Oil Production: Will the Peak Hold?

[RenewableCandy]

I've kind of been wondering about that, but your mention of the poorer countries is probably the explanation for the 'disonnance' between what we hear (extraction rate failing to increase, dislocation in the money markets, etc) and what we see (same eejits driving same routes and/or more, every day, people still buying useless stuff).

The thing about crying wolf too often, as people have doubtless done, is, it doesn't make it any less likely, viewed from today, that this time they happen to be right.

[RGR]

The North Sea peaked around 1986....declined...and then peaked again around 1999-2000. A beautiful example of how peaking doesn't have much to do with geology

The July 1988 Piper Alpha disaster, in which 167 died, the worst ever off shore accident, had quite an impact on North Sea production.

Amazing how peaks can be caused by things other than geology, isn't it?

[RGR]

PS A dumb question: if there is NO oil supply problem why is it at $95 at the moment?

[RGR]

Manmade depletion of oilfields has been happening since August of 1859. Are you arguing that just because amatuers recently noticed, it matters more now than then?

[chris25]

Growing economies....using less crude....and peakers don't talk about THIS particular trend either...because if it can happen, we don't have to worry about less crude near as much as some would have us believe, now do we?

I cant think of one economy that has grown using less oil.

Ok our cars are a little cleaner (statistically they are still around 31MPG) but we still consume as much oil as the year before.

Oil is what drives the economy, it drives cheap labour, enables you to get chinese tat for a few pennies, enables the Ciy of London to control transactions from massive corporations all across the world, it gives us what we have today. Without it we'd still be living a 19t century lifestyle.

You'll realise it in the end, just like I was "biofuels/hydrogen can save us!)

[SunnyJim]

Growing economies....using less crude....and peakers don't talk about THIS particular trend either...because if it can happen, we don't have to worry about less crude near as much as some would have us believe, now do we?

I cant think of one economy that has grown using less oil.

Ok our cars are a little cleaner (statistically they are still around 31MPG) but we still consume as much oil as the year before.

Oil is what drives the economy, it drives cheap labour, enables you to get chinese tat for a few pennies, enables the Ciy of London to control transactions from massive corporations all across the world, it gives us what we have today. Without it we'd still be living a 19t century lifestyle.

You'll realise it in the end, just like I was "biofuels/hydrogen can save us!)

I agree with Chris25. To think that an economy can grow significantly without increasing it's quanity of 'energy used for useful work' per day is wrong. An economy can grow by making efficiency gains (more useful work from oil, gas and coal), but it's hard to make enough efficiency gains to counteract a drop in the use of fossil fuels. Less fuel == less work == shrinking GDP.

[RenewableCandy]

I wonder RGR do you live in the States, or have you? I'm sure that if the main problem they'll face is one of high price (due to scarcity or any other mechanism) then, as you say, they have the capacity to adapt, by slimming down their consumption. Heck there's plenty of room for manouevre!

But if they start facing interruptions to supply, I think that'll be another matter altogether. In many parts of the US people live in places which are lain-out in such a way that you simply cannot function without a car of some sort. People will be under a lot of stress: you can lose your job if you don't make it into work one day. Kunstler had that phrase about patience running out in the gas-queues and "the hand-guns coming out the glove-compartments..." OK hardly Mad Max stuff, but still not nice!

Having said all that, I admit I bailed out of LATOC when they started on the cannibalism...

[biffvernon]

I cant think of one economy that has grown using less oil.

That doesn't mean that it wiil be an eternal truth. We should be able to expect that the future will not be the same as the past.

A little thought experiment:

If there were more concerts given by more string quartets and the ticket price was very high but they were still sold out by people earning loads of money by being paid to keep other people company as they walked down the streets to the concert halls etc. etc. the money supply could increase, the velocity of circulation could increase, the economy could grow. But without oil.

Right, back to work.

[RenewableCandy]

I cant think of one economy that has grown using less oil.

That doesn't mean that it wiil be an eternal truth. We should be able to expect that the future will not be the same as the past.

A little thought experiment:

If there were more concerts given by more string quartets and the ticket price was very high but they were still sold out by people earning loads of money by being paid to keep other people company as they walked down the streets to the concert halls etc. etc. the money supply could increase, the velocity of circulation could increase, the economy could grow. But without oil.
Right, back to work.

Biff I wonder about your concerts. I can see lots of money-spinning activity of a cultural nature that requires very little direct energy (art, literature, music...) as well as things like trad. and basic medicines.

But otoh all the people involved in these worthy activities have had years of training, during which they (and their teachers) are otherwise not-very productive. I know from experiences in Russia that all this can be done with MUCH LESS energy, riches, etc, than we have at present but I wonder if the fact that energy is, not little, but decreasing, would scupper it all? I very much hope not, but even so.

[biffvernon]

Biff I wonder about your concerts.

Oh, substitute your own low-energy service sector of choice. Hairdressers may (perhaps, I'm really no expert) need less training than members of a string quartet.

[J. R. Ewing]

This states 74 mbpd has being the highest but I thought I'd read that 84 mbpd was the daily world consumption and this was some 2 years ago.

Or is it a case of some websites and books give varying figures?

[RGR]

Growing economies....using less crude....and peakers don't talk about THIS particular trend either...because if it can happen, we don't have to worry about less crude near as much as some would have us believe, now do we?

I cant think of one economy that has grown using less oil.

[RGR]

I agree with Chris25. To think that an economy can grow significantly without increasing it's quanity of 'energy used for useful work' per day is wrong.

[RGR]

I wonder RGR do you live in the States, or have you? I'm sure that if the main problem they'll face is one of high price (due to scarcity or any other mechanism) then, as you say, they have the capacity to adapt, by slimming down their consumption. Heck there's plenty of room for manouevre!

[clv101]

Again, peak oil is not about peak fossil fuels. If we suddenly had less fossil fuels of all stripes, that is COMPLETELY different than just a dropping supply of the transport fuel specialist fossil fuel.

While correct I don't think that's an important distinction. Oil is the most dominant fossil fuel, the most dominant marketed energy source. Peak oil very likely also represents peak fossil fuels and peak energy. It simply isn't feasible to expect non-oil fossil fuels or alternatives like wind, biomass or nuclear to pickup the shortfall created by oil declining at say 2% per year.