Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby shortonsense » Fri 13 Mar 2009, 23:03:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'G')ood work oily. Now you need to find another Prudhoe Bay and GOM. Haven't you heard? They are in decline greater than new finds.



I believe the IEA. They claim declines have been 4-5-9%. If thats true, SOMEBODY has been replacing depletion year over year, dumping in Prudhoe's and GOM's on a regular basis.

If not the oil companies then WHO?
User avatar
shortonsense
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3124
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby TheAntiDoomer » Sat 14 Mar 2009, 00:49:18

That's your best response pstarr? 8O

consider yourself pownd by mr. rapier.
"The human ability to innovate out of a jam is profound.That’s why Darwin will always be right, and Malthus will always be wrong.” -K.R. Sridhar


Do I make you Corny? :)

"expect 8$ gas on 08/08/08" - Prognosticator
User avatar
TheAntiDoomer
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1556
Joined: Wed 18 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Top

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby RobertRapier » Sat 14 Mar 2009, 09:23:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'M')r. Rapier rested much of his case on 'reserve growth,' the notion that oil reservoirs become, in affect, larger with time and so Saudi Arabia is not peaking.


Completely incorrect. As is so often the case, the story is 3-dimensional and you are arguing in 1-dimension. I had already made my argument that Saudi hadn't peaked by showing 1). The HL failed again and again when trying to predict a peak in real time. It would have picked a Texas peak in 1960 – more than 10 years too soon – yet with greater confidence than one could pick a Saudi peak in 2005; 2). The Saudis were cutting production during a time of growing inventories, hence what they were doing was supported by the evidence. There was no valid reason to assume that their falling production meant peak. They had cut production lots of times. 3). The Saudis have generally done what they said they were going to do (still doesn't mean I endorse trusting them though).

Those were parts of my argument. There were many parts, but the main thrust was that it was highly unlikely that we were seeing a geological (irreversible) peak in 2005. I used the reserves argument – and note that I didn't even have to use reserves growth for Saudi – to show that the HL was pointing to a URR that was too low. Any reserves growth just meant the HL was even farther off the mark. (And it is of great relevance to note that an updated Saudi HL shows that 2006, 2007, and 2008 were all above the production mark predicted from that 2005 HL). I went on record – despite much abuse – and history has proved correct what I was insisting: 2005 was not a geological peak, and we weren't about to see a production freefall. The funny thing is that I was looking through some old e-mails last night, and westexas wrote to me in early 2007 and said:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')ow many times last year did we debate whether Saudi Arabia had peaked, before we got the recent production decline data? Do you think anyone on TOD had doubts last year about what my position was?

What bugs me is that I was clearly predicting and/or supporting other's predictions for a near term peak and predicting lower oil exports. So far, I am right. And so far, you are wrong. This may change, but I seriously doubt, and it looks like you are beginning to harbor doubts about a post-2010 peak.


Well of course it did change shortly after that, and he hasn't brought it up again with me. He has since been rationalizing away what has happened. I have yet to hear him say "I was wrong." I don't think he is capable of saying it. He is more content to continue to defend a method that has been shown to be a dowsing rod.

He isn't alone. In fact, it was once pointed out to Ace just how far off his earlier predictions had been, and he essentially ignored the criticism and never offered up caveats with future predictions. But if WT, SS, Ace, and many others had been correct, Saudi production would have been around 7 million bpd at the end of 2008. That's a big error. (Ace did allow for some increases following the commissioning of various projects).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'M')r. Rapier, I do not care to play weenie with you.


Yet you continue to do so.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'Y')ou copied your remark above from the Oildrum Here it is Link. And the very first response to that remark:


Weren't you the one earlier (incorrectly) claiming that I had brought responses from you from TOD? I initially wrote this up and posted it on my blog, and I copied it from that essay. Professor Goose liked it and asked me to post it at TOD - so it is there as well. Here you copied a response from a person who was a consistent troll at TOD (I had more than one). He attacked me frequently on the basis that I worked for an oil company and that I was therefore killing the earth. I used to get ad homs from him, among others, on a regular basis. (I had one particular poster who could be counted on to get drunk on the weekend and just come at me with bitter diatribes). If you read more of the thread, you will see this relevant comment from me (which should have answered your quote above):

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') have two conclusions. One, is that if Saudi's reserves were accurately reported in 1982, and all one did was subtract out their production since that time, you get a (modestly) higher number than the HL indicates. That's one, and it's accurate as far as I can see. If I tried to argue for a higher number, then you could say that comparing the U.S. to Saudi may be inaccurate. But I am merely saying that unless we have reasons to suspect their reserves were overestimated in 1982, the remaining reserves should be at a minimum of what I calculated them to be.


