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

[Ludwig]

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.

"Expert on PO" in nearly any context is a bit of an oxymoron, if only because people can't even agree on definitions for what PO is, let alone the consequences.

I tend to operate professionally at the edge of this very question,

OK, I think I'm beginning to get the picture.

and its interesting that in those circles, worrying about whether or not undiscovered resources can cover, or not cover, some future demand scenario, is almost nonexistant. In part because that is an economic question and doesn't have much to do with the size and location of undiscovered resources.

Getting some of the detail wrong does not mean Hubbert's main argument was wrong.

The detail is the data upon which Hubbert built his entire concept. Without that detail, what is left to sustain the concept?

Sorry but you're talking nonsense and I'm sure you know you're talking nonsense.

Your argument is that if Hubbert couldn't account for every single deviation from his sine curve, he's proved wrong.

Particularly considering that Hubbert himself by the 80's came to recognize the economics inherent within his original model? So, 20 years ago, even HE knew that his concept of a geologic profile was not geologic.

Oh rubbish. It was fundamentally geologic; economics may tweak the pattern a bit and countries may hold back production to keep prices up and sustain supply a little longer, but to assert that oil production may peak 90 years hence is just laughable. I guarantee that you don't have a single credible source to back up this possibility.

I hadn't heard of these late-peaking oil fields. Were they are relatively minor ones?

It is an urban myth of the Peaker movement that oilfields have a "peak" profile. They don't, and Hubbert never said they did. Hubberts concept was one of aggragation, not of individual units. Campbell himself recognized this in his "Coming Oil Crisis" book, and for the right reasons. The example to which I refer is the Saudi Arabia of the Appalachian Basin, Ohio. Known the world over in its time....and yet....90 years after it peaked...it did it again. Hubbert used it as an example in his 1956 paper.
Explain THAT in a geologic context and I will spend the rest of my life in indentured servitude to the Peaker of your choice.

So a moment ago you were suggesting that the global pattern resembled that of individual oil fields, and now you're saying it doesn't. But don't worry, I know you don't believe a word of what you're saying.

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?

I think I can say with reasonable certitude that oil will be produced 90 years from now. I think I can say with reasonable certitude that more oil will be produced 90 years from now than will be consumed 90 years from now.

The actual amount is irrelevant, because its an economic question and answer, not one of just oil supply.

Cryptic and evasive, but I think I understand you. Obviously if in 2100 most of the human race has been killed off by famine or bioweapons, then there will indeed be plenty of oil to meet the needs of who's left.

Anyway, I see where you're coming from and I hope other people here realise it too.

[Mitch]

Whoah, steady on there Ludwig - RGR does claim to be in the industry. Sure he's pissed off that us P.O.er's are taking aim at HIS industry - but I do understand that. I am a two-way radio engineer, and I get mighty peed off when the plebs start going on about pulling down 5 watt cell phone towers, but totally ignore the megawatt T.V. and broadcast radio transmitters they are living under - it's a totally idiotic "attack" on MY industry!! Let's not berate RGR for his idea's, I personally am very interested in what he has to say, even though my earlier comments were somewhat argumentative.

[Ludwig]

Whoah, steady on there Ludwig - RGR does claim to be in the industry. Sure he's pissed off that us P.O.er's are taking aim at HIS industry - but I do understand that. I am a two-way radio engineer, and I get mighty peed off when the plebs start going on about pulling down 5 watt cell phone towers, but totally ignore the megawatt T.V. and broadcast radio transmitters they are living under - it's a totally idiotic "attack" on MY industry!! Let's not berate RGR for his idea's, I personally am very interested in what he has to say, even though my earlier comments were somewhat argumentative.

Point taken, and I'll try to tone down my comments in future if that's the way it works here. I just think one should bear in mind that expertise can be used to confuse as much as to clarify.

