The Oil Drum: Europe | IPCC Summary and Fossil Fuel

87 comments on IPCC Summary and Fossil Fuel

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Dave Cohen on February 11, 2007 - 10:17pm

I object to the use of this ASPO data. Not to mention that this is one of the most confusing charts of all time. EIA, IEA, OGJ would be better. Not to mention IHS Energy or Wood Mackenzie.

I'm thinking C+C+NGLs.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sam Foucher on February 11, 2007 - 10:24pm

I'm thinking C+C+NGLs.

What the ASPO calls "All Liquid" is in fact C+C+NGL.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on February 11, 2007 - 10:41pm

Then, I can already see a major descrepancy between EIA (81.55 mbd in August, 2006) and ASPO (79.7 average 2005). Who could believe that C+C+NGLs production increased that much (= +1.85 mbd, for even that one month in 2006) — the difference between the ASPO 2005 average and the EIA August, 2006 number? Not me. One is right, the other is wrong. Actually, they are probably both wrong.

People talking about peak oil should always use the historical production data least supportive of their position. I find that this helps matters, because the same peak oil arguments still hold. In addition, we are talking about production projections which, as I said, are nonsense beyond 2010. Everyone's production projections beyond 2010 are subject to large margins of error.

Use of ASPO data probably indicates a selection bias. No one uses it, including me. Therefore, that detracts from the argument.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sam Foucher on February 11, 2007 - 11:12pm

Not sure I understand your point. The EIA estimates for 2005 and 2006 are 81.45 mbpd and 81.37 mbpd repectively (the ASPO is saying 80 and 81.90 mbpd, see here). Anyway, what matters in Chris argument is future cumulative production i.e. the URR minus past consumption. The ASPO URR is probably the most conservative.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Dave Cohen on February 12, 2007 - 2:14am

Are you talking about this?

Solid Red Line is ASPO (C+C+NGLs, I think?)
Shows a rather sharp peak, don't you think?

ASPO-(70)71 forecast -- 84.48 mbd in 2007, 90.00 mbd in 2010, 85.00 mbd in 2015? Or, is it ASPO-58? Or is it ASPO-45?

Actually, there are so many forecasts on the page you referred me to (in the figure above) that I can't even begin to get it straight. The ASPO forecast (solid red line) does stand out, however, in it's pessimism.

By the way, the numbers I quoted (for ASPO) were taken exactly from Chris's confusing ASPO chart as shown in this story -- that's not Chris's fault.

Sigh. My standard comment: Jesus wept

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

TheTransition on February 12, 2007 - 7:57am

So will there be a near term Oil and Gas peak or not?

I'm rather convinced there will be.

If so, then ecomomics will sort out the Oil and Gas depletion scenario and we will have to focus our political efforts on coal (and maybe shale oil), which is much more abundant and extremely tempting to use.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

karlnick on February 12, 2007 - 8:29am

I assume that:
ASPO-70 (CO) and EIA (Crud Oil + Cond) is the same thing
ASPO-70 (CO + NGPL) and EIA (NGPL) is the same thing
ASPO-70 does not forecast other liquids
Which means that last production data is below ASPO.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Freddy Hutter on February 12, 2007 - 8:37am

Most of the time, ColinC does not incl proc gains of 2-mbd. Once a year he does. He does not incl BTL or CTL or Syncrude or any synthetics for that matter. When he says Regular Conv, he does not incl NGL either.

There is about 4 mbd difference betw his All Liquids & that of EIA, IEA or OPEC. And sometimes just 2.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.