Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on June 15, 2015
Peak Oil: Myth Or Coming Reality?
In 1956, a geoscientist named M. King Hubbert formulated a theory which suggested that U.S. oil production would eventually reach a point at which the rate of oil production would stop growing. After production hit that peak, it would enter terminal decline. The resulting production profile would resemble a bell curve and the point of maximum production would be identified as Peak Oil, a point of no return.
The original peak oil curve
Image Source: Cornell University
Hubbert first predicted that U.S. oil production would peak in 1970 and then start declining rapidly. His prediction turned out to be partly true, as U.S. crude oil production peaked that same year, not to be eclipsed again until the shale boom began.
Annual crude oil production (in thousands of barrels per year) for entire United States, with contributions from individual regions as indicated.
“The end of the oil age is in sight, if present trends continue production will peak in 1995 — the deadline for alternative forms of energy that must replace petroleum in the sharp drop-off that follows.” This is what Hubbert had to say in 1974, based on 628 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. However, his prediction didn’t turn out to be true, as global oil production continues to surge, thanks to new oilfield discoveries and improved exploration and drilling technology.
World oil and other liquids supply, broken out into crude and condensate, natural gas plant liquids, other liquids (mostly ethanol), and processing gain (increase in volume from refining heavy oil), based on EIA data.
In fact, the below graph shows that even while U.S. production declined between the 1970s and the 2000s, global crude oil production has increased consistently from 1965 to 2015 and there isn’t any bell curve depicting the peak oil phenomenon.
Image created with data gathered from BP Statistical review2015.
In short, we have yet to see evidence that we are nearing a peak in oil production. On the contrary, agencies like EIA and IEA have predicted a stable increase in crude oil production for the next few years at least.
But supplies may not be the only, or even the most important factor when analyzing the end of the oil era. The world is making progress at moving beyond oil. So instead of discussing Peak Oil in terms of supply, perhaps it is now more useful to analyze ‘Peak Demand’.
A supply- demand curve showing the conventional law of demand
If oil prices followed the conventional law of demand, then low oil prices would result in a higher consumption rate. However, 2014 saw something remarkable happen. BP notes in its 2015 Statistical Review that energy consumption grew at just 0.9 percent in 2014, the slowest rate in almost twenty years. That came even as prices declined.
The 2014 Oil Price Shock did not improve the consumption rates in North America, Europe and Eurasia
Image Source: FT.com
What if demand growth keeps slowing? Does this trend indicate that global demand for crude oil will eventually hit a ceiling? “Global oil demand will peak within the next two decades”, said energy expert Amy Mayers Jaffe in a recent article for The Wall Street Journal.
What could make oil demand peak within the next two decades?
Image Source: Curious.org
Electric Vehicle
Global sales for electric vehicles (EVs) have risen at an amazing rate in the past few years. The market for electric vehicles in China, the U.S., and Japan, which have the highest number of conventional vehicles, are witnessing EV growth rates of 120%, 69% and 45% respectively. Although growing from a small base, EVs are steadily making progress at becoming a mainstream product.
Although EVs are priced higher than conventional cars, their lower operating costs would offset their initial purchase price in just few years. Ucsusa.org even concludes that EV owners can save as much as $1,200 annually when compared with a conventional vehicle (27mpg) running on gasoline at $3.50 per gallon.
If and when EVs become mainstream, demand for gasoline and crude oil will start declining.
Another noteworthy development comes from auto major Audi, which recently created a ‘blue crude’ which can be converted into a carbon neutral ‘e-diesel’ using a simple three step process. This new technology is getting the full support of the German government as it produces lesser CO2 emissions and could be a potential game changer in the near future.
Whether or not EVs become the most sought after technology in the future, it is clear that scientists and engineers are developing ways of moving beyond oil for transport.
Renewables
There are not a lot countries that still generate electricity using oil, but there are a few. Saudi Arabia stands out. But Saudi Arabia is reportedly planning to add around 54 GW of power by 2032 from renewables, out of the total power around 41 GW would be from solar energy. “In Saudi Arabia, we recognize that eventually, one of these days, we’re not going to need fossil fuels. I don’t know when – 2040, 2050 or thereafter. So we have embarked on a program to develop solar energy. Hopefully, one of these days, instead of exporting fossil fuels, we will be exporting gigawatts of electric power,” oil minister Ali Al Naimi of Saudi Arabia said at a conference in May.
