Living Car Free - Oil shortage forecast......

it seem that "business as usual" is about change........

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/07/09/oilshortage070709.html

It's just those pessimistic chicken little doomers at the um, hmm, did you say the International Energy Agency?

That article leaves a lot left unsaid. And I think the IEA's estimates are quite conservative. "...spare capacity (unused pumping capacity than can be immediately opened and sustained in a crisis) will plummet to "uncomfortably low levels," owing to increasing world population growth" should read ...spare capacity will become non-existent due to steadily decreasing production in the face of steadily increasing global demand as the post-peak slope of the Hubbert peak becomes manifest.

However, this oil shortfall may not be inevitable. One analyst says the IEA's ominous prediction is meant to warn OPEC nations, not panic consumers. "The IEA has a political role as well as an economic role: the defense of the consumer," Thierry Lefrançois, an analyst with French bank Natixis told the Associated Press. "They are saying to OPEC countries, 'Look at where petrol consumption is going to be in 2012, so you will have to increase your production capacities faster than you planned.' "

Who are they kidding? Does we really believe there's a magic switch anyone can flip to increase production this much? If I were an OPEC nation, I certainly wouldn't be in a big hurry to push production, especially since doing so often endangers the health of the well.

"This oil shortfall may not be inevitable" and that OPEC just needs to up their production more then originally thought to keep up with demand. Sounds like an ad for a Chevy Tahoe XL with a towing package :)

Thierry Lefrançois, an analyst with French bank Natixis says:
"They are saying to OPEC countries, 'Look at where petrol consumption is going to be in 2012, so you will have to increase your production capacities faster than you planned.' "

Have to? When did the west start dictating to OPEC what they have to do? It doesn't make sense. It reads like the analyst thinks of OPEC oil as being owned or controlled by someone else to tell them what they have to do with it.

It looks like Iran won't give up car culture:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6278120.stm
This news story from a few days ago reads as though Iran will switch from gasoline to natural gas to preserve their car culture. So they'll switch to an alternative fuel, reduce demand for petrol and keep their lifestyle. Other countries can do that too without having to increase production capacities. Peak oil doesn't have to be a doomsday event. It is interesting how we try to paint the Iranians as a bunch off loonies but this article shows them to be just like Americans in their love of cars and inability to think of alternatives. Too bad we can't get some car free Iranians to tell us about biking past the fuel riots in Tehran.

put me in the "this is old news camp"

As peak oil becomes apparent to producers two things will happen, and both will decrease exports sharply. One will be some of these nations will attempt to husband what's left a bit more wisely and voluntarily cut back production to save some for later. The other thing is most are also experiencing increasing domestic consumption thus leaving less for export to begin with. I have a hunch the IEA doesn't take either into account.

But hey, if your one of the 20%'ers out there, like the Bush admin all is well, just take Daniel Yergin's word for it(chairman of the CERA and they've been forecasting oil going to 120mbpd).

a little quotage from Wiki that I found interesting:

"Economist Michael Lynch [28] argues that the theory behind the Hubbert curve is overly simplistic, and that available evidence contradicts some of the more specific predictions. [29] He points to the date of the coming peak, which was initially projected to occur by 2000, but has now been pushed back to 2010, and notes that Campbell's predictions for world oil production are strongly biased towards underestimates[30]. Throughout 2001-2003, in his monthly newsletters, Campbell maintained that his 1996 prediction of a peak in 2000 was unchallenged. Finally in his April 2004 Newsletter, Campbell relented and shifted the peak to 2010. Later this was brought forward to 2007 but in October 2005, was shifted back to 2010.

Critics such as Leonardo Maugeri, vice president for the Italian energy company ENI, argue that Hubbert peak supporters such as Campbell previously predicted a peak in global oil production in both 1989 and 1995 [31], based on oil production data available at that time. Maugeri claims that nearly all of these estimates do not take into account non-conventional oil even though the availability of these resources is significant and the costs of extraction and processing, while still very high, are falling due to improved technology. Furthermore, he notes that the recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today due to new technology and predicts this trend will continue. The ratio between proven oil reserves and current production has constantly improved, passing from 20 years in 1948 to 35 years in 1972 and reaching about 40 years in 2003.[4] These improvements occurred even with low investment in new exploration and upgrading technology due to the low oil prices during the last 20 years. However, Maugeri feels that encouraging more exploration will require relatively high oil prices [32]."

