Basically he is saying that natural gas production is close to peaking in North America (Canada, Mexico and the US) and at the same time demand for natural gas has risen because of electicity production switching over to natural gas from coal/oil plants. Also - he says that natural gas does not peak and then slowly fall off (like oil) but due to the physics of production will produce steadily right up to the point that it runs out (and more and more fields are running out - especially the large older fields that produce most of our natural gas).
Reading his site (he is an advisor to President Busch - he is on the energy council that works with VP ) is more depressing then just reading about the oil supply problems to come.
As for ethanol , I read somewhere (no cite sorry) that to produce enough for our cars would reduce the food supply to unnaceptable levels.
Our economy has gone more and more to global production, we ship things halway around the world fairly cheaply (with many products made up of pieces parts from all around the world wherever they were cheaper) and that will start to change very soon.
The demise of the small family farm may soon be over and start reversing as shipping starts to be a larger and larger cost. Buying those winter strawberries from south/central america will start to be prohibitive.
It might be a good time to get into some orchard land and start producing local fruits/vegatables.
I distrust the basic “economics” that says as the price goes up more alternatives will fill the gap - that thinking does not address critical thermodynamic issues - ie - some resources will never be utilized due to energy issues - some oil will cost more in energy to produce then you get out of it afterwards. So when your gas station is 20 miles away and you only have enough gas to go 10 miles, you will not get a full tank anytime soon.
Please read up on all the cites - pessimistic and optomistic, check sources, and look at the facts.
When I first say some of these things I was thinking “what a bunch of loonies” but the more I look into things the more scary it gets - and Simmons work is some of the most convincing and scary data I have seen.
It will be more than a long recession - it will be bigger than the “great” depression and with all the terror already in the world there are possibilities or worse things to come if we are not ready for the changeover.
Not sure what you are referring to here.
Simmons speaks often and enthusiastically about a need for more exploration activity, more gas rigs etc. All befitting his role as banker to the industry. Doubtless he is correct.
However he never speaks of a peak as such. He talks of how production may peak if more new rigs and pipelines aren’t produced. But he also seems to show a potential predicts a 32% increase in total US supply in the next 10 years. It clearly shows a deepwater Gulf production increase from C1 trillion cubic feet today to C4 trillion cubic feet in 2015. he also notes that although supplies might peak in the short term, this will be remedied when arctic gas starts flowing into the lower 48.
Basically the peak he speaks of is one based on economics and lack of investment enthusiasm, not a peak based on resources. As he says “all future supplies can do is fall unless we keep rig counts at record highs – an event that will not happen given the drop in gas prices” The resources are clearly there. As he points out, the US has plenty of energy. The trouble is that there is no reserve, no spare energy. He seems to be attributing this to a lack of exploration and new infrastructure.
Simmons himself states directly that there is a solution to this problem: “a massive expansion of the energy complex to create a 30% spare capacity.” He clearly believes the problem can be solved, with enough dollars
The one point he does make that might gel with this belief in an energy peak is “we need to begin creating an energy plan for the world that will some day need an extra 300 barrels of oil equivalent energy each day. Can hydrocarbons get the job done? Unlikely but we have to try”. Note that this is a ‘someday’ scenario, based on constant population increase in OPEC nations. This assumption of population increase does not gel with the UN’s best population forecasts which show a fall in population in European, North American and most North African/Middle east nations.”
In short Simmons doesn’t seem to do more than touch on actual gas resources. He speaks only to the, economics and investment in infrastructure required to meet production demand.
To predict a peak would be a bold assertion, since far more of this resource is undiscovered than the known amount according to the USGS.
Even if it is true it doesn’t mean much, since there are huge field elsewhere in the world.
But the WEO and WEC reports I listed do address just this.
If that web site holds much relevant I can’t find it.
Care to link to some of this work, rather than asking us to wade through what seems to be a large website with a bad search function?
Better yet, could you post the more convincing stuff here so we can debate it?
I don’t dispute much of what Simmons says: that we aren’t investing enough in new energy, that we haven’t given ourselves enough room to manouevre. But his arguments seem to be founded on economic rather than physical restrictions.
I came here a pessimest and after reading all of the material here, am afraid I am still a pessimest.
Here are a few random and possibly contridictory thoughts to consider.
