DrumBeat: March 10, 2007
Posted by Leanan on March 10, 2007 - 10:15am
Topic: Miscellaneous
It certainly sounds great. Hydrogen, after all, is “the most common element in the universe,” as Secretary Abraham pointed out. Since it is so plentiful, surely President Bush must be right when he promises it will be cheap. And when you use it, the waste product will be nothing but water—“environmental pollution will no longer be a concern.” Hydrogen will be abundant, cheap, and clean. Why settle for anything less?Unfortunately, it’s all pure bunk. To get serious about energy policy, America needs to abandon, once and for all, the false promise of the hydrogen age.
When confronted with the indisputable reality of the peaking and decline of the world’s top-producing oil fields, the cornucopian camp points to new projects as the cavalry that will ride in and save the day. High crude prices, they argue, will make formerly marginal oil projects profitable and encourage the development of new oil fields.But given recent events, it seems their faith in the Invisible Hand is ill-placed.
Ambalat Block Dispute Heats Up
Reports of Malaysian aircraft and ships intruding the air space and waters off Indonesia have prompted the Indonesian Air Force to patrol the waters over the Sulawesi Sea where the two countries are disputing the boundary lines.
Gas price "outrage" - Another 20- to 30-cent hike expected in next few days
The reaction at the pump: predictable."I am outraged," said Todd Carey, a 30-year-old product support specialist at Horizon Navigation in Santa Clara. "Where do they get off raising prices so much so fast?"
It works a bit like a stock market index, except that instead of tracking stocks, it tracks mentions of certain key green phrases in the media. It's a way to gauge how much mindshare certain concepts have and see if they are gaining or losing ground compared to last week. Not very scientific, but lots of fun!
100 Things you can do for Peak Oil: Part 1 (Home, Garden and Clothing) and Part 2 (Community, Family, Transportation, Etc.)
Cuba-Venezuela: Making Biofuels Without Wasting Food
The governments of Cuba and Venezuela are planning to move forward together on biofuels production, but they will rely on producing alcohol from sugarcane, in order to spare food crops.
Fuel Lines A review of Lisa Margonelli's OIL ON THE BRAIN:
Adventures From the Pump to the Pipeline. Includes the first chapter from the book.
Chávez: Venezuelan oil sales to US will continue to fall
Venezuelan oil shipments to the United States will continue to drop as Venezuela continues to diversify its economy, and an example is the negotiations currently under way with China, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez told an Argentinean TV channel.
Garden Girl's peak oil video blog
States are ready to put up big bucks to speed up passenger rail service--if someone would just push freight trains out of the way.
When two causes collide, the resulting effect can become much greater than the sum of its parts. Such is proving to be the case in regard to world oil demand. We don't really have to "run out." There just needs to be enough doubt in people's minds regarding predictable pricing and the reliability of supply to create an extended crisis atmosphere.
Peoples Gas files rate hike request
"This is horrible timing," said Jim Chilsen, a spokesman for the Citizens Utility Board. "Illinois consumers are facing an energy crisis. Natural gas costs are climbing and electric bills are skyrocketing."
The idea of turning the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into a petroleum piggybank for the nation is gaining momentum in Washington.Senator Lisa Murkowski is working on legislation that would authorize the U.S. Department of Energy to contract with oil companies to conduct seismic and other preliminary work to prepare the 1.5-million acre coastal plain for oil development in case of an energy crisis.
Solar Energy: New power source in Jigawa
The village health clinics now benefit from solar energy. Lights enable health officers to see patients at night for the first time, vaccine refrigerators allow more people to be vaccinated at greater frequency and fans increase the comfort level of staff and patients alike. Village primary schools now have, at least, two illuminated classrooms and teachers report that they are being heavily used in the evenings for adult education and as places for children to come and do their lessons. Each school has also been provided with a computer and computer instruction for the teachers. These are the first computers in the project villages and there are plans to eventually hook them to the internet via the state’s broadband system – a process that can literally open the village to the rest of the world for healthcare, education and commerce.