One thing I found of note is "recovery rate from existing world oil fields has increased from about 22% in 1980 to 35% today". This is amazing. A 59% jump in recoverable oil in 25 years.

Just throwing this out there. I am no expert on the Hubbert theory or the oil industrry in general.... but the friends & relatives i have in the oil industry say the current situation is more political than anything else.

I have been bookmarking various sites with preditions and will check back in a couple years to see how it pans out... it will be interesting to see how accurate all this is.
cheers

take close note of what exactly they are arguing about and how they do it

they do not deny the theory or that it has been proven on a case by case or field by field basis, they simply infer that if the date predicted is wrong then the whole theory is wrong, well gee, the world is a big place, peak oil will occur no matter what, quibbling about the date wont change that, and so far the US, Norway, UK, and Russia to name a few have ALL been burned using that same flawed logic

also till its literally well into the rear view mirror we wont know when it actually happened, but so far, crude+condensates did in fact peak back in 2004 and hasnt gone above it since and that comes right from IEA data

The real problem isn't supply, which is predicted to be pretty steady (but not growing) for the next 40 years or so; it's demand. I had my 6th graders do a research/graphing project on oil supply last spring, and most of the kids were surprised to discover that oil supplies would not match demand starting around 2012. Their sources varied a bit, but that seemed to be the general consensus. If a bunch of 11 year olds can figure it out using the internet and a piece of graph paper, I don't see why others can't...

The real problem isn't supply, which is predicted to be pretty steady (but not growing) for the next 40 years or so; it's demand. I had my 6th graders do a research/graphing project on oil supply last spring, and most of the kids were surprised to discover that oil supplies would not match demand starting around 2012. Their sources varied a bit, but that seemed to be the general consensus. If a bunch of 11 year olds can figure it out using the internet and a piece of graph paper, I don't see why others can't...

Show me the figures you base a 40 year steady supply on. I don't believe it.

The real problem isn't supply, which is predicted to be pretty steady (but not growing) for the next 40 years or so; it's demand. I had my 6th graders do a research/graphing project on oil supply last spring, and most of the kids were surprised to discover that oil supplies would not match demand starting around 2012. Their sources varied a bit, but that seemed to be the general consensus. If a bunch of 11 year olds can figure it out using the internet and a piece of graph paper, I don't see why others can't...
I don't think it is as much as a "can't" as a "don't want to know" besides the gummit will take care of us!:roflmao: (and no I DON'T believe that) I was in Mobile, AL when Katrina went thru and I KNOW better. Another item of note is that the Saudi's are beginning to build massive refineries, sounds like they plan on making extra money by selling the finished product vs the crude, as well as keeping the crude at home. The refineries being built are for gasoline and ethylene? a primary chemical used to make plastics.

Aaron:)

Show me the figures you base a 40 year steady supply on. I don't believe it.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-600-2005-031/CEC-600-2005-031.PDF

This report, coming from CA, assumes that non-conventional supplies (e.g., oil sands) will fill in the gaps left by dwindling "conventional" supplies, but it's still far more hard-headed than the US Dept. of Energy things I've read. The bottom line, though, remains unchanged: demand is going to outstrip supply in only a few years. It's going to get very interesting very soon, and, even though I'm totally car-free, I'm not looking forward to this at ALL.

that assumption is likely off by a bit

on oil forums the general consensus seems to be the world is looking at a decline rate of 3-5% per year, possibly more if above ground issues interfere(likely)

current projects coming onstream cannot make up for existing declines over the next 5-6 years, and by then, those existing declines will have wiped out any gains from these projects coming onstream.......and demand will continue to grow anyway

there's also the land export model, something hashed out by a guy on theoildrum.com , basically its just common sense but it needs stated: as exporting countries grow their own domestic consumption, which they all are, their exports will decrease by that much, thus, if their production is already declining, the decline in exports will be bigger than just the decline in production

as producing nations also realize how valuable the stuff is, they will likely start sitting on it and purposely exporting less driving the price up even further

And what blows my mind is that the US doesn't seem to realize that we are a major importer of both crude and finished product. Current oil imports are running around $19 billion dollars (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6895738.stm). How long are we going to be keeping that up when prices really start to escalate?

