This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Peak Oil: Myth Or Coming Reality?
Submitted by Gaurav Agnihotri via OilPrice.com,
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?
It is interesting to note that almost 50 percent of crude oil is used for producing gasoline which is mostly used in the automobile industry. So what happens when people stop driving cars that run on gasoline?
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.
China’s huge demand for oil – It can’t last forever
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.
»
- 18753 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
"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."
Oh thank goodness - I feel so much better now.
Party on!
Peak Age If you invest in the oil patch this is the only peak you need to concern yourself with.
Peak Stupidity is the Big Risk.
Allow me to direct your attention towards what the elite are after presently...
http://www.voanews.com/content/century-old-guyana-venezuela-border-spa-f...
This should answer your questions in full....
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Venezuela-Rejects-UK-Interference-...
That's right, they want Venezuela's proven oil reserves... (Jade Helm anyone?)
And of course there is another theory, the one the Russians came up with, and then used to become the world's number 1 producer.
William Engdahl, probably wrote the best piece on Abiotic Oil.
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Peak_Oil___R...
Abiotic oil peaked before the first barrel was pumped
Hubbert's "Peak Oil" refers to peak conventional oil. The really good stuff you can get at for $10/barrel and with an EROEI of at least 10 or 20. That 'peak oil' hit in 2005 or so. Now we are in "pretend and extend" territory with stuff which costs $70/barrel to extract, and gives us an EROEI of only 4 or 5. This is literally 'bottom of the barrel' stuff.
You are correct.
Is the question though what must we give up to get the oi at 70/barrel or EROEI at ~5?
I have long feared that we would give up.. 'the global financial system' - but what if I am wrong - and as bad as $70 per barrel is based on current reserves and extraction technologies, perhaps it means we 'give up inflated house prices', or big screen TV's / whatever.
Perhaps, it does not mean 'the end of the world'? Perhaps we can sustain this for some time to come yet?
This should be at the top of the comments. There is a reason we have to convert corn into ethanol and there's a reason we're getting oil from the bottom of the ocean and fighting over arctic territory. Because all the easy oil is now gone, and since our economies are made to run on cheap easy oil they will break. This is why we're seeing oil fluctuate so badly but even us peakists couldnt predict the price drop. As it turns out, if you're an oil producing country and you know you're about to run out of product, you sell as much as you can before everyone else, because there will be time which the world wont be able to buy whatever oil is actually left in the ground, so sell sell sell while you still can. This drove the price down.
two hoots a newbie shill. Don't be confused.
Gee, "peak demand" just doesn't sound as scary as "peak supply"...what are the doomers gonna do for an encore??
feeling a little queasy, Gordo?
Meh, this was my subject in 1976 Speech Class.
The Industrial Revolution is sooo... over.
who won?
There is not and will not be peak oil in our lifetime. Big oil has already got this figured out. Prices, well that's a different story.
Big Gov Oil = Big Oil .... private, corporate oil is less !
if rockefeller (Exxon) says we are at Peak Oil....then I dont believe it........
Why is Exxon is trying to get at Venezuela's reserves ????
Because that's what they do. Are you familiar with the wars in the Middle East?
Another article by distraction monkeys with vested interest, using spoon-fed numbers. If the plebes had real data on oil reserves, what would change? They would likely still be watching "Ow my balls"
Depending on how one defines it, Peak Oil (at least of the cheap and easy-to-extract crude) occurred in 2005...that's why we've had to rely on unconventional sources to maintain production levels.
The country who has oil last wins. It's always going to be about oil. Last man standing so to speak. That's why talk of war is all around us.
you must mean this
set to a tune by GlinkaWell, "peak oil" sounds so...final...but its not. They're just not allowed to go get it.
So the options are reduced to ridiculous things like, drilling offshore of bayous & mangroves, instead of in a frozen tundra and deserts.
Apparently those places are "reserved for" bulldozing tortoise burrows, eagle killing windmills & solar ovens. Heres an idea! Lets dam up a river or two, fight over guppies and bitch about ten dollar gas and 100k battery cars! ;-)
Happy 100th BDay, Bighorn_100b
you'll prolly never live to see peak oil.