And this one from someone else:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here have been only 18 posts so far, but no one has questioned his accuracy that US reserves have been reduced by 6 Billion barrels since 1982, yet production was 57 billion barrels.

That is a huge contribution, and in no way should be ridiculed. I for one am a daily reader, but infrequent poster. I don't post because there are more knowledgeable contributors, such as RR and West Texas.

I for one agree with RR that KSA reserves are the key to when we reach peak oil. In fact, I think it is the most important piece of information in the puzzle of peak oil. It's apparent to me that KSA production is going to determine when our collective lives begin to change. Once we have this number, we can correctly report to the world a timeline for peak oil.

I think the reason people are attacking RR is because they don't believe that KSA reserves can grow the way US reserves have grown. Personally, I don't think KSA reserves have grown, but this correlation should give us pause. If they've had any growth at all in reserves, then they could have one last gasp, and increase production as they have promised.


Despite the fact that some people didn't think this was new information, nobody had ever done the exercise I did. You will also see people expressing shock at the numbers, indicating that it was new information to them. What's the saying? First they say you are wrong. Then they say you are right, but it isn't important. Finally they say you are right, it is important, but they knew it all along.

So far you have shown that you lack the self-reflection to own up to the fact that: 1). What you thought was going to happen - a Saudi freefall - didn't happen; 2). You ridiculed me because you thought I was on the wrong end of the predictions; 3). Now can't admit that you had been wrong. I personally would have apologized if I had impugned someone and then turned out to be wrong, and I would be very careful about continuing to rattle sabers with said person.

This should be a lesson for you over some of the dogmatic positions that you stake out, but I can see that you really haven't learned anything. Shall I presume we are done? Or do you wish to play the weenie for another round? If we are done, I will go away, but not as long as you continue to call me out. I keep expecting you to recognize that there is generally more to a story than you think, but I continue to be disappointed.

RR
User avatar
RobertRapier
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby RobertRapier » Sat 14 Mar 2009, 14:11:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') believe you have me confused with someone else Robert. I never said Saudi Arabia peaked, certainly not in 2005.


Then one wonders how to interpret your comments from 2007:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'R')obert Rapier was among the more optimistic (David Cohen being another) regulars at the Oildrum. Those two are in decendence as the very convincing argument for SA decline by Westexas, Stuart, Euran (and tons of others) continue to gain validity.

Stuart correlated current world refinery maintenance and shortage issues specifically with production declines in 'Ain Dar, Shedgum, and 'Uthmaniyah and their replacement with low-quality heavy sour crude from Hawiyah and Haradh.

This fact is further evidence of SA peak.


Certainly sounds like you were in the "Saudi has peaked" camp. You endorsed WT's "very convincing argument" which has not stood the test of time. I think some of his other work is fine, but he has a blind spot around the HL. Not even Khebab - who did the modeling - still stands behind this as a good way to predict a Saudi peak.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') am not equipped or interested to enter into your historical grudge with members of TOD, Ace, Stuart, Westexas, or others. (It is curious they all mostly left the OIldrum. As have you. Did you beat them down with your Rapier-like wit :lol:)


I have never had any feud with Ace or Stuart. Stuart and I have both feuded with WT, though. In fact, Stuart was quite complimentary of the work that I did to expose the flaws in the HL:

Stuart's Comments

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') just want to add my support to Robert's great post. I agree that the key to understanding any prediction methodology is it's out-of-sample performance, and Robert has done us a great service in exploring this issue for Texas.


Then, Stuart again in a response to WT's complaints about my post:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')'m not sure why you are finding Robert's point quite so difficult to grasp. If you had used the methodology you are using to determine the peak in Saudi Arabia in Texas back in the 50s/60s, you would have called it too early. He seems to have proven that beyond reasonable dispute.

People who left TOD have generally done so because they tired of the ad hominems. That's why I need to take a break sometimes. It wears on the nerves to be attacked day in and day out.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'S')o how about the reserve growth rebuttal above?

Did you not read my response? The argument wasn't based on reserves growth. I just pointed out that even without that, the Saudi HL pointed to a URR that was too low. Throw in any reserves growth and it gets worse. That's the second time I have said that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'Y')ou are not still suggesting HL doesn't work? See Didn't HL hisself correctly predict 1971 US peak, and thus by default Texas peak (as the then world's KSA equivalent)?