Aaron:)

long time I would think, we can easily outbid and outspend about 3/4ths of the planet........an awful lot of countries will go without, some already are.........this assumes US hegemony continues of course, if the dollar crashes we are done, game over

the US military is already scrambling, the price of fuel is already denting their wallet significantly, at some point, we might not be able to use force to enforce our way of life..........live by the gun, die by the gun, and it never had to be that way

of course, some nations don't take kindly to having their energy supplies cutoff, and some are building up armies, japan for example, last time they had their lifeline cut when the US violated the treaty, they went to war with us

producing exporting nations don't have to export either, they may at some point cut it off completely

Take a look at this.

United States Petroleum Production
(Crude Oil + Liquids from Natural Gas Wells)

1972 - 11.2 million barrels per day (Peak)
1982 - 10.2
1992 - 8.9
2002 - 7.6
2006 - 6.9

Link (Energy Information Administration) (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0501.html)

We've been filling the gap with imports. However, some people think that the world as a whole has begun the same kind of production decline as the United States did in 1972.

the US military is already scrambling, the price of fuel is already denting their wallet significantly, at some point, we might not be able to use force to enforce our way of life..........live by the gun, die by the gun, and it never had to be that way


This doesn't seem right. They have a war reserve don't they? They used to. As far as their day to day operations, fuel cost is easy to justify to a congress that use their SUVs just to cross the street to a meeting. It isn't as hard to justify fuel increase as it is to justify a cost overrun on a new ship or plane and the latter happens all the time. Their fuel costs are more predictable than an individual's because they negotiate purchase agreements with the major suppliers. When they scramble it is to balance purchase agreements with current operations. If they miscalculate the location of operations they might have to go out on the spot market to avoid dipping into war reserve or running dry. For example, we're not doing anything in Indonesia but if we had to send a battle group down there to help Australia or the sultan of Brunei the fuel purchase agreements wouldn't be in place. Then they'd scramble because of the new fuel distribution pattern. As far as us car free people go, I think the government will let the city buses run dry before denying the military, especially if the military justifies its fuel needs as a means to grab more fuel.

Has the war in Iraq drained the war reserve? That would be a stupid way for the government to hide some of the war cost. If the government did that then the military would be doing more than scrambling. The spot market can't fill the those large tanks fast enough to support a war that disrupts oil supply, that is why we have it.

of course, some nations don't take kindly to having their energy supplies cutoff, and some are building up armies, japan for example, last time they had their lifeline cut when the US violated the treaty, they went to war with us

One only has to remember that 99.9% of all wars all though out history have been
fought over.......resources or land that contained resources.

There WILL BE resource wars in the not to distant future. Count on it............

One only has to remember that 99.9% of all wars all though out history have been
fought over.......resources or land that contained resources.

There WILL BE resource wars in the not to distant future. Count on it............


I think you're forgetting a LOT of wars fought over religion.

One only has to remember that 99.9% of all wars all though out history have been
fought over.......resources or land that contained resources.

There WILL BE resource wars in the not to distant future. Count on it............
We don't start wars for resources, we start wars for freedom and democracy. I thought the US official line is that it doesn't matter who controls natural resources, the free market will allocate them optimally.

We don't start wars for resources, we start wars for freedom and democracy. I thought the US official line is that it doesn't matter who controls natural resources, the free market will allocate them optimally.
:roflmao: :fight:

Yep and that is why the military is "remorphing" to prepare for operations in Africa....

Aaron:)

There WILL BE resource wars in the not to distant future. Count on it............

Will be? What do you think the Iraq war 1 and 2 are about?

Who are they kidding? Does we really believe there's a magic switch anyone can flip to increase production this much?
Not increase production, but decrease consumption. This is where automakers may step in and bring to the market many designs that have been shelved. Otoh, they may build the exact same thing they've always built, with a private fleet average of ~17mpg, and proclaim that we don't want fuel efficient cars. Because they won't build them. Because we don't want them.... :rolleyes:
Oil "use" is nothing more than encouraging consumption for the sake of profiteering.

This doesn't seem right. They have a war reserve don't they? They used to. As far as their day to day operations, fuel cost is easy to justify to a congress that use their SUVs just to cross the street to a meeting. It isn't as hard to justify fuel increase as it is to justify a cost overrun on a new ship or plane and the latter happens all the time. Their fuel costs are more predictable than an individual's because they negotiate purchase agreements with the major suppliers. When they scramble it is to balance purchase agreements with current operations. If they miscalculate the location of operations they might have to go out on the spot market to avoid dipping into war reserve or running dry. For example, we're not doing anything in Indonesia but if we had to send a battle group down there to help Australia or the sultan of Brunei the fuel purchase agreements wouldn't be in place. Then they'd scramble because of the new fuel distribution pattern. As far as us car free people go, I think the government will let the city buses run dry before denying the military, especially if the military justifies its fuel needs as a means to grab more fuel.

