by shady28 » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 15:27:02
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shady28', 'T')hat illustrates the flaw in the whole peak oil theory. Oil production is really a map of oil *demand*, not the other way around. Peak oil theory is based on production views of regions where oil production is high vs max production because demand is high in that region. Specifically, the USA.
That's not to say that peak oil theory is completely false, but it's not really valid to look at one field or one region which is being used to near capacity and then comparing to dozens of regions and areas - many of which are not at capacity and have never been pumped at capacity because demand doesn't require it.
The USA was and is made of individual fields, each of which endured depletion. It ran out of oil. Now let's try other regions. North Sea oil production is demand constrained? No. It has
past it peak. It is actually two countries, Norway and Britain. 15-20 oil producing countries have
past their peak. That is a geologic and industrial fact. Within each of those countries individual fields
past their geologic and industrial peak One can extrapolate from a well, to a region, to a country, to the world. The planet earth is on its way to
The Big Peak
I'm not saying PO is wrong, but the flaw in peak oil i mentioned is not in fact one that wasn't discussed by - Hubbert himself.
PO models existing, active fields and new discoveries vs depletion in a highly devloped easily accessible region (USA). The assumption is that the world mirrors this, or has been made to mirror it due to demand. We already know that there are a half dozen fields that are not being, nor have been, used to any great degree because it was not economically viable to pump that oil (as opposed to pumping oil in the USA, where the model comes from).
To illustrate, let's say that Siberia and the South China Sea were set and ready to drill right now. Have we reached peak oil, even with those online? Of course not. Would demand suddenly rise to meet our increased capacity? No, it wouldn't . In fact, capacity utilization across the world would go DOWN as the new oil wells ramped up. That by definition would make it different from US drilling operations. The difference between this and the USA alone is that the USA pumped to max capacity from day 1. We supplied the world with oil for a long time. When our capacity peaked, the onus switched to Norway and then OPEC.
That's what I mean by overall worldwide production modelling demand, not the other way around. But in a single region, where the infrastructure is good and it's easy to setup to drill a well (like the USA), you're going to run flat out. Other regions are not running flat out, or for that matter haven't been completely setup to drill in the first place.
How's this for an analogy. Lets say you're a caveman on a different planet, and it's just you and your cavewoman. Your cave has a small lake in it so you use that for drinking water. A few years down the road you have kids, but your drinking the water faster than it replenishes from the drops coming down the stalagtites. So, you wander outside your cave and find a small pond (Norway, OPEC). A generation passes, and you've got several small famlies living in your cave now = and now your pond is getting low, and the water in both the cave lake and the pond is kinda stale (heavy crude). But, you've found a couple more ponds farther away. You haven't used them yet because they pass by a bears den and a lions den (Russia and China), plus the distance you have to travel. You are still getting some water from your cave lake and the pond nearby, but now you need more water so you're going to do what you have to do to get at it.
PO models the curve of usage off the first pond, and says that is the model for all water production now and in the future. That's a pretty big fallacy really.