Oil Production: Will the Peak Hold?

[RGR]

What is important is an understanding of the finiteness of oil and our ability to manipulate the curve. Pushing for more production now will hurt us later, causing steeper declines. I hope we never manage to increase production from current levels for this reason. Everything we do now to increase production will have to be paid for in the future by steeper declines.

[kenneal - lagger]

It's true of the North Sea and most other deep sea fields where production is maximised to get the oil out quickly to reduce costs.

[RGR]

It's true of the North Sea and most other deep sea fields where production is maximised to get the oil out quickly to reduce costs.

[SunnyJim]

What is important is an understanding of the finiteness of oil and our ability to manipulate the curve. Pushing for more production now will hurt us later, causing steeper declines. I hope we never manage to increase production from current levels for this reason. Everything we do now to increase production will have to be paid for in the future by steeper declines.

Again...this isn't true except in a few types of reservoirs, and there are only a few field examples I am even aware of. The dynamics associated with stabilized production, or production increases, do not automatically include steeper declines as a consequence. The reason why of course is incremental changes in recovery factor.

If there is a finite amount of oil in the well, and you take it out quicker then unless you invent oil out of thin air the decline rate MUST be quicker.

[fifthcolumn]

It has struck me (a bit belatedly maybe) that there are three essential transitions that we need to make if we are to achieve a genuinely sustainable and reasonably comfortable and happy existence in the finite environment of one planet:

1) Renewables-based, almost entirely electric energy capture for heating/cooling, mechanical work and transport;

2) Closed system or "Cradle-to-Cradle" processes for all manufacturing and consumption of stuff, all activity that consumes mineral resources;

3) Agricultural systems that don't degrade any of resource bases that food production depends on - e.g. based on permaculture principles: mimicking natural systems, low energy input, low water usage, top-soil protecting/building.

I think this is a very reasonable way to look at things, since though we can't have an infinitely growing resource based economy, we certainly can have a pretty reasonable steady state consumption of renewable resources including a large dose of services.

In any case: people who think capitalism is simply a growing economy are mistaken.
Capitalism = Creative Destruction and is always in flux. Old ideas die out and new ones come in. Companies grow, they die. New companies are born, they grow etc etc.
Capitalism is like any other natural system: it has cycles.

The idea that we on this planet have to follow an algae like growth pattern where we consume all the resources and then die is wrong.
It's also based on false science because in ecology there is more than one path a growth curve can follow. We can do exponential growth then dieoff, OR we can do exponential growth, levelling off into an s-curve with bounces up and down against the limit.

I'm hoping for the latter.

[fifthcolumn]

I have a BSc in Chemistry from a respected UK university, so I think I can recognise pseudoscience.

Good. So can you recognise the flaws inherent in the limits to growth or does it take a degree in Physics from a respected UK university?

[fifthcolumn]

You obviously aren't familiar with how I work. I defend positions forever, flamewars or not. And being attacked has nothing to do with vindication...it is expected.

What happens if you encounter information that runs counter to your long-held beliefs?

Do you continue to defend your now shaky position or do you update your theory-of-the-world to fit the new data?

I just ask, because my own position is that defending a position forever is untenable depending on the facts.

Consider:
My own position fluctuates between hope and despair depending on what items I read.
I have come to the following conclusion:
There are people who think we are doomed no matter what.
There are people who think we are doomed if we do the wrong things or make mistakes or the numbers support us being doomed (me).
There are people who think we will be continue business as usual no matter what.

I was fairly convinced we had peaked in 2005. I have no idea how steep the depletion curve (if there will be one) will be. That matters a lot.
I have no idea how much build of renewable infrastructure we can do or whether it will work.
I have no idea how sustainable agriculture is even with unlimited energy.

Since I first read about peak oil I have gone from having no hope to having some hope. There have been massive improvements in technology which maybe, just maybe counteract some of Duncan and Jay Hansen's arguments. At the same time we are ten years further on and we MAY have peaked. We also have nearly a billion more people.

There are so many variables it's impossible to make a rational across-the-board forecast. All you can do is follow what's happening in the news and hope and pray. It's a crapshoot.