Has the war in Iraq drained the war reserve? That would be a stupid way for the government to hide some of the war cost. If the government did that then the military would be doing more than scrambling. The spot market can't fill the those large tanks fast enough to support a war that disrupts oil supply, that is why we have it.

the SPR doesn't do them much good, its here in the US, military conflicts for the US are always abroad, and on top of that, it is woefully inadequate

what's killing them is the same as any bureaucracy, budgeting for fuel when the costs keep going up and up and to make matters worse, the US military has increasingly become dependent on weapons which are very very energy intensive, they are looking at the distinct possibility where they may be limited by fuel at some point

they are very worried about peak oil, and they should be, it has wide ranging implications beyond just what is immediately easy to see, peak oil means peak a lot of things when you get right down to it unless another energy source with as good or better density and usability is found

...peak oil means peak a lot of things when you get right down to it unless another energy source with as good or better density and usability is found

That about sums it up, doesn't it?

peak oil means peak a lot of things when you get right down to it unless another energy source with as good or better density and usability is found
Considering we use the majority of oil based products with an efficiency of around, say, ~10-15%, and in order to bump this figure up, use more of it slightly more efficiently, even if it means wasting even more of it compared to using it slightly inefficiently, it shouldn't be too hard. :rolleyes:

it seem that "business as usual" is about change........

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/07/09/oilshortage070709.html

87 bucks now
This drive or run up is intense. The day has come for no more cheap petro.

http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/energyprices.html

that's what they said back in the late 70's.
I'm lovin it :)
yet gas prices hold steady around $2.50 here. seems a lot of the runup in price is due to plain speculation. lots of money managers, trying to make a quick buck, pouring zillions of leveraged dollars into futures.
i suspect history will repeat itself and the glamor and attention around enegy will come a-tumblin down. when, i dunno, and i might be wrong, it may stay high. Yet the traffic noise outside my airport hotle window is ceasless!

it seem that "business as usual" is about change........

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2007/07/09/oilshortage070709.htmlI hope so. That'll be the only way VW will roll out their 1L car. Bastids!


87 bucks now
This drive or run up is intense. The day has come for no more cheap petro. Petro is the same as it's always been for the most part, it's just that the dollar's been tanking. Damn thing dropped 7% against the Euro in just a couple months, and almost double that against the loonie. No more hoser jokes for me... :( :p

Adjusted for inflation, the record high for crude oil was $90/bbl in, I believe, 1980 (a time of world wide recession, nearing depression). We're getting very close to beating the record right now. Interesting times....

Petro is the same as it's always been for the most part, it's just that the dollar's been tanking. Damn thing dropped 7% against the Euro in just a couple months, and almost double that against the loonie. No more hoser jokes for me... :( :p

I keep thinking that at some point, an oil supplying nation will request payment in Euros instead of dollars. I wonder what would happen at that point? Curious... because last year the Canadian dollar was at $.91 against the US $ and now it is $1.02 last time I looked. I guess this is the price of running huge deficits year after year... As Roody say, interesting times..

I keep thinking that at some point, an oil supplying nation will request payment in Euros instead of dollars. I wonder what would happen at that point? Curious... because last year the Canadian dollar was at $.91 against the US $ and now it is $1.02 last time I looked. I guess this is the price of running huge deficits year after year... As Roody say, interesting times..

There are treaties in place that they(OPEC) will only sell oil for dollars... Some people have said that's the only reason that the dollar has been as strong as it was.

I keep thinking that at some point, an oil supplying nation will request payment in Euros instead of dollars. I wonder what would happen at that point? Curious... because last year the Canadian dollar was at $.91 against the US $ and now it is $1.02 last time I looked. I guess this is the price of running huge deficits year after year... As Roody say, interesting times..

Iran has been trying to start a Euro market for a couple years now. Funny how they became our No. 1 Enemy at about the same time. ;)

Adjusted for inflation, the record high for crude oil was $90/bbl in, I believe, 1980 (a time of world wide recession, nearing depression). We're getting very close to beating the record right now. Interesting times....