Food production is a key element left out of most of the discussion here. Current food production techniques are extremely oil intensive, from the pesticides and fertilizers to the tractors and transportation to market, global food production depends on cheap oil. If, as some studies suggest, global oil production will peak in the next decade, I think that we can fairly assume that so will global food production.
The mechanisms with which we extract (or might extract) other forms of fossil fuels such as coal, oil shale, and natural gas are also very dependent on cheap oil. As the availability of oil decreases the cost of extraction of these other sources of energy will also increase.
Because oil is so important to our society and many of its uses cannot be easily substituted via other sources of energy I believe that we will continue to extract oil at a net energy lose to supply these needs. That is we will use up our other fossil fuel resources in efforts to continue to extract oil long after that oil provides a net energy gain to society.
I’ve got a GD thread going, “What are the prospects for high-speed rail in the United States?” If you’re interested in this thread you might be interested in that one. High-speed rail, the kind used in Europe and Japan, runs on electric power, which means it isn’t totally dependent on the fossil-fuel supply – it can run on power that comes from a nuclear plant or a hydroelectric dam or windmills. And it could take over some of the long-distance traffic of transportation modes that are oil-dependent: trucks, cars, and airplanes.
Then what exactly is the point of noting that ethanol may have been negative-efficient at some point on the small scale in which it was processed, given that it’s not negative-efficient on a large scale?
I hope you can find a cite for that; I’d like to see it.
If I understand it correctly, it’s a factor of ethanol production as a whole- meaning both crop production and distillation.
Meaning that the production of the ethanol itself becomes efficient (making more energy than it consumes in production) on the large scale, but creation of the crops to feed the production plant becomes inefficient on a scale necessary to sustain the plant at that scale.
And this comes from a couple of things: after a certain point, crops must be trucked in from further and further away to supply the refinery, which costs more and more in transport (trucks and fuel, as opposed to an oil pipeline) and the fuel crops start displacing more and more food crops.
It hasn’t been left out at all. It is factored into all the references I have provided simply as part of current usage.
Yes, and if I have wheels I would be a shopping cart. The thing is there is little reason to believe I have wheels.
I’m not sure, I didn’t make that point. I simply responded to your question. I haven’t however heard anyone make the argument that you espoused earlier.
I never meant to imply that it was. Sorry if I gave that impression.
But you weren’t arguing that.
You were arguing what would happen if oil peaks in the next decade. There is little reason to believe this.
“This range implies remaining conventional crude oil resources of between 1.4 and 2.1 trillion barrels……
however, dramatic progress has been made in both exploration and recovery technologies in just the first half of this decade. If similar technology advances were projected into the longer term oil assessment, the ultimately recoverable resource base could potentially double the current mean estimates by the USGS, and the potential could be even greater if the real price of world oil increased.”
DOE World Energy Outlook 1997
The shopping cart comment was not meant to be a scientific argument. It was dramatic irony intended to highlight the lack of validity in constructing arguments based on contingencies for which there is little evidence.
As for arguments against oil shale, tar sands and other non-conventional sources:
While I agree with you on the problems with food production, I think have a better future here. Genetically altered plants could both increase output from a given landmass and be more resitance to “evil enemies”. Hopefully our new plants want take over the world though.
I also think we have to realize that our modern world is actually a direct result of cheap energy like coal and oil. The industrial revolution would never have played itself out the way it did without access to such cheap energy.
I guess you would. But you’ll have to beg for it baby
Seriously, the reason why I haven’t answered you about specifics Blake is because the topic of the OP is “Will oil peak, and if so, what are the consequences”, not “How much oil is it in the world”. Your opinion is that oil likely will not peak, but if it does, there will be no significant consequence. That’s fine.
But I will take the time to answer you briefly.
Basically you claim that:
There are too much conventional (crude) oil yet to be discovered so that oil wil not peak
In case crude oil does peak, there are many altenative energy solutions ready to substitue conventional oil, including various alternative types of oil.
Your arguments are somewhat flawed because you fail to recognize that peaking is the moment where the amount of oil currently being extracted/produced (max production capacity) is lower than world demand, - where demand is the world’s will to buy oil inside the current OPEC price window of $22-$28 per barrel.
