PEAK OIL: Going Mainstream

[drkitten]

Do you mean the part of the thread where you disavowed your claims of an actual peak and continued to insist you would have “peak oil” even without a peak? I take it from the context of this post you are back to arguing for an immanent decline in oil production?

I'm not following this argument at all. Can you point me to the relevant posts where Dymanic made such a disavowal?

As far as I can tell, Dymanic is simply pointing out (correctly, imho) that "peak oil" simply means a global maximum of production; it does not mean an immediate large-scale drop in production. Wikipedia's figure for US production, for instance, shows the "peak" occurring at 1970, but production stayed within 20% of that figure for the next twenty-odd years.

If you're suggesting that Dymanic is insisting that peak oil means we will run out of oil tomorrow (as TCS misattributes).... that seems to be wrong. (That would be much more accurate as a criticism of JihadJane, but she's said little that is worth taking seriously enough to dismantle.) If you're suggesting that Dymanic has denied the existence of a global maximum in production, I'd like a reference to the post....

 

[Dymanic]

I'd suggest that you might start by providing at least one example of a 'peak oil nutter' claiming that "we'll be out of oil tomorrow".

You don't read your own posts?

Like this one?:

We will surely be extracting oil from wells in the US two hundred years from now. This isn't about being "completely out of oil", and never has been.

Was there some other post you had in mind? Is there a post by JJ that you had in mind as an example of someone saying "we'll be out of oil tomorrow"? You've now made the claim a number of times in this thread, and I've asked you a number of times to support it, and you haven't done that once. At this point, what it amounts to is you falsely attributing to me statements I've never made. In short, I'm calling you a LIAR.

 

[jimbob]

Yeah, that's what I thought. If you decide you'd like to participate in an actual discussion on this subject instead of just popping in every once in a while to toss off a quick inanity, I'd suggest that you might start by providing at least one example of a 'peak oil nutter' claiming that "we'll be out of oil tomorrow".

You don't read your own posts? If you'd prefer not to, you could also check out Jihad Jane's inane contributions.

We went through this earlier, Dynamic isn't saying what you claim:

It does however look as if you (possibly carelessly) did make a fairly inane contribution to this though:

So why aren't we drilling new ones? [Are we completely out of oil already? ]

Though that wasn't a one-off:

If the point you're trying (quite awkwardly) to make is that there has ever before been such a strong consensus among experts as exists today that the peak of global oil production is imminent (defining that as something like: "within the next decade or so if not sooner"), then I'd suggest that instead of falsely attributing to ME statements I've never made, you provide the evidence upon which you are basing that claim.

I mean, in 1968 the oil industry was still laughing at Hubbert's 1956 prediction that US production would peak between '65 and '70 (the year it DID peak) -- for cryin' out loud.

You realize that US production "peaked" because we stopped drilling, right?
My production of baby teeth peaked when I was 5, just as my mom predicted it would! Gee, I wonder why?

And the full post where I covered this (hidden for brevity):

You might notice that the decline is gradual. Peak production doesn't mean zero production immediately afterwards.

I agree. Dynamic seems to be questioning that.

Not the way I read the conversation:

If the point you're trying (quite awkwardly) to make is that there has ever before been such a strong consensus among experts as exists today that the peak of global oil production is imminent (defining that as something like: "within the next decade or so if not sooner"), then I'd suggest that instead of falsely attributing to ME statements I've never made, you provide the evidence upon which you are basing that claim.

I mean, in 1968 the oil industry was still laughing at Hubbert's 1956 prediction that US production would peak between '65 and '70 (the year it DID peak) -- for cryin' out loud.

You realize that US production "peaked" because we stopped drilling, right?
My production of baby teeth peaked when I was 5, just as my mom predicted it would! Gee, I wonder why?

We stopped drilling in 1970? I'd love to see where you picked up that interesting "fact". Stayed stopped through the oil embargo of 1973-74, when price quadrupled? Never opened the Alaska North Slope for drilling in the mid-seventies? Those rigs I used to see steadily pumping away all across LA were, what... props?