Electic-powered Trucks in Russia
These days there are many talks on converting fuel cars to some new sources of power: hydrogen or electrical driven, many hybrids appear which use both electricity and fuel. But not many know that already 60 years in some Russian cities there are even big trucks are go solely on electricity without a drop of fuel. The only problem with them they are wired. Yes, connected to the wires which cover all the major streets of the cities so that such trucks and some passengers trolleybuses (which don’t use rails like trams but go just on any surface) are connected.
‘Coal rush’ pits utilities against Congress: Growing energy demand collides with desire to cut pollution levels
The coal rush in America's heartland is on a collision course with Congress. While lawmakers are drawing up ways to cap and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, the Energy Department says as many as 150 new coal-fired plants could be built by 2030, adding volumes to the nation's emissions of carbon dioxide, the most prevalent of half a dozen greenhouse gases scientists blame for global warming.
Why Hybrids Are Such A Hard Sell
Given all the buzz about hybrids, not to mention the greening of the citizenry, you'd think they would be easy to sell. They're not. After growing nicely through much of 2006, hybrid sales began to slow early this year. The gasoline-electric vehicles now make up 1.8% of all vehicle sales, says Edmunds.com, down from a peak of 2.1% in October.
New technology outsmarting "peak oil"?
But the development of the new technology was itself spurred by high prices (so much for "objective" science), which were in part driven by "peak oil" fears. Which deepens our suspicions that the "peak oil" hysteria was instrumented by the oil industry all along....
Shell contains Nigeria oil spill
Royal Dutch Shell said on Friday that it has successfully contained a major oil spill in a production facility in southern Nigeria but yet to regain output loss of 187,000 barrels per day.
Travellers at risk from global warming on Tibet railway
Experts have voiced fears that parts of the track could become unstable, triggering derailments if warm weather melted frozen ground under the railway route.
Magazines go green with global warming issues
Some sports fans may now know as much about global warming as they know about women's swimwear: Sports Illustrated this week tells readers how a warming world is going to change the state of play.
Al Gore’s Outsourcing Solution
TerraPass charges $1,247.50 for one year of carbon offsets for a home like Mr. Gore’s, the price including a refrigerator magnet proclaiming the home “carbon balanced.” Initially I found it hard to believe anyone could counteract Mr. Gore’s prodigious energy lust for just $1,247.50, since planting about 20,000 trees would be required to neutralize even half his house’s carbon footprint.
Global Realignment and the Decline of the Superpower
The United States has been defeated in Iraq. That doesn’t mean that there’ll be a troop withdrawal anytime soon, but it does mean that there’s no chance of achieving the mission’s political objectives. Iraq will not be a democracy, reconstruction will be minimal, and the security situation will continue to deteriorate into the foreseeable future.
The Toronto Star's Peter Howell has panned the just released Peak Oil movie, "A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash." Noting its depressing no-light at the end of the tunnel undercurrent, Howell concludes: "A movie this grim risks switching off the very minds it seeks to engage."...The challenge for environmentally conscious movie makers is how to educate their audience and instruct them as well. If we cannot take any hope away with us from the theatre, then what's the point?
Peak Oil Passnotes: Markets Don't Work Anymore
Even those people with a casual acquaintance of the markets should be interested in the way we have seen a multiple change in the way equities and energy inter-react. Normally if stocks went down for a non-energy reason such as panic, the price of energy would follow. The idea is that weaker companies will breed weaker performance, resulting in lower consumption. This is no longer the case.
...I've been mulling it over ever since and I have reached this one: fashion as we know it doesn't have a future.It doesn't have a future any more than the internal combustion engine does. I don't know how long it will take for the current fashion system to become unworkable, but I'm certain it will happen. Just call me Pradadamus.
Daniel Fortier spends his summers studying the permafrost on Bylot Island, high in the eastern Canadian Arctic. While hiking there early in the 1999 field season, he distinctly heard the sound of running water yet saw no streams nearby. "I thought to myself, 'Where is this sound coming from?'" says Fortier. "So, like a good researcher, I started to dig."
Coal India now digs the world for mines
After oil expedition, it’s time for a global coal hunt. The government has decided to acquire coal mines in Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Australia, Indonesia and South Africa to secure India’s energy needs.
