# Why is the "Peak Oil" bell-curve so widely misunderstood? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 8, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735 "2013-08-08T19:00:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/81 "2013-08-10T20:26:30Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Calm down. It’s hard enough to predict the stock market next month or the price of corn next year. Predicting 20-30 years into the future is unlikely to be highly accurate, no matter how good your basic data is. Right. And since you’re an expert on the subject, unlike the IEA’s experts, you can say this with some authority. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I love the fact you compare something like corn to oil though. That’s just classic. ---
**Author:** ![eg8576736](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@eg8576736](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eg8576736)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/82 "2013-08-10T20:27:27Z")
> [@bump](#): > > Shale oil == regular old liquid oil tied up in shale strata, making it hard to get at. Considered “unconventional” when compared to normal oil drilling formations. The Bakken Formation, Eagle Ford and Barnett Shale are all this sort of formation (although the last 2 are more natural gas fields than oil fields). > > Oil shale == shale that contains kerogen, which is a solid hydrocarbon compound. It has to be basically cooked in place to liberate the kerogen from the surrounding rock, at which point it is refined and is similar to crude oil. Not currently a huge player in the world energy industry due to the difficulty of extraction. > > The US has HUGE oil shale reserves- something like the equivalent of 4.3 trillion barrels of crude oil, mostly in the Green River formation in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah. The rest of the world has something like 0.7 trillion barrels worth, so if we can figure out a way to extract this economically, or normal oil gets really expensive, the US is sitting pretty. Here’s a simplified water analogy to address your brand of false optimism: A small farm operation uses 10,000 gallons of water per day on average, and that water has historically come from a free flowing well, going back generations in the farm family. The well only required drilling a foot or so deeper every few years to maintain the flow. They figured they could simply keep drilling for “endless” water. One month, the farmer notices that his well output has dropped to 8,000 gal./day, then 6,000 gal./day a few months later, a sharp decline from what he’s known. In short order, his operation is barely breaking even and he says “the farm will go bankrupt if I can’t restore that 10,000 gallon flow-rate!” Then, a salesman arrives and tells him about a “vast underground aquifer” a few miles from the farm, which contains potentially “ **1 billion gallons** ” of water (if allowed to replenish at historical levels). Forgetting to ask about the actual daily flow-rate, the farmer sees it as good news and stops worrying about his supply. He figures “Heck, 1 billion gallons would last me 274 years! My family ain’t gonna be around that long!” Caveat: The salesman fails to tell the farmer that the “vast” aquifer can only provide him with a 1,000 gal./day **flow-rate** , and many other farmers would be tapping into it, having also depleted their near-surface wells. The aquifer pumps simply wouldn’t run fast enough at an affordable cost and adequate volume due to the aquifer’s geology and rainfall replenishment rates. In other words, hypothetical reserves do not indicate usable flow-rates. You have to understand _production & consumption_ math for any unconventional source. The above roughly parallels the situation with kerogen shale vs. conventional crude oil, and the false hype that people are banking on. Is this not clear? Also, a very real scenario exists for shrinking water supplies in the U.S. You may have heard of the “vast” Ogallala aquifer, which is fast becoming non-vast. Plenty of other aquifers and surface water supplies are being strained, just like oil. Water at least holds the possibility of being conserved and replenished, but oil has no means of replenishment (abiotic oil is unproved). ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/83 "2013-08-10T21:37:05Z")
> [@eg8576736](#): > > You ignored the content of my post. No, I didn’t. I just think your post is full of shit. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/84 "2013-08-10T21:42:28Z")