It is not known how Hubbert chose his peak dates exactly, but others (Stuart, Khebab) have indicated that he didn't use an HL to do so because that method didn't come into use until years after his time.

But are you suggesting that HL does work? Show me any case where it could have predicted a peak in real time. Recall the arguments that Saudi = Texas? Did you read my analysis of Texas?

Predicting the Past: The Hubbert Linearization

Texas, the oft-used proxy for Saudi, had a more stable HL and would have confidently called the peak in 1960 according to the metrics being used to call the Saudi peak. See Stuart's comments above. When he quit posting, he had come around to the view that the HL was unreliable (although he still thought Saudi had peaked).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'R')obert you have created a House of Denial with far too many rooms and hallways. Some of it makes sense, most is a mystery. However when you insert jokers into the argument (see above) I have to claim the entire thing in default. 8)

Now might be a good time to step back and determine exactly what it is that you are trying to accomplish here. We seem to be going off on tangents at this point. What I am trying to do is pretty simple: Get people to drop dogma for a more rigorous and comprehensive approach. I have a strong interest in understanding where we are headed. Some people "know" exactly where we are headed. They often use faith-based arguments. By pointing them to failed predictions, I would hope that they might reconsider what they "know."

RR
User avatar
RobertRapier
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby sjn » Sat 14 Mar 2009, 22:40:09

Robert, your approach in that piece (and now your posting here) is very confrontational. I found WHT's criticism of HL, and his work developing his "Shock Model" from physical fundamentals far more convincing personally. At the end of the day, nobody has ever claimed HL is anything more than a rule of thumb, an approximation of expected URR based upon empirical observations. It isn't a real model, but a heuristic that has found useful application in a number of cases.

The attacks on individuals within the community for making bold predictions and bringing disrepute to the subject is just silly, there are always people who jump up and down and draw attention to themselves in any walk of life. People will be people. It doesn't make them always wrong. This equally applies to those on each side of the "debate". They should be listened to, they may have a different perspective that proves itself right in the end. People can only focus on limited aspects of any issue, it's impossible for any individual to know and understand every aspect of complex problems, some people draw that focus down upon small but significant details, perhaps concentrating on specific data, while others are able to build on their efforts and use intuition to fill in unknowns in the data and possible systemic interactions and feedbacks. Some people are better at things than others, but you aren't going to stop them trying, and shouldn't. Hopefully, those who get things more right than not will earn respect and their opinion will carry more weight, but nobody ever gets everything 100% accurate, and there are always things that blind-side everybody.
User avatar
sjn
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 1332
Joined: Wed 09 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK
Top

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby RobertRapier » Sun 15 Mar 2009, 09:33:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sjn', 'R')obert, your approach in that piece (and now your posting here) is very confrontational.

The attacks on individuals within the community for making bold predictions and bringing disrepute to the subject is just silly,


Well, we aren't debating the best salsa recipe. I consider this a critically important subject. If someone is using sloppy techniques, insisting they predict a peak - and even today refuse to incorporate new data that would revise that prediction (which is cherry-picking data) - I have a problem with that. So I confront it. People make lots of bold predictions - but the important thing is that the predictions have a defensible foundation. (I am also keenly aware that one of my faults is sinking my teeth into an issue like a bulldog and not letting go when I perhaps should).

Here is a true story to illustrate. Back in September, heading into a pair of hurricanes, U.S. gasoline inventories were at all-time record low levels. I predicted the potential for shortages resulting from the hurricanes. I had used a defensible argument and the best data at my disposal:

Flirting with Disaster

But by the time the ASPO conference rolled around, the gasoline situation was beginning to improve as refineries were coming back only. But at ASPO, Matt Simmons and several others sounded the warning that the country was on the brink of a gasoline disaster, and the worst was yet to come. I am sure he thought his argument was defensible, or he wouldn't have made it. I was asked about it on a panel session, and I said something completely opposite to that: "The worst is over; inventories will be higher in a month than they are today." I wasn't just guessing, though, and that is exactly what happened.

Later I caught up with Matt and I explained that he had some misconceptions about certain aspects of our inventory system which was leading him to the erroneous predictions. Why did I do that instead of just letting it go? Part of it is of course my personality, but I also feel strongly that it is important not to mislead people - intentionally or not. Had Matt gone out and continued to suggest that gasoline shortages were imminent instead of following up on what I told him (which concerned a part of the refinery system I know well) - I would have been a little stronger in rebuttal.

