But, can't the peak be caused by multiple causes (wars, shortages, voluntary cutbacks, etc., etc.)?

Wouldn't it still be called "peak oil"?

Isn't "peak oil" the top of the production curve...no matter what makes the production go down from the top?

Rick

But, can't the peak be caused by multiple causes (wars, shortages, voluntary cutbacks, etc., etc.)?

The problem with calling those other issues "peak oil" is that they can come back online and cause production to rise. A geological peak can't. So I don't consider those other factors a peak. If they happen at the same time as a geological peak, then you will see that peak earlier than you otherwise would have. If not, it will be a false peak.

Of course then we have the situation where supply/demand tightens up as excess capacity is used up. This causes prices to rise as supply is rising, but can't keep up with the increases in demand. This is my Peak Lite scenario.

But, how do we ever have a geological peak without all of the other factors also affecting the production?

It seems to me that the peak could be caused by a voluntary reduction (plus other factors). Then when the time of the ramp up comes, the production increases, but it does not ever again exceed the peak caused by a multitude of factors (including geological).

I guess what I am trying to say, is that I believe the peak will be (or has been) reached and caused by a multitude of causes, with the geology just being one of the causes.

Rick

I guess what I am trying to say, is that I believe the peak will be (or has been) reached and caused by a multitude of causes, with the geology just being one of the causes.

Right, but if those other factors happen in the abscence of a geological peak, then production may rise again. No doubt when the geological peak occurs, there will be areas with shut-in production. But unless you can get a production decline from the other factors that is not permanent if you aren't pushing up against "The Peak."

Begins to look more and more like CERA's "undulating plateau"

Does anyone have access or a  larger summary of the Nature article on methane and hydropower?

Drat.  It was free this morning.  Must have been one of those short-term deals.

Try going in via this link (at the bottom of the page).

Thanks for posting the new link.

The gist of the layman's article is via the release of organic materials flooded by the dam.  Wonder how background, "normal" releases and loss of terrestial photosynthetic capacity were handled, also the aquatic reservior production of carbon lost to the sediments over time.  Interesting study potential.

Does not seem to address smaller scale hydro projects, either with penstocks or disbursed microhydro.  

C'mon Robert, we should know that there is absolutely no way to completely separate 'logistical' peak from 'geological' peak. Crude oil extraction is by definition a logistical excercise. IMO this is a completely false dichotomy.
The point is that a logistical peak is not necessarily permanent.

RR,

Good explanation.  Thats always been my point about the difference between "geological" or true peak, and "logistical" or peak caused by logistical factors such as lack of manpower, lack of machinery, political instability, lack of investment capital, lack of demand, etc, etc.  Logistical peak can be recovered from, as in the 1980's.  But "true geological peak" can never be.

Westexas makes the great case of this in regards to Texas and lower 48 U.S.

There was no war, the technical talant was as good as anywhere in the world, there was plenty of money, and there was the best machinery in the history of the industry....but when Texas went into it's "geological" decline, no amount of money, no amount of effort and no amount of drilling could reverse it.
When that happens, EVERY OTHER FACTOR becomes moot.  That is the question we are all asking:  How close is the world to that point?  Because once it happens, looking for alternatives, and restructuring consumption downward has got to happen FAST.  If the U.S. peak was any indication, we will get no advance warning, and the price signal will tell us nothing.  American oil was as cheap as it had ever been (inflation adjusted) at the time of the U.S. peak, and everyone was living large.  Only months later, we were over the top and starting the long, long decline.  

Right now, if you factor in inflation, oil is still relatively cheap (taking a price between $58 and $62 per barrel) when compared to inflation on everything else since the early 1980's.  

Even the optimists know this:  Light sweet liquid crude, and that prestine natural gas are one shot deals.  We may be able to find alternatives, synfuels, etc., but the time of pulling this miracle elixer out of the ground and out of the ocean floor can only happen for us once on this Earth.  That first time was a "freebie" in a way.  All the rest we will have to design ourselves, at great cost and effort.  If we are too lazy to get off our lazy arses and start now, we will have only ourselves to blame for using up the last of a miracle of nature as great as natural water or the giant tropical forests, there will be no "store" to run to and buy what is the only GEM of nature and God of the likes of this planet ...there will be no putting the toothpaste back in the tube.

Forgive us, we do take it so for granted don't we?

Roger Conner  known to you as ThatsItImout

rodger...there was no price trigger in 1970, because the U.S. could simply import the necessary oil from overseas. In a true geologic peak, that will not be possible. Price will assert itself.
Yes the scariest part - true geological peak - no turning back the clock, no new places to look and find more.  The fight over what is left?  The decline from mall shoppers to field workers?  
I wonder how much of the total US economy is auto based?  Road  building and maintaining machines, parts and repairs(street lights, signals), auto parts stores, insurance, law enforcement, tort, hospitals, (Houses with) attached garages, war in the ME, vacation, the list is endless.
How much do we spend paying for cars?
How much effort was spent feeding and maintaining a horse or ox?