[MacG]

Whoah, steady on there Ludwig - RGR does claim to be in the industry. Sure he's pissed off that us P.O.er's are taking aim at HIS industry - but I do understand that. I am a two-way radio engineer, and I get mighty peed off when the plebs start going on about pulling down 5 watt cell phone towers, but totally ignore the megawatt T.V. and broadcast radio transmitters they are living under - it's a totally idiotic "attack" on MY industry!! Let's not berate RGR for his idea's, I personally am very interested in what he has to say, even though my earlier comments were somewhat argumentative.

Point taken, and I'll try to tone down my comments in future if that's the way it works here. I just think one should bear in mind that expertise can be used to confuse as much as to clarify.

I think old "RGR" is the same as "ReserveGrowthRulez" from po.com - he actually managed to get banned from that site a couple of times. Quite some feat...

[RGR]

So are you saying that all these "decline" figures and the "Megaprojects" analysis is wrong?

[RGR]

Very interesting RGR. If I read it right, you are saying that most decline is more "man-made" than geology?

[RGR]

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

So what profile DO they have?

[RGR]

Sorry but you're talking nonsense and I'm sure you know you're talking nonsense.

[RGR]

I just think one should bear in mind that expertise can be used to confuse as much as to clarify.

You betcha!

[Mitch]

RGR, you certainly have got my attention. Honestly, what are your views/thoughts/feelings about all this? A long term gradual decline in oil use? or a short, sharp descent into chaos? What's happening right now? Just a short term, (1 to 10 year) dip, then a return to a gradual reduction in available energy? What is your take on the whole thing?

[dudley]

Am I? If 90% of the world follows a specific production profile ( I'm being generous here for a demonstration ), what is more important, that 90% of the world follows a specific production profile or the fact that the 10% of the world which doesn't follow this profile has 90% of the worlds reserves?

The rep from BP said something like this at a Parliamentary group meeting. He said that the world doesn't have to follow a Hubbert-like production profile even if countries do. I can only assume he, and you, mean that Saudi or Iraq are going to produce flat out and produce a long plateau for the world. The BP guy said something about tax regimes being favorable, which I thought was smoke.

It doesn't seem like either Saudi Arabia or Iraq are going to produce flat out. Saudi already announced they aren't going to increase production.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/07/01/oil.saudi/

Iraq is a sad story - probably a good example of nongeological factors at work keeping production down.

[dudley]

It doesn't seem like either Saudi Arabia or Iraq are going to produce flat out. Saudi already announced they aren't going to increase production.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS/07/01/oil.saudi/

I forgot to mention the extra 500,000 barrels a day Saudi promised.

http://www.domainb.com/industry/oil_gas ... rabia.html

[RGR]

RGR, you certainly have got my attention. Honestly, what are your views/thoughts/feelings about all this? A long term gradual decline in oil use?

[RGR]

The rep from BP said something like this at a Parliamentary group meeting. He said that the world doesn't have to follow a Hubbert-like production profile even if countries do. I can only assume he, and you, mean that Saudi or Iraq are going to produce flat out and produce a long plateau for the world.

[Mitch]

Yea guy's, there is a lot of smoke and bull clouding these things - take South Africa for example. End of last year/beginning of this year, they were well into rolling black-out's. Big time stuff, it was all the rage. Documents flew proving that Eskom - the quasi-state electricity supplier - had ignored strident warnings 10 years ago, that they needed to build many more power stations and infra-structure, but had ignored the reports. The black-outs would continue for at least 5 to 7 years before the infra-structure would be ready. The economy was in dire straights as mining etc was drastically affected. The whole cause was lack of sufficient generating capacity. Then overnight, after a few deals and shennanigans revolving around the purchase of coal, POOF - the magic Genie sorted it - no more black-outs, nothing - absolutely no problem. So in reality, it had NOTHING to do with insufficient capacity, and EVERYTHING to do with purchasing coal - but NOBODY mentioned that at all - it didn't even feature.

I am starting to wonder how much this particular "oil shock" has to do with P.O., or if it's got something to do with a totally different bag of tricks....