[Adam1]

... We can do exponential growth then dieoff, OR we can do exponential growth, levelling off into an s-curve with bounces up and down against the limit.

I'm hoping for the latter.

Me too, but without too many bounces if we can possibly avoid them, as I think they'll give us a collectively a very sore head.

[PS_RalphW]

I have a BSc in Chemistry from a respected UK university, so I think I can recognise pseudoscience.

Good. So can you recognise the flaws inherent in the limits to growth or does it take a degree in Physics from a respected UK university?

OK 'limits to growth' is based on a computer model which has in it embedded assumptions about human society. It assumes that the global 'physical' economy (rate of extraction of resources etc.) is not 'intelligently' driven, but is reactive to input signals, ie. it has positive and negative feedbacks on each term. It also introduces time lags to these feedback terms. The concept of overshoot becomes inevitable once you make those assumptions, since it is impossible for the model to predict it's own resource limits in time react to them smoothly. Overshoot is simply built in.

The question is , does this model accurately reflect the reality of human social organisation? My answer to that is that it doesn't have to be, but the 'market driven' capitalist system which currently dominates the world is like that. The market WILL drive humans into overshoot.

To me it also seems that the market has ALREADY driven the world into overshoot. I suspect it is now already too late for an alternative global social model to prevent it. Nor do I see any sign of an alternative social model (apart from transition towns et al) developing on a scale fast enough to avoid being overwhelmed by collapse.

There are of course many other flaws in the WORLD3 model. One that is obvious to us here is failing to differentiate energy resources as a special case of finite material resource. It is only a computer model. It is a useful tool in that it can produce unexpected emergent behavior. However, you need to decide if that is an attribute of reality or a limit of the model.

[fifthcolumn]

The question is , does this model accurately reflect the reality of human social organisation? My answer to that is that it doesn't have to be, but the 'market driven' capitalist system which currently dominates the world is like that. The market WILL drive humans into overshoot.

To me it also seems that the market has ALREADY driven the world into overshoot. I suspect it is now already too late for an alternative global social model to prevent it. Nor do I see any sign of an alternative social model (apart from transition towns et al) developing on a scale fast enough to avoid being overwhelmed by collapse.

OK I was nodding my head up till you started going off the socialist deep end about markets causing this.

First of all the excess population is nowhere to be found in the capitalist societies.
It's all to be found in places which are NOT capitalist.
e.g. China had a billion and a half people before it was capitalist, likewise India. Africa is a failure full stop. The Middle East can hardly be called capitalist.

Contrast that with western europe, japan and north america.
It is arguable that their societies (oil notwithstanding) are in far better shape compared to the others.

In any event: to refute your poorly thought through arguments:

A capitalist system produces price signals of impending shortages via the very mechanism that you appear to despise. In the case of a commodity with substitutes, the price signals appear more rapidly than in one with no substitutes. It appears that oil is partly replaceable since we already have price signals.

In contrast in a social model you have only one choice: rationing.
There are no price signals whatsoever and neither are there people actively seeking to search out substitutes because they have no profit incentive to do so. It is only when actual shortages start to appear that people sit up and take notice in these kinds of systems.

So, sorry, I do not buy into your socialist utopia idea and to be quite frank I think you will be quite alarmed at exactly how little support you get from the government and how much of a burden it will be on the citizens if things get bad.

[Adam1]

Both socialists and capitalists believe in a magic world where growth can continue indefinitely in a finite environment.

[RenewableCandy]

I think our system (Capitalism if you will) causes a one-off rise in population, which then stabilises, some people have referred to it as 'transition'.

First, there's an incentive to have more children because they produce more stuff and bring in the cash (I offer India as an example) then once people are no longer dirt-poor they start thinking about things like education for their children and/or a nice house rather than a tin shack to live in. At this point children begin to be more of a cost (as in, more care and money is invested in each one), and people limit their family size by whatever means permissible (such as marrying later: see Italy).

