clearly identifies the reserve potential.

And what’s even more amazing is what his report predicts for coal production. Folks seem to gloss over that while discussing oil. About 4 decades ago he predicted the increase in coal production we’ve seen since then. And predicted increasing coal production well into the future. A prediction IMHO that will be substantiated by PO and the decrease of cheap oil that will push the worldy to utilize even more coal then we are doing today.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')Disputing the IEA work is easy..show the ASPO or Alekletts cost/supply curve for resources capable of creating liquid fuels and presto...we can talk about it. Until then, there is no other information of value on this topic. One graph is all it takes....why doesn't Aleklett have one? Why doesn't someone else have one, and why isn't that in your box of cut and paste links?

[ralfy]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
I await your response with baited breath, certainly comparing this IEA information to anyone elses is the key to verifying, or disputing, the amounts used by the IEA going forward.

[ralfy]

There's one more point I'd like to add, which was mentioned in the comments here:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7102

and which was taken from the fourth paragraph in

http://aleklett.wordpress.com/2010/11/1 ... -for-help/

a link that was shared in my previous message. That is, according to Aleklett,

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he IEA notes that, since 1980, we have consumed oil faster than we discover it. We now consume 30 billion barrels per year which is more than double what we find. Amazingly, the IEA asserts we will need to find an extra 900 billion barrels of oil over the next 25 years to meet demand. But at the current discovery rate of only 10 billion barrels it would take 90 years! To meet the IEA’s demand prognosis, by 2035 the non-OPEC nations will need to have produced more oil than currently in their reserves. Furthermore, in 2035 they must still be producing oil at 46 mb/d!

[ROCKMAN]

ralfy - excellent numbers. Such projections always fail on two pivotal points IMHO. First, predicting the existence of reserves before you find them. I don't fault them for trying...that's how exploration geologists make their living. But presenting those numbers as "facts" takes the process too far IMHO.

Second is the assumption that the industry doesn't do a fine job of finding the big reserves early on. Folks will look at the chart showing all the huge reserves found 30 and 40 years ago and see the rapid fall off and not truly appreciate what their eyes are showing them. The also don't tend to appreciate that the combination of new tech and high prices yields flow rates that are disproportionally high for the reserves left in the ground. As you point out you can't save you cake and eat it to. The faster we produce to meet growing demand we'll have to find even more reserves than we have in the last 60 years. Even with the new tech and higher prices common sense should dictate the unlikely chance of that happening.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ralfy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
I await your response with baited breath, certainly comparing this IEA information to anyone elses is the key to verifying, or disputing, the amounts used by the IEA going forward.