It’s crucial to understand the current OPEC price window. First, we know that the need for oil increases due to more automobiles, more industrial facilities, and population growth. Therefore, in time, the price of oil will rise - but only if the supply side (the amount of oil available) remains unchanged.
Today however, the prie of oil does not rise because OPEC will simply increase their oil production to match increased demand, thereby keeping the average price of oil inside the price window.
Question number One: What gives OPEC the right to decide oil prices?
Oil production in the US and in the North Sea is declining. In Africa, South-America and Asia the amount of oil produced is so limited that it has little impact on the world’s oil market. Even though additional oil is still found in these areas, and the producers might be able to squeeze out more from existing wells, added together these producers cannot or can hardly increase their oil production. They are more or less pumping on max capacity.
OPEC members on the other hand (an to some extent Russia), do have spare capacity and a huge slice of the market, ie. OPEC is the only one who can significantly increase their production to trail increasing demand for oil.
And here is the BIG question: What happens when OPEC members are no longer able to increase their production to keep up with world demand, inside the $22-$28 window?
Answer: Oil peaks, and prices rise.
Currently daily oil production/usage is about 80 million barrels. OPEC’s self-regulated daily production is 25 million barrels. We know from the recent Iraq war that OPEC can increase production by 3,5 million barrels on short notice, to 28.5 million barrels per day. But how high can they go? IEA says: “A plateau in oil production for OPEC Middle East of 47.9 mbd has been assumed, rather than a sharp peak, following an IEA study.”
Estimates of world demand for the next two decades vary, since estimated annual increase of world oil usage varies between 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent per year. The International Energy Agency (IEA) is one of the most respected players in this field, and they project the following usage:
2000: 78.3
2010: 94.5 (+ 16 from year 2000)
2020: 110.1 (+ 32 from year 2000)
Further, IEA estimates that OPEC has to increase their production by 21 million barrels per day by 2010 to be able to keep up with world demand. If OPEC can manage to do that they will reach 45-50 million barrels per day by 2010, which also is their all-time maximum capacity according to the IEA study (see above). But:
“Yet, according to petroleum geologist Joseph Riva (retired from the Congressional Research Service), [based on] planned expansion of production … they will fall some 10 million barrels per day short … than needed to meet the 2010 world oil demand”
If this is true, oil will peak and prices will rise even in good time before 2010. From the past, we know that the price of oil can change dramatically even though production figures changes little. In 1999, OPEC cut their production by a modest 4 percent (=1%-1.5% of world total), and prices rose from $12-$13 (give and take) to almost $35 per barrel. This is because oil is something the world needs, not something the world buys whenever they feel they can afford it.
WRI says about this:
“The demonstrated sensitivity of oil product prices to a relatively small reduction in supply should serve as a sober example of what could well happen in the relatively near future when global crude production begins its inevitable decline.”
When prices rise, oil fields once considered not to be economically viable, as well as other energy resources, suddenly becomes much more attractive - just as you said Blake. We are in total agreement there. But at this point oil prices have already increased, and the question in the OP was: What happens to a our society, and especially the transportation sector, who today are so dependant upon cheap oil, if the price of oil rose to, say, $50 or $75 a barrel?
A final note: I’m not predicting “bad thing will happen to us”, or want oil to end. I just look at the figures and I ask the questions.
Now answering some of your questions Blake:
You claimed that:
There are so much conventional (crude) oil yet to be discovered that oil wil not peak
In case crude oil does peak, there are many altenative energy resources that will be ready to substitue oil, including various alternative types of oil.
My response:
about available oil
a) You said “Needless to say the WRI scenario [predicting a 2007 or 2019 peak is based entirely on ‘EUR oil reserves’] is a gross underestimate, since it ignores all the oil outside known accumulation, and all the oil that it isn’t economical to extract in 1999”
But EUR is: “[the] total amount of oil that will eventually be pumped from the earth”. These figures include: Oil extracted + reserves known to mankind + an estimated amount of oil yet to be found. We may disagree on wheter the analysts has taken into account all the oil still to be found, or the impact of new technology, - but the bottom line is that:
EUR figures has not changed much since 1979 (in 1979 the number was 2,100 billion barrels, in 1995 the number was 1,900 billion barrels)
a total of 16 estimates from this period is listed in my cite
another 40 estimates of EUR from the period between 1975 and 1993 came to the same conclusion about size of EUR
one of you own cites: the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), says that EUR is 2300 billion barrels
John F. Bookout, retired president and CEO of Shell Oil Company accepts the USGS estimate (above) of EUR oil as consistent with those of Shell
OPEC itself estimates ultimately recoverable oil at 2138 billion barrels
We see a near consensus among all the major oil players that EUR ranges from 1800 to 2200 billion barrels, with a few below and a few above this range. Based on this figures, given a 2% increase in demand, oil will peak between 2007 and 2013.