<= Peak Bull
<= Peak Lies
US Politics
Oilprice: A bunch of hippy tree huggers with waaaaaaay to much time on their hands.
Listen to the guys who work in the industry.
Yeah. Listen to the guys who are finacially dependent on oil and are threatened by moving towards renewables. Of course renewables won't maintain our gluttony either but that's another thing.
Here's what a report by the German military on security implications of Peak Oil stated: "It is a fact, however, that oil is finite and that there is a peak oil. Since this study is mainly focused on understanding cause-effect relations following such a peak oil situation, it is not necessary to specify a precise point in time...
[We look] into a special possible peak oil scenario in which a so-called 'tipping point' is exceeded where linear developments become chaotic and finally result in a worst-case scenario in terms of security policy. For example, if the global economy shrinks for an indeterminate period of time, a chain reaction that might destabalise the global economic system is imaginable...In the short term, the global economy would respond proportionately to the decline in oil supply...In the medium term, the global economic system and all market-oriented economies would collapse...
An oil supply conversion will not be possible to an equal extent in all the world regions before peak oil occurs. It is likely that a large number of countries will not be able to make the necessary investments in good time and to the required extent...In complex systems, an energy withdrawal will not necessarily lead to proportional reduction in complexity alone but, in extreme cases, to a collapse."
Peak Oil: Security policy implications of scarce resources, 2010
Bundeswehr Transformative Centre Future Analysis Branch
Hmm. . . What does that sound like?
Anyone?
Bueler?
'Cause Truman was too much of a pussy wimp to let MacArthur go in there and blow out those Commie bastards?
Nuke Fukushima
That idea enjoys the considerable benefit of not having yet been tried.
Salud!
That German report was ten years ago. That was long enough for us to realize that " Peak Oil " was BS. Almost all the peak oil experts were wrong. They fed off each other and failed to see technological developments. Daniel Yergin got it right. Same thing with Y2K. Experts panicked and nothing happened.
Peak conventional production was years ago. The economic slowdown has truncated demand but the peak of conventional oil was almost 10 years ago...Sit in the corner and...and hope but reality is here. Hope it will all get better but hitting the wall has already happened. Expensive energy is a limiting factor in why we are sitting here with no progress in 7 years since the crash. When the world economy is sliding down the drain and the SOB's in New York are screwing any commodity producer trying to make an honest living then we are Atlas.... Daniel Yergin is a total ass tonguing tool.....
2010 report actually. And there has been no definitive proof that the geologic and mathematical reality of Peak Oil is false. Any finite resource, by its very nature, must reach a peak in production. What that may look like in retrospect is anyone's guess but the laws of physics cannot be undone just because we wish them to be.
people get all emotional about this.
But it's simple from a math or logic perspective. Unless you think the earth magically makes oil in some renewable fasion... by definition, there will be a high point of efficient extraction of remaining oil [or in the simpler sense, we will get to half of existing and obtainable oil].
I dont know how far off that is, and neither do you.
what I do know is that it is absurd to be dependent on foreign states for energy, food, or defense.
And it is also absurd that we continue to rely on fossil fuels. It is a massive misallocation of our financial and scientific resources to keep working harder and harder to get this stuff out of the ground or pulled out of sand instead of working on hydrogen fusion, tidal, thermo, solar, etc. probably a basket of energy sources...
All true BUT, the present oil is needed to prop up (albeit patchily) the existing infrastructure - most importantly, the economic ponzi scheme that is the Dollar. The ever decreasing EROI means that there is less energy going into the real economy - hence grinding down of living standards year on year.
There is no solution.
Some of the often touted "alternative energy" sources such as solar PV panels are toys that are heavily subsidised by the existing oil based infrastructure - others such as tidal and hydro-electric can be genuinely self sustaining - but even then, we are looking at a future world with drastically reduced energy consumption per head and a very different sort of life style (and population decrease…)
The existing power structures will (as always) do the things that benefits themselves the most - which will be the exact opposite of that which is needed for society as a whole. Diverting huge resources into war is almost certainly one of them.
Yes and we ignore the implications of Peak Oil at our peril.
We took the batteries out of the smoke detector years ago to sooth our jangled nerves.
And hey, it's a lot quieter here in the coal mine, now that we ate those pesky canaries.
