[Leanan]

This has been argued a lot. I, personally, think C+C is what we should be watching. (The IEA doesn't break out C+C. It's all liquids.)

C+C is what Deffeyes based his prediction on. For good reason, IMO. Hubbert's work was based on geology, and was never intended to model things like ethanol production.

And others have pointed out that using "all liquids" has some double-dipping, since the oil used to produce other fuels (like ethanol) is essentially counted twice. It also includes orimulsion (bitumen mixed with water to make bunker fuel). Is that 30% water added "oil production"? It's counted in "all liquids."

There's also the issue of energy. The IEA numbers are based on volume, but ethanol has 1/3 less energy per gallon than oil.

For these reasons, I think the C+C are the numbers that matter. Like Darwinian said over at TOD, all liquids probably peaked in the US in 1973, when natural gas peaked. But no one thinks 1973 was peak oil USA. Peak oil means, well, oil.

[Mechler]

Hear, hear, Leanan! Like you said, when you start counting other things, the truth is distorted. Let's keep it to crude and condensates. Any one know those numbers off the top of their head?

[Starvid]

So, a new peak.

I told you so.

Next stop 87 mbpd.

[Twilight]

I'll just urinate into this gas tank here and help them on their way.

In all seriousness, your view of peak is always going to depend on whether you are looking at monthly or annual data, and what you include in your definition of oil. The geologists who popularised it always pushed Conventional because it has the greatest impact on timing of predictions made with an accuracy of several years' leeway. Once you have hit that plateau (check) the exact peak will be the highest bump shaped by who knows what. Unless a new level is reached and held without revision, it's always going to be noise that wins the Official Peak award.

Let us also not forget also that beneath where we are on the graph is an ever-thickening slice with a diminished net energy content. As conventional crude rolls off as overall production is held, we are seeing oil as we enjoyed it debased.

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'T')his has been argued a lot. I, personally, think C+C is what we should be watching. (The IEA doesn't break out C+C. It's all liquids.)

C+C is what Deffeyes based his prediction on. For good reason, IMO. Hubbert's work was based on geology, and was never intended to model things like ethanol production.

And others have pointed out that using "all liquids" has some double-dipping, since the oil used to produce other fuels (like ethanol) is essentially counted twice. It also includes orimulsion (bitumen mixed with water to make bunker fuel). Is that 30% water added "oil production"? It's counted in "all liquids."

There's also the issue of energy. The IEA numbers are based on volume, but ethanol has 1/3 less energy per gallon than oil.

For these reasons, I think the C+C are the numbers that matter. Like Darwinian said over at TOD, all liquids probably peaked in the US in 1973, when natural gas peaked. But no one thinks 1973 was peak oil USA. Peak oil means, well, oil.

[TonyPrep]

Stocks are going down and poorer countries are being priced out.

Economic growth is certainly slowing and we have even seen negative quarters, though energy intensity isn't as great as it used to be. If John Denver thinks that economic growth can continue indefinitely as oil energy declines, then I wonder who is in denial.

Mind you, I'm not convinced that some liquids are double counting, as Leanan asserts, since the inputs simply get added to the demand side.

Whether this is a new peak is unknowable, at this point. We need a few months of revision first. I have to admit that the increase is suspiciously high, considering it shouldn't even include OPEC's promised 0.5 mbpd increase for November.

[jato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')IRC, the doomer position has always been that the economy can't grow without growth in oil production. Care to comment on that?

[kmann]

In the end, the exact timing of the peak or what you include is only going to be an academic exercise. It's only the effects of the peak that are going to matter.

[Armageddon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'T')his has been argued a lot. I, personally, think C+C is what we should be watching. (The IEA doesn't break out C+C. It's all liquids.)

C+C is what Deffeyes based his prediction on. For good reason, IMO. Hubbert's work was based on geology, and was never intended to model things like ethanol production.

And others have pointed out that using "all liquids" has some double-dipping, since the oil used to produce other fuels (like ethanol) is essentially counted twice. It also includes orimulsion (bitumen mixed with water to make bunker fuel). Is that 30% water added "oil production"? It's counted in "all liquids."

There's also the issue of energy. The IEA numbers are based on volume, but ethanol has 1/3 less energy per gallon than oil.

For these reasons, I think the C+C are the numbers that matter. Like Darwinian said over at TOD, all liquids probably peaked in the US in 1973, when natural gas peaked. But no one thinks 1973 was peak oil USA. Peak oil means, well, oil.

[Mechler]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'M')ind you, I'm not convinced that some liquids are double counting, as Leanan asserts, since the inputs simply get added to the demand side.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Mechler', 'B')ut we're not talking about demand, we're talking about production. If you pump out 1 million barrels of oil and then use 500,000 of that to produce 1 million barrels of ethanol, how much have you really produced? The IEA would say 2 million. I would say you have traded 500,000 barrels of oil for 500,000 barrels of something else - so you really only produced 1.5 million total. (I'm making up these numbers, of course)

This goes back to the fact that EROEI is not accounted for. Ethanol is one of the more obvious culprits, but it has always taken some amount of energy to produce a barrel of oil. That amount is growing.

[Leanan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'A')re you saying that the IEA figures for demand do not include consumption of oil in production of other fuels, or of oil itself? I find this hard to believe.

[TonyPrep]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'A')re you saying that the IEA figures for demand do not include consumption of oil in production of other fuels, or of oil itself? I find this hard to believe.

[Leanan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', ' ')Yes, but I'm saying that demand has to be taken into the equation. If you simply look at production then you are ignoring a vital factor.

[Leanan]

Stuart Staniford asks:

Does the latest IEA number matter?

He crunches the numbers, and the answer is....no. Just statistical noise. He expects the EIA number to also be high, because they're strongly correlated (on noise, not necessarily on production). But he says it won't mean anything unless it's higher three months in a row. If that happens, he will concede that oil production is increasing.

[TheDude]

From The Oil Drum: Europe.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he energy watchdog of the OECD countries, the International Energy Agency (IEA), recently started to talk about looming oil shortages. The high oil price of today will remain is the message they are spreading. We need to save more oil, invest more in increasing oil production and upscale alternatives. However, the IEA does not see a peak in worldwide oil production occurring in the coming decades. Based on the expectation that large amounts of oil will be discovered, not yet on the radar of oil companies worldwide. This new stance follows below from the translated transcript of an interview recently broadcasted on the Dutch television channel RTL-Z with Aad van Bohemen, the Director of Crisis Management at the IEA.

[Niagara]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheDude', '
')[insert pic of ROTC guy from Animal House screaming REMAIN CALM! ALL IS WELL!]

[Chuckmak]

[TheDude]

Another line from that movie comes to mind: "You fucked up! You trusted us!"