The biggest factor that supports renewables is their growing affordability. As costs of production continue to decline, renewables will continue to edge out fossil fuels in a variety of sectors. For the few countries that still use oil for electricity, renewables will slash oil demand.
Bolstered by strong internal demand and robust economic growth rate, China is the world’s second biggest consumer of oil after the U.S.
China imported around 5.5 million barrels per day in month of May, a steep decline from the record 7.4 million barrels per day in April as its refineries were down for their annual maintenance. However, oil markets could be in for a shock from China soon, as the Asian giant is currently busy filling up its strategic petroleum reserves (SPR) thanks to low oil prices.
China already has more than 12 SPR sites and it plans to further increase its SPR capacity from 250 million barrels to 500 million barrels by 2020. So what happens once this target is achieved? “We need to understand the dilemma of hidden demand in China, where you have two types of demand – normal demand and strategic stockpiling. The latter won’t last forever,” this is what Jamie Webster of IHS had to say in a recent interview with Reuters.
What happens when China’s huge appetite for oil starts reducing in the coming years? It would bring the world economy even closer to peak oil demand.
By Gaurav Agnihotri for Oilprice.com
52 Comments on "Peak Oil: Myth Or Coming Reality?"
keith on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 10:55 pm
It already came. The Mayan calender called it. 2012
Face-Plant on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 11:50 pm
Peak oil is not a theory. It’s an observation. The only thing left to theorize about is how much oil is still left to be discovered, will it be economically recoverable and at what cost. All the worlds oil co’s have been bashing around the planet for the last several decades and about every 5 years they find a weeks worth. It’s easy to see.
Nony on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 11:55 pm
It’s a non-fasifiable theory. It’s religion, not science. That’s what I hear from peakers. If the production drops, they claim it as proof. If it goes up, they say it doesn’t matter. This is politics, not science.
Face-Plant on Mon, 15th Jun 2015 11:57 pm
Nony, you obviously have never taken a physics course. You’re dumb ass a fucking post.
Nony on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:07 am
ASP 2006, David Hughes, predicting NG decline in the US of 1.5 BCF/d/year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poRAEL7M9Ds
Oops.
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:11 am
Nony-marm, there is no such thing as a non- falsifiable scientific theory. That is because by definition a scientific theory must be falsifiable or it cannot become a scientific theory. People with a basic grasps of science should know this since it is one of the most important simple but must know rule. I think your one of those sciency people who think they know shit because they live in the west and know how to operate devices. It’s obvious, from this post and many others, that you lack the fundamentals. But your really good at that econ 101 magic math and bunk formulas. Never give up marm A noon.
Face-Plant on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:18 am
I’d like to hear some of your predictions Nony. You got no balls so I’m sure you’ll stick to knocking down straw dogs, red herrings, ad hominem attacks and your usual bullshit. Get a life loser. Your infatuation with peak oil and your constant posting on this site leaves me to conclude you have a personality disorder. Probably a cluster B; you know, conflict seeking drama queen. You’re a fucking joke dude.
Apneaman on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:33 am
lol
GregT on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:39 am
I second that.
lol.
Nony on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:41 am
I just gave a recent prediction on this board. And shove it up your ass, fucktard.
Plantagenet on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:44 am
Of course Hubbert’s peak oil theory is a theory. Hubbert’s peak oil theory consists of a simple mathematical model that purports to predict the pattern of oil production for any field, trend, region or even the world.
For instance, Hubbert predicted that US oil production would peak in 1970, and then go into an inexorable decline. However, that isn’t what has happened. Oil production declined for 30 years until ca. 2000 when the “drill baby drill” and “frack baby frack”approaches were unleashed on TOS deposits, and since then US oil production has been rising again.
No doubt at some point in the future US oil production will peak and start to decline again…but too late to confirm Hubbert’s mathematical model, which wrongly predicted the peak in 1970.
Cheers!
Nony on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:45 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4klOZReochU
Kunstler totally messing up on his peak gas call. Then again, peakerism is non-falsifiable. It’s religion, emotion, not science. Not analysis. Bunch of losers on the Internet.
Face-Plant on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:49 am
EIA annual energy report 2002
http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/archive/038402.pdf
Opps!
