149 comments on DrumBeat: August 4, 2006
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
149 comments on DrumBeat: August 4, 2006
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel.”
—Saudi saying
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.










GAIA Host Collective
I track all nations very closely. I track crude oil. I do not track ethanol, biodiesel, propane or butane. Therefore I use the EIA's figures for Crude + Condensate for all my data. True, this data is not completely accurate but in my opinion it is the most accurate of any published data on the net. And it is the only data on the net that gives a country by country breakdown of all oil producing nations. And they make every effort to correct previously data that was wrong. And contrary to what some folks think, this category does include all crude. It includes deep-water crude, crude produced from the Canadian oil sands and if Venezuela ever starts to crack crude from the Orinoco Bitumen it will include that also.
The EIA breaks the oil production data down into 31 nations. Actually it is 30 nations then they lump all the smaller nations into one category, which they call "Other". Lately "Other" production has been increasing considerably because it includes the FSU states in the Caspian area. No doubt however many of the tiny producing states included in Other, like Denmark, Germany and others, are in decline.
I have noticed that in the past when a nation drops in production for political reasons, whether those political reasons are deliberate for pricing reasons, or because of war or strike, or because of economic collapse as was the case of the Former Soviet Union, they will recover when those political reasons pass. But when a nation is producing flat out and still goes into decline, then it is extremely unlikely that the nation will ever begin an upward trend again.
Currently most nations have either peaked or plateaued. Two nations, Nigeria and Iraq, are suffering from political disruptions in oil production. These political problems run much deeper than most people realize and it will likely be years, if ever, before they return to anything like their former highs in oil production. Also there are a few other nations like Canada, that have plateaued but may increase oil production a bit in the future. But only five nations, including "Other" as one nation, are still increasing production to any considerable amount. "Other" is the world's third largest producer after Russia and Saudi Arabia.
So for my analysis I have grouped all nations into two groups, those five nations that are still on the increase and those that are not. Those five nations are Angola, Brazil, China, Russia and Other. There are twenty-six nations in the latter group including all of OPEC. I shall call them "The Big Five" and "All Others." The Big Five produce approximately 30% of the world's crude oil and All Others produce the other 70%.
All Others (the 26 nations) peaked in April 2005 at 52,700,000 barrels per day of crude + condensate. After Katrina and Rita All Others dropped to 50,952,000 bp/d but recovered in December to 52,006,000 bp/d due to the US's recovery in the GOM. Then by May of this year the combined output of All Others had dropped to 50,761,000 bp/d, a point even lower than the post Katrinsa/Rita low. That is a drop of almost two million barrels per day or a drop of 3.68% in just thirteen months.
So unless the world' crude oil was to peak in April of 2005, it was up to the Big Five to save the day. They tried valiantly and did succeed in holding off the peak until December of 05. The Big Five produced 21,082,000 bp/d in April of 05. That had increased to 22,369,000 bp/d by December due to a burst in production from Angola, Russia and Other. This offset by 593,000 bp/d the decrease in All Others. But this was a burst in production that could not hold. Russia and Angola have lost production since December but gains from Brazil, China and Other have combined to bring the increase, since December, of the Big Five of 256,000 barrels per day. But the decline from All Others have far more than offset that gain. All others have lost production of 1,246,000 bp/d since December. Combining the two we are left with a drop in total crude production, since December of 981,000 bp/d or a drop of 1.32%.
Looking at the near future: OPEC production will show an increase of about 200,000 bpd in June but drop by a like amount or greater in July. In the long run OPEC is expected to continue its decline as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Indonesia and Venezuela have clearly peaked. Others like Libya are working on a secondary but much lower peak than their previous peak. Of all OPEC nations only Algeria, Qatar and The Emirates have not yet peaked.
Of the Big Five Russia and Other are expected to continue to increase but at a far smaller rate than in the past. Many oil geologists are predicting Russia to peak within the next few years. Angola still may have a bit to grow yet. China is looking at a peak within just a few years. Only Brazil is a question mark. But Brazil is such a small producer that any increase in production will be small potatoes. Otherwise All Others are expected to continue their current trend.....downward.