When people like Matt lose credibility, we all get tarred with a big brush. I have a lot of respect for Matt and his work, and I probably wouldn't have started writing without having read his book (and the same goes for JHK, who I had the pleasure of having lunch with at ASPO), but sometimes he ventures into areas he isn't that familiar with and makes pretty definitive proclamations. I don't think that's a good thing.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('sjn', 't')here are always people who jump up and down and draw attention to themselves in any walk of life.


Again, I consider this too important for such self-aggrandizement. If someone is jumping up and down and drawing attention to themselves (and hence the issue of Peak Oil), but they are using a shoddy analysis, I am going to point out what I think is wrong with it because it hurts us all if they drew attention to the issue but were wrong because they didn't look at all of the data. Again, why do you think Peak Oilers are viewed as a cult? That's the reason; there has been too much half-cocked jumping up and down. I just don't think that's the way Hubbert operated.

So, I will be confrontational when I think it is required. That isn't generally my style. I only use the confrontational style when someone is attacking my credibility and I think it wasn't justified, or if I think someone is repetitively doing a disservice to the issue of Peak Oil with their analysis. If you think that's wrong, we will just agree to disagree.

RR

P.S. Wow, I just went back and read through the essay where I applied the HL to Texas. I didn't think it was the least bit confrontational. I just laid out the facts, which contradicted quite a bit of urban legend up to that point. The replies may have been more confrontational; I didn't read through them again.
User avatar
RobertRapier
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby AAA » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 12:19:28

pstarr,

I would suggest walking away.
How can Ludi spend 8-10 hrs/day on the internet and claim to be homesteading???
User avatar
AAA
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed 12 Nov 2008, 04:00:00
Top

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby TheDude » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 17:37:56

(I wrote this 4 days ago but was unable to post it owing to some technical snafu and have been too busy to add it to the thread since)

Hi Robert, thanks for stopping by.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', 'P')etrobras produces more than two million barrels per day


They're still fighting an uphill battle. A 12.4 kb/d advance after all the production they've brought online is indicative of some major declines to overcome:

Image

When looking at this graph of supply additions, bear in mind that 2007 yielded around 640 kb/d, a point I've made before here. Only 2010 approaches this quantity, at about 455 kb/d. Will Brazil decline slightly this year?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')o you not understand the lead time on projects? It isn't like turning on a switch. People don't seem to understand that. New projects can take 5-10 years to come online, and 5 years ago oil companies were still basing projects on an assumption of $30 oil.


Sanctioned projects don't instantly yield their peak production either, which JD pointed out here. But the projects listed in the Wiki for 2008 mostly are listed as peaking in that year or this. Perhaps 10% hit their stride in '10, leaving a few outliers at more distant dates - including Chicontepec, which JD used as evidence that this characteristic weighs heavily on this analysis. Right?

JD, I agree with you that Hirsch is too bottom-up, but don't doubt heavy oil/CTL/etc. will have some money thrown at it as well - oil shale got reams of copy last year despite the massive caveats it entails on all levels. Conservation and efficiency can go a long way as well. In this site's Optimism hierarchy I'm filed under "Moderate," not "Doomer." I don't doubt that a renewable grid or PHEV's can be built, given enough time to scale them up. But I have enormous doubts about the ability of governments to direct industry in the correct direction, what with, say, the current US fashion for printing money in stacks high enough to reach Jupiter, or our inability to rebuild NOLA. With all that on the bill we're going to build a multi-trillion dollar HVDC grid?
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby TheDude » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 18:00:13

Robert - Deffeyes extrapolated the HL formula from Hubbert's frighteningly complex 1982 paper, after a serious session of grinding, as I'm sure you know. That story takes me back to failing high school algebra, since I was too fascinated with the different ways you could solve problems in long division to bother with actually doing the homework. :lol: Hubbert had "it" but preferred to stitch everything by hand instead of inventing a sewing machine.

Those were excellent critiques of HL, and anything but snarky, just evidence laid out. HL has worked in some cases of course but is anything but a clear crystal ball. Bottom-up analysis or the ELM are far more robust and verifiable. What do you think of the work Ace and company have done on the Megaprojects Project, Robert? Seems admirably exhaustive, and has tracked well to date. Looking for flaws all I can come up with is perhaps small fry are being left out, or that the industry will suddenly find a way to complete projects quicker...after that, you could call them into question personally. I suppose they might be deliberately leaving things out to make the forecast look dire. Or they're lazy. And of course we could replace our use of oil, making it a moot point.