Nony everybody except you knows your the biggest fucktard on this site. Your obsessive posting on this site ebb and flow in correlation to your compliance with your psychotropic medications. You’re a fucking fanatic dude. Get a life. Or try a girlfriend. If they’ll let you lol loser
Plantagenet on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:52 am
I have to disagree with you, Nony. Of course peak oil theory is falsifiable, just like any other scientific theory. You simply compare the predictions and numerical output based on the theory with reality.
Hubbert made predictions of when various regions and the world would peak using a simple mathematical mode. Those predicitons have proven to be spectacularly wrong, as shown by the fact the US production and global production are currently rising, 55 and 15 years AFTER the peak dates predicted by Hubbert, i.e. Hubbert’s peak oil theory is falsified.
At some point in the future no doubt the US and KSA and the world will indeed peak, but it won’t happen in accordance with Hubbert’s invalid mathematical model.
CHEERS!
Face-Plant on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:55 am
And then there’s Plant; another class A retard who doesn’t know the difference between a theory and an observation. Put down the can of apple sauce and the straw, put down the banjo, get up of the porch and go take a high school physics class down at the local community college. Dumbass
Face-Plant on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:03 am
Oh and BTW Plant, Hubberts mathematical analysis is called a model. It’s a mathematical model used to explain an observation. It can also be useful in making predictions. Seriously get an education or shut the fuck up. You have no clue what a theory is and is not. Your ignorance and arrogance is fucking unbelievable.
Nony on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:05 am
Physicists are too high on themselves. They say all the other sciences are just part of them, but it really doesn’t work out, since to solve problems in chemistry, bio, engineering, you don’t do it from Schroedinger’s equation, you do it from more applied tendencies.
https://xkcd.com/435/
P.s. Nothing in intro college physics (or anything even in a B.S. or Ph.D.)is going to tell you if peak oil happens in 2000 or 2100. You have to know the whole geology and then predict the evolution of the demand function, of substitutes, of extraction technologies and even of restrictions (e.g. ANWR, Great Lakes) to resolve that question.
———
This is why peakers are science versus scientific. A real scientist recognizes that the world is a complex system and that his methods for solving science problems are not the same as for doing economic analysis.
Nony on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:10 am
FP, Hubbert did make falsifiable preductions. The problem is that peakers explain away his failures and tout his successes. for instance, he nailed the year of US peak oil, but kinda missed on rate and definitely missed on the ensuing decline. Peak gas, he totally hosed up: timing and extent of peak as well as the EUR. The problem is that peakers are like Jehovah’s Witness cultists. They just keep explaining away the old failed predictions of doom and move to new ones. They don’t really even want to study how they were wrong, to do better in the future. And even wwhen they do, it is surface and they don’t try to look for what else they might be missing. Thye have hubris. Instead they should be true thinkers like Feynman who said, don’t fool yourself.
Nony on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:14 am
FP, the EIA 2002 was wrong. see. Easy when you just admit things. Of course, they always said it was just a projection and avoided the whole Hubbert//Campbell/Deffeyes peaker exercise. They are more thoughtful even about their own uncertainty. People who think about economic systems have this comfort with uncertainty. Peakers don’t because they are pseudoscientists.
Face-Plant on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:16 am
You get stupider with every post Nony
Nony on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:22 am
bring some specific content and we can talk. Bored with your rants.
Northwest Resident on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:34 am
The ONLY development that “falsified” Hubbert’s predictions is the “fracking revolution” in America. Conventional oil worldwide peaked and began decline fairly close to right on schedule with Hubbert’s predictions. Conventional oil worldwide is still declining. Without fracking in America, there would be no doubt but that we already hit peak oil and are on the way down.
And that of course is the whole point of the debt-financed fracking revolution — to hide and obscure the fact that we have hit peak oil.
But what did fracking give us? Increased barrel count for sure. Maybe a little positive net energy, but not much. What it did give us in abundance is debt — billions if not trillions of unpayable debt, with junk bond holders and other investors loosing their butts, but not nearly as much now as will be in the near future.
Fracking was and is a jobs program, solely meant to keep BAU churning for a little while longer. It was a pretend and extender. It kept BAU and the illusion of all is well alive for another ten years or so. But it in no way invalidated or falsified Hubbert’s insightful and fundamentally scientific predictions.
