SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Rat's Nest - Chronicles of Collapse -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: mistermj who wrote (5094)11/17/2006 4:43:31 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Respond to of 24223
 
"This is all boilerplate stuff from the left"
I know there are people out there who would consider Simmons and Bartlett and Rainwater and Pickens to be leftists. Are you one of them?
Peak Oil theory is an overly simplistic model which has worked time and time again, for the lower 48, for the entire US, North Sea, etc.

Do you believe in abiotic oil? Cuz, other than that, we started with a finite amount; even a hollow earth filled with oil is finite. The rest is geology and petro engineering. Once a field hits about 50% depletion, you can't get it out any faster. Production falls, despite secondary and tertiary recovery techniques despite more wells. It becomes the law of diminishing returns. You get less /well, and less total. If it wasn't like that, Oklahoma and West Texas would be producing like they were in the 30's and 40's, and Prudhoe would be producing like '78. But, they aren't.
Message 22963959

=============

Peak Oil is Simple

David Roberts

11.16.2006
Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) recently released a report called Why the "Peak Oil" Theory Falls Down -- Myths, Legends and the Future of Oil Resources. It's getting a lot of attention, and has produced much consternation in the peakoilosphere.

The definitive response, as usual, is on The Oil Drum.

I must say, the more I read about peak oil, the less complicated the whole thing seems to me. That may sound crazy, since everyone involved in discussions of oil prides themselves on their engineering acumen, impeccable logic, and devotion to empirical data (in the form of charts and graphs, of course!). Pull any one thread of the oil tapestry and you quickly uncover a skein of irreconcilably opposed viewpoints, all backed by reams of data, all contemptuous of the illogic and wishful thinking of the others.

So why do I think it's simple?

Well, we need to separate two questions about peak oil. First, there's the factual question.

As I see it, virtually everyone but the abiotic fruitloops agrees that oil is a finite resource that's going to hit peak production at some point. Even the CERA report, from what I can tell (I haven't ponied up the $1000 to read it), claims production will peak around 2040, stay on an "undulating plateau" for a while, and then decline slowly. This is not a best case scenario, but it's pretty rosy -- it gives us breathing room. Anyone who's read around the internets a little will be familiar with more dire predictions.

I, along with about 99.99% of the population, am not interested in the factual question as such. In general, minerals do not inflame my passions.

What I'm interested in is the political question: how does this affect human welfare? What should we do about it?

Now, it is the nature of engineers, data nerds, lefty wonks, and other too-smart-for-their-own-good types to have a somewhat naive view of politics. They tend to think that the main determinant of political action is the established empirical facts. Establish the facts; policy ensues. That's why winning the empirical argument is so overwhelmingly important for them.

Of course, it's not so. The range of possibilities in the political world -- the real world, not the world of policy wonkery -- is, at least most of the time, much narrower than the range of possible oil production scenarios. And political action cannot be controlled with anything like the nuance one finds in different peak oil perspectives. It can just barely be controlled at all. It moves to its own mysterious rhythms, as responsive to imagery, emotion, and -- crucially -- chance circumstance as to "the facts."

Weaning our society off oil is an enormous task. It's going to take a great deal of time and political effort to make it happen. Progress will be halting and non-linear. There will be many false starts, diversions, and unexpected difficulties. If you think oil production's going to peak -- tomorrow, in a decade, mid-century, whenever -- you need to help get that ball rolling, ASAP.

Perhaps in a perfect Platonic world of policy, a "peak oil is today" strategy would look different from a "peak oil in 2040" strategy. But back down here on earth, we're stuck with the blunt instrument of representative democracy. Our choice is far closer to binary than most oil geeks are willing to acknowledge. The choice before us is: mobilize and start pushing, or don't. Keep doing nothing, or start doing something.

We need to get started. It's that simple.

huffingtonpost.com



To: mistermj who wrote (5094)11/17/2006 5:25:35 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Respond to of 24223
 
Peak Oil theory is an overly simplistic model based on flawed logic and extrapolation of current trends in a static environment rather than a real world dynamic.
Problem is, simple models work....

I believe Yergin made the statement that this is the fifth time that the world has run out of oil, after four previous "crises." Interstingly enough, there are four large discrete producing regions that have shown lower production after crossing the 50% of Qt mark using the Hubbert Linearization (HL) method--the Lower 48; Russia; North Sea and Mexico.

Khebab has mathematically modeled (using only production data through the 50% mark) the post-50% of Qt production for the Lower 48 and Russia. For the Lower 48, the cumulative production through 2004 was 99% of what the HL model predicted it would be. For Russia, the cumulative production through 2004 was 95% of what the HL model predicted it would be.

The North Sea peaked in 1999, after crossing the 50% of Qt mark (crude + condensate). Mexico just peaked this year, after crossing the 50% of Qt mark.

The world is just past the 50% of Qt mark for crude + condensate, and right at the 50% of Qt mark for crude + condensate + NGL's. Both measures of "oil" are showing lower production relative to late 2005. In other words, the world is showing the same type of production response that four large producing regions have shown, at about the same stage of depletion.

Then there are the big four super giant oil fields that are, or were, producing one mbpd or more--Ghawar; Cantarall; Burgan and Daqing. Assuming that Ghawar is in decline--a reasonable assumption IMO--all four of these super giants are either in decline or crashing. The only possible super giant on the horizon is the Kashagan Field that, at best, won't start producing until 2010, and won't reach peak production until 2020, when it is expected to peak at just a little more than one mbpd.
westexas on Tuesday November 14, 2006 at 9:32 PM EST
Back from TOD Retirement, at least briefly

BTW, I left Saudi Arabia off my list of large producing regions/countries now in decline, after crossing into the second half of Qt.
energybulletin.net

Published on 24 May 2006 by GraphOilogy. Archived on 25 May 2006.
Texas and US Lower 48 oil production as a model for Saudi Arabia and the world
by Jeffrey J. Brown & "Khebab"

In summary, based on the HL method and based on our historical models, we believe that Saudi Arabia and the world are now on the verge of irreversible declines in conventional oil production. While there will be massive efforts directed toward unconventional sources of oil, we predict that unconventional sources of oil will only serve to slow and not reverse the decline in total world oil production.

westexas on Wednesday November 15, 2006 at 8:01 AM EST

====================

AlanfromBigEasy on Tuesday November 14, 2006 at 8:55 PM EST
In the absence of WesTexas I will point out the situation in Texas in 1972.
A new record oil production that year.

In the next 10 years:

Oil prices increase by x10

A surge of new technology driven by sky high prices

Massive new drilling, a record.

Only 14% more producing oil wells despite massive efforts.

And -30% less oil produced in 1982 than in 1972.

Alan
theoildrum.com



To: mistermj who wrote (5094)11/17/2006 5:29:51 AM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 24223
 
Khebab's analysis, mentioned last post. Simple

Message 23009028