[Arthur75]

Two new docs from Laherrère (in French, but graphics quite self explanatory and labels in English) :

http://aspofrance.viabloga.com/files/Sophia2013.pdf

http://aspofrance.viabloga.com/files/Nice2013long.pdf

First one especially is a global synthesis with also his forecasts for coal.

These current discrepancy between these numbers and the "official ones"(and even more as relayed in the media) is really quite amazing ...



Some key graphs from the "sophia2013" doc above :

All liquids previsions 2007 and 2013 :



Coal previsions 2007 and 2013 :



Coal China :


Note that the IEA (WEO 2013) forecasts China future coal prediction below the "possible", and probably the only thing they put below the possible ...)

US natural gas :



US shale gas :



North America conventional gas :



Europe gas :



Russian gas :



All fossils 2007 and 2013 :



All fossils according to the IEA (WEO2013) :



All fossils per capita :



All fossils US and GDP :



France and energy bill :

[Subjectivist]

Excellent graphs. I think the cold winter in north america will use up a lot of the natural gas stockpile driving prices up and maybe stimulating drilling, but that is just a Blip in the long term trend.

[John_A]

Jean is always good for an introspective on peak oil, as obviously his early claims have changed as the older ideas have been discredited with respect to time.

Sorry Jean, but oil production ain't about building probability density functions, and your expertise in geophysics doesn't automatically convey to you knowledge of how resource economics works.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Jean predicting US oil production at less than 1.6 million barrels a day right about now. Why? BECAUSE GEOLOGY MATTERS, AS DOES PRICE. Better luck next time Jean, may I recommend some resource economics classes that you might not continue to make this mistake, even today?

The US has just recently discovered, drilled, and IS PRODUCING MORE THAN 1.6 MILLION BARRELS A DAY FROM NEW, BUT KNOWN FORMATIONS IN 1995 WHEN JEAN MADE THESE REALLY BAD TIME SERIES DATA FITS.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')igure 3, which considers the United States (Lower 48) and the Former Soviet Union, demonstrates the general symmetry of the profile, corresponding to a simple equation which is the derivative of the well known logistic curve. It is consistent with laws of statistics that the aggregate of a large number of assymmetrical independent distributions is symmetrical.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'S')orry Jean, but oil production ain't about building probability density functions, and your expertise in geophysics doesn't automatically convey to you knowledge of how resource economics works.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Jean predicting US oil production at less than 1.6 million barrels a day right about now. Why? BECAUSE GEOLOGY MATTERS, AS DOES PRICE.

[Plantagenet]

Its good to see Laherrere even trying to make projections of future oil production that include shale oil. The billions of barrels of oil that can now be produced from shale using fracking are a tremendous addition to conventional oil reserves, but they don't change the fundamental story.

Global oil production will inevitably peak----let the debate begin again as to when that peak will occur.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', '
')Are you one of those folks that don't believe there is a finite URR?

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')Global oil production will inevitably peak----let the debate begin again as to when that peak will occur.

[Arthur75]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
He should be asking WHY he is wrong, and then make adjustments for his myopia. Certainly the USGS folks have been doing this for decades, he should pay more attention to the scientist types who obviously know more on this topic than he does. And have...for decades.

Of course, it might not be considered polite to mention in mixed company that the USGS being correct, and guys like Lahherrere being wrong, is one of the prime reasons for peak oil sites imploding recently, including TOD.

[Pops]

The best thing about Laherrere is he points out the lack of data and lack of certainty right off the top. Unlike various other forecasters (and PR reposters and message board prophets) who pretend to certainty, he points out that the data is bad - opaque is a compliment - there is greater variance between sources than between years, and that's marketed oil volumes. Actual well by well data production data is nonexistent and reserve numbers are made up at best, he said back in the '90s that US reporting rules were poor and they gotten worse. Since the mid oughts he's said giving any estimate with greater than one or two digit precision is to give the impression of greater certainty than is realistic.

But then an error of a trillion barrels only moves the needle a score of years.

His method is to make a curve to fit the ultimate and from what I've seen he takes the ultimate from someone else. The earliest plot I've found is for an ultimate of 1,750Gb of "conventional oil"; the mean value proposed by the USGS and Petroconsultants at that time ('93?) which implied a peak around 2000. His curves since '06 call for a peak a little later in 2020 and 2Tb URR If his first plot os off by 20 years in a range of 200 that will be a feat.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut I add in the text that this curve is to show simply what the geology can offer with the ultimate being the surface below the curve. But the supply has constraints from investment, politics, wars, insecurity and other constraints of the demand (high prices or recession). Any curve with the same surface below can fit depending the constraints. This is why I was also the first one to speak about a bumpy plateau instead of a peak.

What is important is to give the reader a production curve which has a surface below the curve equal to the ultimate. The curve can be modified to satisfy the constraints as long as the surface is conserved: any area below the model should be compensated by an equal area above the model.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Arthur75', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '
')
He should be asking WHY he is wrong, and then make adjustments for his myopia. Certainly the USGS folks have been doing this for decades, he should pay more attention to the scientist types who obviously know more on this topic than he does. And have...for decades.

Of course, it might not be considered polite to mention in mixed company that the USGS being correct, and guys like Lahherrere being wrong, is one of the prime reasons for peak oil sites imploding recently, including TOD.

[Arthur75]

You're way too boring for any discussion Johnny
(and I abhor these little multiquotes ping pong games)

Btw I never said peak oil per capita = peak oil.

peak oil per capita is peak oil per capita, passed around 1980 on a plateau since then, seriously on the downslope since 2005

(and Exxon is in Kurdistan if you didn't know, not even talking about "service companies")

And not even mentionning that the key strategic aspect regarding the middle-east and the US, is more keeping the oil market in $, highly linked to the "security" role of course.

And have you heard about things like :



Or not ?

Fyi : peak demand is the most cowardish concept possible.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Arthur75', 'Y')ou're way too boring for any discussion Johnny
(and I abhor these little multiquotes ping pong games)

Btw I never said peak oil per capita = peak oil.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'T')he best thing about Laherrere is he points out the lack of data and lack of certainty right off the top.

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'T')he best thing about Laherrere is he points out the lack of data and lack of certainty right off the top.