We ignore that oncoming truck in our lane at our own peril, there's still plenty of fuel left in his tank to finish us off.
I agree with your point on not knowing when peaks occur, but I have to take exception to your point on fossil fuels. You said "It is a massive misallocation of our financial and scientific resources", and this is where you lost me. Since when are resources communal? The people who are allocating them do so as they see fit thru ownership, not by what society dictates. You went from good, simple logic to fantasy and dreamland. Nothing is ever done to benefit mankind, it is always done to benefit individual men. If on the whole the agregate follows some trend, it is still not because WE have decided anything. There is nothing set up society/globally for 7 billion "I" to even begin to show cohesive "we" action. May seem like a small point or nitpicking, but whenever I read an author or commenter talking about society taking action I never even bother to finsih the paragraph because it can only be wishful thinking from that point onward.
"Nothing is ever done to benefit mankind, it is always done to benefit individual men"
I think Jonas Salk would disagree with you.
and that's where I get off board. I don't want to live in a world that cynical and bereft of the bare notion of voluntarily thinking about us as a nation, as a species....
it's myopic not to.
We should be working with Russia and China for example to work on tech to deflect near miss asteroids, etc.
Two things happened that showed us to be more careful with analysis of oil. First, demand dropped a lot and shale came online. Now we've got lower demand, high supply and a shale business that will take off again when prices firm. We have more oil reserves counting shale than the entire world has conventional oil counting all grades from light sweet crude to asphalt. OPEC knows this.
There are hundreds of fuel alternatives in the works that will work in standard ICEs. Many are economical to produce under $2.50 a gallon.
This is even before mass scale production.
The only reason why oil is above $20 and gas above $1.20 is to satiate the appetite of the wealth without work class. The vampire banking clan.
If that is so, why are you not producing and selling it?
At $5/gal five big guys packing 400lbs of gear each can go 20 miles for $1 each (in a 1ton diesel pickup truck). You want to deprive them of that?
Would you drag 400 lbs 20 miles for $1?
Here is something to read that will give you a better grasp on our oil supply. It is much more fragile than the current shale easy money boom and slow economy would have you to believe.
http://energyskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Simmons-Giant-Oil-Fi...
So much BS in one article is rather amazing. An article about oil and it's price with no consideration of the underlying economic situation is intentionally false. Electric cars are only sold because of gov subsidies and a few crazy people that don't understand the carbon footprint of electric power production (no I don't believe burning carbon will destroy the world but some people do). My brother couldn't attend a funereal of my sister in law because he only owns an electric car and it doesn't have the range. He seemed intelligent growing up but a stint in the military must have had a bad effect on him. It's not worth commenting on the rest of the crap in this article but I bet most ZHrs noticed it.
Troof!
I don't even know where to begin with the blanket statement.
We could be using a fallacy of false outcomes, dichotomies, tautology, faulty sign, appeal to ignorance...
You're trying to push this sentiment with a few loose arguments to support the answer that you're trying to convince people to take. And it works on a lot of people, just not me.
Your brother could've called a cab, rented a car, called someone and paid them gas to take him to the funeral-
The carbon footprints.
So what types of carbon are emitted in the production of electricity vs. car exhaust?
Because some say carbon dioxide and others say carbon monoxide. Basically plants love carbon dioxide so "global warming" might be an explosion of plant growth.
And hence, two major Asian continents just recently got their head in the game in global trade. China and India are both projected to increase the need for fuel by some exponential amount since there is approximately 2.4 BILLION population in both countries.
The Chinese are very ambitious. They are very well educated and there is many of them.
India is ambitious and India has many experts in engineering and sciences.
Asia does not produce oil like other rich nations do (ie. Canada, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, etc.). The main commodity in Asia is human capital, not oil.
China has already created a method to recycle used cooking oil into jet fuel.
I don't think China will stop at that. I don't believe that Asia will stop at that. They're ambitious, they're an oligarchy... who says that India doesn't already have solar powered flying cars? The Arabs had flying carpets, right?
No seriously.
The Saudis have already innovated cheap methods of extracting oil while the stupid Amerians did nothing- not even really pay attention in engineering/geology... but puff hot air for public funding to gouge people on a price inelastic item.
