![]() | DrumBeat: February 26, 2007 | The Oil Drum | The Oil Drum celebrates 4M unique visits and ~10.4M page views | ![]() |
108 comments on Peak Oil Update - February 2007: Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
108 comments on Peak Oil Update - February 2007: Production Forecasts and EIA Oil Production Numbers
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
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
- Some predictions on the forthcoming Russian-Ukrainian gas 'crisis'
- The US stimulus and "green jobs" for wind energy
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
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 13th 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
- The Big Picture
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- The Energy Blog
- Entropy Production
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- 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.
“We have only two modes—complacency and panic.”
—James R. Schlesinger, the first energy secretary, in 1977, on the country's approach to energy
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
Placing 13 different curves on one chart makes it as incomprehensible as a plate of spaghetti. I can't tell which lines are from those who support peak oil theory and those who deny peak oil.
Well, I think the title of the different sections are quite explicit: "Business as usual" and "PeakOilers:...".
Khebab, I love your first graph; thank you. Also your graph with 3 bands showing C+C, NGL and other. But any chart with more than 5 lines on it does my head in, so I skipped over all the other graphs. I consider myself a numerate mechanical engineer but I cannot cope with data overload. Maybe it's a function of my age? (48)
I always enjoy these updates, even though I doubt the monthly numbers are that meaningful (and they'll probably be revised, anyway).
But I suspect the "spaghetti" graphs are of interest to peak oil geeks only. Ordinary peakists won't understand them, and ordinary people - forget it. They aren't going to know the difference between curve-fitting and bottom-up, let alone care about Bakhtiari vs. ASPO vs. Deffeyes.
I greatly appreciate having all the different estimates on the same axes.
Thanks Khebab for yet another fine post :-)
Posts like this is why I browse TOD everyday.
I dont mind the detailed graphs.
They give a nice "at a glance image" of the situation. The graphs can always be simplified to suit communication outside TOD.
Regards/ And1
Thomas, it seems to me that this is one of the points of Khebab's charts that gets lost sometimes: just how much uncertainty/variation there is out there with regard to the credible predictions of the future petroleum/liquids supply. It indicates a lack of scientific knowledge and predictive power, something you really would think we would have a lot more of regarding our energy future...that's what always strikes me anyway.
Yes, that has always struck me too. However there is a fundamental disconnect between "professionals" ie UGS and CERA and "amateurs" essentially Peak Oilers.
I'm normally much more likely to take professionals advice over an amateur, but the maths of resource depletion are relatively simple and the fact is that world oil production in 2006 has not been greater than 2005 despite a massive increase in price.
In any case dealing with global warming will be much easier if we really can't increase the rate of oil and gas without a massive price increase.
I think world governments should plan on making kebahb's loglets prediction come true with price signals even if resources are plentiful.
Finally, thanks Khebab! I love these updates with all the preductions.
I have one feature request. Could you include past predictions from 2004 and 2005 somehow? Especially for CERA and EIA.
Unfortunately as gas and oil production decline we will have coal burning on a massive scale. So we are not going to get out of the CO2 crisis so easily. A good thing that will come out of the liquid fuel constriction is that current fossil fuel guzzling cars and SUVs will disappear (ethanol will not save them). People will be forced to use electric vehicles that are powered from the grid. Aside from that they will have to use public transit.
Actually it is not necessary to increase coal burning on a massive scale to solve transportation if people move to electic. The electric route is 5 - 10 times more efficient than ICE's. Replacing the US's fleet of auto's with electric, increases electricity demand by about 20%.
That said, it is quite possible to replace current coal fired power stations with Nuclear Plants as well. Other people have other opinions about Nuclear, but it works now and is likely to be significantly cheaper in the future.
My biggest problem with nuclear energy is not nuclear but powe r companies that engineer nuclear power plants.
I've seen a number of reasonable designs for power plants with the pebble bed based reactors seeming the most promising.
Next I think its possible to handle radioactive waste in a responsible manner. I'd think "burning" it makes sense
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0401010
Basically you use the neutron flux to further degrade the isotopes to ones with short half lives. This seems possible and I don't like the fact that what seems to be a reasonable disposal route has not been aggressively perused.
Maybe forming a international consortium to create standard safe reactor designs and disposal methods is the right answer.