Image

One more forecast: our poster rockdoc123 says he's free to peruse the IHS database at work, and calls peak in 2012. He's very bullish on Saudi capabilities as well, btw. So is Henry Groppe, who called peak for last year - world peak, KSA will merrily pump away for a good long spell in his opinion.
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby RobertRapier » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 21:15:34

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'H')owever I do find it curious that Mr. Rapier would appear here at PO.com (a place he doesn't normally deign to visit)


It's not really that curious. My blog has a stat counter. If I get a lot of hits from a particular location, I usually check it out. The first post in this thread had a link to my blog, so I got a lot of hits and checked it out. Today, I got a bunch of new hits, so I knew that someone must have posted something new. So I came back to see what. When this winds down, I won't pop back over here.

The thing I find curious is that people keep calling me Mr. Rapier. A week ago, I was always Robert. In the past week, I must have been called Mr. Rapier fifty times. It's as if my name has been changed.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'j')ust as his endless tedious near-religious debate over the exact predictive value of HL is ramping up once again at the oildrum.


You have it backwards. Religion is for those who proclaim the future with certainty. That's why you often hear me refer to dogma. I am the person arguing the scientific viewpoint.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'H')e is some latest breaking gossip.


Assuming you read a bit further down, you will see that Joule is not a disinterested observer. We have a history. I do notice that you cut it off before the next paragraph, in which he started off " I actually agree with Mr. Rapier…"

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', ' ')I have no idea what Mr. Rapier thinks he accomplishes with search for the endless minute mathematical truths.


I have explained it countless times, but I will do so again just for you. Only once, so read it carefully and refer back if you forget. Let's say that scientists project that a meteor is going to strike the earth and do horrendous damage. I want to know a few things. First, I want to know how they came to that conclusion. Second, I want to know when they project that it will happen. If there are disagreements over when it will happen and how bad the damage will be, I want to understand the nature of those disagreements. If a scientist says that a horrendous collision is imminent next year, and uses astrological charts to back up his point, that's something I want to know.

Now you may argue that it doesn't matter, because many people are doomed regardless. Well, it matters to me. If the meteor is going to strike next year, my preparations will be different than if it strikes in 10 years. I need to know how bad it is going to be, and just what I can do, and when I need to do it. If someone is forecasting a civilization killer, I want to know just how they came to that conclusion. If time is sufficient and I can make a good case, I want to warn others about what they can do, and when they need to do it. But for others to listen, there must be credibility. If I have called for a meteor strike before and it didn't happen, my credibility erodes.

It's as basic as that. It isn't a pissing contest, nor is it personal for me. (Although it can become personal if someone is attacking me, it isn't personal in the sense that I am looking for glory or seeking to personally discredit someone). It isn't an exercise in searching for "endless minute mathematical truths." This is a subject that I consider to be critically important, which is why I may seem to be pretty passionate about it. Believe it or not, it's as basic as the previous two paragraphs. If you come to understand that, you will understand my motives and there needn't be any misunderstandings.

People who are certain they have the correct view of the future - for instance, those who insist that we are doomed, right now, and there isn't anything we can do about it - view it as a pissing contest. But why wouldn't they? They already know the future. Me? I am not so certain. I leave the certainty to religion.

Again, I think you need to back up and consider what you are trying to do here. Since the first time you called me out on this board, you will let things settle, but then you are right back to calling me out. If you don't think things are going that well for you, why do you continue to do it? If you want to have a conversation, we can have a conversation. If you want clarification, you can have clarification. If you want to have an aggressive debate in which you persistently try to discredit me – which I suppose is what has been taking place – you will find that I can be tenacious to a fault.

RR
Last edited by RobertRapier on Mon 16 Mar 2009, 23:07:07, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
RobertRapier
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby AirlinePilot » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 21:53:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', ' ')Perhaps he believes we the human race will suddenly sit up and do the right thing, and perhaps stop procreating and warring for resources if only we just identify, with irrefutable scientific precision, the precise minute when the end begins. Won't happen. We will most likely not recognize Peak Oil until long after it occurs.


This is an interesting thread, and I tend to agree with pstarr on this particular point. For me I'm currently firmly ensconced in a Long Emergency type "doomer" camp. It's because the bottom line is that if peak is going to occur within the near term, and I think it will, than predicting the month, day, and hour is really and truly moot. I also believe that even professional analysts just don't have a clear enough picture to make anything other than guesses as to the timing of any actual Peak.