Hot air could be used as an energy source, but we waste it here in the Untied Snakes.
If "Peak Oil" was really a threat?
Then nobody in California would be towing their morbidly obese 300 pound selves in a lifted gas guzzling truck or SUV (with a Save Tahoe sticker on the bumper) to a drive through at Starbucks, McDonalds, Popeyes, Taco Bell, ATM, Rite Aid pharmacy....
If "Peak Oil" was really a threat? These entitlement demanding fiends wouldn't be driving their spoiled undisciplined and future illiterate crotchfruit to a public school in either a gas guzzling lifted truck or SUV. Especially when that school is 200 yards away from their residence.
If "Peak Oil" was a threat? Then everyone would raise hell about traffic jams because traffic jams, especially in liberal lalalands is always bad and it pollutes the air.
Yo, man - you ever watch that show My 600 Pound Life, on ....discovery maybe.
Fascinating.
I swing between being disgusted by and admiring the struggle of these peeps in a matter of seconds.
I don't need to. I tossed my last boobtube to a dumpster diver because there's never anything on it since hockey games get blocked out.
But karma reigned in. I made a difficult but tempting choice to move down south during the 2008 elections and oh- Lucky Meee!
I go outside and get to see live, these fascinating creatures of extreme self destruction via metabolic complications or chicken feed to "attack" this epidemic. Which apparently didn't work.
I don't need a t.v. Why go through the trouble of even owning it if it becomes an artifact in my living quarters?
re: If "Peak Oil" was really a threat?
here here.
When I prognosticate I too like to use a pen and straight ruler. It's very clean and so much simpler that way.
ooc - did just about everyone of youse guyz see the documentary "Collapse" on this topic, michael Ruppert, I think, bunch of years ago now...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVd-zAXACrU
Seemed to make a pretty good case to me, if not necessarily predicting a timeline, predicting the chaos that would be created.
So when WW3 goes hot hot - even without nukes, there's a pretty good chance some oil fields, and tankers are gonna burn - enough to fuck up shipping food, medicine - all sorts of stuff, no more flights across country for the Plebs.
Using the concept of oil price being somehow linked to demand is so 20th century. These days the world's financial king-pins don't need something like demand to know that prices only go up. Yes, the price of oil has dropped but not because of demand ... it's because the Saudis are trying to iron out wrinkles in what used to be a sweet little cartel. When the futures and commodities markets figured out how to fix prices at the cost of consumers, all supply/demand logic went out the window. But it's not just oil, look at any market today and you'll see the same thing. Try to apply logic to where and when things should happen and you'll quickly end up at the poor farm.
One of the other commentor's got it right here when they said there is always a high point to all production curves, but you and I don't know when it will occur. Now if the author actually supllied a prediction as to when that would be (perhaps just an update of Hubbert's fine forecast?), we'd have something to judge him on.
Nice that you mentioned the "cartel", funny how we give that a pass. Some time (15 yrs ?) ago US manufacturers got it going pretty good because Chinese mfgs where trying to secure market share by aggressively pricing steel. Our gov declared that it was predatory pricing and slapped a tariff on imports which of course hurt some home industries.
Now we're providing premium security escorts for all of the CARTEL's product, courtesy of the American taxpayer, and celebrating that they're working on market share (150k layoffs in a strategic industry)! Is this f.cked up?
Are you not entertained?
If "Peak Oil" was really a threat, then why did the CIA via Nuland rob US Taxpayers of $5 billion to finance methed out kiev Nazi garbage to antagonize Russia? Because Russia can create a supply side of energy if the U.S. would stop playing the obstructionist since petrodollars finance criminal bank liquidity.
If "Peak Oil" is such the threat, Nigeria wouldn't have Ebola.
Mexico would not have had oil rig explosions.
Jerry Brown wouldn't get a fee everytime California imports a barrel of oil from Perta Indonesia.
What would happen to Brazil's banks if "peak oil" was a serious threat?
These countries circa 2012 have the largest private investments/GDP in the world. The US ranked like at the bottom....guess how many countries at the top are investments in oil exploration, R&D, etc.?