Also note, from IEA: “Experience in mature oil regions indicates that production builds to a peak when approximately half of the ultimately recoverable reserves [EUR] has been produced, and then falls away. The application of new technologies, such as horizontal drilling and 3D seismic analysis, determines the ultimate size of recoverable reserves. It can extend the peak and delay or slow the decline in production. But eventually production falls, given a fixed oil resource. This has been the experience, for example, in the United States.”
b) One of your cites, World Energy Council, which you claimed contradicted my cite of EUR, says: “… proved recoverable reserves … At the current rate of production, the industry could continue to produce oil for 40 more years, gas for over 55 years”
Note, that’s only 40 years of oil production from all the reserves, than boom, nothing. Surely, oil production will *peak[i/] long before this.
c) from the same cite you quote the discovery of new Giantfields. But the same report goes on, and says:
"such major discoveries tend to obscure the fact that, elsewhere in the world, the oil industry has obtained more contrasting results. Since the early 1990’s, discovered volumes have generally been inferior to produced volumes. Between 1990 and 1994, 62% of the oil produced was replaced by new discoveries, but the renewal rate then fell to 52% for 1995-1999.
2. about alternative energy source
Since you have been mostly concerned with oil shales in the US, I will limit my comments to renewables in general and oil shales. Once again I’m quoting from your own cites, World Energy Council (and *my quote is from 2001, not 1997).
a) in general:
“Renewable energies have considerable potential and could theoretically provide a nearly unlimited supply of relatively clean and mostly local energy. … In relative terms, the share of modern renewables, including large hydro, in the total primary energy supply has remained around 4%.”
Most energy scenarios suggest that this share will hardly increase in the short to medium term. …taking into account the long-term nature of energy projects, the value of existing infrastructure, the costs and the current immaturity of renewable energy technologies, it is obvious that renewables cannot replace fossil fuels or nuclear power in the next few decades, although they can help extend the duration of finite fossil fuels reserves.
b) oil shales:
"If a technology can be developed to economically recover oil from oil shale, the potential is tantalisingly enormous. If the containing organic material could be converted to oil, the quantities would be far beyond all known conventional oil reserves. Oil shale in great quantities exists worldwide: including in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Estonia, France, Russia, Scotland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and the USA. "
"The total energy and water requirements together with environmental and monetary costs (to produce shale oil in significant quantities) have so far made production uneconomic. During and following the oil crisis of the 1970’s, major oil companies, working on some of the richest oil shale deposits in the world in western United States, spent several billion dollars in various unsuccessful attempts to commercially extract shale oil. "
"Perhaps oil shale will eventually find a place in the world economy, but the energy demands of blasting, transport, crushing, heating and adding hydrogen, together with the safe disposal of huge quantities of waste material, are large. On a small scale, and with good geological and other favourable conditions, such as water supply, oil shale may make a modest contribution but so far shale oil remains the “elusive energy”
Alien I look forward to seeing you address some of the more specific points I raised. Particularly the validity of the WRI projection being based on oil economically recoverable in 199 and then using those figures to extrapolate world supplies for the next 20 years.
I also look forward to seeing why several of the assertions you made seem to be in direct contradiction to the world’s authorities and published results.
Agreed and with the end of cheap energy comes the end of the industiral revolution, a drastic reduction in population, the end of the energy and communications grids. In short, the end of civilization as we have come to know it.
As I have said (probably with too many words) a few times now Blake, the WRI figures are NOT based on oil economically recoverable in 1999, then extrapolated for 20 years.