This seems funny. A year or so ago it was $80 adjusted for inflation. Last week it became $90. Today it went up to $95. The BBC seems to report it as always a little above the current price. A few years ago there were dire warnings that if OPEC doesn't do something to keep oil below $50 the world economy would go into a recession. Now we're humming along fine in the $80 range. No disaster, no wars for oil, no flight from car culture, no emergency.

Dollar's dropping, so what may have been $80 eq last year is $90 eq now, or whatevs. :)

Who are they kidding? Does we really believe there's a magic switch anyone can flip to increase production this much? If I were an OPEC nation, I certainly wouldn't be in a big hurry to push production, especially since doing so often endangers the health of the well.

Agreed.

They really believe OPEC is in business to sell cheap oil. LOL. Even if they could flip the switch, there's no incentive to do so since we will pay whatever they want to continue motoring. OPEC is clearly in the drivers seat!

...OPEC is clearly in the drivers seat!
One poster on theoildrum.com made an acute observation today. He/she pointed out that a few months ago, Secretary of Energy Bodman was saying there was a possible near term supply problem and that he would try to persuade OPEC to increase production. That was a few months ago. Lately, he's just been saying there is a supply problem.

Edit: However, it's possible that demand for oil would decrease sharply if the economy turns down.

Agreed.

They really believe OPEC is in business to sell cheap oil. LOL. Even if they could flip the switch, there's no incentive to do so since we will pay whatever they want to continue motoring. OPEC is clearly in the drivers seat!
We tend to blame OPEC for prices, but isn't it just a small part of the picture? What incentive is there for Exxon Mobil to sell cheap oil? With the recent drop in the market for ethanol, many are left wondering why ethanol should not be in high demand... however, now that there has been a flurry of investment activity in ethanol, suddenly, the

I don't think we could point the finger at OPEC in this case.

http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071007/NEWS/710070313/1001


Sharp price drop puts brakes on ethanol boom

Experts can't agree on what's causing decline or where market is headed
By Ben Shouse
A 40 percent drop in the price of ethanol this year is reining in the galloping growth of the industry and adding a twist to the debate over the future of biofuels.

The wholesale price of ethanol is about $1.50, down from about $2.50 late last year. Along with high corn prices, that is pinching the profits of ethanol companies and pushing them to scale back their expansion plans.

Brookings-based VeraSun announced last week it would suspend construction at a plant in Reynolds, Ind. - one of the five it is building - because of poor market conditions.

Some in the industry say the declining price is part of a normal swing, accentuated by the undue influence of oil companies. But transportation issues and an increasingly complex marketplace also factor in, leaving plenty of room to keep arguing the politics of ethanol.
...

"Given the economics, it's surprising that refiners aren't blending more ethanol," said Jeff Broin, chief executive officer of ethanol company Poet.

There is no shortage of oil, the problem is 1) dependence on foreign oil. 2) the lack of refining capacity, every time someone burps we have a refinery go down and oops there goes the price of gas.

There is no shortage of oil, the problem is 1) dependence on foreign oil. 2) the lack of refining capacity, every time someone burps we have a refinery go down and oops there goes the price of gas.

Actually, we are finding less sources than we are using up. The new sources we do find typically have higher extraction costs. Couple that with increased demand from China and the rest of the developing world and the supply will be even less in relation to demand.

Yes, our dependence on foreign oil is a problem. We not only are hemorrhaging cash out of the American economy and ruining the dollar, but we are supporting sponsors of terrorism (Saudi Arabia namely).

Yes, the major oil companies have limited refining capacity in the United States. They will happily profit off of whatever they can. A decrease in supply will mean an increase in price. More money per unit of oil.

So, we have cleared up a few things. Yes/no?

Since you seem to not understand what this whole living car free idea relates to based on your trolling posts (alternatively, perhaps you like to be an advocate of the devil's point of view), maybe you can now see that we do this for a variety of reasons, some political, some environmental, some social.

I myself make attempts at being car free for a variety of reasons, but one of the biggest is that I don't like the idea of supporting foreign nations who have questionable ties to nether-do-well organizations. I also don't like the idea of making some oil baron rich because I am too lazy to ride my bike to get a loaf of bread or something.

Maybe I am talking to a brick wall, but maybe not. :beer:

Most people are surprised to learn how much our domestic US petroleum production has declined since 1970.