We are AT Peak Oil, or on the backside of the curve having already passed the peak. Fracking in America be damned. The majority of that fracked liquid isn’t worth a damn and shouldn’t even be counted as “oil”.
There is no doubt but that history will judge fracking as the money-losing BAU extender that it is. Peak oil, viewed historically, will be pretty damn close to what Hubbert predicted.
GregT on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:42 am
It really is amazing studying human behaviour and emotions isn’t it Face. No consideration given to reality.
I purposely copied a quote from one of our regular contributors here:
“Are not humans the most frustrating, fascinating and contradictory creatures ever? This is why a good daily dose of absurdity and mocking are a necessary tonic to keep one’s sanity.”
Thanks for the quote. You know who you are, and I completely agree.
Nony is without a doubt the most bizarre individual that I have ever come across. Smart in some senses, but absolutely and completely clueless in others. If I were a psychiatrist, I’m sure I would have a heyday.
Face-Plant on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:42 am
Fuck off Nony you’re just another stupid fanatic.
GregT on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:51 am
Nony,
We’ve already been through this before. I not only quoted from Hubbert’s 1956 paper, but provided links. You are doing the planter thing now Nony, you are making yourself look like a complete fucking idiot. Knock yourself out……..
Face-Plant on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 1:59 am
@nony
FYI
http://psychcentral.com/disorders/histrionic-personality-disorder-symptoms/
Get your meds rebalanced. You’re going all batshit again.
Davy on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 3:01 am
This unfolding paradigm shift from a species in growth to one in decline is so much bigger than peak oil. The multiple areas that are contributing to the stalling of growth each play a part. Industrial man absolutely requires increasing energy and complexity at this current point in our growth phase to survive primarily because we have exceeded our carrying capacity without them and we have spread across the planet. In other words we have nowhere to go.
Our population has grown and is growing to a point where we face unsustainable consumption. Our economic system requires increasing consumption especially with increasing population. Pollution and ecological decline are causing drag on the momentum of growth for survival. Depleting resources especially our foundational resource oil are dragging on growth. Our climate is destabilizing and along with the other inertias in the system is affecting food productivity and water stress.
Industrial man which is all we know, has been lucky so far that nature has acquiesced our growth. Industrial modern civilization requires a stable natural environment for food productivity growth and adequate water. We are losing our resilience as a species as we grow beyond our carrying capacity with consumption and population dangerously exposed to nature’s fickle acquiescence.
Our economic system which is so vital now is approaching a stall. We have a global system where all locals have been systematically delocalized by a drive for increasing growth requiring increasing efficiency through what we term globalization. This growth through globalization has over time increased complexity to a point of diminishing returns from further complexity as a tool of solving problems. We have hit limits without scalable substitutes. Energy intensity is stalling with depletion. We are even to the point where time is likely run out for scaling of alternatives to the system itself. This is especially true with the financial system that is mired in debt and repression of price discovery.
As if this were not enough we have the human nature element. We have the human nature part of the equation corrupting. We see destructive wealth transfer, manipulation of the truth, corruption of basic laws, and violence. We humans are losing control of ourselves. How long until we have a retreat from the strength of confidence or a total route in disorderly panic being overrun in chaos?
Time frame is the real issue here because we are mortals. Humans have a value system where time frame is dominant. We appear to be in the beginnings of descent with dysfunctional networks, economic abandonment, irrational policies, and depleting vital resources. Yet, the real importance right here right now as you read my words is how long do we have? If we are going to sputter along on a misfiring engine but still move down the road another 10 years these words I tell you now may be currently interesting but they will be quickly forgotten. In 10 years you may not even remember the Peak Oil forum.
It will only be in a profound crisis that the truth will be displayed with clarity for action. At the moment we are helpless with denial, deception, and paralysis. Everywhere we look we see predicaments, catch 22’s, and failure. This at the same time we are spinning a story of exceptionalism and continued progress. We can overcome we tell ourselves. We tell ourselves not in my lifetime. We say it won’t happen to me. Most of the time we don’t tell ourselves anything we just live our daily routine because how long can you dwell on these issues and still make a living. Making a living requires focus which is at every level. Even at the top it is the most pressing issues that are squeaking we put the oil on.