Rank
(total) Country Total
(percent of GDP) Date
1 Sao Tome and Principe 50.1 2012 est.
2 Cape Verde 46.4 2012 est.
3 China 45.9 2012 est.
4 Congo (Republic) 45.2 2012 est.
5 Equatorial Guinea 44.6 2012 est.
6 Seychelles 41.7 2012 est.
7 Armenia 37.1 2012 est.
8 Lesotho 36.6 2012 est.
9 Belarus 35.8 2012 est.
10 Kosovo 35.0 2010 est.
11 Nicaragua 34.1 2012 est.
12 Lebanon 34.0 2012 est.
13 Indonesia 33.6 2012 est.
14 Gabon 32.5 2012 est.
15 Algeria 32.3 2012 est.
16 Iran 31.2 2012 est.
16 Morocco 31.2 2012 est.
18 Panama 30.1 2012 est.
19 India 30.0 2012 est.
20 Guyana 29.6 2012 est.
http://world.bymap.org/Investments.html
The Republic of Amnesia should be about 3rd or 4th, but I don't remember the numbers.
Only on Zerohedge could this faux argument occur without a single--NOT ONE--mention of climate change--in neither the article nor the comments. The half that argue--HERE--that peak oil is inevitable are delusional, and the other half are double delusional. What a ship of fools.
I just met ya Howard, but I'm pretty sure you're a fella where people will wave to imaginary people to get away from ye at a party....
"Ship of fools" - climate change, really? Because we decided to populate the planet according to current conditions? Is the planet carbon starved? You tell me.
Have we made any other bad decisions? BTW, using liquid fuels was engineering not governing.
Thank heavens all those fossil fuel powered machines are running so that I can buy solar panels and store the energy in lead (soaking in sulfuric acid).
And further more - New Orleans kicks ass, but is built in a sh.tty location. Boo Hoo.
Gaurav Agnihotri: "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."
BWAAARH. The IEA is another alphabet quango which tells its masters what they want to hear. It is known to have produced charts prior to 2008 showing a rise in oil demand and an unconstrained rise in supply to match it without taking any notice of the fact that new oil discoveries are lower than existing oil expiries.
This argument has been going on for a few years and the only thing that's changed is that peak oil has become longer in time due to a reduced demand following the economic depression the world is in.
We should not forget that peak oil refers to what's called easy-oil. Stuff that can be harvested cheaply and processed cheaply. It's days are certainly numbered and we will be left with tar sands, difficult-to-get-at oil, fracking and the heavy oil which takes a lot more money to extract and process.
The world's largest oil field Ghawar was reckoned to have a water cut of over 50% back in 2007, according to the late Matt Simmons.
Smacker. wasn't it the EIA (federal energy authorities) who slashed by 96% the estimated amount of recoverable oil buried in California's vast Monterey Shale deposits, deflating its potential as a national "black gold mine" of petroleum?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-oil-20140521-story.htmlIt sure looks like it was. And even that oil cannot be called "easy oil".
And there is the fact known for decades that OPEC members artificially raised their "known recoverable reserves" figures way back because the OPEC production quota system is based upon them - the more oil you claim to have, the more you are allowed to produce.
It goes on. For oilprice.com to come out with this crap tells me they must have an agenda.
Remember three, four, five years ago the spate of downward revisions of the overblown estimates of oil producers whose stock was traded publically and whose officers must have thought the pre-FIFA FBI was waiting to pounce.
I think an oil rich country or two also publically revised downward.
Quite so. I'm fairly convinced that if the world ever climbs out of this economic depression without WWIII and demand for oil begins to rise, it won't be long before the oil price begins to rise due to progressively constrained supply. It might take several years but it'll happen. This is what makes Saudi actions of late in pumping oil to the point of a supply glut and price collapse utterly irresponsible for the global economy.
A happy thought, but one that completely overlooks the perfidious neocons and their treacherous control over the braindead oligarchy.
Surely you remember Grima Wormtongue of LOTR?
They will prevent the occurrence of any happy ending.
I'll take Peak Oil Is Bullshit, a Myth, and a Hoax for $5000 Alex.
To refer to Peak Oil as a theory is akin to referring to evolution as a theory. Both are factual; it is only the particulars about how each behaves that is controversial.
Any finite resource that is being extracted and used must, by purely mathematical reality, reach a peak--or half way point--in its production.