Chinese lawmaker suggests developing nuclear energy in inland areas
Development of nuclear energy in China's inland areas is not only feasible but necessary, said a deputy to the National People's Congress (NPC), the top legislature of China.
Beyond oil - Reappraising the Gulf States
Falling per capita oil and gas production: The pace of reform in the GCC has been uneven. States with relatively low ratios of oil and gas production to the number of citizens will find it increasingly difficult to sustain standards of living for their people.
China: Offshore oil projects opening up
Foreign giants are gearing up to further tap China's offshore reserves since the country's top offshore oil firm opened an unprecedented number of blocks for international collaboration.
South Africa: Gore Urged to Put Brake on Biofuel Production
An international coalition has appealed to former US vice-president and environmental campaigner Al Gore to take up their concerns about the world's rapidly developing biofuels industry.They have told him that large-scale biofuel production and new incentives to promote biofuels, based on "energy-crop monocultures", are having a devastating impact on biodiversity and contributing to global climate change.
Hello energy friends,
I personally regard this decision as a major milestone on the way towards a society which will be - eventually - supplied almost completely by renewables energy sources.
The EU is a political Union with around half a billion people and certainly among the largest industrial areas in the world. The decision to achieve a supply of 20% with renewable energy sources will boost all these technologies in a unprecedented way! This is a pivotal step which will alter the energy industry on a global state.
My questions for the TODers.
Whatever will happen now in the coming years. The combination of passing the PO and the emerging of a new big energy cycle will be a exciting time. I am curious if we will succeed to tackle the problems.
cheers, marotti32 in berlin
I wish I could share your optimism, marotti32, but I stand by my numbers from yesterday.
"The European Union leaders hope their commitment to tackling climate change will encourage other leading polluters, ... to agree on deep cuts in emissions ..."
- but what they proposed is not a cut at all! That is because of the unstated but implicit assumption of "economic growth".
"The leaders agreed that the EU will produce 20 percent of its power through renewable energy, an increase from the current figure of around 6 percent."
- that's nice, although they did not (in this article) define "renewable", and there is a mention of nuclear further down, so does that count?
"They also pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions at least 20 percent from 1990 levels"
- that is completely different from the other 20%, as I'll explain, again, below. Meanwhile, most of the countries that signed Kyoto are far from complying with its modest goals.
"The plan also called for one-tenth of all cars and trucks in the EU nations to run on biofuels made from plants."
- do the emissions from the production of the biofuels count? Even if they occur in other continents?
Now back to my numbers: suppose you start with 100 units of fossil fuel usage. After 13 years, with a growth rate of 2% per year (very low according to the growth proponents, not even keeping up with population growth in some countries), the energy use is up 29%: (numbers slightly rounded for clarity)
100 * 1.02 ^ 13 = 129
Now assume that they indeed get 20% of the total from renewables, that reduces the fossil fuel use, but the end number is still higher than what you started with:
129 * 0.8 = 103
If the total energy use growth rate is higher, the numbers get worse. E.g. with "only" 3%, the same calculation is:
100 --> 146 --> 117
And that is while the climate issue requires true "deep cuts" in the absolute number. Until "growth" is tackled explicitly, all is lost.
That said, I do note that some European countries have negative population growth, and some have had flat total energy usage in recent years. But many influential people in those countries see those achievments as a problem (to the "growth" paradigm), and seek to reverse them, via increased birth and immigration rates.
vtpeaknik,
as there is a reduction aim of 20% till 2020 there could (actually) not be a growth of emissions by 29% within the next 13 years. Emissions should be 20% less than in 1990.
The decision to increase the use of renewable energy to a number of 20% is IMO something different. And this is the important message of this day.
Today, around 11% of domestic electricity production in Germany is performed by renewable energy. A few years ago it was around 4 or 5%. Now the expected capacity the offshore wind farms is more than 20.000 MW. Alone this will increase the amount of renewable energy tremendously. And there is still biogas, deep geothermal energy, PV. All this will contribute as well step by step more to the entire energy production.
Within a few years the PV industry emerged from almost nothing. Today there is already 1% of the electricity supply in Bavaria generated (if I can use this verb in this case) by PV. Alone in Bavaria are more solar panels than in Japan or in the entire USA.
