I will take a shot at defining my idea that this is peak.

The amount of oil (in the sense of liquid fossil fuels in today's infrastructure) in terms of energy provided/availability for non-oil producers will essentially be in decline from this point, and will never increase, regardless of the effort thrown into it. In fact, this effort will mark one of the major drivers of the downward trend - more energy used for less energy returned is a pithy way to look at my personal understanding of peak.

Notice, this does not include facts in the rigorous sense of projects coming on-line, depletion rates, or future developments (would humanity be stupid enough to keep using fossil fuels after clear evidence of climate change - are we smarter than yeast?).

It does include various disparate elements in a wide view - increasing geostrategic positioning, leading to a decrease in oil available for other uses, for example, or a focus on increased infrastructure being built to keep up with inevitable production declines. Or a mad scramble to keep oil flowing, regardless of the costs (look at the various jet fuel shortages in the U.S. and England to see how a shortage rapidly leads to inefficiencies like trucking jet fuel instead of using a pipeline). Or more ominously, end games involving destruction of oil facilities (see Nigeria, or Iraq).

This displacement means less oil available for what today is considered normal.

We are at peak, regardless of whether production moves up a touch, bumps along, or has started to inevitably slide down. Also regardless of how much fuel costs.

And no, I don't have anything backing it up but an opinion that from roughly this point, we go down the slope. We will never have as much energy available from oil as now, broadly enough defined ('now' is a few months, not a few years). Everything from this point will be a game of musical chairs, and though how long the music plays between chairs being taken away is open, all the players seem to have understood the basic rules.

Of course, if you read something from company sources about abiotic oil, or secret Nazi plans discovered in an attic, or that overlooked Soviet secret field with 68GB URR, then I guess my opinion was wrong.

And if we as a species are dumb enough to use climate change to take advantage of finally exploiting the fossil fuels around both Poles, then we deserve what happens to us.

I think the sense of infinite possibilities is most likely to be at peak, as there is nothing blocking our view in any direction.

Yes, but it will be musical chairs with guns.
Of course, if you read something from company sources about abiotic oil, or secret Nazi plans discovered in an attic, or that overlooked Soviet secret field with 68GB URR, then I guess my opinion was wrong.

Nothing like that. More of a survey of country by country reserves, projects to bring those reserves on line (including some that are in the pipeline and haven't been announced), projects that are timed to come online to meet demand at a specific planned time, pipeline and refinery expansion projects, a refinery by refinery analysis of where the crude supplies will come from, etc. That and some other stuff I have read leads me to believe that we will have a few more upward moves in production, but the potential for a peak within 10 years is still pretty good. It is just hard to see 10 years in the future.

However, my position shouldn't be regarded as suggesting we don't have to worry about anything yet. We certainly need to be taking steps NOW in preparation. As Stuart Staniford recently said, "Our positions may not be that far apart." Believe me, they are not. I take Peak Oil very seriously, and and I very interesting in knowing when it will take place.

RR

RR,
It really does not matter much which year will later be identified as "The" peak.

IMO, you're guestimate of depletion rates is too low, but I want to emphasize that in terms of what needs to be done, it matters diddly squat whether peak was last year--or will be in 2011.

Why does the exact peak matter? I can see that as an intellectual puzzle it is interesting question, but in terms of policy or our personal responses, what difference does it make? Any at all? Some? A very little bit?

Here is why I think it matters. If everyone calls for a peak this year, and production increases, what do you think the public is going to do the next time everyone calls for a peak? What I worry about is that premature calls of peak will cause the public to ignore it when it is very clear that a peak is imminent.

You are correct, in that it won't matter much if peak is 3 years from now and people are calling for a peak this year. But if the peak is really 10 years away, and this is apparent in 3 years, we have some time to start preparing. But if we start warning people in 3 years, it is going to be hard to get their attention when they say "Didn't you call for a peak in 2006?" That's already happening to Deffeyes and Campbell. A lot of people have stopped taking them seriously.

RR

RR,
Good points!

However, I think we should not obsess on "The" peak (which in a post a couple months ago or more I pointed out was profoundly ambiguous) and instead focus on constructive responses, as both you and, for example, Alan do.

In other words, I do not like to see intellectual and emotional energy going into less important issues at the cost of very pressing practical issues.

