[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mel1962', 'W')hat is your source? We have been above $40 for a long time, does not compute? This is not a problem of the market, but rather a problem of Geology IMHO!

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mel1962', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('mel1962', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'I')'m sorry, but that chart doesn't indicate a peak.

It indicates a plateau.

We are only .5% below the top production level of 2006. There's too much uncertainty in that data to call that a peak.

In order to have a peak, we need to see several years of production declines, IMO.

Dip below 84mb/day, then 83mb/day, and finally 82...81...80...

There's your peak.

[shortonoil]

Cyrus said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')xactly. We are now at a point where we have never beeen. In the past declines in existing fields were replaced with new fields which were still being discovered. Now, we must offset the decline with low EROEI alternatives(such as Alberta oil sands). Trust me, the situation isn't good.

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('venky', 'D')o they revise the demand or expected figures, I am pretty sure I sure I saw 87 or 88 mbd in the orange some time ago.............

[shortonoil]

That fourth quarter 2008 number of 89.4 looks a little suspicious. It is the exact number needed to balance out their 2008 demand number of 88 mb/d.

I’m not going to get too excited over these estimates, I think they made them up!

[Armageddon]

Do not forget that domestic oil consumption in oil producing countries is rising, resulting in less oil exporting. This is going to really hurt.

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Armageddon', 'T')his is going to really hurt.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', '[')b]Cyrus said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')xactly. We are now at a point where we have never beeen. In the past declines in existing fields were replaced with new fields which were still being discovered. Now, we must offset the decline with low EROEI alternatives(such as Alberta oil sands). Trust me, the situation isn't good.

[shortonoil]

Starvid said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our argument does not make sense. It's not hard to imagine a situation where you would still increase oil extraction levels or make liquid fuels, even if the EROI of doing it went negative.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', '[')i]First: you can not have a negative ERoEI. ERoEI is a ratio; ER/EI, neither energy returned, or energy invested can be negative, there is no negative energy (outside of theoretical discussions in physics and Star Trek movies).

[shortonoil]

Starvid said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ell, do excuse my sloppy wording. What I meant was of course an EROI below 1.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('shortonoil', '[')b]Starvid said:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ell, do excuse my sloppy wording. What I meant was of course an EROI below 1.

[aahala]

If you had predicted peak each time the annual production figure
had gone down between 1970 and 1993, you would have
predicted peak 12 times.

If you had predicted peak each time the annual production figure
had gone down at least 1% from the previous year, you would
have predicted peak 6 times.

You would have been wrong 12 of 12 or 6 of 6 times.

There are limits to human knowledge, particularily about the
future. To predict peak on such flimy evidence as we now have
means you believe you are not subject to these limits. In other
words, a super hero.

I'm no super hero and I don't believe anyone reading this is either.

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aahala', 'T')here are limits to human knowledge, particularily about the future.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Zardoz', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('aahala', 'T')here are limits to human knowledge, particularily about the future.

[eastbay]

After reading this and a few other websites for the past three+ years I went and predicted PO myself. I looked at all of the great charts and decided PO was in mid 2005 or early 2006, depending on various definitions.

I was right 1 out of 1 times. It's downhill from now on.

[Sketh]

Pretty alarmist change of view from the IEA in their latest World Energy Outlook released today. The executive summary could have been written by a peak oiler.

Time magazine has an article discussing the conclusions.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n a marked change from its traditionally bland, measured tones, the IEA's 2007 report says governments need to make urgent, bold decisions on energy policy, or risk massive environmental and energy-supply crises within two decades — crises and shortages that could spark serious global conflicts.

[Bas]

yes, it looks like the IEA has been fully converted from cornucopianism to doomerism in one short year. That ought to make governments and Mainstream media finally wake up. Though possibly they are too brainwashed now to wake up on such short notice

[No-Oil]

Similar report from the BBC on this here

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7082323.stm

[Gerontion]

I had a quick look at the Executive Summary and was confused by this:

“Their (OPEC) collective output of conventional crude oil, natural gas liquids and non-conventional oil (mainly gas-to-liquids) is projected to climb from 36 mb/d in 2006 to 46 mb/d in 2015 and 61 mb/d in 2030 in the Reference Scenario. As a result, OPEC’s share of world oil supply jumps from 42% now to 52% by the end of the projection period. Non-OPEC production rises only slowly to 2030, with most of the increase coming from nonconventional sources – mainly Canadian oil sands – as conventional output levels off at around 47 mb/d by the middle of the 2010s. These projections are based on the assumption that the average IEA crude oil import price falls back from recent highs of over $75 per barrel to around $60 (in year-2006 dollars) by 2015 and then recovers slowly, reaching $62 (or $108 in nominal terms) by 2030.”

Which is OK, though of course whether or not one agrees with it is a different matter, but the paragraph then continues

“Although new oil-production capacity additions from greenfield projects are expected to increase over the next five years, it is very uncertain whether they will be sufficient to compensate for the decline in output at existing fields and keep pace with the projected increase in demand. A supply-side crunch in the period to 2015, involving an abrupt escalation in oil prices, cannot be ruled out.”

Which seems directly to contradict the first part of the paragraph, unless either (a) the authors think there will be a 5 to 7 year period of unmet demand followed by an explosion in production, (b) they’re saying that the Reference Scenario is a load of bollocks or (c) – and much more likely – I’ve been an idiot and misunderstood something.