All this development has happened quite swiftly. Wind energy is growing every year worldwide by 20%, PV even much more. Now, with support from this decision this industry will speed its development up.
In the year 2020 the calculation of times will not stop. A highly efficient technology will strong enough to increase its percentage on energy supply continuously in the following years. This is the special thing I expect.
I can only repeat. This decision will spur the development of new technology in an unprecedented way.
Marotti32- I share your optimism. After all, I saw smoking vanish from airplanes, blacks get the vote in our USA south, and other impossible things happen in my lifetime.
Right now I am enthused by the prospect of solid biomass as the mandated heat source for buildings, combined with small stirling engines to generate most or all of the building's electricity. I know it is possible because I have done it for my own house. My steady state use is 350 watts electric, and about 10kW (shame on me!) heat rate in the winter. Wood does it just fine.
Better houses, as made in Germany, would meet their requirements at less cost.
I live in hilly country, and pumped hydro seems quite feasible as an energy storage method- and would offer opportunity for heat pump source/sink.
Wimbi, I just come from a Sunday afternoon walk, I don't know why but today I passed the "Berliner Mauer" memorial just a few hundred meters away from my flat. The last left-over pieces of this ugly building still look cold and inhuman, even on a sunny spring day. But it is already almost 18 years ago, when this wall became history
Change is almost a question of bold and determined decisions. On ever scale. My optimism about the EU decision is simply based on the experiences I could see going on here. There is change going on, still very small, but as many TODers know it is the exponential growth which is difficult to understand.
The exponential growth, the environmental pressure and the political support will result in more change than many people can anticipate know.
Agreed it's a positive development. One interesting thing with these legislated renewable energy goals, is that one gets the impression they are sometimes undertaken as token gestures, however, once in place they are often fulfilled far ahead of schedule. This was certainly the case with wind energy in Texas. While there are many problems ahead it is encouraging to see a large group of nations take, what I think almost everyone would agree, is a nice step in the right direction.
These measures I suspect also have a secondary benefit of getting people to begin to think about these issues and consider what sorts of behavior they condone and find admirable. That is to say, despite all the car chase movies, it may no longer be cool to be "going 90 mph drinking Prudhoe Bay" (you know, as an aside, that phrase popped into my head one day and I always thought it would make a great starting point for a country song - I digress).
If this is done right, the solutions will likely vary greatly, i.e what is useful in a sunny dessert clime might not work in a coastal northern fishing village and vice versa. The appeal of renewables and thus what is implemented and how will also vary from people to people. For some an appropriate sense of civic mindedness will be important. In America with its almost ingrained suspicion of government and ideal of independence and self-reliance (yes, the last is painfully ironic considering national and often individual debt, ongoing international entanglments, over consumption, dependence on oil and large complex centralized power generation) one sees a long term movement of "living-off-the grid". Will wrap it up and just say yes this is a positive development, if PO continues to play out as a gathering storm, then I think Europe may have been dealt the worse hand but North America has the farthest to go.
BTW - Thanks for the good news!
I participated in a conference call this week with API Chief Economist John Felmy. I am going to write up my impressions as soon as I get a chance, but Robert Bluey, one of the participants, has written the up some comments at his blog.
I will post some of his comments, as all of the pertinent links are there. Just a bit of background. I did not know that there would only be a few of us participating, or I would have spent more time considering my questions. For all I knew, there would be 50 people on the call and I would get to ask maybe 1 question that I would formulate based on Felmy's comments. So, if my questions and comments seem unscripted, don't worry, they were. I also don't know much about the fellow participants, but I will try to find out something before I write this up. It should go without saying that I have some issues with what was presented – and a lot of ground was covered.
The intent is to do this on a regular basis, and I think it would be far better to solicit questions from TOD viewers than to just submit my own questions. After all, he doesn’t have to convince me that oil companies aren’t ripping you off. So, if you have some questions on climate change, profits, ethanol, or energy issues in general, give me some of your questions. I will make a list, and I will try to get them answered.
