I trust enough of you have been following the energy sector for the last several years. Well, is this it? Is ~85 million barrels per day the worldwide peak production for all liquids? As you should know, we’ve been on this bumpy plateau since late 2004. Demand grows 2%-3% a year, prices have gone from $12 per barrel in 1999 to nearly $100 today and yet supply has been flat. The Cantarell field is in terminal decline and Mexico will be a net oil importer in several years. SA production is not looking good – they continue to add more and more rigs just to stay where they are. It looks doubtful they can ever go above ~ 9 mbpd.
Obviously, the peak is quite close. Even optimists say it’ll be around 2020. But is it actually in the 85-89 range instead? A lot of surprising sources (e.g. oil company CEOs) have been pessimistic about ever reaching 100mbpd. Is 90 too optimistic too? I think it might be. Even if it’s physically, hypothetically possible to pump 90 mbpd I don’t think it will happen due to above ground factors. There will always be fierce storms which force rigs to be abandoned for weeks or months somewhere. There will always be civil unrest somewhere, pipelines will continuously be attacked in Iraq or Nigeria or whatever other hell hole you care to name. There will always be infrastructure problems somewhere, whether we’re talking about Russia or some poor country which only pumps 100,000 barrels a day.
What say you? Is 90 mbpd gonna happen ? Yes or no?
If I had to place a bet on one side or the other, I’d put my money on 90 million bpd not happening.
A lot more voices lately seem to be saying that we’re within a year or two of peak oil, if we’re not already there. Certainly everyone has been disappointed who thought the Saudis were going to up their production levels substantially. Whether that means they can or not is still not proven, but it certainly casts a great deal of doubt on it. And while Canada may have huge reserves in its tar sands, its ramping up of production isn’t going to be faster than the drop in production in other major oilfields. Iraq’s going to continue to be too unstable to support a major increase in production in the next few years. There may be oil in the Caspian region, but those fields too will need time to ramp up to full production, and it’s not going to be the next Ghawar anyway.
You know,of course,there are people who dispute your statement,“Obviously, the peak is quite close”. Not that I wish to debate that,even in the proper forum.From what I read,I’d agree.
Since consumption appears ever increasing,it would seem that simple greed would promote the level of extraction with technology acting as ameliorant to the above ground factors you cite.
So my response is Yes,if it's possible it will happen.
Should the Middle East become peaceful, we should see production increase dramatically.
Elsewhere, it’s all down to cost. Not only of the oil itself, but the equipment to extract the oil. I imagine the cost of an exploratory oil rig in Antarctica will be tremendous. The Falklands have been mooted as another source: if you though the North Sea was bad, try the winter weather there!
For what it’s worth, the company I work for (which is in the business of doing these kinds of things) projects 90+ with near certainty in 2015 with a 50% chance of clearing 100. This includes all liquids, not just crude oil.
This figure seems reasonable to me, although, in general, I’m not a huge proponent of forecasting. (It’s probably the best you can hope to do, but isn’t necessarily going to be right.) My company has no “side” to take in the debate.
Hubbard’s Peak is a fact we will learn to abhor. You only resort to exotic extraction methods when all your easy pickings are gone. $100 a barrel will be the good old days when these methods become common. We may surpass 90 mil but it only means we’re empting the finite container that much faster not that there is “more” oil to be had. The tar sands of the world will not solve our need for high quality cheap crude. The oil in this sand is a very water and energy intensive endeavor to recover. The raw bitumen needs extra hydrogen to become a useful fuel. Cheap natural gas no longer exists in North America this will limit the impact of tar sands until another method is found to extract useful fuel.
Even if an alternative energy source could be found, there is still the matter of the hydrogen needed to upgrade the produced bitumen into a useful hydrocarbon. That hydrogen is currently derived from natural gas. According to Princeton geology professor emeritus and peak oil author Ken Deffeyes, there is just one alternative source of hydrogen: water. But as we already know, there’s no excess water in the process. http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/oil+sands-tar+sands-peak+oil/508
The problem with the Tar Sands is that it currently takes more energy to make Tar Sands oil then the oil actually produces. The currently “profitable” prices for synthetic crude were entirely dependent on cheap natural gas - cheap natural gas that no longer exists in North America. It is seriously questionable whether we will ever get more oil out of the tar sands then we do now. Tar Sands optimists need to show either a) where the new natural gas is coming from, or b) what new processes will be used to make the synthetic crude. Even with these challenges, oil optimists predict that Alberta will make roughly 3 million barrels of synthetic crude by 2020. Hardly enough to stave off a disaster. Dymaxion World: Do Prices Help or Hurt? (Yet more peak oil)