> [@bump](#): > > No, I didn’t. > > I just think your post is full of shit. [LOL](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0PIdWdw15U) ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/85 "2013-08-10T21:43:59Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > Right. And since you’re an expert on the subject, unlike the IEA’s experts, you can say this with some authority. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I love the fact you compare something like corn to oil though. That’s just classic. The price of corn, like the price of oil, is subject to many factors and conditions. For oil, there may be major discoveries ahead as there have been in the past that were not anticipated. For corn, nobody has yet been able to predict the weather for next year’s crop. Vance Packard failed miserably in predicting only 20-30 years in the future, and he drew upon the best experts he could find. I _am_ an expert on how people can be fooled and how unfettered extrapolation leads to errors. Observations over many decades have shown that the “experts” are more often wrong than right for such extreme predictions and caution is always advised. I would like to call your attention to this quote from Mark Twain’s _Life on the Mississippi_: > [@](#): > > In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period, just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. > > And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. > > There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/86 "2013-08-10T21:51:07Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > The price of corn, like the price of oil, is subject to many factors and conditions. For oil, there may be major discoveries ahead as there have been in the past that were not anticipated. For corn, nobody has yet been able to predict the weather for next year’s crop. > > Vance Packard failed miserably in predicting only 20-30 years in the future, and he drew upon the best experts he could find. > > I _am_ an expert on how people can be fooled and how unfettered extrapolation leads to errors. Observations over many decades have shown that the “experts” are more often wrong than right for such extreme predictions and caution is always advised. > > I would like to call your attention to this quote from Mark Twain’s _Life on the Mississippi_: Comparing corn to oil is simply idiotic. Geology is nothing like the weather and does not involve “prediction” as you put it, at least not in any way remotely the same sense. I’m all for extending analogies but at some point it becomes absurd and you’ve reached that point. If that isn’t obvious, I don’t know what else I can say. But rather than just blather on, if you can cite specific reasons as to WHY the IEA may be in error and would like to try to QUANTIFY what that error might be, I’m sure everyone would like to hear that. {crickets} ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2013, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/87 "2013-08-10T21:53:32Z")
> [@](#): > > For oil, there may be major discoveries ahead as there have been in the past that were not anticipated Also, for my butt, monkeys may fly out of it. Pinning any hope at all on finding new oil is not realistic. If such a windfall occurs, that’s nifty. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/88 "2013-08-11T05:29:55Z")
> [@eg8576736](#): > > The current approach to fixing the economy is to pretend that energy will keep growing as it had before, just with “green” sources that may never match fossil fuel scales. That approach is likely to get us into a deeper mess vs. trying to scale back overpopulation and economic growthism. > > Of course, “optimists” will never admit that this ~200 year industrial experiment could ever collapse under its own weight. That psychology weighs heavily on this topic. But if things get more serious, it is not going to be just all of a sudden like a spigot turning off. There will definitely be enough time to use the fossil fuels left to massively ramp up solar and other types of green energy which all flow ultimately from solar. And we have lots and lots of solar power coming from the sun. We are not going to just collapse into some sort of crumbling ruins, Dark Ages scenario. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/89 "2013-08-11T11:58:52Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > Comparing corn to oil is simply idiotic. Geology is nothing like the weather and does not involve “prediction” as you put it, at least not in any way remotely the same sense. I’m all for extending analogies but at some point it becomes absurd and you’ve reached that point. If that isn’t obvious, I don’t know what else I can say. _Any_ postulation about the future is a prediction, whether it’s the corn crop or the oil production. > [@](#): > > But rather than just blather on, if you can cite specific reasons as to WHY the IEA may be in error and would like to try to QUANTIFY what that error might be, I’m sure everyone would like to hear that. You may be missing the point. I am not an oil or even energy expert, and am not qualified to dissect the IEA report. But no matter how accurate you may think it is, we have to consider that most long-term predictions and extrapolations _of any kind_ in the past have been wrong, sometimes _very_ wrong. Why should this one be any better? Are you pinning your hopes on this one bucking the trend for the first time? All scientific predictions have error bars, showing the range of accuracy expected. The farther ahead in time, the greater the range. Far enough ahead, the range incompasses just about all possibilities, from no oil to continuous gushers. About the only thing you can count on for long-term predictions is they will be wrong, not right. I live next to Lake Michigan, and the levels of the Great Lakes fluctuate, not only seasonally, but over longer periods of time, with a 100 year range of about 6 feet. The NOAA [publishes charts](http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Portals/69/docs/GreatLakesInfo/docs/WaterLevels/MBOGLWL-combined_bulletin_and_backpage.pdf) showing the expected