Here are some of Robert Bluey's comments:
From the transcript:
I believe the fact that Bush's proposal refers to alternative fuel rather than renewable fuels has been overlooked in the discussion of his plan. I know I didn't catch the difference and was assuming it meant ethanol and biodiesel until reading the above.
I believe the fact that Bush's proposal refers to alternative fuel rather than renewable fuels has been overlooked in the discussion of his plan. I know I didn't catch the difference and was assuming it meant ethanol and biodiesel until reading the above.
Yeah, there was a bit of discussion about this after Bush's speech. He clearly was throwing some non-renewable options out there.
By the way, Dave Mathews has now infected my blog. Check out the comments following my most recent essay:
http://i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2007/03/why-are-gas-prices-rising.html
I had an anonymous poster post in that weird sort of Dave Mathews style, so I called him out. Sure enough, he admitted it in the next post.
Hi Robert,
I just read your 'D.M. infected' article and came across your statement that: "some argue that Saudi Arabian oil production has peaked (although I disagree)".
If you have explained what your 'disagreement' is in your writing here on TOD or elsewhere would you kindly direct me to it. If not, would you mind taking some time to explain what the basis is for that disagreement is?
I am glad to see an opposing view, they tend to bring out the skeletons and either change one's opinions or firm them up. While I do not mean to put you in the same boat as Freddie H., he does more to convince one of PO than otherwise.
If you have explained what your 'disagreement' is in your writing here on TOD or elsewhere would you kindly direct me to it. If not, would you mind taking some time to explain what the basis is for that disagreement is?
You can read the gist in my debate response to Jeffrey:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/12/8/223354/987
Some have also asked what would convince me that peak is upon us. I got that question this morning in my blog comments. Here was the question, and my answer:
Robert, just out of interest, could you list some criteria that would convince you that the peak is nigh? e.g. price point, inventory levels, sustained fall in production while prices are rising etc.
Robert,
Could you clarify this? If I am not mistaken, commercial US crude oil stocks were around 20 million barrels higher in the Eighties in some years. Are you including the SPR?
Speaking of the SPR, I have wondered for some time about the drop off in US commercial crude oil stocks after 1987, both in absolute terms and in terms of Days of Supply. From 1983 to 1987, we held an average of 30 Days Supply (first week of April, each year).
From 1988 to 2006, we held an average of 24 Days Consumption. Early April, 2006, at 24 days, was right at the average for the past 20 years.
I wonder if refiners decided to go to a Just In Time crude oil inventory, because they had the SPR as a backup? I think that the SPR crossed the 500 million barrel mark around 1986.
This theory seems reasonable to me. If it is correct, all we are seeing with these inventory fluctuations, relative to five year averages, is minor fluctuations within the Just In Time inventory limits.
In any case, one of the posts that I made the other day described the "Rich Town" and "Poor Town" analogy. I stipulated a food shortfall. Rich Town had plenty of food. Poor Town didn't. The problem arises for "Rich Town" when food supplies continue to contract.
But fundamentally, I think that the approximately two-thirds increase in average world crude oil prices after 5/05, relative to the 20 months prior to 5/05, versus the cumulative shortfall in crude oil production relative to 5/05, is telling us what is going on in world oil markets.
Could you clarify this? If I am not mistaken, commercial US crude oil stocks were around 20 million barrels higher in the Eighties in some years. Are you including the SPR?
Yes.
There were some higher levels many years ago, but there were also more refineries years ago. So what the absolute levels were 20 years ago don’t really tell you whether they were higher or lower than normal, and level alone is not the entire story anyway. You need a level and a trend. When the Saudis cut they had a high level and it was trending higher. So while price may have given them a motive to keep production steady (at least until it started to fall), the inventories denied them the opportunity.
I think that the approximately two-thirds increase in average world crude oil prices after 5/05, relative to the 20 months prior to 5/05, versus the cumulative shortfall in crude oil production relative to 5/05, is telling us what is going on in world oil markets.
But does the fact that oil prices have fallen well off their highs, despite the Saudi cuts, tell you anything? It tells me that the world would have been oversupplied had they not made the cuts. Which is precisely why I believe they made them.
Think about this. Had the Saudis not made the cuts, where would all of the oil have gone? It would have plummeted the price. I don't see any other option.
