87 comments on IPCC Summary and Fossil Fuel
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
87 comments on IPCC Summary and Fossil Fuel
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.