<snip>

I never heard those cries myself. Just who was it that you are claiming was voicing these warnings? The reason I ask is that I've got guys like Sadad al-Huseini, former head of exploration and production at Saudi Aramco, saying (in 2007) that global production has reached its maximum sustainable plateau and that output will start to fall within 15 years, by which time the world’s oil resources will be very severely depleted.
http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=67

ETA: Indeed it almost looks as if you were questioning that

So why aren't we drilling new ones? [Are we completely out of oil already? ]

We ARE drilling new ones.<snip>

A key insight in understanding why the Hubbert curve works is that in extracting oil from a reservoir, a point is reached at which the return in increased production diminishes with the addition of each new well; more artificial lift is required, and eventually, waterflooding and other methods, all of which consumes energy -- energy which, when subtracted from the total energy potential of the oil being produced, reduces that total correspondingly. If you think it's all about politics and economics, you're just flat wrong; you're up against hard laws of physics and geology here.

No. We will surely be extracting oil from wells in the US two hundred years from now. This isn't about being "completely out of oil", and never has been.<snip>

 

[lomiller]

As far as I can tell, Dymanic is simply pointing out (correctly, imho) that "peak oil" simply means a global maximum of production; it does not mean an immediate large-scale drop in production. Wikipedia's figure for US production, for instance, shows the "peak" occurring at 1970, but production stayed within 20% of that figure for the next twenty-odd years.

Peak oil is almost always a reference to Hubbert’s theory of peak oil which specifically predicts a bell shaped curve and therefore demands a rapid drop off in production once the peak is reached. Dynamical has alternated between supporting the notion and consequences of peak oil and disavowing the bell shaped curve that actually gives peak oil its name all the while attempting to refute the notion that such a peak s unlikely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

Total oil production since the 1800’s is about 1 trillion barrels. There is ~1.3 trillion barrels available at today’s prices which would almost fit the Hubbert curve, but this doesn’t account for the ~7 trillion barrels of oil that exist but are not economical to produce at today’s prices.

 

[drkitten]

Peak oil is almost always a reference to Hubbert’s theory of peak oil which specifically predicts a bell shaped curve and therefore demands a rapid drop off in production once the peak is reached.

Er,.... no.

Or perhaps

A rapid drop-off in production once the peak is reached is exactly what a bell curve isn't; the area near the top of a bell curve is nearly flat. For example, nearly 20% of the mass of the bell curve is between 0.25 and -0.25 standard deviations,

 

[lomiller]

I'm not following this argument at all. Can you point me to the relevant posts where Dymanic made such a disavowal?

You will need to take that up with Dynamical. I lost interest after he failed to explain why he disagreed with my assessment that the Hubbert curve in unlikely to be followed while simultaneously insisting he wasn’t arguing for Hubbert bell shaped curve.

 

[drkitten]

Total oil production since the 1800’s is about 1 trillion barrels. There is ~1.3 trillion barrels available at today’s prices which would almost fit the Hubbert curve, but this doesn’t account for the ~7 trillion barrels of oil that exist but are not economical to produce at today’s prices.

It doesn't need to. As long as the oil remains uneconomical to produce, it will remain unproduced. Unless the price goes to infinity, some of it will almost always remain uneconomical. Hibbert's theory talks only about total oil production -- not total production if we didn't have the sense to walk or take the bus instead.

 

[lomiller]

Er,.... no.

Or perhaps

A rapid drop-off in production once the peak is reached is exactly what a bell curve isn't; the area near the top of a bell curve is nearly flat. For example, nearly 20% of the mass of the bell curve is between 0.25 and -0.25 standard deviations,

IIRC global oil production has gone up ~20 million barrels per day in the last 25 years. A drop of 20 million in the next 25 would certainly qualify as a rapid decline IMO.

 

[drkitten]

You will need to take that up with Dynamical.

No, I'm taking up with you why you feel compelled to misrepresent his argument.

If you're telling me that Dymanic said something stupid, point it out.

I lost interest after he failed to explain why he disagreed with my assessment that the Hubbert curve in unlikely to be followed while simultaneously insisting he wasn’t arguing for Hubbert bell shaped curve.

Justifying why you are telling lies by telling more lies is not likely to win you many friends. At this point, I see no reason to take your word about anything that Dymanic did or did not say.

 

[drkitten]

IIRC global oil production has gone up ~20 million barrels per day in the last 25 years. A drop of 20 million in the next 25 would certainly qualify as a rapid decline IMO.