WRI figures cites, among other things, 16 + 40 reports published over a period of 20 years by major oil players, including some of your own cites, like Shell, USGF, OPEC and others, and they have all are come to more or less the same conclusions. Certainly you don’t claim that a report published in 1975 was based on oil economically recoverable from 1999?
WRI projection data takes those widely accepted figures of EUR, which is the total amount of oil that will be extracted from earth (including yet to find resources), and, given a widely accepted figure of an annual increase in oil demand by 2%, estimates that oil could peak as early as 2007, or as late as 2019.
Not according to the references you yourself provided.
It is, and I quote, “when global crude production begins its inevitable decline, not as a result of an OPEC decision, but of an inability of producers to continue expanding production of what is, ultimately, a finite resource.”
It is not the point were production falls behind demand, it is where production begins a decline.
If you are using another definition of ‘peak’ then perhaps you could post it for us so we can settle on one of them.It is a bit pointless debating when supplies will peak when we have at least two definitions of peak in use.
But there is no reason to suppose this will happen in any society like todays.
As the EPA energy report says, an increase to only $30/barrel will make alternative energy sources such as shale and tar sands profitable. Oil prices currently hover around the $20 mark. So this is not a huge leap.
And as various reports have pointed out, the oil contained in these resources is huge. They will last until society is as different to today’s society as todays is from the society of 1903.
As I have said several times, trying to predict the effect of oil supplies in 150 years is as silly as someone in 1850 trying to predict the effect of oats and hay supplies in 2003.
But you haven’t addressed the issue at all here. You have just restated what is on the webpage and what both you and I have already posted here.
You clearly don’t understand my point so I will attempt to simplify with examples.
OK the WRI page starts by speaking of “"[the] total amount of oil that will eventually be pumped from the earth” ie EUR. Let’s pretend this is 6 trillio0n barrels.
But the scenario itself is only based on “‘EUR oil reserves’’. ie, only that oil that it is anticipated to be commercially extracted from 1999. Let’s call this 1 trillion barrels.
The WIR report then divides this amount of 1 trillion barrels by current usage. It totally ignores the other 5 trillion barrels of EUR that will be extracted after 1999, even though they cost no more to produce and require no technology.
How is this valid?
I will repeat “Reserves grow as technology changes and new resources are discovered through ongoing exploration. It is therefore a fallacy to predict oil shortages by dividing reserves by current consumption rates” (http://geology.ou.edu/library/aapg_oil.pdf). And yet this is exactly what the WRI has done.
That is not a valid contention. Again, your positionis based on a filure to distinguish between reserves and resources. The report says nothing even remotely like “only 40 years of oil production from all the reserves, than boom”. It says that with the current reserves, in fact the current proved reserves we can continue for another 40 years.
I can’t stress those terms enough. Current proved reserves are those resources anticipated to be extracted form this date on, and that have actually been sample drilled etc to provide the production rates and so on necessary for engineering certainty. This is a fraction of even reserves and a tiny fraction of recoverable resources.
When these go it will not be ’ boom, nothing’’. As these begin to deplete over the next 20 yeas even more proven recoverable reserves will come on line. Production will not even slow. This I not “boom, nothing”.
When the reserves are all gone it will not be “boom, nothing”. As the reserves are depleted more reserves will come online. As the USGS shows, reserves are increasing far faster than production.
I don’t know where you got the idea that when proven recoverable reserves are gone production will dramatically cease. Nothing could be further form the truth.
I can only suggest that you study the definitions of ‘reserve’, ‘resource’ and ‘proven reserve’.
You have still failed to addres several important topics.
You claim that “the environmental impacts of developing shale oil, especially related to the available water supply…, and the disposal of wastes, do not seem manageable, at least a the present time”.
And yet the Stuart oil shale project manages them. How do you reconcile tis contradiction?
You claim that “With the strip mining and refining process now in use, it takes the energy equivalent of two barrels of oil to produce one barrel” from tar sands.
And yet we have a quote here (“Oil from Canadian tar sands has an EPR of 1.5, Youngquist (1999)) and the Doe world energy outlook (“Production from Canadian tar sands actually began as early as 1978. … Technology has reduced the operating cost of the operation from $28 a barrel to $11 a barrel. …oil production from tar sands is profitable and accounts for about 260, 000 barrels per day.)” which seems to totally contradict your assertion.