What is happening is beyond human control because it has self-organized and followed a natural cycle all ecosystems follow. Arguing the blame is useless at this point. All we have now is mitigation policies and adaptation polices for a descent that is likely nearby. We cannot degrowth, reform, or reconstruct this system without the collapse of this system. We can only adapt to the fall not control the fall. Adapting to the fall is making it less painful for as many as we can. Until there is a crisis which is the beginning of the descent we will not be able to embrace mitigation and adaptation policies. At the local and individual level we can but in most cases these are just hobbies or halfhearted. It will take community to transition and the size of community will depend on your local.
We are somewhere at a peak appearing to be on a plateau in the vicinity of a descent. A descent is the end game because our system will bifurcate to a lower economic level in descent and the rebalance of population and consumption will begin. This is profound and all-encompassing with nowhere to hide. This will be ugly in a system like ours that is so far into overshoot. It leaves every one of us naked and helpless. I am out of words now because what more can one say after that.
i1 on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 6:28 am
I wonder who was holding the other side of the trade when E&P companies wrote their covered calls at $100/bbl.
This was a big deal.
yoananda on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 11:27 am
If I’m not wrong (I didn’t read Hubbert, just those who read him) Hubbert was not “that” wrong.
A prediction come always with margin of error, and conditions.
First if Hubbert said 2000, at the scale of the planet I’m pretty sure he said “+/- 5 years”
Peak conventionnal oil is 2005.
Since, we have added many other sources of oil in the total…
So he was not that wrong. But that’s not the end of the story.
Hubbert said “peak oil” IF we go nuclear. But nuclear revolution worldwide didn’t go as expected and didn’t replace oil as main energy source.
So that’s why, instead, we have fracking, which is “retirement party” of oil.
THIS IS THE REAL DEAL.
The fact that we didn’t had peak oil as expected means that we do not have other energy source, and that, peak oil must be pushed farther, at any cost (=low interest rates).
That mean the catastrophy is imminent.
Maybe I’m just a doomer.
Nony on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 11:46 am
yoanda: I recommend reading the actual papers. His 1956 paper lacked some of the caveats of later papers.
I would not hold him too harshly for a 2005 result versus a 2000 call from the 70s. but defining shale as nonconventional is silly. After all fracking was known, geology was known…as the Rockman always tells us.
Furthermore, the Hubbert predictions are irrelevant if the main caution of cornies (that new technology will result in new production) is caveated.
I actually think “Rockman” is a silly guy and a lightweight. But the ironic thing is he’s much more on point than his idol Hubbert was when he recommends considering price in predictions.
For one thing, what if there are huge reserves above a certain price point? This is something that Hubbert linearization will not show, that James Hamilton trend extrapolation will not show. You actually have to look at the different segments of production in terms of size and cost (the classic micro econ building a cost curve exercise). It shows you factors like deep water, sands, shale, even kerogen.
Northwest Resident on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:30 pm
“defining shale as nonconventional is silly”
Not so sure about that Nony. In fact, I think it is silly to say what you just said.
I will never understand how you can mount your pedestal daily and crow on and on about how awesome shale oil is when it is the biggest money loser, the most hyped Ponzi scheme and the most enormous waste of good oil chasing bad that ever happened on planet earth.
Ignore the enormous debt that shale extraction has brought upon itself. Ignore the fact that without ZIRP and QE shale extraction would never have taken off. Ignore the fact that shale production depends exclusively on continuous infusions of vast amounts of cash. Ignore all that and just keep telling us how shale oil extraction is delaying peak oil. We’ll keep reading your posts and we’ll keep knowing who and what is really silly.
Davy on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 12:49 pm
“For one thing, what if there are huge reserves above a certain price point?”
The same can be said of trace gold in the oceans NOo. Your drilling a dry hole. Price is an abstract thermodynamics is reality.
yoananda on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 2:10 pm
Yes thermodynamics is realty.
There is plenty of methane on Titan, but it would cost more fuel to get it than it could bring us.
It’s the same with shale oil : no matter what the technology, each time it’s harder to get. Each time the economy is hitten a bit more. Peak oil or not peak oil we are in the era of expensive energy, and the struggle have just begun. Look around you.