But a stabilization of production for the next fifteen years (until 2025) followed by a drop of 20 million between 2025 and 2050 would not. And that's a better fit to the actual US production data, to Hibbert's prediction, and to what an actual bell curve looks like.

 

[lomiller]

It doesn't need to. As long as the oil remains uneconomical to produce, it will remain unproduced. Unless the price goes to infinity, some of it will almost always remain uneconomical.

Correct. Now consider that the oil can and will keep going up until other technologies are competitive. Only then will the investment required to bring more oil to market dry up.

 

[lomiller]

But a stabilization of production for the next fifteen years (until 2025) followed by a drop of 20 million between 2025 and 2050 would not. And that's a better fit to the actual US production data, to Hibbert's prediction, and to what an actual bell curve looks like.

That would take up to 2060 for a decline of 20 million barrels, but if we have already reached peak global production as some claim I don’t know if I would call that a bell curve.

Given the supply of oil remaining in the ground, global population growth and development in India/China I can’t see a 20 million barrel decline until oil is replaced by some other technology.

 

[Chaos]

Not significantly; if a well is capable of producing at 100 zillion barrels a day, but you're only producing 80 zillion, then you will produce 80 zillion for longer, until you get to a capacity of 80 zillion barrels a day. Initially, 80 zillion barrels was 80% of capacity, gradually increasing to 100% of the decreased capacity.

Then it will drop to 79 zillion, and then 78, and so forth. It will still be a gradual dropoff, nothing like a cliff. The drop from 100% of 80 to 100% of 79 will not be particularly "drastic."

If the decrease is strictly linear, you are right. If it is not... say the graph of production capacity over time, from the point where it decreases on, looks like the right half of a Bell Curve. Then, intially, you´d get a decrease from 100 to say 99 or so, which is definitely gradual. But if you´re producing 50 per period as long as you can, one day you might face a decrease from 50 to say 45 or 40, which at least is a lot less gradual.

 

[lomiller]

No, I'm taking up with you why you feel compelled to misrepresent his argument.

If you're telling me that Dymanic said something stupid, point it out.

Eh

I posted the following and Dynamical disagreed, repeatedly. I was never able to get a satisfactory answer about what he disagreed with, perhaps you can do better.

The end of cheep oil is actually a decidedly different topic from Hubbert peak oil which describes a very specific curve, one that isn’t likely to be followed when oil is expensive enough to restrict demand but still cheaper then competing energy sources.




The conditions for the second half of that curve would be that oil gets replaced by some other cheaper energy source. At the moment that doesn’t appear to be happening, so we can’t be at a Hubbert peak. This doesn’t preclude a non-Hubbert “plateau” where ever increasing prices make marginal oil sources profitable enough to bring to market despite the high cost of doing so.

Again a Hubebrt peak is fairly specific, production peaks and then begins to decline precipitously. We may have already hit peak global oil production or at least be close to it, but the rapid decline predicted by Hubbert is nowhere in sight.

 

[drkitten]

I posted the following and Dynamical disagreed, repeatedly.

I was never able to get a satisfactory answer about what he disagreed with, perhaps you can do better.

Quite easily. From your posting:

The conditions for the second half of that curve would be that oil gets replaced by some other cheaper energy source. At the moment that doesn’t appear to be happening, so we can’t be at a Hubbert peak. This doesn’t preclude a non-Hubbert “plateau” where ever increasing prices make marginal oil sources profitable enough to bring to market despite the high cost of doing so.

Again a Hubebrt peak is fairly specific, production peaks and then begins to decline precipitously

You misrepresent the nature of a Hubbert peak or of a bell curve generally. A bell curve has a plateau on top. Hubbert predicts a relatively short-lived plateau of stable but generally concave downwards production followed by an era of steep decline.

Which is not a bad description of US oil production from the period of 1970-1985.

 

[lomiller]

You misrepresent the nature of a Hubbert peak or of a bell curve generally. A bell curve has a plateau on top.

Once you hit the peak of a bell curve you get a decline, slow at first but ever accelerating. I for one do not consider this to be a plateau.

I would not at all be surprised if US oil production followed a roughly bell shaped curve, but English coal production is a better example. Neither example proves global oil production will follow a similarly shaped curve.