The WRI page you referenced says that it is. I quote: “Taken together, the great majority of these studies reflect a consensus among oil experts that EUR oil reserves lie within the range of **1,800 to 2,200 billion barrels **…
At the low end, for EUR oil equal to 1,800 billion barrels, peaking could occur as early as 2007;
at the high end (2,200 billion barrels), peaking could occur around 2013.
The WRI page explicitely states that the figures it is using are based on EUR oil reserves.
The definition of reserve for technical reports, as laid down by the World Petroleum Council and the Society of Petrochemical Engineers is “those quantities of petroleum which are anticipated to be commercially recovered from known accumulations from a given date forward”.
How can you now claim that the WRI figures are not based are not based on EUR oil reserves?
How can you now claim that the WRI figures are not based are not based on EUR oil which are anticipated to be commercially recovered from known accumulations from a given date forward?
You will need to back this assertion up with something given that it contradicts the source itself.
No I don’t, because in 1975 report is simply one of the “scores of studies of Estimated Ultimately Recoverable (EUR) global oil” performed “over the past fifty years”. Note that it is a reference to Estimated Ultimately Recoverable (EUR) oil. It is not a reference to a study on reserves.
Since it is not a report on reserves why would it refer to ‘oil economically recoverable from 1999’?
Now note that the WRI scenario is based upon that EUR oil reserves.
I can not emphasise enough that the terms ‘resource’ and ‘reserve’ have very specific and different meanings when referring to oil.
Your misunderstandings seem to stem largely from confusing these two terms.
No it doesn’t.
WRI projection data takes those widely accepted figures of EUR oil reserves which is the total amount of the oil that will be extracted from earth which is anticipated to be commercially recovered from known accumulations from a given date forward.
It then works form there.
It says quite specifically it is working with EUR oil reserves, not with EUR oil total.
I don’t know why you do not believe your own reference. I can only assume that you do not understand the difference between EUR oil and EUR oil reserves.
It is an important distinction. Reserves grow as technology changes and new resources are discovered through ongoing exploration. It is therefore a fallacy to predict oil shortages by dividing reserves by current consumption rates.
It’s the same thing. There is no need for producers to continue to produce a product if there is no demand for that product, is there? The reason why I threw in OPEC’s price window was because todays oil prices are artificially kept at a certain level - high enough to warrant further investments, but low enough not to rock world markets. We don’t know what the price would be if everyone was producing and selling at max capacity, do we?
If oil peaks, oil prices will rise, and history tells us they will rise significantly, they have proven to double with 1%-2% less supply (ref 1999-2000 events, and 1979 events)
I’m sure that there are some tar sand that could be economically extracted at $30, but as you know, most tar sand is loctaed so deep they can’t even get to it. At least not for $30, not by a longshot.
Anyway, if you want to replace 80 million of barrels of oil per day, when today’s production of oil shales is 260.000, you do need major investments and major infrastructure. It will take decades before oil shales could possible replace crude oil. In the meantime oil will peak and prices will rise.
We are not taling about 150 years, we are talking about in 4 to 15 years, according to multiple major companies and organizations in the oil business.
No it’s not the year 1999, read previous post one more time. EUR is all the oil mankind will extract from earth during the time we will walk on earth, it’s not 1999. An estimate of yet to find oil fields and new technology are included in these estimates. We may disagree on this, but it’s you against Shell, OPEC, USGS and a lot of other big players.
No. reserves are not increasing faster than production - they are declinig, read your own cites more thoroughly: “Since the early 1990’s, discovered volumes have generally been inferior to produced volumes. Between 1990 and 1994, 62% of the oil produced was replaced by new discoveries, but the renewal rate then fell to 52% for 1995-1999.” - WEC
Basically Blake, the problem is that you have read somewhere that there is certain amount of resources on planet earth, and then believes that the same methods, the same amount of investments, etc, could be used to extract those resources. You ignore that resources are located at different location - sand, water, mountain - different clima - rain, sun wind - at different depths/heights, in different countries, with differing product qualities, requires different types of refining equipment, etc, etc.
The experts who have written the multiple reports take into account such things. You don’t.
