[shortonsense]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zero-point', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonsense', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zero-point', '
')
First, I never heard of that interpretation of PO being the maximum rate of global production until you mentioned it in this thread. I don't agree with that.

[ROCKMAN]

zero,

My interpretation that the vast majority of major fields have already been discovered is based upon 34 years (sorry short....zero asked) of exploration as well as the opinion of 99.9% of all other explorationists in the oil patch. I know that sounds a bit arrogant but that's the answer. There will still be some AREAS, like Deep Water Brazil, that contain many billions of bbls of oil but remember we've already produced trillions of bbls of oil. We're talking RELATIVE volumes of oil.

PO is the maximum rate of oil production we'll ever experience GLOBALLY. We maxed out in the US, as Hubbert predicted, in the 70's. No other area of the oil patch has had as much access and capital to explore as we have had in the US. Research US exploration and production history and you'll see what O mean. That is not an "interpretation" but a definition. As I said before you're free to define it how ever you want. But that's the interpretation most here ascribe to. Just ask around.

Yes, technological advances, such as horizontal wells, allow us to produce at higher initial rates. But you're only producing a high rate of oil from new discoveries. But we're discovering far less today then ever before. I can drain a typical new oil discovery several times faster then they could 30 years ago. But it's a higher rate from far fewer wells today then 30 years ago. PO is max rate of all existing wells not just the newer ones.

[AdamB]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')
US crude oil production. Link here. I find it incredible such "authoritative" sources as Wikipedia have not updated their "Hubbert Peak Theory" post. Hubbert Peak Theory describes a bell-shaped curve, not "twin peaks." The Million Dollar Way (The Bakken Oil Blog)

[PeterEV]

I came across a graph published by Exxon Mobil at:
http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/ener ... rgy-supply
which shows world oil supply peaking in the 2040 to 2050 time frame.
The image location is:
http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/globa ... 948&w=1686


An earlier version breaks the solid green area out and shows a peaking of "Developed conventional crude and condensate" with a peak in 2005; right where Deffeyes and others were predicting a peak of convention oil production based on Hubbert's original paper. This graph also shows a peak in 2005 for Conventional Crude and Condensate.

I understand that the oil companies, due to shareholder lawsuits, do not want to overstate their reserves but the above image shows a peaking about 22 years hence. The peak at 2040 will likely be extended due to the conservativeness but I don't see it being up ended. If you want to argue with Exxon-Mobil about the validity of this graph, let me know and I'll bring the popcorn. I'll be all ears.

I read the Million Dollar Blog and saw the graph there and yes, you can put more pipes into the ground and suck out the crude faster but that does not change the overall physics and limitations for the world. You may create a bump in the Exxon graph above but it does not change the overall strategic situation. We should be considering this to be the Twilight of the Petro age and looking for ways to extract energy from other sources such as the sun, algae, wind and waves, etc. I ask myself how should I personally address this issue for me, my family and friends? I think this is the way we should be headed. I know the utilities and oil companies are doing a lot of research into this future.

[ROCKMAN]

Peter – “If you want to argue with Exxon-Mobil about the validity of this graph, let me know and I'll bring the popcorn. I'll be all ears.” Of course it’s valid: it obviously adhered to the ASSUMPTIONS made to construct the MODEL. But being VALID does not mean it will eventually be proven to be correct. We don’t even need to debate the geologic or tech aspect of the ASSUMPTIONS made to construct the MODEL since they are not the most critical ASSUMPTIONS made. The ASSUMPTION of the future price of oil obviously dominates the MODEL.

Of course, no one (not a person or company) has CONSISTENTLY been able to correctly predict the price of oil over the time span of this ExxonMobil MODEL. Just consider how no one predicted the boom in US shale production even within 5 or 6 years of its start. And for good reason: despite knowing the oil was in the shales for DECADES and the frac’ng/horizontal drilling tech existed no one had any credible prediction of oil prices increasing to $100+/bbl less then 10 years early when the price was less the $20/bbl.

Similarly, there’s no definitive PROOF of what oil prices will be in just 10 years let alone 20 to 30 years out. Of course, there are plenty of MODELS out there predicting the price of oil in 10 years. They range from $10/bbl to $200/bbl. So pick one price and you can also build a MODEL of future global drilling activity and oil production rate. And then pick an oil price MODEL for the next 32 years and build your own MODEL for global drilling activity and oil production rate and compare it to what XOM has MODELED.

[PeterEV]

Hi Rockman,

I understand that and some of the unspoken caveats in their Model and as you have pointed out: some traders on Wall Street could bid up prices to $147 a barrel, the Bakken sweet spots could be tapped to drive down the price to the $18 range. I'll add: someone could take out Ras Tanara. ANWR could be three times as big as the rest of Alaskan reserves or be a relative dry hole. EVs could really take off and sink crude oil demand extending cheap oil supply for a decade or two further. There are a lot of unknowns and possibilities and yes I could build my own models and maybe one might be close to being what transpires and for the right reasons. I admit I do not have the expertise (nor the insanity) to even begin such a task.

My contention is that we need to think beyond an apparent [in your Hubbert face(?)] high point in Bakken/Eagle Ford/Permian production since the XOM graphs are pointing to a peak in production a few decades away. I'm assuming that XOM does have some expertise in this area. (Okay, they missed the Bakken.) Whatever the eventual curve will be in terms of timing, peak production value, and/or prices, the current graphs do point to the need to seriously think about what needs to be done as we approach and go through peak oil production. With the idea we need to be leaving the impact of eventual diminishing oil supplies before the oil supplies that we currently depend on become scarce (and expensive).