For example, the question of whether biodiesel has much greater potential than ethanol (which you believe) is both urgent and important. You may be correct on this issue, you may not be correct--but clearly the development of alternative fuels from various sources is something we should focus on with great intensity. And what I have found is that when I focus on one problem at length (e.g. "When is the peak?"), then I have less time and motivation and urgency and resources to pursue other issues.

 

I know someone who left the oil business for the environmental business, and is now seeing their business pulled back toward biofuels.  (Amusingly client execs are happy about their biofuel intiatives, even when they don't actually know which biofuel they are doing!)

I'd say there is some danger from a pendulum swing, but on the other hand, this is the "repsonse" we wanted.  Things are moving.

So far, the peak has been December 2005, I don't know that this will hold, but Deffeyes hasn't really been proven wrong yet.
But he has called it wrong in the past:

http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2006/04/279-many-wrong-predictions-of-ken.html

The fact is that he has been lucky so far that 3 refineries were down in the first quarter and the Nigerian situation flared up, or his December prediction would already be toast.

RR

So far, Angola, Brazil, the Caspian and the Canadian oil sands are coming through as planned. If that trend holds up, only geopolitical disaster will give us a peak within the next two years.
After that though, the numbers get worse and worse. Unless you're ready to bet the farm on Saudi promises.
It's not just what comes on - it's what goes. Kuwait failed in increasing Burgan, Norway, Great Britain are seeing increasing losses, Russia seems to have gone flat, and North Slope production has resumed its decline. Exxon had it's endeavors come on about as planned - according to plans should be up 1mbpd from 2000, but oops- their net shows a production decline. I don't think the oil sands are coming as planned, my last read was that they had flattend out also due to a variety of problems such as natural gas availability.
He and others like Campbell - I basically agree. That's why I believe in playing it safe. I do think that the paradigm is changing with the super-giants all entering decline about now - my personal opinion. I think those (including the above and people like Yergin) who make blatantly wrong predictions shoud frankly own up to this, then try to learn from their mistakes rather than moving ahead as though nothing had happend to challenge their model. There is also a precision issue - I would consider anyone who calls it within plus or minus 2 years as "spot on."

I understand that non-geological factors are reducing production now, but this is in fact all a piece of the equation that I am considering. I agree that Nigeria made a big difference. As I have stated before, it is only because of the persistence and growth of these factors in the face of increasing decline numbers that I think we could be at peak. As a corollary, if all suddenly became blue sky, I'm sure we'd see a production rise for awhile. I'm not so persuaded that the refinery situation changed the production figures that much.

A straightforward question then, Robert - what will it take for you personally to admit that peak has occurred? 5mbd drop? 30mbpd? TEOTWAWKI?

The IOCs have a horrid track record regarding peak around individual fields that have actually peaked. Why should global peak be better from them? Why should I now believe the same people who were wrong about the lower-48, the North Sea and other locations that turned out to have peaked and headed downward ever after?

Even if you really are relying on internal corporate documents, why should they be any more correct than Exxon's past mistakes which were clearly far too optimistic? Stuart did a bangup job showing how decline was wrecking ExxonMobil's planned increases in production over the last 6 years. Why should I believe they (or your company) are doing any better handling declines now?

In short, why should I believe your sources given the past history of the IOCs, which is arguably even worse than Campbell and Deffeyes?

A straightforward question then, Robert - what will it take for you personally to admit that peak has occurred? 5mbd drop? 30mbpd? TEOTWAWKI?

Well, right now all we have is a bit of a plateau, that wouldn't even be a plateau if you added Nigeria and the GOM back in. We have even seen flat production for a solid year before it spiked up again.

I have made my case before. I don't think we are at peak, because there is oil available that is not being sold. There is shut-in production. There is a lot of heavy oil still available. Oil inventories are at 8 year highs, and until last week had been increasing week after week. These things are not indicative of a production peak. What I see is a recent plateau, and very good reasons that explain it.

What it will take to convince me that we peaked is a couple of years of clearly declining production. If you look at production graphs from previous years, we have seen a year on year production decline before. So far, we don't even have a single year of declining production in the current case.

RR

Yes RR, as the production vs price graph that you posted showed, the previous declines in production were only AFTER a decline in price. This time the decline is during a enormous rise in price.
Current plateau (not yet decline)
The other side of the coin, which I have also mentioned, is that production is brought online to meet demand. Producers don't want to have too much excess production brought online at one time or it will depress prices. When these projects were being planned, the price of oil was not forecast to be $75. Now that it is, they can't turn production up on a dime.