If you cannot read then I’m not going to teach you. But again:
“For many years geologists and oil companies have published estimates of the total amount of crude oil that will ultimately be recovered from the earth over all time. Remarkably, these assessments of Estimated Ultimately Recoverable (EUR) oil have varied little over the past half century.” - (same cite)
EUR = Estimated Ultimately Recoverable = the total amount of oil that will eventually be pumped from the earth
Note the words “total amount of oil that will eventually be pumped from earth”. Nothing else.
If you want to bang your head over a report where the word “reserves” has been used in a sentence to imply that they are going to use these data to estimate a given year oil would peak, then you are free to do so.
EUR = Estimated Ultimately Recoverable = the total amount of oil that will eventually be pumped from the earth
Reserve = those quantities of petroleum which are anticipated to be commercially recovered from known accumulations from a given date forward”.
EUR reserve = those quantities of the total amount of oil that will eventually be pumped from the earth which are anticipated to be commercially recovered from known accumulations from a given date forward.
I want facts. Not assertion, not opinions, but facts.
Arguments based on those facts are fine. Simply making assertions which you later refuse to either support or retract is silly and I will call bullshit whenever I see same.
Alien asserted “peaking is the moment where the amount of oil currently being extracted/produced is lower than world demand”
I pointed out that this was in direct contradiction to the WRI page Alien posted. This page states that a peak is “when global crude production begins its inevitable decline, not as a result of an OPEC decision, but of an inability of producers to continue expanding production of what is, ultimately, a finite resource.
Alien’s response? “It’s the same thing. There is no need for producers to continue to produce a product if there is no demand for that product, is there?”
I calls bullshit. This is not supported by anything at all. Whether producers continue to produce or not is irrelevant. If global crude production begins a decline for any reason other than an inability of producers to continue expanding production, it is not a peak.
Aside from that Alien’s response makes no sense. If there is no demand for a product there is no need for producers to continue to produce. But Alien has said that a peak is when the amount of oil currently being extracted/produced is lower than world demand. This clearly states that in order for their to be a peak there must be a demand. What the hell do production levels “if there is no demand for that product” have to do with a situation where world demand is so great it is higher than “the amount of oil… being extracted”?
This is real bizarre logic.
I calls bullshit. This is not supported by anything at all.
DOE World Energy Outlook 1997
Assuming current technology around 550 billion barrels of nonconventional oil can be produced at a cost of $30 per barrel or less.
I calls bullshit. This is not supported by anything at all and is directly contradicted by the world energy outlook. (http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/w...EO2002_1sum.pdf). Far from “global crude production beginning an inevitable decline…as a result of … an inability of producers to continue expanding production” within “4 to 15 years” as Alien has just asserted, t he WEO states: “Global crude oil refining capacity is projected to increase by an average 1.3 percent a year, reaching 121 mb/d in 2030.”
That doesn’t sound like a decline to me.
As for these “multiple major companies and organizations” predicting a decline within 4-25 years, can we see them?
The only reference we have seen from you suggests a 4-15 year figure based solely on reserves. And need I repeat “Reserves grow as technology changes and new resources are discovered through ongoing exploration. It is therefore a fallacy to predict oil shortages by dividing reserves by current consumption rates” (http://geology.ou.edu/library/aapg_oil.pdf). And yet this is exactly what the WRI has done.
I calls bullshit. This is not supported by anything at all and is directly contradicted by the USGS, the Arizona geological survey,
(http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy...t5.html#Figure1)
Speaking of “the quantities of conventional oil, gas, and natural gas liquids outside the United States that have the potential to be added to reserves in the next 30 years” the USGS says “the estimated mean additions to reserves from discovered fields (potential reserve growth) are 612 BBO”
http://www.azgs.az.gov/Winter2001.htm
Although annual global production was 24.5 billion barrels in 2000, and a similar amount for each of several previous years, estimated global reserves have increased rather than decreased.
I agree. That is why:
The experts at WEO report 30 years with ample oil.
The experts at University Oklahoma report no end in site for possibly millennia.,
The experts at USGS report volumes of undiscovered resources are 649 billion barrels of oil (BBO), 4,669 trillion cubic feet of gas (TCFG), and 207 billion barrels of natural gas liquids (BBNGL). The estimated mean additions to reserves from discovered fields (potential reserve growth) are 612 BBO.