1970 - 11.3 million barrels per day
2006 - 6.9

It's been a steady, unrelenting decline.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec5_5.pdf

Platy- I had heard that US oil production started to fall around 1970 but I had never seen the statistics. According to your numbers, production declined to about 61% of its prior rate over 36 years.

Platy- I had heard that US oil production started to fall around 1970 but I had never seen the statistics. According to your numbers, production declined to about 61% of its prior rate over 36 years.
Correct. Another thing you can see from that table, we must now import 66% of the petroleum we consume in the United States.

There is no shortage of oil, the problem is 1) dependence on foreign oil. 2) the lack of refining capacity, every time someone burps we have a refinery go down and oops there goes the price of gas.

That's debatable. There is a shortage of high-quality oil, which is increasing refining time and thus reducing capacity. If the drop in quality isn't a sign of shortage, I don't know what is. Either way, it's causing a shortage and increasing the price.

I've never really understood why the price has stayed as low as it has. Political pressure is the only thing holding the price down, and that won't work forever.

There is no shortage of oil, the problem is 1) dependence on foreign oil. 2) the lack of refining capacity, every time someone burps we have a refinery go down and oops there goes the price of gas.

May not be a shortage, but there isn't any overage either. At any given time the US is less than 24 hours away from a problem. It would only take a hit to any single item in the whole chain to cause shortages. There have been spot shortages in the Dakotas this summer. Also world production has remained flat for the past 2 years with consumption continuing to increase. I think we have hit peak oil and it will be downhill from here. But that is my ignorant uninformed opinion garnered by reading articles and papers by people that actually have a clue. We may get a slight reprieve if the US economy tanks and people stop driving as much because they can't afford it, but that will generate an whole different set of issues. Yes oil is available and the main reason we haven't seen larger shortages in this country is because we are out bididng other poorer countries for it and they are going with out.

Aaron:)

I've never really understood why the price has stayed as low as it has. Political pressure is the only thing holding the price down, and that won't work forever.

In the ancient world, which relied on human power and animal power, grain was the major fuel. Now it's gas.

so, in ancient Rome, the government stabilized and subsidized the price of bread in order to keep the proletariat from rioting. Our governments today do the same thing, only with the price of oil.

The idea that all oil producing nations, OPEC and non-OPEC, are all squeezing the
valve shut to increase the price doesn't seem to hold water (oil?). Why do you not believe this? They did it in the late 1970's when we were supposedly running out of oil. I remember the news reports of "we will be out of oil by 1995". (Ooops!) All the while the price went sky high and the value of the US Dollar was sinking. Sound like a familiar scenario?

I work in the oil business on the production end. There are a lot of myths floating around this thread to say the least!

Dave.

US production of oil did peak in the 70's and has declined without mercy ever since despite heroic efforts to stop it. US production of coal energy wise peaked in the late 90's and has declined ever since.

All resources that are extracted from the earth follow a similar pattern, oil is no different. The easy to get cheap high quality stuff comes first, after that it gets progressively harder and more expensive. When you get to roughly halfway of what the original endowment was peak production tends to occur.

based on available data, from places like the IEA and EIA world oil production of crude plus condensate peaked a couple years ago and has not climbed above that peak since, the data from new projects and upgrades of existing projects shows that they will not be able to get above the established peak before declines of existing projects wipe out any gains coming anytime soon...........now if someone has HARD data to the contrary post it, post it at theoildrum.com too PLEASE !!! put it out there for all to see and take a shot at refuting it

Some of this is due to bureaucratic bungling, but these are public statements. If continued world production must rise, it would be great if other similar sized deposits like the Cantarell field were found.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/22/bloomberg/bxatm.php

While individual fields have steep post peak drop offs of production, I doubt that post world peak declines will be as dramatic. This is because of the many smaller fields that have and will be exploited, the staggered timing of their exploitation, and technologies that will extend the production of all fields.

The real bug in the ointment is the rise in world consumption. The USA powerless to affect that trend as most of the energy use growth is in Asia, and then someday Africa and South America. We will soon experience a gap between supply and demand. This will naturally (though quite painfully) cause a change in the priority's of petroleum use through the wonderfully egalitarian method of free market forces.

When oil prices pull back to about $65, buy oil companies with large oil reserves. And as oil prices rise, there will be more oilfield work-overs and exploration going on. Boom time for the suppliers of such related things: NOV, DRC, DRQ, HERO, HAL and SLB for example.