[Hawkcreek]

--

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', 'G')ood article Newsseeker and we should thank the author for crediting the Oil Drum and Jeffery.

There is one more feed back loop that we can take into consideration, the energy cost of oil wars. The US has greatly reduced its capability to reduce its dependence on oil through the huge investment it has put into Iraq. The resulting reduction of infrastructure investment, of the alternative energy type, greater efficiencies and improved technology, will accelerate our overall decline, making further wars more likely. For example, the finances we have put into Iraq would have built a least 50 nuclear power plants. These would have added to our GDP, which would have allowed for more infrastructure investment. Instead there will be greater political momentum, when PO firmly strikes, to pursue a policy of securing resources through military means. If we are not very careful and vigilant, we will have entered a continually decaying loop .

[Pops]

This is something I have wondered about.

Hubbert came up with his theory a half century ago and obviously there have been improvements in all aspects of the oil business since then.

Better at exploration - so fewer examples of Look what we stumbled across!

Computer modeling, 3D seismic and all that have improved estimating reserves - hence less reserve growth in the future.

And of course, better recovery techniques – hence faster depletion.

Then there is politics, economics, conservation way back when, etc


So:

What are the chances that Hubbert is way off due to these improved techniques and on a global basis the mid-point of extraction doesn’t coincide closely with peak production?

Could we have actually passed the mid-point years or even decades ago?

Be gentle, I’m just a layman…

[Battle_Scarred_Galactico]

Wanker


I don't hear many Americans use this one.

Props.

[Twilight]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'C')ould we have actually passed the mid-point years or even decades ago?

[Pops]

Yes, and ASPO does discount the big paper increase in OPEC reserves too.

I was thinking about the companies that have restated reserves lately and probably even more about the creative accounting described on the PBS show about Enron that allowed them to post whatever profit number they pulled out of their ear on todays P&L, for contracts they made for ten, twenty and thirty years out.

Today there are also rig, tanker and refinery constraints but I wonder if in a rising crude price situation – note the fairly decent profits seen by oil majors lately, that those constraints might be overcome and lead to supplies actually increasing over time until we get to the 70 or 80 percent point and then a sharp reduction?

I am certainly not hoping for this scenario by the way and may the King forgive my transgressions…

[NEOPO]

<smiles with the knowledge that his "Way Beyond Peak" thread correlates with pretty much everything being said in this thread and then cries as it is probably closer to the truth>

Heck Pops, we know the Opec reserve hikes were more then likely false and we can make predictions based upon this regardless if we have a degree in Geology or not.
Most of the Geologists on the other hand take the reserve hikes for granted and then go on to produce a date for us such as 2018, 2035 or 2040.

Few consider EROEI, Energy density, URR's, geopolitics, exponential growth etc etc.
So who you gonna believe? I believe in us, that we are closer to the truth and I think the King would be proud of our efforts.

[Blacksmith]

I work for a lot of different oil companies and the motis opperendi is to increase production. Horizontal wells are not drilled to recover more oil but to get the oil out faster. I see the right hand side of the peak ( that is if there are no new discoveries) decreasing very rapidly and then leveling off as it becomes a matter of decreasing returns. I myself have in the last five years been on only one wildcat which had significant production. Geologists are very good but they can't make oil.

[evilgenius]

I see his point about merchantilism. It works the same way as Chinese imports, once the volume and rate are established nothing that threatens that large a customer relationship is easily tolerated. It also means that the infrastructure, either rolling or stationary, is in place for that client situation and serves to reinforce it, branches away from it can add to the cost of serving the client.

I've watched this firsthand in the UK vs. the US with Australian wine. A bottle of wine in the US would go for 5 dollars. In the UK the same bottle is 5 pounds. 5 pounds is the equivalent of 10 dollars. Other more established, more highly entrenched wines occupy the 2 pounds 50 rank. It is all about who can benefit from a product flow great enough to be considered significant.

[perdition79]

What a strange question. Of course the right side of the curve won't look like the left. The first half of it started in 1859, and runs until, uh, now. The second half will run its course in about 30 years' time.

As long as the x axis isn't distorted 5:1 on the downslope, it's gonna look like a curve on the left, and a cliff on the right.

[like_the_dinosaurs]

In my opinion, i think the right side will be steeper. the reason for this is there trying to keep the production levels up by taping everything they can get there hands on aswell over extracting current sites. With the top 3 reserves in decline (ghawar, burgan and cantarell) it's only going to last a short while.

It's going to be a very rough couple of decades thats for sure.

[retiredguy]

EJ,

I absolutely agree with you. When the politicians finally acknowledge the issue, we are in real trouble.

[like_the_dinosaurs]

Could not agree more. The saudi's are getting more and more water back up with each day (50 % last time i checked) With the current plateu of production , the fall should be greatly increased. Your right about the media aswell, if it makes the mainstream news it means they can no longer hide whats going on.

[Xmac]

pessimist: the glass is half empty
optimist: the glass is half full
realist: the glass has peaked

[eric_b]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ElijahJones', ' ')But the political and social ramifications of peak oil of any shape are the most frightening to me.

[mkwin]

I'm of the opinion the slope will be far less steep than many think. I don't subscribe to an 'undulating plateau' theory lasting decades but a gradual lessening of available oil each year.

The reason being, the new floor for oil will probably be circa $100 plus in the next 3-5 years. At this level it will be economical to apply EOR to many more fields. So you'll see a lot of small oil service companies reopening old fields and producing oil for $60 a barrel.

Not a silver bullet, but one great combination would be new coal plants producing electricity and carbon to inject into the fields.

As for oil completely running out, it’s likely we will still be producing 20-30m barrels a day in 100 years time from sands, arctic and tech improvements.

[TheOtherSide]

It's interesting that there is a discussion about it at all, considering Hubbert's peak is pretty symmetrical. US oil production, the prime example of the Peak is also pretty damn symmetrical. So it's not a challenge for me to say that I believe the right side would have the exact same average slope as did the left side. Granted, one year the fall might be faster, and another - slower.

I don't really understand what ElijahJones is saying, considering that part of the theory is that the future oil fields would be increasingly more difficult to extract. Any advances in technology would be negated simply by that fact. The only time this would happen is if we magically jump 20 years of oil extracting technology overnight, which (first of all) is impossible. And second of all, the opposite is likely to happen. After PO, the academia will be gradually harder and harder strained for engineering resources and the advancement rate can only decline.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheOtherSide', 'I')t's interesting that there is a discussion about it at all, considering Hubbert's peak is pretty symmetrical. US oil production, the prime example of the Peak is also pretty damn symmetrical. So it's not a challenge for me to say that I believe the right side would have the exact same average slope as did the left side. Granted, one year the fall might be faster, and another - slower.

I don't really understand what ElijahJones is saying, considering that part of the theory is that the future oil fields would be increasingly more difficult to extract. Any advances in technology would be negated simply by that fact. The only time this would happen is if we magically jump 20 years of oil extracting technology overnight, which (first of all) is impossible. And second of all, the opposite is likely to happen. After PO, the academia will be gradually harder and harder strained for engineering resources and the advancement rate can only decline.