From today's open thread on the Oil Drum Blog ..
You raise an excellent point, which leads into this. There are several convergent factors that I never see discussed together that should be. First is decline rate, and what it really means. Most are familiar with compound interest. Decline rates work the same in reverse, so to use Hirsch's range, a 13% decline rate would cut supply in half in just 4 years, 7% would cut it in half in less than 9 years, even the rosiest 3% cuts supply in half in 22 years. Using this mildest decline rate, and assuming 2005 was the peak, at 31Gby, by 2027 production will be only 15.5 Gby. Yikes. That's the same as it was in about 1945, when the population was only 3.4 billion. But in 2027, the median UN projection is for population to be about 8 billion. So whereas in 1945, there were 4.56 barrels per capita, in 2027 there will only be 1.94 b/c. Double yikes. Then there's EROEI. Whatever it is today, it was more in 1945, and will be less in 2027. Let's just say in 1945 it was 50:1, today it's 25:1 and in 2027 will be 10:1. I like to use easy math to make the point. That means in 1945, there was actually 15.19 Gb net, or 4.47 b/c. Today, we have 4.58 b/c ((31*.96)/6.5), and in 2027 there will be only 13.95 Gb net, or 1.74 b/c. Triple yikes. It's this confluence of declining production, increasing population and declining EROEI that seems generally overlooked. I know my assumptions are simplistic, but I don't think wildly out of line, and I hope they make the point. And I did use the mildest decline rate that Hirsch found per region. If the world declines at anything greater... well, you do the math.
Triff .. |