levels up to 6 months in advance. If you look at that chart, you will see that the error bar range at 6 months in the future is so great that the prediction stops there. And this is of a highly studied phenomena with many inputs (current levels, evaporation measuring, meteorological data of many types). It’s above ground, where we can study it, measure it and quantify it. In contrast, we simply don’t know what’s underground, never will know, and can only estimate. It is folly to say that using uncertain data to compute with will lead us to certainty in the conclusion. The quality of the conclusion is dependent on the quality of the source, or GIGO. > [@aNewLeaf](#): > > > [@Musicat](#): > > > > For oil, there may be major discoveries ahead as there have been in the past that were not anticipated… > > Also, for my butt, monkeys may fly out of it. Do you really want to deny that discoveries have been made in the past and will be made in the future that change the equation? Is there some reason why today’s estimate of recoverable oil is solid and will never be revised? Have energy companies stopped looking for new sources because they know there are none? And you might want to check your butt occasionally. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/90 "2013-08-11T12:02:27Z")
> [@](#): > > Do you really want to deny that discoveries have been made in the past and will be made in the future that change the equation? Will discoveries be made? Yes. Does that change the fact that there’s a limited amount of oil, and we will run out one day? No. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/91 "2013-08-11T12:14:59Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > Will discoveries be made? > Yes. > > Does that change the fact that there’s a limited amount of oil, and we will run out one day? > No. But if new discoveries are made, it will change the equation and the estimates. That’s all I’m saying. ---
**Author:** ![Rune](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e68b1a/32.png) [@Rune](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rune)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/92 "2013-08-11T12:42:18Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > Will discoveries be made? > Yes. > > Does that change the fact that there’s a limited amount of oil, and we will run out one day? > No. Which is an empty statement. Everything is limited. The Sun is going to burn out and the particles of the Universe will disappear. You need to give some timeframe for it to be relevant. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/93 "2013-08-11T13:34:10Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > In contrast, we simply don’t know what’s underground, never will know, and can only estimate. It is folly to say that using uncertain data to compute with will lead us to certainty in the conclusion. The quality of the conclusion is dependent on the quality of the source, or GIGO. I think _you’re_ the one not following the argument. Everyone understands that the IEA is giving estimates. The point is the direction. US production up - up to the point where we produce more than the Saudis. Global production up - up to the point where the global market price falls. So unless you can say something that is actually meaningful and informative that undercuts those points, you’re just talking to hear yourself talk. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/94 "2013-08-11T13:39:33Z")
> [@Rune](#): > > Which is an empty statement. Everything is limited. The Sun is going to burn out and the particles of the Universe will disappear. You need to give some timeframe for it to be relevant. You and I will see the end of oil as a personal power source, is my prediction. Our grandchildren will think of petroleum the way we think of whale oil. imho. edit- > [@](#): > > But if new discoveries are made, it will change the equation and the estimates. That’s all I’m saying. Oh sure. ---
**Author:** ![eg8576736](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@eg8576736](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eg8576736)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/95 "2013-08-11T18:39:09Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Something’s wrong with that chart. The biggest world producers are absent – Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Libya and former USSR states. At first glance, you have a point, but that graph only shows countries that are officially _past peak_, which is said to not be true of the OPEC nations you list. But many people think they’re fudging their numbers since they keep claiming their reserves haven’t declined, which is physically impossible. The late Matthew Simmons tried his best to expose their obfuscation. The most telling thing to me about that graph is the minuscule status of the U.S. near the bottom. Peak Oil deniers pretend that we’re somehow back on top via a boomlet in the Bakken shale (barely into the lower right gray zone of the graph at 800 kbpd) or ANWR (not much better, if ever developed), or ridiculous claims about kerogen shale’s potential, which would require obscene amounts of energy and water. ---
**Author:** ![eg8576736](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@eg8576736](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eg8576736)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/96 "2013-08-11T18:48:40Z")
> [@deltasigma](#): > > I think _you’re_ the one not following the argument. Everyone understands that the IEA is giving estimates. The point is the direction. US production up - up to the point where we produce more than the Saudis. Global production up - up to the point where the global market price falls. So unless you can say something that is actually meaningful and informative that undercuts those points, you’re just talking to hear yourself talk. You don’t have your facts straight. U.S. production is “up,” due to marginal tight oil sources like Bakken, but not in any meaningful context. We have not surpassed Saudi production. See [this site](http://www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=sa&product=oil&graph=production) for quick comparisons. Saudi Arabia’s output today is roughly 9,832 mbpd, about where the U.S. was back in 1970, and the U.S. is now at about 6,467 mbpd, just over half of where it was at the 1970 peak. And it is illogical to assume that U.S. production will keep growing, since these are marginal sources prone to peaking unexpectedly. The Bakken is a thin, irregular formation with the latest USGS _recoverable_ reserve estimates at only about a year’s worth of net U.S. consumption (just over 7 billion barrels). ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/97 "2013-08-11T18:51:37Z")
Since exxx is just going to ignore me as well as the facts, I’ll post this AGAIN for the benefit of everyone else - [U.S. Field Production of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)](http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus1&f=a) US production is INCREASING and is nowhere near peaking. IOW, the US will have a double peak as will virtually every other country in that chart. It will have to be drawn to have double humps for each of those countries most likely since I’m guessing that if they have the geology for free oil, they also probably have the geology for oil shale. ---
**Author:** ![aNewLeaf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ac91a4/32.png) [@aNewLeaf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aNewLeaf)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/98 "2013-08-11T18:55:56Z")
That doesn’t say we are outproducing Saudi Arabia, or that we will. Looks like we about where we were in the 50’s, from that chart. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/99 "2013-08-11T18:59:24Z")
> [@aNewLeaf](#): > > That doesn’t say we are outproducing Saudi Arabia, or that we will. Looks like we about where we were in the 50’s, from that chart. I wasn’t citing for that purpose. The article I cited earlier goes to that issue. I can’t repost things every other post. Some people are actually paying attention I assume. ---
**Author:** ![eg8576736](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8baadc/32.png) [@eg8576736](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eg8576736)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735/100 "2013-08-11T19:42:43Z")
Due to site formatting, only the right half of the U.S. Peak Oil curve is shown below. Visualize it as a full bell curve for the sake of this concept. Full graphs are easily found elsewhere. ## ---------------- Current U.S. oil consumption of ~20 MBPD ---------------- [supply gap] [supply gap] [supply gap] This supply (vs. demand) gap is why America became dependent on foreign sources 43 years ago, and the fundamental geological predicament can’t be fixed with more drilling or new drilling methods. More/better drilling only yields marginal flow-rate gains from the tight oil sources we still have. A relative improvement is not a miracle. It’s all about the flow-rate numbers, not patriotic hype. [supply gap] [supply gap] [supply gap] ---------------- Highest crude oil flow-rate of ~10 MBPD at 1970 U.S. peak production. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ## --------------------------- Low flow-rates of shale & tar sands, w/increasing prices. _Tight oil will always remain near this level._ 1970…2013… Peak Oil deniers claim that the slow-flowing, high cost “tight” oil at the lower right of this curve will magically reincarnate itself as fast-flowing, low-cost oil like we had at the 1970 apex. They make their claims based on _temporary_ gains in the Bakken shale, etc. It’s false extrapolation. Nobody wanted the California Gold Rush to end, either (well, except the Indians). Some deniers also claim that tight oil can magically _double_ the highest flow rate the U.S. ever saw (from about 10 mbpd to today’s 20 mbpd) and give us “energy independence” and cheap gas again. The math simply does not work. These people ignore the laws of diminishing returns for finite resources. Also, if you flip that bell curve you get a rough graph of prices, minus inflation and other factors. As flow rates decline, prices invariably rise unless demand crashes, which causes recessions and depressions. Shale and tar sands will also peak and those peaks include much lower flow-rates to begin with. How can they possibly ramp up to America’s oil glory days? Shale & tar sands production could drag on for decades but it will always be like a tortoise racing a crude oil hare. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-the-peak-oil-bell-curve-so-widely-misunderstood/665735.md?page=6)