Oil Production: Will the Peak Hold?

[chubbygristle]

That was the river, the river, the river, and this is the sea......

waterboys?

[SunnyJim]

Yup.... The 'This is the Sea' album. Brilliant.

"Old England is dying...."

[Joe]

Where is our connection with nature? Our one-ness with the planet? Our respect for the great Earth Mother? We've lost 'the way'. The one true way that cannot be named. We need to meditate, re-connect. Surrender ourselves to the ways of nature and stop trying to inflict our domination over something we will never tame.

Ah, but the dominating aspect of human behaviour is, of course, a product of nature itself...

[SunnyJim]

Yes I know. Sad isn't it?

I guess when times are hard spirituality and connectivity to the earth grow. Certainly I have been more spiritually inclined in my impoverished years.

How many poachers turn game keeper through watching and learning about there prey? The more we have to turn to the land, the more we will respect and love it again.

It's only this glut of oil and the ability of the west to import rather than grow that has allowed us to become so distanced from Nature.

[Catweazle]

The argument that reserves are increasing because the rising oil price has made it economical to extract new oil is pointless.

What is the point of stating the reserves if nobody can afford to buy the oil ?

It's a complete red herring designed to discourage Governments from investing in new technology.

[Catweazle]

The more we have to turn to the land, the more we will respect and love it again.

How very true. Our kids sit here dazzled by the technology in their Playstations as a spider builds a web outside the window, unnoticed but 1000 times more complex.

[RGR]

In away this "yeast in bottle view" is perhaps how extreme "peak oil" views see oil production. RGR I think you are telling us that there is more to the situation than the simple view.

[RGR]

His efforts are more towards trying to make people appreciate growth on growth.

[RGR]

The argument that reserves are increasing because the rising oil price has made it economical to extract new oil is pointless.

[chubbygristle]

His efforts are more towards trying to make people appreciate growth on growth.

Those of us who work with non linear equations like the exponential and hyperbolic on a daily basis don't need the confusion which he injects into a debate.

But that s the point of his work (at least the particular lecture in question )... he isn't aiming at people who work with non-linear equations on a day to day basis. He is aiming at passing a message on to a wider audience who are likely to believe the confusion injected into the media by people working with very linear projections about future resource availability and take such information on face value as opposed to questioning it.

You see...people don't pay attention to the particulars of the exponential and how it works, they simply grab his conclusion, which is that "XX resource is gone XX faster than you think if growth continues to grow". They don't pay attention to how a given thing doesn't grow AT ALL, or the economics involved in slowing the growth, or growth slowing, and speeding up, pr remaining level for years.

But that isn't his conclusion. He does say that XX resource will be gone more quickly that you think *if* growth in production continues to grow, but his conclusion (as far as I recall) was along the lines of people should realise that the predictions made in the media based on the assumption of current consumption levels are not to be trusted. I don't recall any conclusions in the things I have read of his that says that sustained exponential use of a resource *will* happen. Again, a part of his lecture is about other limiting factors which will inevitably arise and prevent perpetual growth on growth.

In my industry, the equivalent is people making/finding an in place calculation, and proclaiming "The Bakken has 400 Billion Barrels of Oil In IT!!" which while it might be true in a technical sort of way, means NOTHING when it comes to recoverable volumes or rates. Its so terrible that certain scientific organizations won't even release a number like that any more, because the backlash by people who can't read what was evaluated is just terribe.

True. However that rings true for all manor of information that is sadly misinterpreted by the media and other commentators, both within and without the scope of resource availability for reasons of technical ignorance or wanton sensationalism.

It's a sad state of affairs but has been the case, especially in the media, for years and years.

[Catweazle]

What is the point of stating the reserves if nobody can afford to buy the oil ?

If people stop buying the oil, the one thing you can guarentee is that it will become cheaper.

The point I'm trying to make is that you claim that there are more reserves based on the fact that more oil can be recovered by spending more money. Where does this end ? It's like saying we'll never run out because we can always spend a million pounds recovering another barrel.

Oil that is too expensive to recover is just as bad as oil that doesn't exist, both mean cold winters for Mr Average.

My slightly paranoid opinion is that oil companies will keep telling us there's more oil around the corner in order to persuade short-termist governments to keep spending money on winning elections and forget about developing alternative technologies. Meanwhile the oil companies themselves will develop alternatives which they will announce as ready and sell us the energy just as the oil becomes uneconomical.

Going back to your "reserves growing due to prices rising" theory, what happens in a world recession ? Will the oil companies downgrade their reserves because there isn't enough wealth to extract it ?

[RGR]

[Susukino]

The problem with any study of Saudi oilfields is that THEY have all the information, anyone not employed by ARAMCO in the reservoir engineering department is just guessing. Some guessing is better than others. The Saudi guess is best.

RGR - you seem to be forgetting human nature. This is not just about quality of data and whether they have bright people working for them. For one thing, who says there is only one Saudi guess? That would be logical only if the "Saudi" view is monolithic rather than being composed of numerous competing political interests. If there are multiple views on reserves within Saudi (or within ARAMCO) then the most powerful political view will prevail and be disseminated, irrespective of whether it is the most factually correct.

Moreover, if Saudi political power in the region is threatened by a certain view, that view will probably be supressed. The argument that Saudi just doesn't have much oil left surely has the potential to erode the country's international standing. Who would bother with Saudi if it weren't for the oil? That alone would be a good reason for Saudi engineers to stress that there's plenty left in the ground - whether or not that is an accurate assessment.

Suss

[Catweazle]

I understand, and this statement is quite reasonable. But todays economics aren't tomorrows economics, and whats expensive to the average person using crude to power their transport versus a major factory needing it as feedstock for making plastic are two completely different systems deciding what is "expensive" and what is not.

We seem to be approaching the problem from different directions. I understand that there will always be oil available for whoever can afford it but that means nothing to the man facing a powercut because his neighbourhood can't afford to pay the "premium" rate for continuous electricity, or the man who can't afford to run his car as petrol reaches ?10 per litre.

The forum is based around the idea of shortages for average people. Rising costs of production mean shortages for the man with limited budget, regardless of whether there is actually oil in Canadian shale or not.

The age of easy, cheap oil is coming to an end and theoretical "reserves" aren't going to help.

[emordnilap]

The problem with any study of Saudi oilfields is that THEY have all the information, anyone not employed by ARAMCO in the reservoir engineering department is just guessing. Some guessing is better than others. The Saudi guess is best.

RGR - you seem to be forgetting human nature. This is not just about quality of data and whether they have bright people working for them. For one thing, who says there is only one Saudi guess? That would be logical only if the "Saudi" view is monolithic rather than being composed of numerous competing political interests. If there are multiple views on reserves within Saudi (or within ARAMCO) then the most powerful political view will prevail and be disseminated, irrespective of whether it is the most factually correct.

Moreover, if Saudi political power in the region is threatened by a certain view, that view will probably be supressed. The argument that Saudi just doesn't have much oil left surely has the potential to erode the country's international standing. Who would bother with Saudi if it weren't for the oil? That alone would be a good reason for Saudi engineers to stress that there's plenty left in the ground - whether or not that is an accurate assessment.

Suss

Indeed.

Why do I have a feeling that the Saudis are about to turn the world on its head with previously unreleased data? In the next few months, that is. Where has this feeling come from and do other posters have it?