PowerSwitch

It may be a coincidence, but relative to monthly peaks in 2005, world crude oil production is down more than one percent and Saudi crude oil production is down about 11% (EIA data, crude + condensate).

Note that the initial Lower 48 decline was quite gradual, less than 1% per year for the first two years.Also note that the world has the benefit of the non conventional tar sands production that was not a factor in the Lower 48.

Note that if the Ghawar oil field in Saudi Arabia is in long term decline, which I believe that it is, it is my understanding that every single field that has produced one million barrels per day (mbpd) or more of crude oil (crude+condensate) is now in decline.

In effect, in my opinion the very lifeblood of the world industrial economy is draining away in front of our very eyes. The only question is how fast the patient is bleeding to death.

dudley wrote:Scary stuff. Fasten your seatbelts.

Bali Roadmap
I spent two days last week in the far north of Sweden with representatives of 20 or so countries to talk about how we build trust and make progress towards a global emissions deal. The richest and poorest are here and the discussion has rotated around the substance of the economic challenge to all countries (the overall science now not being disputed) and the relative responsibility of rich and poor for tackling the problem of global warming. The EU's March commitments to unilateral emissions reductions of 20% by 2020 are a start, but even the most ambitious Bills in the US Congress envisage emissions only getting back to 1990 levels by 2020, and negotiators from some of the poorer countries argue that action on climate would compromise their economic ambitions.

The point of negotiations is to break out of this logjam. The US proposal to host talks among 15 biggest emitters can help. The UN Secretary General's invitation to a special session of the UN on 24 September can contribute. But the conclusion of this meeting is that we need a roadmap from the Bali conference in December through the two years of negotiations that leaders of the G8 last week said must conclude a deal by the UN meeting in Copenhagen in 2009. This "Bali Roadmap" needs honestly to address all the issues: adaptation now for developing countries, a carbon price on the back of developed country emissions reductions commitments, technology transfer, action on deforestation etc. The chair's conclusions will be made available in due course and I will post them here.

The Swedish meeting has shown both flexibility from countries and the fears that still dominate a lot of thinking. We need to win the big argument that low carbon development is the only way to preserve economic growth, rather than it being seen as a threat. This is where the ideas of business will be critical to shifting the political debate.

Whose problem?

The following figures encapsulate the global warming problem (2000 data):

- the US is the largest emitter (20% of emissions excluding forestry/land use) but the developing countries account for nearly 60% of emissions if land use is included

- on a historic 1950-2000 basis industrialised countries account for 70% of emissions excluding landuse, but just over 50% if included

- on a per capita basis excluding land use/forestry industrialised country citizens were responsible for 14 tonnes of CO2 emissions in 2000 compared to 3.3 in the developing world

- and when it comes to the energy intensity of GDP excluding land use the Russian Federation and China score high, the EU and Japan the most energy efficient

posted on 18 June 2007 15:40 by David Miliband

Global warming or climate change?
I was on New York Radio last week and someone called up to say that the phrase 'climate change' had been invented by President Bush to avoid mentioning global warming. I pointed out that since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was a global body this was a bitg of a stretch. But the situation described by scientists but also by Sami reindeer herders here also shows why it is change, not just warming that is dangerous. The change in weather is leading for example to unexpected very warm days in January, melting snow, but then when the cold returns it turns to ice, which means the reindeer can no longer burrow through the snow for food. So it is global warming overall, but it is climate changing too, and changing climate means changed conditions for people and animals/biodiversity.

dudley wrote:Jeffrey Brown, independent petroleum geologist in the Dallas, Texas area


http://graphoilogy.blogspot.com/2007/06 ... ation.html

writes that Deffeyes seems to have used the Hubbert Linearization method seems to have correctly
predict peak oil in 2005.

dudley wrote: Also note that the world has the benefit of the non conventional tar sands production that was not a factor in the Lower 48.

dudley wrote:

In effect, in my opinion the very lifeblood of the world industrial economy is draining away in front of our very eyes. The only question is how fast the patient is bleeding to death.

Scary stuff. Fasten your seatbelts.

biffvernon wrote:The post peak oil collapse was never going to be evenly distributed. It is concentrated in pockets and blamed on whatever handy scapegoat is walking by.

Gradually the pockets will merge and there will be a shortfall in the available scapegoat population.