[yportne]

L. F. Buz Ivanhoe on Huppert and the Huppert peak. There can be one or more peaks. http://hubbert.mines.edu/news/Ivanhoe_97-1.pdf

[Plantagenet]

The Hubbert model failed to correctly predict both when US oil production would peak and when the peak in global peak production would occur. It failed mainly because it didn't take into account the huge amount of oil now coming from US shale oil production.

Cheers!


Looking backward, its clear M. King Hubbert's numerical was a flop at correctly predict the timing of the peak in both US and global oil production. Hubbert never dreamed that so much oil could be produced from US shale oil deposits.

[StarvingLion]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'T')he Hubbert model failed to correctly predict both when US oil production would peak and when the peak in global peak production would occur. It failed mainly because it didn't take into account the huge amount of oil now coming from US shale oil production.

Cheers!


Looking backward, its clear M. King Hubbert's numerical was a flop at correctly predict the timing of the peak in both US and global oil production. Hubbert never dreamed that so much oil could be produced from US shale oil deposits.

[coffeeguyzz]

Cuadrilla is planning on fracturing both of its Bowland basin wells by this coming fall. Although the target is gas, not oil, company reports are highly optimistic based on drilling returns.

[vtsnowedin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') know Starve, in spite of rockdoc's obsessive insistence that UK will fract it's shale. That won't ever happen. I kept telling him you can't ran shale-oil trains through the Chunnel. The French would never stand for it, because they back-haul their perfume that way. Nor will the UK import oil. There is no excess, even Norway is running down.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;huge amount of oil now coming from US shale oil production"

And the quality of that oil is ?

[StarvingLion]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc123', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;huge amount of oil now coming from US shale oil production"

And the quality of that oil is ?

[StarvingLion]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('coffeeguyzz', 'C')uadrilla is planning on fracturing both of its Bowland basin wells by this coming fall. Although the target is gas, not oil, company reports are highly optimistic based on drilling returns.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ets face it, Shale is nothing more than a GEOPOLITICAL TOOL to get the oil that matters. If you cannot get middle east oil, you are toast. Shale don't matter diddly.

[StarvingLion]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rockdoc123', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ets face it, Shale is nothing more than a GEOPOLITICAL TOOL to get the oil that matters. If you cannot get middle east oil, you are toast. Shale don't matter diddly.

[StarvingLion]

Now we know why GE stock has been collapsing since 2015. America gots no oil growth.

[StarvingLion]

The intellectuals are totally bankrupt. In this latest article on 'The End of Peak Oil', kerogen is the SAVIOUR. OMG, they are desperate. I guess this moron geologist (who isn't actually working as one) never got the memo that the largest nuclear operator in the USA just said that there will never be another nuclear power plant built in the USA. He's threatening to put the peak oil doomers in prison.

This dude may as well jump off a bridge. From AmericanNoThinker:

https://www.americanthinker.com/article ... k_oil.html

April 14, 2018
The End of Peak Oil

Peak oil predictions and other Malthusian prognostications of resource limits have failed repeatedly for decades. But the people who invoke these false auguries of doom and gloom never seem to suffer any consequences. Any discussion of energy resources is tainted by ideology. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are portrayed as morally superior. Tendentious promotions of renewables invariably gloss over their inherent limitations. Wind and solar are intermittent and expensive. Both suffer from low power densities. These flaws are not political or even technological. They originate in the laws of physics and chemistry and are not likely to be overcome at any time in the foreseeable future.

Oil and other fossil fuels will continue to be our primary energy sources through the end of this century because they offer four great advantages. Compared to renewables, fossil fuels are inexpensive, reliable, abundant, and concentrated. The age of oil is far from being eclipsed. We have barely begun to exploit unconventional oil resources. The western U.S. alone contains at least 2 trillion barrels of petroleum in oil shale formations. At a current U.S. annual consumption rate of 7.2 billion barrels, that's a 278-year supply.

Ultimately, the world will switch to nuclear power because that's where the energy is. But there's no reason grounded in science for that transition to take place in the lifetime of anyone reading this article. Political attempts to control energy markets for ideological reasons can only result in increasing energy prices and reduced human prosperity.

David Deming is a geologist, professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma, and author of the series Science and Technology in World History

[StarvingLion]

The EconoDunces are totally completely useless. This goofball Blanktard writes the usual nonsense, "As oil is abundant all over the world...":

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 47458-8_10

Abstract

Most economic theories are wrong. Fortunately, most wrong theories are irrelevant. But some wrong theories are relevant. One of these latter theories is Marion King Hubbert’s peak oil theory, postulated in 1956. Hubbert was a geologist who thought that oil exploration is an uncertain undertaking. Frequently, drilling is en vain; in a few cases, gas is discovered and in another few cases oil. Given uncertainty, only proven reserves are said to be reliable. Proven reserves appear as a peak in the known graphs. In lucky times, we find ourselves on the ascending part of the bell-shaped curve. In less favorable times, we slip downward on the descending part of Hubbert’s peak. Oil reserves dwindle and might come to an end. Hubbert’s peak oil theory is still popular, but doubly false: It predicts crises which do not occur and misses to handle crises which occur.

https://www.wiwi.hu-berlin.de/de/profes ... FORGET.pdf

Next Time the Wolf is Coming

Charles B. Blankart