soleman and davebygolly,

Agree with your points, and to me, Stuart's work in an EXCEPTIONAL article, well worked arguement, and great documentation is EXACTLY the stock in trade of what TOD is and why, even when I get pizzed at some small point or another, I keep coming back.

As to Yergin and the CERA merry makers, the problem is worse than that: CERA could be easily dismissed if the EIA of the U.S. Department of Energy and USGS did not basically back him up. I once argued that they should have to go before Congress and testify under oath to thier assessments once and for all, and if they turn out to have based thier numbers on thin air, be held accountable for them. The EIA recent long term outlook gives fuel and energy costs almost across the board as being no higher out to 2030 than we have already seen:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/growth.html#prices
(!!!!)

Add to this the Saudi claims that they have it covered and ExxonMobil claims that there is no sign of peak anything and you see the problem. Those who accept the need for concern are having to persuade the public, investors, planners, etc. to bet against ALMOST EVERY MAJOR ENERGY POLICY INSTITUTION IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD. An uphill fight to say the least, and now almost impossible, due to bankers and policy makers sourcing the Department of Energy stats to get information, investment and funding for alternatives and mitigation will rapidly dry up.

General Motors now says that the plug hybrid car the "Volt" will possibly never be built. Volvo has essentially ignored its magnificant lithium battery electric car. Ford has done no further development on it's hydraulic hybrid truck/SUV which was developed in conjunction with Eaton Corp. and the EPA.
Why? If one assumes a petroleum price at or below $75 per barrel out to 2030, non of the above technology makes any sense to develop. It will simply not have a customer base.

Thanks Stuart Staniford, EXCELLENT ARTICLE, one for my "saved" file, as I have said before, if I have to accept someones numbers, I would accept yours long before I accept CERA, EIA, or USGS numbers, which are to me as screwed up as soup sandwich! :-)
(now, if we can resolve just how much oil is going to come on line from the Khurais field, the empty quarter, and offshore, we could get a clear picture of what is going to happen....until then, it's still a shot in the dark...:-)
PREPARE FOR ANYTHING.
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom

Saildog, you ask a great question and I am not sure of the answer. But I do have a couple of comments. "Resting the fields" is a term I have only heard on this, and other, forums. I have never encountered the term in any technical literature or on any book about peak oil or oil production in general.

The only thing I think resting a field might do would be if coning had occurred then shutting the field down for several years might mitigate the situation somewhat. That is oil from the sides of the cone might migrate in and push the cone down some but I am not at all sure about this. Just guessing I would tend to doubt that resting a field would help the coning very much.

But I would bet that it would not help the water/oil mix one bit. I think it would take decades, or even centuries or more for the oil and water to separate inside the reservoir.

However I would just love to hear from someone who does know what the hell they are talking about on this subject because I sure as hell do not. But never having encountered the principle anywhere except on fourms such as this, I tend to doubt that it is a widespread practice.

Ron Patterson