Nightshade

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

https://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/200...age070709.html

Platy

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

vulpes

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.

JeffS

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.

evblazer

"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

gwd

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:
https://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.

pedex

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).

acroy

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

pedex

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

bragi

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...

vulpes

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

wahoonc

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! (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

bragi

https://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publica...0-2005-031.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.

pedex

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

wahoonc

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. How long are we going to be keeping that up when prices really start to escalate?

Aaron

pedex

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

Platy

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)

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.

gwd

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.

Nightshade

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............

JeffS

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

gwd

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.

wahoonc

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

Aaron

gerv 

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

lyeinyoureye

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....
Oil "use" is nothing more than encouraging consumption for the sake of profiteering.

pedex

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