Nony on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 2:20 pm
Well 60 is not as good as 30, but it’s a lot better than 100. I don’t see how you can possibly connect a story of inexorable scarcity premiums and higher and higher prices with the recent volume increases and last fall’s price drop after that.
http://www.nasdaq.com/markets/crude-oil.aspx?timeframe=18m
GregT on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 2:51 pm
Oil fuels economic growth Nony. Our economies are stalling due to high energy costs, and all of the eCONomist’s tricks are not making this little problem go away. Ponzi schemes require exponential growth. Seeing as infinite exponential growth in a finite environment is both a mathematical, and a physical impossibility, all Ponzi schemes will end in the same manner.
They will collapse in on themselves.
Newfie on Tue, 16th Jun 2015 4:02 pm
Nah. Oil will never peak. Even though it is finite. It will keep coming out of the ground forever. Until atmospheric CO2 levels are so high we fry the planet to a crisp. ROTFLMAO.
Beery on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 2:22 am
“Hubbert first predicted that U.S. oil production would peak in 1970 and then start declining rapidly. His prediction turned out to be partly true, as U.S. crude oil production peaked that same year, not to be eclipsed again until the shale boom began.”
So the shale oil boom eclipsed the 1970 production peak? That’s news to me. Not sure what the author is smoking, but I haven’t seen oil production anywhere near the 1970 peak.
Beery on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 2:24 am
Newfie, I’m not sure you understand what “peak” means. The fact that it will keep being produced doesn’t mean that there will be no peak in production.
GregT on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 7:56 am
In Hubbert’s 1956 report he specifically noted that both shale oil and tar sands would be exploited at some future date. His predictions were for known conventional reserves using then current technology. I have quoted from his report here 4 times already.
The premise of his ‘model’ was that discovery leads production by so many years, and that as discovery drops off so will production. Discovery has not been keeping up with depletion for a very long time now.
Nony on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 11:24 am
Beery, no one is claiming that US has hit a higher number than 1970. Just that the magnitude of the shale increase is inconsistent with ‘terminal decline’ after peak.
If you read pages 23 and 24 of Hubbert’s 1956 paper, he talks
*an unavoidable decline after the 1970 peak
*at a rate similar to the buildup
*that the shape of the curve can’t differ materially from what he drew (the pimple).
—————
A ramp up to 9.5 MM bpd (kissing distance of the original peak), 45 years a the first peak is inconsistent with the prediction above.
——————
Hubbert did not distinguish the shale resources, though. For that matter what good is his resource based approach if you caveat new sources as unconventional? You’re basically conceding the argument to cornies who say we’ll find new stuff!
GregT on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 12:55 pm
Read the report Nony.
page 24,
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/1956/1956.pdf
I’m not going to quote from the report again. I simply don’t have time to play your childish little games.
Nony on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 1:04 pm
I just cited page 24.
GregT on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 1:36 pm
You cherry picked from page 24. Cite the 3rd paragraph.
Nony on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 2:06 pm
I’ve mentioned that passage before, Greg. He was aware of the concept of technical advances. Not just EOR, as here, but earlier in the paper he has a nice discussion of IL and how seismic imaging helped get a repeak. The problem is that he dismissed the likelihood of significant innovation for the US or the world. He was wrong.
P.s. I would urge you to read from the second para of page 23 through second para of page 24. That is not a cherrypick when I am discussing a whole page.
Dredd on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 3:37 pm
When is peak BS going to happen (Is BS The Only Thing Not Subject To The Law of Entropy?).
marmico on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 4:37 pm
The problem is that he dismissed the likelihood of significant innovation for the US or the world.
He predicted a world peak production of 13 billion barrels per year in 2000. Fast forward 15 years. The world produces twice as much oil.
GregT on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 6:29 pm
His predictions were based on known reserves, using present technologies. It really makes little difference that we have gone after the dregs due to exceptionally high oil prices. Most of those dregs are unaffordable to our economies. Hence the recent price pullback and the continuation of global economic contraction even at $60/bbl.
marmico on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 6:37 pm
Hubbert was not the first, nor the last, neomalthusian in resource extraction. He fucked up Mid East reserves royally (pun intended).
Apneaman on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 6:56 pm
Your the fuck up marm A noon. peakoil.com’s caught and proven LIAR sock puppet on too many occasions to count. You have zero creditable – nothing but a measly little lying cock-a-roach.
marmico on Wed, 17th Jun 2015 7:24 pm
Sheesh, apeman. You overpaid unionized boilermakers and heirs have consumed more oil than Hubbert thought was extractable by 2150, 130 years from now.