<Why peak oil is probably about nowThe Oil DrumCoal gasification in National Geographic>

96 comments on 2005 Exploration Round-Up

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Luis de Sousa on March 1, 2006 - 4:54am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
The Growing Gap is growing.

In 2005 for each barrel of oil founded we consumed six and a half. Like prof. Bakhtiari says oil reserves accounting is now a thing of the past.

1 : 6.5, oh well, business as usal.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Stuart Staniford on March 1, 2006 - 6:33am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Oh man. This is a truly depressing post.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on March 1, 2006 - 12:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It put me in a frame of mind to see where the next big energy opportunities are.  Like wind, nuclear, coal-to-liquids, maybe some biomass.

Or maybe I'm already too depressed to be affected further.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Bubba on March 1, 2006 - 1:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Let's start with the easy stuff - the demand side of the energy balance equation.  For example - it was through some of your writing E-P (plus a $3150 tax credit) that I decided to trade my old 18 mpg car in for a 45 mpg Prius.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on March 1, 2006 - 3:44pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Darn it, there goes my head swelling up again.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dave Cohen on March 1, 2006 - 6:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Oh, no! That's all we need. I thought things were bad enough.

best, Dave

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
louGrinzo on March 1, 2006 - 5:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Bingo.  We'll see major growth in energy conservation and diversification: Improving building insulation, upgrading climate control equipment, keeping cars in tune, compact fluorescent lights, add-on heating units (like wood pellet stoves) to let people use "hybrid heating", consumer-side solar and wind, etc.

All the people who bitch about how "people won't conserve energy" are in for a shock.  The major shift in the US car market away from trucks is just the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dave Cohen on March 1, 2006 - 6:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Lou, I think the issue here is how long it will take to switch out the vehicle inventory. Estimates I've seen say on the order of 15 years. Of course, that might speed up a bit if the prices go skyhigh and the more efficient vehicle supply can meet rapidly increasing demand.

As far as people "bitching" about "people won't conserve energy" goes, I agree--what else are they going to do? But this too will take some transition time. It won't happen overnight. I take it you're not a big believer in Jevon's Paradox.

But geopolitical oil shocks are the wildcard. And anyone with a functioning brain and a little imagination will have little trouble thinking up disasters that could happen. If that Al-Qaeda attempt at Abqaiq hadn't been such an amateur job, this week would be very different than it is.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on March 1, 2006 - 9:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It occurs to me that there's a big difference between "registered" and "on the road".

This is highly significant, because all the old econoboxen used as winter cars could easily become primary vehicles overnight.  The guzzling trucks that people commute in today could wind up parked most of the time.  What difference does it make if a vehicle is registered, if it isn't driven?  Reverse the current vehicle preference, and fuel consumption would fall without any change in what's "on the road" measured by registrations.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TJ on March 1, 2006 - 8:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Maybe, maybe not.  The industrial side may just bag it, like fertilizer manufacturers, and offshore everything.  On the individual consumer side it's hard to see where they're going to get the money in a time of declining incomes and rising prices.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack Greene on March 2, 2006 - 12:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Good move. Enjoy!
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlphaMaleProphetOfDoom on March 2, 2006 - 4:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Well, now that I've done replying to your posts on the other thread, I'm truly depressed too.

That's going to be enough sparing for me about the end of the world for a few days. Better go take my St. JOhn's Wort. (that's my code word for "stiff drink")

Best,

Matt

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Khebab on March 1, 2006 - 11:07am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What about reserve growth?
The USGS was predicting a least 300Gb in reserve growth.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Agric on March 1, 2006 - 1:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
There was a mild disagreement a few weeks back here at TOD about such terminology: apparently the use of "USGS" in conjunction with "forecasts" or "predictions" might be incorrect and misinterpretation ;)

I'm sure that reserve "revisions" will easily fill the shortfall in discoveries, on paper at least, for a couple more years anyhow. After all, there are still perhaps 1,000 Gb, maybe more, of reserves still in the ground, it would only take an annual 2.5% upwards "revision" to solve the discovery shortfall. Of course, revisions can cut both ways - might be troubling when we come to the days of downwards revisions. But I don't expect those days to arrive before peak oil is recognised, in fact I suggest that may be a sign of admission that peak oil has arrived.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Bubba on March 1, 2006 - 1:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You will be seeing some downward revisions in some companies reserves coming out that have nothing to do with how much oil is in the ground.  They have to do with the structure of the production-sharing contracts that they have with foreign governments.  As the price of oil goes up, these companies pay off their investments earlier and their share of both "cost oil" and "profit oil" goes down.  The companies make more money overall, but their "reserve base" has to be re-adjusted downward to reflect the higher value for the oil.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Bubba on March 1, 2006 - 1:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
You have got to stop believing the USGS.  Their reserve assessments and future predictions are divorced from the reality of what the industry is actually finding with the drill bit.  

Think of the USGS, for the most part, as academics.  They are good scientists, but you would never hire them to help you find oil that you really wanted to produce and sell.  

Morover, there may be 100 geoscientists working in industry with far bigger budgets and far better data compared to each geoscientist working for the USGS.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.