While I was at lunch, I realized what you meant when you said "This Century."
As best that I can tell, the all time record high US commercial crude oil inventory was 372 million barrels, for the week ending 2/25/83, when the crude oil throughput was 10.9 mbpd, a Days Supply of 34 days.
For 6/16/06, we had 347 million barrels (7% less than 2/25/83), versus crude oil throughput of 16 mbpd, for a Days Supply of 22 days (a 35% reduction relative to Days Supply for the week ending 2/25/83).
But in neither case does it tell us what was going on in areas like Africa.
Also, what about the theory of refiners going to a Just In Time inventory plan, because of the SPR?
The question really is, what would have happened if world oil production kept increasing in 6/05, instead of declining. The price spiked followed the production decline, starting in 6/05.
If oil production had kept increasing, I think that Yergin would have been correct, oil prices probably would have stayed at about $38 per barrel, which was the average monthly Brent spot crude oil price in the 20 months preceding 5/05.
Instead, as Deffeyes predicted, world crude oil production has fallen, relative to 5/05, and the approximately two-thirds average increase in oil prices following 5/05 was necessary in order to balance reduced supply against reduced demand--much in the same way that my example of "Rich Town" would be well supplied with food while "Poor Town" had to get by on reduced rations.
The problem is that the post-Peak Oil environment is dynamic--not static.
We will see a period of equilibrium, and then production--and especially exports--drop again, leading to another round of bidding, and a new definition of "rich" and "poor."
In any event, note that you are forced to ask a question which is contrary to fact, to-wit, "What if Saudi production had increased," when in fact it declined--as predicted by the HL model.
In any event, note that you are forced to ask a question which is contrary to fact, to-wit, "What if Saudi production had increased," when in fact it declined--as predicted by the HL model.
Well, I didn't ask if they had increased, I asked what if they hadn't decreased. Given that price fell even though they cut production, I think the answer to the question is obvious. Then the question becomes: Was the world just fortunate enough to have Saudi peak just as the market was becoming oversupplied, or did KSA see that the market was oversupplied and make a preemptive move?
But you keep saying "as predicted by the HL model." Yet the HL model didn't predict that it would decline in 2006, did it? 2004 would have been consistent with the HL, 2003 years ago would have been consistent, 2008 would have been consistent with the HL model. So let's put last year's "prediction" in perspective. You could have a span of many years that would work. It just happened to decline last year - and whether it is voluntary or not you have latched onto that as "HL predicted it."
But at least be honest enough with yourself to look at the HL and admit that if production had started declining in 2010, it would have been consistent with the HL and you could still say "as predicted by the HL."
To be clear, I want the readers to understand that the HL did not predict that KSA would decline in 2006. It predicted, according to what you have said, sometime between 50 and 60% Qt. And given that the % Qt has been moving backward for a couple of years, we don't really know how long the prediction was good for. As I have indicated, I looked at Texas and a Texas decline at any point between 1960 and 1977 was consistent with the HL prediction.
In fact - and I think this is a very important point - I bet the last Saudi decline - which was voluntary - was within the range of the HL prediction. I need to check this out, but I bet I am right.
Based on Saudi production data through the end of 2005:
http://static.flickr.com/55/145186318_27a012448e_o.png
That was a complete dodge.
True or false: A Saudi peak in 2003 would have been consistent with the HL?
True or false: A Saudi peak in 2008 would be consistent with the HL?
Both cases are true, and you have inspired me to make this the topic of my next essay: HL's Throughout History. The fact is that your parameters are such that you have a very, very broad range of years in which you could claim a "hit." Why is this so difficult for you to acknowledge? You are really overstating your case every time you say "as predicted by the HL", because "as predicted by the HL" doesn't define a precise time."
This is about like me predicting in 2000 that based on his age, Ronald Reagan was on the verge of dying. Four years later, I say "Just as I predicted." Or, had he died in 2001, "Just as I predicted."
I was typing an edit when you blocked me out, with your response.
What we had in 2005 in Saudi Arabia was a high level of production at a fairly advanced stage of depletion, so I knew that the decline would be past 58% of Qt.