 

[drkitten]

Once you hit the peak of a bell curve you get a decline, slow at first but ever accelerating. I for one do not consider this to be a plateau.

Shrug. Then you're misrepresenting what Dymanic is saying.

I would not at all be surprised if US oil production followed a roughly bell shaped curve, but English coal production is a better example. Neither example proves global oil production will follow a similarly shaped curve.

No of course not. Nor does the fact that it snowed last winter -- or the ten winters previously -- prove that it will snow next winter. Science is like that. But the best predictive model we have for resource consumption is Hubbert's, so that appears to be the way the smart money -- and the industry -- is betting. (This is in marked contrast to the situation in the mid 1960s, where the industry denied the basic validity of the Hubbert model). The quibbles today are mostly over the timing --- most people accept that we'll see a bell-shaped curve, and the question is when we expect production to peak.

 

[lomiller]

Shrug. Then you're misrepresenting what Dymanic is saying. .

How so, I said something very similar Dynamical apparently disagreed and I never did get a satisfactory explanation why. At most I can be guilty of trying to fill in the blanks.

No of course not. Nor does the fact that it snowed last winter -- or the ten winters previously -- prove that it will snow next winter. Science is like that. But the best predictive model we have for resource consumption is Hubbert's, so that appears to be the way the smart money -- and the industry -- is betting.

Industry and the smart money are not using this type of historical statistical model at all. For the most part industry has access to actual data on the resource in the ground that allows them to plan future production for any given filed quite accurately, though for a number of reasons they tend to use to most conservative estimates possible and therefore almost always exceed expectation.

 

[JihadJane]

Industry and the smart money ... tend to use to most conservative estimates possible and therefore almost always exceed expectation.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Dymanic]

I posted the following and Dynamical disagreed, repeatedly. I was never able to get a satisfactory answer about what he disagreed with, perhaps you can do better.

[snip]
The conditions for the second half of that curve would be that oil gets replaced by some other cheaper energy source. At the moment that doesn’t appear to be happening, so we can’t be at a Hubbert peak.
[snip]

Your lack of satisfaction notwithstanding, my response was to ask how well that applies to the peak of US production, and what cheaper energy source it was that replaced all that domestic oil. Your answer: imported oil.

At that point I decided to overlook some details which I felt unnecessarily complicate the matter: imported oil was not cheaper than domestic oil during the years that followed the peak of US production. In fact, partly due to price controls implemented as a response to the 1973-74 embargo and partly due to OPEC's attempts to artifically maintain high prices by twiddling production, it was more expensive.

As I said, I chose to ignore that mess and accept your basic premise that imported oil is cheaper (to extract) than is domestic oil, and then invited you to explain why that is. Your response was one I found... not very satisfactory: chirping crickets.

The conclusion I was hoping to lead you to is that imported oil became the cheaper energy source after US production peaked, and as a result of that (not before, and as a cause) because the energy cost of extracting oil was becoming prohibitively high in the US. Unfortunately, you dropped out of the discussion at that point without answering my question. Now here you are back, complaining that you've been forced to fill in the blanks, despite my having already posted this:

Maybe we both ought to try to clarify. I'll go first:

As far as I can see, very few of the "real geologists" appear optimisic about the prospects for maintaining (let alone increasing) the rates of extraction we've seen in recent decades. On the other hand, none of them predict a sudden and dramatic decline in production, either. I therefore predict a peak in production (possibly a lingering at a peak plateau) followed by a decline which, being neither a vertical cliff nor a gentle downward slope, would conform reasonably well to a Hubbert curve at a low level of resolution while at a higher level of resolution reflecting a lot of market volatility (as I noted at the top of page three in this thread).

Which itself refers (in the bolded sentence) to another, earlier post in which I had already stated my position.

This "Oh, I just don't understand what Dymanic is saying" bit is getting old, and I'm not buying it anyway. If you really are too dense to grasp what I'm saying by now, then perhaps you are simply out of your depth with this entire discussion. I suspect, however, that like TCS you are merely being disingenuous. (I'll bet you could even spell my screen name correctly if you wanted to).

If you find yourself unable to make your case without resorting to such tactics, you might consider rethinking your position.