[Revi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'C')ongrats! I look forward to watching when you get finished with it!

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'I')t's amazing how right on those old models have proven to be. It's also amazing how little we listened to them. Oh well. We are on track to do exactly what they thought. No surprise.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'I')t might be really good timing also. We are hoping to put it out to film festivals this summer. Here's the latest from Peak Oil Barrel. Ron Patterson is really good at boiling down the data and he feels that we hit the world peak last July. He had originally predicted April, so he's not far off at all.

http://peakoilbarrel.com/oil-price-and- ... more-11774

2015 will be the year world production of crude oil peaked. The return of higher oil prices, whether later this year or further in the future, will not bring production back to the 2015 level. Ron Patterson, from above.

[Revi]

Adam B, thanks for keeping this thread alive. We are at 2555 now! We are going to get better music and maybe even some help with promotion. Thanks to all who are helping us with this project. It will be entertaining. We are not claiming to predict anything, just 10 years in the life of a person who recognizes resource limits and what they mean.

[ROCKMAN]

"That is what Hubbert thought had happened back in 1970. And some folks, cherry picking oil density just a little to avoid the obvious, say happened back in about 2005." In reality Hubbert's prediction of US oil production was very accurate. But one has to understand exactly what he was predicting: the future production from the existing PROVEN trends he built his model upon. He specifically points out that his model doesn't include future new tends being developed. Such as the shales or Deep Water. His work on future US oil production is constantly misrepresented by both sides of the debate. The fields that he used in his model peaked in 1971 and are producing a rather small amount of oil...just as he predicted.

Just as the overemphasis of the unimportant date of global PO is constantly pushed by those most comfortable in one dimensional discussions.

[Revi]

It seems like we may have hit peak oil, in the absolute sense back in July of 2015. We won't know until a year has passed, and then it may become obvious. We'll see.

http://peakoilbarrel.com/oil-price-and- ... roduction/

The last paragraph from the above:
"2015 will be the year world production of crude oil peaked. The return of higher oil prices, whether later this year or further in the future, will not bring production back to the 2015 level."

[Subjectivist]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'I')t seems like we may have hit peak oil, in the absolute sense back in July of 2015. We won't know until a year has passed, and then it may become obvious. We'll see.

http://peakoilbarrel.com/oil-price-and- ... roduction/

The last paragraph from the above:
"2015 will be the year world production of crude oil peaked. The return of higher oil prices, whether later this year or further in the future, will not bring production back to the 2015 level."

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '&')quot;That is what Hubbert thought had happened back in 1970. And some folks, cherry picking oil density just a little to avoid the obvious, say happened back in about 2005." In reality Hubbert's prediction of US oil production was very accurate.

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', 'A')dam B, thanks for keeping this thread alive. We are at 2555 now! We are going to get better music and maybe even some help with promotion. Thanks to all who are helping us with this project. It will be entertaining. We are not claiming to predict anything, just 10 years in the life of a person who recognizes resource limits and what they mean.

[Revi]

It depends on if this is really a model for oil production, or waves. I really don't think that oil production has ever looked like this. If this is what you are using as some kind of scientific proof of what you are saying, it's time to find some other more scientific type stuff.

[Revi]

I came off as a little snarky in the above post. Hubbert's peak is the top end of a sine wave. I will admit that.
Sorry Adam B.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Revi', '[')img]http://write.flossmanuals.net/csound/a-digital-audio/static/Csound-Picts-01_Basics-SineWave-en.png[/img]

It depends on if this is really a model for oil production, or waves. I really don't think that oil production has ever looked like this.

[ROCKMAN]

Adam - I'll have to dig details later. But in the meantime to a fair degree one can only try to estimate future production from known AND fairly mature trends. Which is exactly what Hubbert did. Not to take anything away from his work but his future production model was based upon trends that had been heavily developed by the time he did his work. He also dealt with a world that had fairly stable oil prices. Consider the US shale boom the last 10 years or so: had oil remained at $30/bbl there would have been no production surge and no new near US PO. It would be foolish for anyone to argue otherwise since we had the tech to drill the shales and known they contained a huge amount of oil/NG for decades.

But even at high oil prices there are still geologic limits. Look at how far into the Gulf of Mexico and Deep water Brazil. But there are no big potential oil plays to be had going further out from the continents: the vast majority of the world's seafloor are igneous rocks with zero commercial hydrocarbon potential. That's why companies are going to one bitch of a drilling environment in the Arctic instead of nice warm water along the equator. And what about other US shales when/if oil prices get high again? There are dozens of other formations besides the Bakken and Eagle Ford. You don't read much about them because they've all been tested by hundreds of wells during the "shale boom" and yet 80%+ of shale production still only comes from the B and EFS. Shales, regardless of high oil prices, don't contain commercial oil deposits. Only certain shales contain the elative rare components that allow them to be developed. Which is one of the reason we saw no major shale play develop overseas during the shale boom.