Of the HL plots of large producing regions that I have looked at, Texas showed the latest peak, as a percentage of Qt (57%).
Since Texas was also the prior swing producer and since I could find no examples of large producing regions showing sustained steady increases in production past the 55% to 60% of Qt range (and given Matt Simmons' book), I thought that 2006 was the most likely year for a decline, but I agree that it had to be by 2008.
So, the Lower 48, North Sea, Russia, Mexico and the world fit the 50% of Qt model.
Texas and Saudi Arabia fit the 55% to 60% model. What Saudi Arabia has demonstrated is that we still have no examples of large producing regions showing sustained, steady increases in production past the 60% of Qt mark.
What Saudi Arabia has demonstrated is that we still have no examples of large producing regions showing sustained, steady increases in production past the 60% of Qt mark.
What you will soon be surprised to learn - as I was - is that this claim is not remotely true. Stay tuned. :-)
OK Jeffrey, I am going to do something I should have done a long time ago. I am going to do something that every fan of the HL method should have done a long time ago. I am going to investigate the precision in my next post.
Here is what I would request from you. Define for me the parameters in which you would say "That region has peaked." I presume this is not a problem. I am thinking 50-60% Qt with some defined intercept. But I am going to let you define the parameters, and your reasoning. Then I will proceed with the analysis. Texas and Saudi will be my test cases. My hypothesis is that the precision is going to be very poor.
I think it's quite stupid to hope for the best and do nothing because the precision is bad and the peak could be later. It's like driving a little bit to fast in fog and hope for the best because everything has gone well before.
Although I personally believe we are at or past peak, Robert has stated many times that even if peak is further down the road as he believes, that it is critical that we start preparing now. He has never said, "Relax, be happy, go for a drive."
The Texas/Lower 48 article has the HL data and production data.
Just a suggestion though. Before going to great lengths to continue to attack the HL method (even as recent data support the HL models), you might want to wait for some evidence of rising crude oil production in Saudi Arabia and the world.
I could be wrong, but I am willing to bet that many people on the website--at this point--would be willing to pay us to not further debate this topic, at least until we have data contradicting the HL models.
hey robert & westexas,
i'd be quite happy for you to continue this debate (although i might not go as far as paying you to do it :-)
even it doesn't help with Saudi Arabia, it might teach us something about the Russian HL plot for instance.
i'm starting my own HL work to try and get my head around how good it is (or isn't) as a predictive tool. we have some good production and reserves data for several sufficiently large basins here in Oz. i expect that the data will show that HL isn't very useful once you have large new basins coming onstream within a country that already has declining production from other regions. HL could not have anticipated the very recent rise in Australian production, and similarly in Russia now. HL would have predicted Russia to go back into decline for several years already (after post-Soviet recovery). not sure what i'll find as i dig into it..
cheers
phil.
Westexas, all you have to do is STOP.
I just scroll by now anyway.
As I have been saying, IMO it's a question of whether the Titanic sinks in two hours or four hours.
Exactly!
If I recall correctly, RR said his belief in peak is 2012 +/- 3-4 years putting next year within his guesstimate zone, so why all the bickering... is it just to score debating points or is it to score bragging rights as to who correctly called Peak first?
It seems to be a tad pointless to obsess on pedantic details when all agree the ship is sinking!
Thats $0.02 from a dedicated fan of the Oil Drum.
(even as recent data support the HL models)
This is exactly the reason that I need to evaluate the precision. I think this is what you are failing to grasp. Do the data "support the HL models" because the error bands are so wide that any data over the course of 20 years would have supported the models? That is a key question, especially when you are using these models to tell the world "Saudi has peaked."
From my perspective WT & RR are actually very close in their respective positions. RR doesn't refute HL methology, only the precision of the results.
It's like one person saying that that fish is 12.4 inches long and the other person saying it's about a foot, plus or minus an inch or two.
In the end it's still a fish about one foot long.
B.W.
I am writing up my results now. They are pretty shocking. All I can say is: HL, RIP. The precision is horrible beyond belief. I will have the essay up ASAP.
Stuart did a bunch of analyses last year about how well curve-fitting techniques such as HL work, when applied to different data sets. I think he used the US as an example.