On the same hand and aggressive well funded program on fusion is a must. We should be spending a significant amount of the worlds GNP or is it GWP ? On fusion and cleaner fission and radioactive waste processing.
I'm not saying that the nuclear industry has not done better lately but they need to go into overdrive and show people that clean safe nuclear power is possible and the operation and design of the reactors is open and well understood.
I think that nuclear fission and later fusion reactors for base load and industrial use are a must. I wish we could get by without them but we need them.
On the same hand conservation and solar/wind renewable that don't have a massive negative impact on the land should be perused to lessen the need for nuclear power of any kind.
Other solutions like run-of-river hydro also look like that have a reasonable minimal impact while traditional dams have problems.
I wonder whether these words were spoken about oil about 120 years ago. If so, they would've been true, of course.
But why should we use the event of the end of a non-renewable source at the basis of the global economy to restructure that economy to be based on another non-renewable resource? Only to be faced with the exact same problem again one or two centuries later? Aren't we smarter than that? Aren't we supposed to learn from our mistakes?
--
Sven Geier, Ph. D.
Yes, I speak for the White House, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Bilderberg Group and the Illuminati; Nasa, MI-5, and the Trilateral Commission. Really. Trust me.
The Nuclear fuel supply is huge and will almost certainly last for many centuries.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/7/195721/3132#more
From the link:
there are doubts this diffuse fuel can be constrained and delivered at a cost in energy less than the final product contained. Though this mental externality may be considered mundane (by some), it is a necessary consideration when considering such a primary fuel.
How can we run a complex society on a fuel that does not leak itself out for mom and the kid's shopping Excursion (tm)?
Pete
That is a nice and informative link there - it doesn't seem to support your claim, though.
According to the material at the other side of that link, using his own most optimistic numbers, the author states "Thus, the provable uranium resources amount to approximately 85 years supply at the current level of consumption with current technology, with another 500 years of additional reserves."
Nuclear currently supplies about 16% of the world electricity production, 0% of the worlds non-electric heating and 0% of the world transportation fuels, so if I were to increase the world consumption level of Uranium by, say, a factor of 10 or so to cover for the current use of oil, I get the most optimistic estimate by a proponent of nuclear power reduced to about 50 years of "estimated" reserves (and less than a decade of actually proven supply).
And that's the optimistic reading where I'm simply granting the numbers given by the author, i.e. without even examining the assumptions those were based on.
I can only see one way to read that article and conclude that the worlds nuclear fuel supply will "almost certainly last for many centuries": if I were to assume that current consumption levels will not increase, i.e. that nuclear power will NOT replace oil.
--
Sven Geier, Ph. D.
Yes, I speak for the White House, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Bilderberg Group and the Illuminati; Nasa, MI-5, and the Trilateral Commission. Really. Trust me.
There is also a lot of "noise" and variability in historical oil production.
I'd be interested in thoughts on why oil production declined for a year or so around 1998, then again why it declined in the year 2000 or so for a couple of years (recession? 9/11? Iraq war?).
I'm convinced that we have serious problems with oil, after looking at the data, inaccurate government forecasts, continuing dependency on exports, etc. But it's been mentioned already by others -- shouldn't we expect similar declines (based on recession, etc.) that may appear to be due to peak oil but actually not? That is, might not it go up and down for a while based on geopolitical conditions? I understand the long-term trend of course will be down at some point, but these graphs (especially historical) point to the confusion that we may experience as things unfold over the years.
Hi Smokey.
Yes, there is a lot of noise.
I got actively interested in "Peak oil" almost exactly after the Iraq War II. What I noticed was that prices were rising/stable AND production was increasing, EVEN THOUGH the political situation was "stable". This led me (being so market lead that I am) to look for what was going on. "Peaking" oil led me to the conclusion that we will never see $20 oil again.
So far (ok, forget the light corrections since the summer 2006 highs) the markets have proved my analysis correct.
So...
If you want to know if Peak is behind us or not, look at:
Production numbers, price dynamic AND the HL graphs being presented here. As a market follower, it has all come together incredibly well, n'est-ce pas?
And, of course, the number of rigs out there trying to scrape out the dregs...
And, that the world's giant fields are starting to blow steam.
And the fact that even if I went back to Pappy's Oil Patch to try my luck, even $60 oil is not enough to cover my costs. Well, ok, the patch is in Ohio..
Should I go on?
Cheers, Dom
Khebab's work doubles as beautiful art.