That is a key to my argument. A combination of factors explain the plateau. If not for those factors, production would have continued to grow, along with demand, and new production would continue to be brought online as needed. Producers miscalculated their economics, and certainly didn't foresee the geopolitical factors and the hurricane doing so much damage. So they don't have the production ready to go yet, to take advantage of prices. It will come online soon enough. You will see new production records set this year, barring severe demand destruction or war with Iran.

RR

'You will see new production records set this year, barring severe demand destruction or war with Iran.'

I could add 3 or 4 additional things which could prevent new production records (any charismatic leader of a major oil producing economy dying in spectacular fashion, more hurricanes/typhoons/monsoons in production regions, any group of terrorists with global reach hitting major facilities - Chechens in Russia, for example, etc.). At this point, the knife edge has been reached - that is also a definition of peak. Everything has to work out perfectly to maintain balance. The planning has to essentially remove equally likely bad results, such as a depletion rate of 7%, not 5%? - the disclaimer 'previous results in oil production do predict future results' is likely more accurate than saying the past results have nothing to do with future results. This is what makes peak so fascinating - reality finally intrudes on all our dearly held concepts and beliefs.

Personally, this is what makes Carter so fascinating a figure to me - first, he attempted to convey a reality out of sync with the political system he was in, and then seeing that he was unable to change it, he turned his back on moral solutions and returned to a policy (guns for oil - Iraq War I was Carter's planning, not Bush's) which America had no problem following. I also suspect, he knew that his failure would lead to long tem disaster, which also tends to motivates his seemingly sincere Christian life. Sort of like Begin, post-Lebanon invasion - sometimes, leaders actually know they have failed morally. Luckily, American is currently in the hands of people who never make mistakes, least of all in their own eyes, so we don't have to worry about their atonement at all.

Perhaps the trick is to declare peak consumption. (something Carter considered). We pick a number and say not more.

Then find the courage to defend it with intelligent tax and industrial policy. The drama of peak production is lessened. So is the economic impact.

What I worry about is that premature calls of peak will cause the public to ignore it when it is very clear that a peak is imminent.

I don't think a peak will ever be clearly imminent.  I suspect Hirsch is right: we won't see it coming.  We'll be years past peak before it's "very clear" that that was indeed the peak.

At first it looks like a temporary drop.  Nothing to worry about; just labor problems, bad weather, technical difficulties.  We'll be back on track next year.  Only they aren't.  Nor the next year, or the year after.  Then they start to realize.

Even if the peak is this year, I don't expect it to be widely admitted until 2010 or later.  For several years, we'll hope that new production will come online, political hotspots will calm, hurricane damage will be repaired.  Until it becomes clear that even if it happens, it won't be enough to offset the declines of the aging giants.

When we see a shortfall of gasoline like we have for the last few week where gasoline supplies have dropped 5Mb/wk is this a reflection of the MTBE shortage or are these numbers for gasoline without the additives?
Do the plans include the sinking of a VLCC in the Straights of Hormuz in 2007, Chavez's pre-emptive invasion of Columbia in 2008, or the 'Triple Strike' hurricanes of 2009?

To put it a touch differently - does Piper Alpha explode, or does a major pipeline break starve downstream facilities?

At peak, these questions become all important, since there is no way to replace the lost capacity at that point. The downhill slope is pretty much one way at that point.

This is apart from any question of depletion rates, likely higher than commonly believed - certainly, most known facts involving modern large oil field management/production currently available point to much more rapid fall off than a couple of percent.

I do understand the point about being too confident though - my definition is fuzzy enough to withstand any precise attack, most likely.

Peak means less from now on, and that is beginning to occur, in a number of no longer so subtle forms, in my opinion. This is what peak means to me - the excuses and beliefs now have to deal with reality, not merely other excuses or beliefs.

The Indonesians are now living in a peak world in terms of oil. The Italians live in a peak world now too, though in their case, it is NG, not oil, and they may be able to alleviate it in the future.

Peak is not something which will be the same for everyone everywhere, which also makes this discussion difficult.

But in my view, peak oil is now, not 5 or 10 years later.