<Declaration of Dependence The Oil Drum Why We (Really) May Have Entered an Oil Production Plateau>
<DrumBeat: November 12, 2006 DrumBeat DrumBeat: November 14, 2006>

204 comments on DrumBeat: November 13, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Leanan on November 13, 2006 - 9:35am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
The WSJ has a peak oil article called Dead Dinosaurs, but it's behind the paywall.  This is the bit that's free:

Ever since oil prices started falling from their peak levels this summer, investor interest in the idea of peak oil has declined as well.

But peak oil isn't about the economics of oil but the geology of it. "Price is a very murky window with which to figure out what's happening with oil supply," says Ken Deffeyes, a retired Princeton geology professor and leading peak-oil proponent.

Hopefully it will appear later today on a free site.  The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette might have it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Hurin on November 13, 2006 - 9:50am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I wouldn't get my hopes up. The term 'Dead Dinosaurs' is usually used by abiotic oil loons to describe the idea that oil has a biotic origen.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 13, 2006 - 10:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The WSJ has actually been pretty good about its peak oil reporting.  
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kyle on November 13, 2006 - 10:49am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I've read it - it's just a piece on how the majors are dead money right now, and how the hot funds are all going to the small oil service companies. On the other hand, there is a column on the front page of the Money and Investing section describing peak oil. Other than getting US oil production wrong in their figure (did you know the US produced 20 billion barrels last year, down from 40 billion in the 1970's!!!), the column was fairly balanced - Deffeyes versus the new Jack play in the Gulf of Mexico.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Darwinian on November 13, 2006 - 11:11am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Other than getting US oil production wrong in their figure (did you know the US produced 20 billion barrels last year, down from 40 billion in the 1970's!!!),

Yes that is hilarious. Doing quick check, the us produced last year, crude + condensate, 1.89 billion barrels of oil. In our peak year, 1970, we produced 3.52 billion barrels of crude + condensate. That was 5.178 mb/d and 9.637 mb/d respectfully.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PaulusP on November 13, 2006 - 10:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Leanan

There is no link with the "King Coal and Big Oil ..." quote block.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 13, 2006 - 10:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Thanks!  I think it's fixed now.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Donal on November 13, 2006 - 5:55pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"King Coal" and "Big Oil" seem to be accepted nicknames for the companies that dominate those industries, so I want to nominate a nickname for the industry that generates electricity from wind: "Mighty Wind."

Do we have any nicknames for solar and nuclear?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on November 14, 2006 - 1:13am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
nicknames for solar

Ruddy Kilowatt? Sun Juice?

and nuclear?

Night Light? Mc-squared?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Valuethinker on November 14, 2006 - 9:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
But you can name the top 10 oil companies operating in the US, or the world's top 10 coal companies (Peabody, Kennicott etc.).

You can even name the 'Big Solar', the world's top 10 solar cell producers (BP, Shell, a couple of Japanese firms).

It's hard to talk about a  'wind top 10'.

Do we mean turbine companies?  That's GE and Vesta and a Spanish co (whose name escapes me).

Do we mean wind operators?  Then that is the Danish utility, probably the German ones (E.On, RWE?), the Spanish one (Iberdrola).  In the US I think it is mostly independent operations (to capture the tax reliefs).

The reality is wind is just an enabling technology.

The 'Big Coal' and 'Big Oil' represent companies with locks on significant deposits of energy.  No wind company would have that lock-- wind is free and omnipresent.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Calorie on November 13, 2006 - 11:17am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The article is today's "Ahead of the Tape" column on page C1. It's very short but does discuss Hubbert and also includes a chart:

Also on page C1, in another article, Soft Energy Prices May Be Costly Later, is a quote from T. Boone Pickens:

T. Boone Pickens, the energy-investment titan whose investment fund BP Capital Management bets big on higher energy prices, is adamant that oil prices remain on an upward trajectory and probably have bottomed for now. "I think you'll see $70 oil before $50," Mr. Pickens says in an interview. "We're depleting this natural resource. It's unavoidable."

Finally, a free article from today's WSJ:

Renewable Fuels May Provide 25% of U.S. Energy by 2025

WASHINGTON -- A new Rand Corp. study showing the falling costs of ethanol, wind power and other forms of renewable energy predicts such sources could furnish as much as 25% of the U.S.'s conventional energy by 2025 at little or no additional expense.

A second renewable-energy report soon to be released by the National Academy of Sciences suggests wood chips may become a plentiful source of ethanol and electricity for industrial nations because their forested areas are expanding, led by the U.S. and China.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on November 13, 2006 - 11:47am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Thanks!  
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Darwinian on November 13, 2006 - 11:48am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The chart above is grossely wrong. And it gives, as its source, the EIA. I think what they meant to show, with this chart, is millions of barrels per day. That would put it about right.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Darwinian on November 13, 2006 - 11:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Correction

The chart would be about right, in millions of barrels per day, if you took the zero off numbers to the left of the chart.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Hothgor on November 13, 2006 - 12:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think they forgot to add the . between the 3 and 0.  THAT puts it exactly right :)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Darwinian on November 13, 2006 - 12:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yes, that is correct. I had it wrong also. It would not be correct if it were millions of barrels per day, it would be correct if it were billions of barrels per year divided by 10.

Ron Patterson

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Calorie on November 14, 2006 - 10:53am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The WSJ published a correction today (Tuesday, November 14, 2006), on Page A2:

Corrections & Amplifications

U.S. ANNUAL CRUDE OIL production in 2005 totaled 1.89 billion barrels. The scale of a chart of U.S. crude oil production accompanying yesterday's Ahead of the Tape column incorrectly overstated all of the output figures by a factor of 10.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

204 comments on DrumBeat: November 13, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version