Looking at the overall trend, Deffeyes hit the nail on the head. We peaked in December of 2005.
Ron Patterson
If you are willing, I would love a copy. I had planned on setting one up tomorrow using the data that you recommend.
rdezeeuw at gmail.com
Rick D.
http://www.theoildrum.com/comments/2006/8/3/31559/92662/162#162
This was in response to the following post by Freddy:
[new] Freddy Hutter on Monday July 31, 2006 at 1:50 AM EST
Apparently u and greyzone know about as much about the pope's pre-omipotent days as y'all do about deffeyes seven predictions and all his backpeddalling. They guy is on the book ciruit and looks only for notoriety. Simmons $200 public bet for $5k is of the same ilk. Sleazebags both. And we see the have any easy time attracting koolaid drinkers here at TOD.
I look at John Laherrere's plot as posted by Freddy in that thread and I'm going to say that the center trendline looks more reliable to me since EOR was not in play nearly as much during that period. And the increase in URR that the new temporary trendline indicates really says to me that we are overproducing existing fields (just like Yibal), which means that the decline has to be hugely catastrophic when it comes. This is where I start to disagree with Stuart. Yes, if historical extraction methods had continued to be used then we might have gotten the predicted long plateau. Instead, I think the entire world is doing a Yibal, and forcing out the existing URR faster giving the false appearance of a higher URR.
I expect a catastrophic crash in production, with perhaps even double digit decline rates globally when it comes, precisely because we will desperately apply more and more EOR techniques in order to maintain existing levels of production. I do agree with your assessment of Khebab's HL plot - the world is right near 50% QT so if production stays high or even grows slightly then the crash, when it comes has to be worse. In typical fashion just as we monkeys have always done, we're robbing our children for our own comfort today.
I do think that Deffeyes got it right, but only on pointing the epoch of the mathematical peak.
You seem to have a good insight of what's going on country-by-country. If you include the expected rises in production from deepwater in the Southern Atlantic you'll probably get a peak in the 2010 - 2013 interval.
See the article of Dr. Campbell article published recently by the Peak Oil Review.
At any rate I think Campbell is beind overly cautious. He does not want to prematurly pick a peak again. Also There is no way deepwater Southern Atlantic can overcome the decline in the rest of the world.
Any idea how long before this reservoir comes on line? Who does it belong to?
Ron Patterson
Vol.1, No.27 July 10.
The 3 biggest deepwater producers and peak data:
Brasil - 2011 - 1.7 Gb/a
Angola - 2011 - 1.0 Gb/a
GOM - 2014 - 1.0 Gb/a
Basically the tandem peak in Angola and Brasil will probably mark the peak for World Crude Oil.
Laherrère gets about the same result using logistic modeling.
Regards.
No, I cannot agree with this at all. Angola and Brazil will probably be the last two nations on earth to peak. As you notice they are both part of my "Big Five" referred to in my above post. There is absolutely no way that these two nations can hold back the declining tide from the rest of the world. Peak oil will happen, or did happen, when the declines from the vast majority of the world cannot be replaced by new production from the very few nations that have not yet peaked. That point was either in December of 2005 or within the next couple of years. I believe it was the former, December of 2005. But I may be wrong, but if I am, I am not off by very much. There is no way that the peak can be delayed until 2013, or will be held off until the very last two nations on earth peaks.
By the way, I think Campbell is just being overly conservative. He may be a bit gun-shy. He has been wrong before and doesn't want to get caught again.
After Peak Oil there will obviously be regional peaks - nations might not be that important.
I guess the peak you are looking at is the Conventional Regular one. Even Freddy Hutter will agree that we already passed it. This might be the most important point because Conventional Regular is the liquid fuel with highest EROEI that we have right now.
2005, 2010, 2012 is it that important?
It matters because the later dates give more people more time to prepare. The more people that wake up before it happens and take notice, the better off they will be when it does happen.
I'm an optimist at heart (hence my chosen screen name) and try to cling to hope that people will make it through.
