At what point of depletion will it need to be before it gets

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 06 Jul 2008, 03:02

J. R. Ewing wrote:
Yes but it never produced more than it did back in 1970-71 so that makes it a permanent decline, despite hikes here and there.

J. R. Ewing · Post by **J. R. Ewing** » 06 Jul 2008, 15:35

RGR wrote:
J. R. Ewing wrote:
Yes but it never produced more than it did back in 1970-71 so that makes it a permanent decline, despite hikes here and there.

If your scale is from year to year, then you can say that year over year production decline has been reversed at times.
First things first, I'm no expert on this subject. I only know what I read and then I generally mis-interpret it. But I do understand the fundamentals what fossil fuels, particularly oil plays in society as a whole - without Oil we wouldn't have hardly anything that we do have.

What I can say though is I consider somthing to be in a permanent decline once it has achieved its highest point and then never again acheives that same hight. Even though there may be hikes here and there leading to an higher point than last year but if last years high was still lower than its overall highest point, this lastest hike still means it's in permanent decline compared to its peak output.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 06 Jul 2008, 15:54

RGR wrote:Hubberts model isn't dominated by geology as much as it is by the economics, regulation, availability and technology of development. Throw in demand trends for a kicker, and geology isn't really much beyond the total size of resource available, the shape of its development is dictated by everything else.

It's geology that tucks the oil away in hard to reach patches deep under ground, rather than filling up Lake Superior with petrol and Superior with diesel.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 06 Jul 2008, 23:40

J. R. Ewing wrote:
What I can say though is I consider somthing to be in a permanent decline once it has achieved its highest point and then never again acheives that same hight.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 06 Jul 2008, 23:42

biffvernon wrote:
RGR wrote:Hubberts model isn't dominated by geology as much as it is by the economics, regulation, availability and technology of development. Throw in demand trends for a kicker, and geology isn't really much beyond the total size of resource available, the shape of its development is dictated by everything else.
It's geology that tucks the oil away in hard to reach patches deep under ground, rather than filling up Lake Superior with petrol and Superior with diesel.

In the oil business, the difference between Ghawar and the Bakken in Montana/North Dakota is already about as big as your analogy.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 08 Jul 2008, 00:42

J. R. Ewing wrote:As topic says.

I'm talking about a 3% year on year fall in production after we've hit permanent depletion. So what point will need to be reached before the media jump all over the 'peak oil' theory and have to start seriously discussing the situation on political shows, main news stories on news at 10 and front page news on papers that count?

Hope this makes sense

I suspect by the end of this year, the way petrol and food prices are going up. There's only so long the media can carry on blaming the oil price on commodity speculation and pipeline sabotage.

On the other hand... If the mega stock market crash happens this year, then the price of oil will temporarily go down and the pressure will be taken off the media as regards having to talk about it.

On balance though I think by the end of the year most informed people (not that there are many of them!) will know about PO.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 08 Jul 2008, 00:48

RGR wrote: And my question was...how...when multiple peaks can happen, can you ever know that THIS peak is the ONE?

In some of Hubberts own examples, 2nd peaks took place NINETY ( 90 ) years AFTER the first peak. So how long after one peak do we have to wait to be sure its THE peak?

I'm prepared to trust the estimates made in the 1990s by... Campbell was it?... who predicted a peak between 2005 and 2010. Technology for gauging oil field capacity is very advanced and there's almost no chance of finding massive fields we don't already know about.

It's absolutely clear that there is nowhere near enough oil to sustain us to a "real" peak 90 years from now. We'd have to completely stop using it today and then suddenly start again in 90 years!

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 08 Jul 2008, 02:09

Ludwig wrote:

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 08 Jul 2008, 09:39

How about political peak? Do you believe in that RGR? i.e. political factors such as SA refusing to increase production (saving those huge reserves for future generations), and oil being used by certain OPEC members (Iran and Venezuela) to topple the Hedgemon causing a politically induced peak? - n.b. This is only possible because it would appear that the good old US of A have now become reliant on OPEC oil. Non-OPEC oil cannot provide for the US thirst any longer.

