Completely agree - business needs to see expectation of ? returns before they invest.DamianB wrote:I've been a supporter of a similar 'twin peaks' idea for a while. The theoretical production peak is being/will be constrained by an inadequate production, refining and transport infrastructure. The failure of 'big oil' to collectively invest in the capacity to deliver 90mbd is a BFI (big flashing indicator) that says they know about peak oil.tristan wrote:Paul Mobbs raised an interesting point in the PO event on Tuesday, he said (as I understood) that we could experience supply peak before production peak, caused by two things - the reduction of drilling and refining capacity, sepcifically Iraq, Nigeria and areas affected by hurricane Katrina, and the over-supply of poor quality crude now that sweet light brent is less available.
Supply or production peak - Paul Mobbs
Moderator: Peak Moderation
Re: Supply or production peak - Paul Mobbs
Real money is gold and silver
-
Totally_Baffled
- Posts: 2824
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Hampshire
I wonder if the twin peaks idea could be true because the big western oil majors are shut out of the areas with all the oil?
As discussed in another thread, the lions share of oil production is with nationalised state run oil companies.
So in effect, oil majors dont invest because the fields they do have access have peaked.
The state run organisations havent invested because it was only 5 years ago when oil was $10!
It is only the last two years, that big oil and state firms have had the incentive to invest (ie >$30 oil)
As we all know it takes a long time to build refinieres and develop new fields - so the twin peak theory indeed could be true.
As discussed in another thread, the lions share of oil production is with nationalised state run oil companies.
So in effect, oil majors dont invest because the fields they do have access have peaked.
The state run organisations havent invested because it was only 5 years ago when oil was $10!
It is only the last two years, that big oil and state firms have had the incentive to invest (ie >$30 oil)
As we all know it takes a long time to build refinieres and develop new fields - so the twin peak theory indeed could be true.
TB
Peak oil? ahhh smeg.....
Peak oil? ahhh smeg.....
Thanks for the vote of confidence Bandioz.Bandidoz wrote:Well tristan obviously didn't quite get it.....
I think I understood Paul's explanation for the lay audience - 'supply' is oil that can be used, 'production' is what you get out of the ground. The plateau I mentioned in my first post is illustrated by cv101's graph.
Stick with your terms Paul, they work well. I leant my sister your book and she read it in two days, from having next to no energy knowledge she is now talking about it like a pro!
Ach - sorry I meant to say "skeptic".
As always from me, no offence intended.
One thing to bear in mind is that if the listener of an idea doesn't get it, it doesn't necessarily imply that the talker is right and the listener is wrong. Paul is actually very good at understanding this, and he is able to present the same information in a number of different ways far better than some teachers I knew.
I will say to everyone here, please don't hesitate to forum slap me if I diss you, intentionally or unintentionally.
As always from me, no offence intended.
One thing to bear in mind is that if the listener of an idea doesn't get it, it doesn't necessarily imply that the talker is right and the listener is wrong. Paul is actually very good at understanding this, and he is able to present the same information in a number of different ways far better than some teachers I knew.
I will say to everyone here, please don't hesitate to forum slap me if I diss you, intentionally or unintentionally.
Olduvai Theory (Updated) (Reviewed)
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Easter Island - a warning from history : http://dieoff.org/page145.htm
Hiya,
My view is that rather than twin peaks we're going to see a long bumpy plateau. Once we've reached the infrastructure constraints at say 85 million barrels a day then the market will price the oil at a level where demand destruction will take place to bring it in line with supply.
Take a guess at what price that will be.
As we add a meagre million barrels a day per year for the next four years (and probably lose the same through depletion) we'll continue around the same level until we fall off the cliff and go into irreversible decline around 2010.
The new refineries won't make a jot of difference as depletion in other areas will be in full swing by the time they're on line. (e.g. once the saudis are refining there heavy sulforous crude, chances are Gharwar will be depleting rapidly.
Cheers
Steve
My view is that rather than twin peaks we're going to see a long bumpy plateau. Once we've reached the infrastructure constraints at say 85 million barrels a day then the market will price the oil at a level where demand destruction will take place to bring it in line with supply.
Take a guess at what price that will be.
As we add a meagre million barrels a day per year for the next four years (and probably lose the same through depletion) we'll continue around the same level until we fall off the cliff and go into irreversible decline around 2010.
The new refineries won't make a jot of difference as depletion in other areas will be in full swing by the time they're on line. (e.g. once the saudis are refining there heavy sulforous crude, chances are Gharwar will be depleting rapidly.
Cheers
Steve
Steve
Twin peaks to me does not mean two production peaks - it means a theoretical peak (Hubbert) and an actual production peak.
Take a look at this graph of Prudhoe Bay:
The reason for the plateau is not geology, its down to the capacity of the pipeline that was built to take away the oil for refining. ie. a constrained peak
Twin peaks to me does not mean two production peaks - it means a theoretical peak (Hubbert) and an actual production peak.
Take a look at this graph of Prudhoe Bay:
The reason for the plateau is not geology, its down to the capacity of the pipeline that was built to take away the oil for refining. ie. a constrained peak
"If the complexity of our economies is impossible to sustain [with likely future oil supply], our best hope is to start to dismantle them before they collapse." George Monbiot
Thanks for that
Yep, we're talking about the same thing.
A long production plateau as we come up against the system constraints, and by the time new refineries come on line (if they're ever built) it'll be too late.
One thing could change this however, many analysts talk about an event that will kick off peak oil rather than a gradual market realisation.
Increasingly it's looking like the peak may well be obscured by the fog of war. If America attack Iran this would probably lose us several million barrels a day and we'd probably never again produce 85 million barrels, so the day before it happened would end up being the historical peak.
Iran would also fit George & Tony's bill as the 'scapegoat' to blame & focus our anger on about the loss of our lifestyle rather than the real culprits, our beloved leaders who knew and did nothing.
Cheers
Steve
Yep, we're talking about the same thing.
A long production plateau as we come up against the system constraints, and by the time new refineries come on line (if they're ever built) it'll be too late.
One thing could change this however, many analysts talk about an event that will kick off peak oil rather than a gradual market realisation.
Increasingly it's looking like the peak may well be obscured by the fog of war. If America attack Iran this would probably lose us several million barrels a day and we'd probably never again produce 85 million barrels, so the day before it happened would end up being the historical peak.
Iran would also fit George & Tony's bill as the 'scapegoat' to blame & focus our anger on about the loss of our lifestyle rather than the real culprits, our beloved leaders who knew and did nothing.
Cheers
Steve