IOW even if one can figure out how to squeeze blood out of a turnip it's not going to be much help if you can't find anymore turnips. LOL. At any sustainable oil price there are a finite number of reservoirs to be produced. And once those are developed there are no more. PERIOD. IOW no future sine waves. But if we're lucky an undulating plateau that will last long enough for us old farts. The rest of you young farts here? You're screwed. LOL.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'A')dam - I'll have to dig details later. But in the meantime to a fair degree one can only try to estimate future production from known AND fairly mature trends.

[ROCKMAN]

Adam – When I refer to Hubbert’s analysis I’m referring to US production…not global estimate. In fact I never have cared much for his global estimate because of the data sources you mention. Given much of his data was based upon MATURE Texas production for which he had excellent sources. At the time he made any global predictions he did not have a source of MATURE production data because at the time the global production history was far from mature. In fact it was just beginning to develop.

As far as “in place estimates” by even an operator who is developing a field let alone the EIA (which really doesn’t do much hands on work) mean nothing to the Rockman. Even PROVED PRODUCING RECOVERABLE RESERVE estimates need to be taken with a grain of salt in his HO. LOL.

Overseas shales: as the Rockman has stated before THE primary reason we’ve seen no boom in foreign shales is the companies involved in that game. It was the small to medium PUBLIC COMPANIES in the hunt. How many private and Big Oil companies did we see in the hunt? Except, of course, for Shell Oil’s huge blunder in the eagle Ford which lost the $BILLIONS and led them to abandon all US resource plays once the top man (an explorationist) was replaced by a refinery/marketing guy. The real money made in the shale plays (and it was hugely profitable) was the stock play of those small pubcos. It’s those companies that are lacking in the foreign plays that made the difference. Just a few Big Oils made a halfhearted effort before backing away. And the govt owned companies: totally absent. Go back to what the Rockman has said for years: THE most profitable Eagle Ford player in his opinion was Petrohawk. The put tens of thousands of acres together cheap, drilled a few seed wells and then sold everything for $15 billion. I dare anyone to point to any other EFS play that reports net profits anything close to that number. LOL.

Harold Hamm? I would be careful listening to the sage wisdom of an oil man who lost about $10 BILLION in the oil biz over the last couple of years. LOL

The Bazhenof and the Vaca Muerta aren’t producing a significant amount of “blood” these days. I didn’t say turnips didn’t CONTAIN blood…I was referring to the process of squeezing the blood out of them. Maybe someday they will get squeezed good. You can get back to us when that happens. LOL.

As far as the age of “peakers and doomers” go that’s not the important metric in my opinion. It's how much they understand about the energy dynamics. All the folks the Rockman works with are also old farts and they’ve understood the dynamics of PO for decades just as he has. This PO (we called it the “reserve replacement problem”) situation was recognized more than 40 years ago by us insiders. BTW the Rockman considers anyone under 50 years old to be a young fart. LOL.

[ennui2]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'I') never have cared much for his global estimate

[Revi]

Just because it was delayed by 10 years of funny money causing the "shale boom", that doesn't mean peak oil is a myth.

It is being caused by low prices, not high. That's what the peak oil community didn't understand.

Now the delay is over. Hubbert's inexorable logic still holds sway!

[ROCKMAN]

ennue - But that's the point: the Rockman has never been a "doomer" per se. He just has 40 years of experience hunting for oil/NG and has a pretty good handle on what it takes to succeed at it whether oil is $100/bbl or $30/bbl. He just offers his analysis and doesn't really care if society crashes under the weight of PO or not so there's really no sense of doom on his part. It's just the natural course of the energy extraction business. Which is also why he has never gotten into the foolish game of arguing global peak oil dates since that circle on the calendar is meaningless for the most part. The POD is the POD whether one is optimistic or pessimistic about the energy future.

As the Rockman has said many times: It ain't personal...just business. Oh...and yes: we still ain't your momma either. LOL.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'A')dam – When I refer to Hubbert’s analysis I’m referring to US production…not global estimate. In fact I never have cared much for his global estimate because of the data sources you mention.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ennui2', '
')We're at a stage where there seems to be a few holes in the simplicity of Hubbert's curve analysis.