I think the consensus needs to be that it's way past time to be arguing about details. Its time to band together to provide a credible and firm base of reasonable arguments to bring about change with as much rapidity as possible.

I'm doubting mightily at this point that we will make the transition necessary from a political, corporate, or social standpoint.
User avatar
AirlinePilot
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4378
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South of Atlanta
Top

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby RobertRapier » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 22:03:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'W')ill Brazil decline slightly this year?


I think the future is so bright for Petrobras that I loaded up on them in December:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/12 ... n-pbr.html

I am up 70% so far, but I invest for the long term and probably won't sell any time soon.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'S')anctioned projects don't instantly yield their peak production either, which JD pointed out here. But the projects listed in the Wiki for 2008 mostly are listed as peaking in that year or this. Perhaps 10% hit their stride in '10, leaving a few outliers at more distant dates - including Chicontepec, which JD used as evidence that this characteristic weighs heavily on this analysis. Right?


There are two problems with the megaprojects list. First, the projects tend to be overestimated. Surprises generally happen to the negative side. On the other hand, there are lots of little projects that add up to a lot of oil not included on the megaprojects list. That's one reasons I didn't think we had peaked in 2005. I was aware of several ConocoPhillips projects that didn't show up on the list, and I figured this was probably true of the other oil companies as well. As long as the price was right, we would see a lot of unexpected oil come online. And we did. But with the collapse in the world economy, all bets are off.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'B')ottom-up analysis or the ELM are far more robust and verifiable. What do you think of the work Ace and company have done on the Megaprojects Project, Robert?


I absolutely prefer bottom-up analyses to mathematical modeling techniques that have a spotty record. I used to do a lot of computer modeling in my job, and I would never be able to use a model like HL in my work. You just don't know when it is working. And a model that only works part of the time – and you have no way of knowing when it is working – is essentially worthless.

RR
User avatar
RobertRapier
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue 05 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
Top

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby Revi » Mon 16 Mar 2009, 22:18:17

I am very interested in credible projections of the peak. This is the peak oil site, right?

I am trying to figure out what's going to happen and act accordingly.

I think we peaked in 2008, but I could be wrong.

From here on it gets interesting.
Deep in the mud and slime of things, even there, something sings.
User avatar
Revi
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7417
Joined: Mon 25 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Maine
Top

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby TheDude » Tue 17 Mar 2009, 13:32:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('RobertRapier', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', 'W')ill Brazil decline slightly this year?


I think the future is so bright for Petrobras that I loaded up on them in December:

http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2008/12 ... n-pbr.html

I am up 70% so far, but I invest for the long term and probably won't sell any time soon.


Ditto likewise same here. Sat on the 40 shares of Mobil a rich uncle gave me in '79 for 20 years before selling, man did that puppy grow! Still have a lot of it but will definitely dump much of my XOM now that O'Bama's planning to milk this cow.

So the massive amount of production brought on in '07 has, in a sense, compensated for steep declines in older Brazilian fields. Thus from here on out will it be a clean slate for them, decline wise?

Also: Was listening to John Rubino on FSN talking about his new book Clean Money - Picking Winners in the Green Tech Boom. That's Mish's review - 2 thumbs and/or 4 stars. Interview at Financial Sense Newshour with Jim Puplava. Will pick up a copy today, John was very prescient about developments in real estate and the dollar, and envisions decades of steady growth in renewables, with Smart Grid tech as his first pick for easy gains. Either that or we eat each other or live in some Orwellian dystopia, in which case money won't be good for much in the first place, right? Image
Cogito, ergo non satis bibivi
And let me tell you something: I dig your work.
User avatar
TheDude
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4896
Joined: Thu 06 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: 3 miles NW of Champoeg, Republic of Cascadia
Top

Re: 2005 peak is history, 2008 sets new record (EIA)

Unread postby copious.abundance » Tue 17 Mar 2009, 14:22:02

I see The Oil Drum has finally picked up on this topic. And I just love their predictable oil-will-decline-from-here-on-outwards charts. :razz:
Stuff for doomers to contemplate:
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1190117.html#p1190117
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1193930.html#p1193930
http://peakoil.com/forums/post1206767.html#p1206767
User avatar
copious.abundance
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9589
Joined: Wed 26 Mar 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Cornucopia
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests



cron