I also won't finish grad school until 2013, so for me personally, I really hope it can be postponed another few years.
When will TSHTF? Who knows. But 2012 is as good a bet as any.
It has such a nice apocalyptic dimension to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_calendar#End_of_the_world.3F
Makes for a nice juxtaposition between our civilizations collapse an one from antiquity.
With the high price of rigs, these days, I would suspect that all the deep-water rigs, which were in the South Atlantic, have moved to places that they know for certain that there is oil!
Campbell may be relying of the new fields that we know are going to start producing in the next four years to more than make up for the decline in existing fields.
If true, this is where things really start to get interesting. We get to see, among other things, if society responds in the ways our respective guts tell us it will.
Yours, with cautious pessimism,
Odo
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0802-28.htm
There are big problems here. I've been looking for signs of a pendulum swing back in the other direction since the invasion. I think I'm seeing it, a little bit. At least things are not as bad as (in my opinion) they might have been. As I've said before, God help us if Iraq had been a cakewalk. The slippery slideo to a militaristic state would have been that much easier.
But keep up the good work. Thowing links like that is part of the process.
I am not sure which data you are using, but unless you are comparing year over year, it makes no sense that once the numbers go down, they never go back up.
Nth, just check the data for yourself:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/ipm/supply.html
Click on 1.1a for OPEC, 1.1b and 1.1c for the rest of the world. Yes, every month some countries increase and some countries decrease, but more countries are decreasing than increasing. And most, except the Big Five I quoted, are decreasing. True there is a lot of noise, but it is the trend we are looking at. And that trend for 26 nations is down, down by almost 2 mb/d over the last 13 months.
No, I never said that the numbers never go up. The point is once a trend has started down, even thought the country is producing flat out, then that trend never reverses. The monthly data however will bounce around. A perfect example is Texas. Just check out their data in the last six plus years. In January 2000 they produced 34,757,611 barrels. They have never since produced more. Sure, some months have been higher than previous months. But the trend is down and will never be reversed. In April of 2006 they produced 27,998,535 barrels. And the annual totals show that every year, the production level was less than the previous year. The trend downward actually began way befoe 2000 but I don't have that data.
http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/divisions/og/statistics/production/ogismcon.pdf
A country can deliberately choke off production to raise world prices, and then reverse that trend. OPEC has done so before. But now we are talking about a trend due to depletion. A depletion trend never reverses. An example of that is the US production trend since 1970. The URL is the first one listed above, click on 4.1c. Prudhoe Bay caused a slight hump in the downward trend, starting in the late 70's and lasting until it headed down again in 1986. Every year after that there was a decline every year. But even with the giant field Prudhoe Bay coming on line, US production never again approached its peak of 1970.
If countries don't have new oil projects coming online, they will trend downwards. If countries have several large projects coming online, they will trend upwards. The new oil projects coming online from now to 2010 are pretty well known. They are limited to a few countries, so anti-PO advocates are betting these few countries can pick up the slack.
It is my bad. I thought you were seeing downtrends on countries that are not supposed to go down.
Darwinian,
Why would we take issue with it? There is absolutely no way on Earth to either prove or disprove what you say. It's the same as a "how many angels on the head of a pin" discussion.
Remember that in the early 1980's, we peaked worldwide on production for a HALF DECADE before returning to the old output level. So, If I am going to take issue, I will get back to you on that in about 2012.
Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout
So I am a "very" near-peaker and saying so just pisses a lot of other peak oil folks off. Those who wish to be overly cautious consider predicting a peak before 2010 heresy.
Ron Patterson
http://www.energybulletin.net/18904.html
Middle East at a crossroads
August 4, 2006
by Richard Heinberg
Excerpt:
At the ASPO conference a well-connected industry insider who wishes not to be directly quoted told me that his own sources inside Saudi Arabia insist that production from Ghawar is now down to less than three million barrels per day, and that the Saudis are maintaining total production at only slowly dwindling levels by producing other fields at maximum rates. This, if true, would be a bombshell: most estimates give production from Ghawar at 5.5 Mb/d.