All in all, does it really matter what causes the peak, or even if there is another one in 90 years? In 90 years the population would be so huge with 'unlimited' fossil fuel energy, and desire for oil (i.e. captialism and consumerism) will have reached so many on this planet that it will be snapped up (unless global warming has seen to many of us). The sooner we start moving to a society less dependent on what is indesputably a finite energy resource the better right?

I simply fail to see why the actual 'peak' is so important. All that matters in our failing capitalist markets is the moment when supply falls behind demand. I think the expansion of oil use in India and China has seen to that.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 08 Jul 2008, 11:07

RGR wrote:
Ludwig wrote:
Technology for gauging oil field capacity is very advanced and there's almost no chance of finding massive fields we don't already know about.
You think so? Please tell me you don't buy into the "seismic as x-ray device" BS that Savinar once claimed on the radio. Myself, until they drill up Greenland, the rest of the Arctic including the Laptev and the east shelf of the US, I'll reserve my guess on whats left to be discovered.

I do not claim to be an expert on PO or oil sourcing technology but every apparently well-informed and unbiased thinker on the subject whose work I've read (by unbiased I mean not working for oil companies or governments) seems to agree that the chances of finding oil fields of the size needed to defer peaking significantly is very small indeed.

When you're not an expert yourself you have to trust the word of experts.

Ludwig wrote:
It's absolutely clear that there is nowhere near enough oil to sustain us to a "real" peak 90 years from now. We'd have to completely stop using it today and then suddenly start again in 90 years!
Its also absolutely clear that areas considered depleted and done, by Hubbert himself, can repeak 90 years after their first peak. His argument was basically identical to yours....and he was most certainly wrong.

Getting some of the detail wrong does not mean Hubbert's main argument was wrong. I hadn't heard of these late-peaking oil fields. Were they are relatively minor ones? Otherwise I can't believe more effort wouldn't have been made to keep their production up.

Do you hope to have better luck simply by changing the scale involved?

So let me get this straight, you think there may be enough oil to get us through the next 90 years? Does anyone else think this?

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 08 Jul 2008, 18:59

SunnyJim wrote:How about political peak? Do you believe in that RGR? i.e. political factors such as SA refusing to increase production (saving those huge reserves for future generations), and oil being used by certain OPEC members (Iran and Venezuela) to topple the Hedgemon causing a politically induced peak? - n.b. This is only possible because it would appear that the good old US of A have now become reliant on OPEC oil. Non-OPEC oil cannot provide for the US thirst any longer.

Mitch · Post by **Mitch** » 08 Jul 2008, 19:07

Actual peak isn't relevant. But for some reason people want to misappropriate the oil industry to drive some tree hugger, anti-western, anti-economic growth agenda, and while its amusing to watch, I'm still trying to figure out why they picked US.

So are you saying that all these "decline" figures and the "Megaprojects" analysis is wrong? Is YOUR industry deliberately publishing false statistics?

I sure as hell hope so, RGR - much prettier future ahead if you are right and we are wrong...

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 08 Jul 2008, 19:15

Ludwig wrote: I do not claim to be an expert on PO or oil sourcing technology but every apparently well-informed and unbiased thinker on the subject whose work I've read (by unbiased I mean not working for oil companies or governments) seems to agree that the chances of finding oil fields of the size needed to defer peaking significantly is very small indeed.

Mitch · Post by **Mitch** » 08 Jul 2008, 19:30

Very interesting RGR. If I read it right, you are saying that most decline is more "man-made" than geology? That doesn't detract from the fact that unless production levels shoot up dramatically over the next few years, that we still don't have a major headache coming our way. Do you think production levels are about to sort the looming problem out?

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 08 Jul 2008, 19:33

It is an urban myth of the Peaker movement that oilfields have a "peak" profile.

So what profile DO they have?

Almost all the production profiles I have seen slope upwards, maybe plateau, and then slope downwards.

Maybe the profiles vary a lot - BUT - in broad topological terms they go up, peak and then go down.

Global production should therefore be very roughly predictable through aggregation of individual field data.

PS It doesn't really matter what causes these profiles: geology, staffing, rig availability, whatever.

PowerSwitch

At what point of depletion will it need to be before it gets

Re: At what point of depletion will it need to be before it