If you look at population densities (there's a list on wikipedia) you can see that a lot of EU countries have high densities, much higher than African countries. The only poor country with a really high density is Bangladesh, but that's probably because it's one of the few countries whose land area is noticeably shrinking.

[emordnilap]

OK I was nodding my head up till you started going off the socialist deep end about markets causing this.

First of all the excess population is nowhere to be found in the capitalist societies.
It's all to be found in places which are NOT capitalist.
e.g. China had a billion and a half people before it was capitalist, likewise India. Africa is a failure full stop. The Middle East can hardly be called capitalist.

Contrast that with western europe, japan and north america.
It is arguable that their societies (oil notwithstanding) are in far better shape compared to the others.

My problem here is - what would those 'successful' economies look like if China, India, Africa and all the other resource-rich (including cheap labour) did not exist, had never existed?

And, to a large extent, it's not really a hypothetical question, because those countries as we've known them are disappearing in many senses.

[PS_RalphW]

So, sorry, I do not buy into your socialist utopia idea and to be quite frank I think you will be quite alarmed at exactly how little support you get from the government and how much of a burden it will be on the citizens if things get bad.

You're reading things I did not write.

I wrote that capitalism was the dominant world model. Even China now follows it to a large extent. I said neither capitalism nor any other social model at this time could now prevent overshoot. Nowhere did I mention socialism at all. All I mentioned as a positive option was 'transition towns'. Hardly socialism.

China is the ONLY country in the world which has made any serious attempt to actively constrain its population. Unpleasant, but if they hadn't, they would have had widespread famine by now. (India's attempts were incompetent).

'capitalist' countries have limited population growth through female education and other benefits, but only after the other benefits of 'industrialisation' have allowed populations to surge way above pre-industrial levels. Even then, capitalism does NOT stop exponential growth in resource consumption per capita, in fact it is PREDICATED on it.

Anyway, these are all attributes of human society in times of resource abundance. I contend that price signals DO NOT give adequate time to turn around the world economy without overshoot. Hirst has stated in his report that it will take twenty years of government driven development to replace oil infrastructure without economic dislocation. We both know that we don't have 20 years.

However, the key finding from 'limits to growth' is that in a world where multiple resources are consumed at a exponentially increasing rate, it is inevitable that we will face a 'multiple whammy' where two or more resources (eg. oil and food) reach their limits in too short a time frame for any non-predictive economic model to adapt to both without overshoot.

Argue with what I write, NOT YOUR IMAGINATION.

[fifthcolumn]

You're reading things I did not write.

I think not. You wrote the following:

The market WILL drive humans into overshoot.

To me it also seems that the market has ALREADY driven the world into overshoot.

I suspect it is now already too late for an alternative global social model to prevent it.

You wrote all of the above three quotes didn't you?
One is a statement of fact as per your belief.
The following two are derivations of your belief.

Nowhere did I mention socialism at all.

What is an "alternative global social model"?
You have it as opposed to capitalism. It is no stretch of the imagination to conclude you are talking about socialism.
Do you mean socialism, fascism, totalitarianism, feudalism or what?

Even then, capitalism does NOT stop exponential growth in resource consumption per capita, in fact it is PREDICATED on it.

No it isn't.
See my previous post about what capitalism is.
If you disagree I suggest you look up the words "creative destruction" and "business cycle".

I contend that price signals DO NOT give adequate time to turn around the world economy without overshoot.

Do we have price signals yet?
Do we have an investors rush into renewables yet?
Do we have grass roots movements noting every one dollar rise in the price of oil?
Do we have all the car companies talking about producing plug-in hybrids?
Do we have many cities throughout the world laying down electric light rail and other forms of electric transport?

Hirst has stated in his report that it will take twenty years of government driven development to replace oil infrastructure without economic dislocation. We both know that we don't have 20 years.

Hirsch did say that.
Is Hirsch right? I expect he missed quite a bit in his report.
Do we have 20 years before we peak? I doubt it.
Does it matter? That is the question.

Argue with what I write, NOT YOUR IMAGINATION.

Go back and read what you write. And if someone chooses to point out the flaws in it don't have a hissy fit.