The low hanging fruit has been plucked. The large reserves have been found (with discovery of these peaking 40 years ago).
If oil were so plentiful and accessible, we would not be scraping the bottom of the barrel via unconventional--and expensive--sources (shale, deep sea, bitumen).
There are many competing narratives about Peak Oil but the fact that it is a finite resource and we have been living in an exponentially-growing world (exceedingly dependent on oil) suggests that we are approaching a tipping point because the two cannot peacefully coexist.
I would argue that the repercussions of having peaked in cheap and easy to extract oil are already reverberating across the planet and the basis of many of our current problems, from economic to geopolitical.
Infinite growth on a finite planet...what could possibly go wrong?
http://olduvai.ca
Something that is lost on or unknown to the "chicken littles" is that unconventional or resource play oil is not necessarily the most difficult to exploit. Yes it was hard to figure out and yes the tooling took an enormous amount of capital to prepare for the harvesting but the resource is huge.
Think about all our cheap computing gadgets. Think about the costs of a chip fab. Sometimes big investments are necessary to provide affordable product to the masses.
Resource plays move into a "manufacturing" mode wherein the business model is nothing like the oil business that got us here, it's better. And even though the resource is different than old conventional oil, less porosity and permeability, it is huge. As in Hubbard had no way to see this coming.
By the way, for me his best work was figuring out how thrust sheets could have worked while watching his cold beer can slide down the hood of his car in the hot Wyoming sun - cool.
I don't think we will see the problems with very limited oil supplies any time soon. A much larger problem looms : DEBT, FIAT MONEY, CENTRAL BANK PARALYSIS and DEFLATION which will combine to further reduce demand while technology improves.
so
I'm glad to hear it's not the Russo-Nato war of words
Please do not think that I'm my own horn getooten, but I haven't I been telling everyone that's been willing to listen since I got here 4 years ago about the threat of peak oil, the suppression of demand to deny its approach, and the government's creation of a global depression to achieve that suppression.
Think about it. Trillions of dollars of MBS paying out much more than the cost of borrowing money to buy them. They flew around the world faster than sunlight.
But who to give credit to for having conceived them? Greenspan? The Neocons?
We'll have to wait and see.
Yes, a tinfoil chapeau. But rather attractive, no?
The suppression of the demand for oil is no more an end to the arch problems caused by peak oil, than Hitler's anschluss of Austria was an end to the arch problems of war in the late 30's.
And ALSO, the world has entered a time of DEFLATION, a condition that the world's central bankers and our pile of debt will accelerate. A calamity from this combo will surely precede a problem from peak oil.
I stand guilty of repeating myself, a claim my wife often makes.
What per cent of oil is not economically recoverable with current technologies .... 98% or 28% or ?
Depending on what zone you're in, currently our old formation is about 60% not recoverable. Reasons such as salt water zones flooding in, cost of drilling a dry well, cracks in formation, etc.
Peak Oil: Myth Or Coming Reality
Coming Reality
Coming
Moving the goal posts again?
Sure I'll get an electric car, because electricity is free with unlimited supply forever. I'll pay with fiat money, which is also free with unlimited supply forever.
Plenty of oil left... but too expensive to extract
HOW HIGH OIL PRICES WILL PERMANENTLY CAP ECONOMIC GROWTH For most of the last century, cheap oil powered global economic growth. But in the last decade, the price of oil has quadrupled, and that shift will permanently shackle the growth potential of the world’s economies. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-23/how-high-oil-prices-will-permanently-cap-economic-growth
BUT WE NEED HIGH OIL PRICES: Marginal oil production costs are heading towards $100/barrel http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/05/02/983171/marginal-oil-production-costs-are-heading-towards-100barrel/
No, peak oil IS coming. But more importantly, the immediate effect of this is the diminishing return on investment from energy extraction. Reposting:
The energy we must invest to obtain new energy can not be printed and our declining EROEI numbers reflect the diminishing returns from investment in energy production. As more and more resources are required to generate the same amount of liquid fuels, energy production is becoming ever more expensive to society in real terms. And as it becomes more expensive in real terms, it must also become more expensive in nominal or dollar terms. That it has recently become cheaper in dollar terms can only be a temporary aberration.