 

One, old, data point:  In the 1960s about half of the real estate in Los Angeles county was given over to the automobile; roads, parking lots, garages, gas stations, blah blah.
" Logistical peak can be recovered from, as in the 1980's.  But "true geological peak" can never be"

Is it possible that the "logistical peak" in the '80s was easily recovered from because we were not at "geological peak"???  

The "geological peak" you describe is some imaginary value and date.  

Production of oil is NEVER devoid of logistical factors such like "lack of manpower, lack of machinery, political instability, lack of investment capital, lack of demand, etc, etc."

The world is not a test-tube where all of these "logistical" factors of Production can be controlled.  

The theoretical peak may be any date you choose but once the geopolitics intervenes this TimezUp we will not have the same luxury of bountiful easy oil to recover from this "logistical peak", like we did in the 1980s.

This "logistical peak" is not likely to ever be recovered from again.

   

I tend to agree to a point, however IMO we shall never reach a potential peak. The coming economic slow-down/depression will tend to reduce consumption from its current level. By the time we can/could come out of the slump, the continued world consumption will have reduced reserves to a point that production above our current production rate can not be resumed. A slump that provides a 20% reduction and lasts 5 years would place the world in a time/position where many folks expect peak to occur 2011/12.
The undulating plateau?
I sent the first draft of my Peak Export debate off to PG.  It's about 1,600 words.  Following is the introduction.

Resolved:   World Net Oil Export Capacity is Now Declining Because of Involuntary Reductions in Production and/or Because of Increases in Domestic Consumption in Major Oil Exporting Countries

A Guest Post by Westexas (Jeffrey J. Brown)

Background
Robert Rapier suggested that we debate this topic, and I agreed.   In reality, there are only shades of gray difference between us regarding the timing of Peak Oil and Peak Exports.  I believe that the crisis has hit, while Robert believes that the worst won't be upon us until some time shortly after 2010.

In any case, in a guest post on The Oil Drum (TOD) in January 2006 http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/1/27/14471/5832, I predicted, based on graphs primarily done by "Khebab," who is now a TOD Contributor, that the world would see declining net oil exports this year.  

I focused on the top three net oil exporters--Saudi Arabia (KSA); Russia and Norway--which together accounted for 48% of the (total liquids) exports by the top net oil exporters in 2004 (all production data based on EIA numbers, unless noted otherwise).  Top exporters are defined as those exporting one mbpd or more.

In his most recent book, "Beyond Oil:  The View from Hubbert's Peak," Kenneth Deffeyes outlined a simplified version of the mathematical techniques that M. King Hubbert used to accurately pick the time frame for the peak of Lower 48 oil production.  The method, named "Hubbert Linearization" (HL) by Stuart Staniford on TOD, is outlined in the following article "Texas and US Lower 48 oil production as a model for Saudi Arabia and the world." http://www.energybulletin.net/16459.html

Deffeyes defines Qt as a mathematical estimate of the ultimate recoverable reserves for a region.     Regions tend to peak, and start declining when they are about 50% depleted, i.e., the 50% of Qt mark.  

The following regions have now shown lower production after crossing the 50% of Qt mark:  Texas; Lower 48; Total US (which had a secondary, but still lower peak, after the North Slope production came on line); Russia; North Sea; KSA and Mexico.  

In the January article, I outlined my "Export Land" model, which was inspired by work done earlier by Matt Simmons.  I stipulated that we had a country producing 20 mbpd and consuming 10 mbpd.  

I then stipulated Export Land hits the 50% of Qt mark, and over a five year period, production declines by 25% and consumption increases by 20%.  Because of these two factors--falling production and rising domestic consumption--the net oil exports from out hypothetical exporter decline by 70%, from 10 mbpd to 3 mbpd.  

Note that the underlying assumption, which I think is generally true, is domestic demand is generally satisfied before oil is exported.  We have a real life example of the Export Land model in the UK, which has gone from exporting one mbpd in 1999 to being a net importer in 2005.  

Also note that I expect domestic consumption in the exporting countries to go up quite rapidly, at least initially, as oil prices rise faster than their production is falling.

What I found deeply troubling in January was that the top three net oil exporters were all past their respective 50% of Qt marks.   In January, KSA was showing stable production, Russia was showing a slow rate of growth and Norway was in decline.  I predicted, based on the HL method and based on the Export Land model, that we would see lower exports from these three countries in 2006.

 
Robert,

To what extent do you and I debate the topic in the comments section following each post, or do we just see how it goes?

I would suggest that we leave the comments open, but neither of us post until the debate is over. If we start posting in the comments, that somewhat defeats the purpose of a rebuttal essay, IMO.
sounds good to me