The Oil Drum | GAO Peak Oil Report Thread

117 comments on GAO Peak Oil Report Thread

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Leanan on March 29, 2007 - 12:50pm

Here's the chart:

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Leanan on March 29, 2007 - 12:59pm

And here's the key:

This appendix lists the studies cited in figure 5 of this report.

(a) L.F. Ivanhoe. “ Updated Hubbert Curves Analyze World Oil Supply.” World Oil. Vol. 217 (November 1996): 91-94.

(b) Albert A. Bartlett. “ An Analysis of U.S. and World Oil Production Patterns Using Hubbert-Style Curves.” Mathematical Geology. Vol. 32, no.1 (2000).

(d) Volvo. Future Fuels for Commercial Vehicles. 2005.

(e) A.M. Samsam Bakhtiari. “ World Oil Production Capacity Model Suggests Output Peak by 2006-2007.” Oil and Gas Journal. April 26, 2004.

(f) Richard C. Duncan. “ Peak Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge.” Pardee Keynote Symposia. Geological Society of America, Summit 2000.

(g) David L. Greene, Janet L. Hopson, and Jai Li. Running Out Of and Into Oil: Analyzing Global Oil Depletion and Transition Through 2050. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Department of Energy, October 2003.

(h) C.J. Campbell. “ Industry Urged to Watch for Regular Oil Production Peaks, Depletion Signals.” Oil and Gas Journal. July 14, 2003.

(i) Merril Lynch. Oil Supply Analysis. October 2005.

(j) Ministére de l’Economie Des Finances et de l’Industrie. L’industrie pétrolière en 2004. 2005.

(k) International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2004. Paris France: 101-103.

(l) Jean Laherrère. Future Oil Supplies. Seminar Center of Energy Conversion, Zurich: 2003.

(m) Peter Gerling, Hilmar Remple, Ulrich Schwartz-Schampera, and Thomas Thielemann. Reserves, Resources and Availability of Energy Resources. Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources, Hanover, Germany: 2004.

(n) John D. Edwards. “ Crude Oil and Alternative Energy Production Forecasts for the Twenty-First Century: The End of the Hydrocarbon Era.” American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin. Vol. 81, no. 8 (August 1997).

(o) Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Inc. Worldwide Liquids Capacity Outlook to 2010, Tight Supply or Excess of Riches. May 2005.

(p) John H. Wood, Gary R. Long and David F. Morehouse. Long Term World Oil Supply Scenarios. Energy Information Administration: 2004.

(q) Total. Sharing Our Energies: Corporate Social Responsibility Report 2004.

(r) Shell International. Energy Needs, Choices and Possibilities: Scenarios to 2050. Global Business Environment: 2001.

(s) Directorate-General for Research Energy. World Energy, Technology and Climate Policy Outlook: WETO 2030. European Commission, EUR 20366: 2003.

(t) Exxon Mobil. The Outlook for Energy: A View to 2030. Corporate Planning. Washington, D.C.: November 2005.

(u) Harry W. Parker. “ Demand, Supply Will Determine When World Oil Output Peaks.” Oil and Gas Journal. February 25, 2002.

(v) M.A. Adelman and Michael C. Lynch. “ Fixed View of Resource Limits Creates Undue Pessimism.” Oil and Gas Journal. April 7, 1997.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SamuM on March 29, 2007 - 2:13pm

AFAIK, several of those are note original & independent estimates, but rehashes of each other, based on the same USGS inflated OPEC data.

I think they would have done the estimates section a more truthfully, if they had included only separate, original methodology studies there.

Then again, was truthfulness or "calm down, it's 30+ years away" their goal :)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

kebu77 on March 29, 2007 - 2:17pm

Am I missing something, or has the Lynch 1997 study ("v.") been left off the chart?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

dinopello on March 29, 2007 - 5:02pm

The report has a footnote that the conclusion of study "v" (Lynch) was that timing for peak oil was "unknowable". Kind of hard to put that on the graph!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Halfin on March 29, 2007 - 2:44pm

Following up on our thread the other day, what if we average these dates? I tried eyeballing and averaging the midpoint of each of the ranges, got about 2024 for the year of the peak. If we take out the two extreme optimistic ones that center at around 2070, that brings the average in to 2019; however that may be a little pessimistic because it is taking estimates of "after 2020" and "after 2030" as just being those dates, 2020 and 2030.

The bottom line is that averaging the experts puts us around the 2020 time frame. Pretty far out compared to most opinions around here, but then this is a self-selected group. You can find similar groups on every controversial issue, convinced that their own opinion is right and insisting that the expert consensus is either mistaken or a case of outright disinformation.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

BrianT on March 29, 2007 - 2:55pm

Halfin: Every day that passes without global crude supply topping the monthly peak set in 2005 lowers the credibility of the distant forecast peaks. IMHO, a Vegas book would give heavy weight to the fact that prices are high and oil supply is stuck at the 85 plateau. These studies quoted have different agendas which have nothing to do with accurately predicting the date of peak oil, which lessens their usefulness, IMHO.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Nowhere on March 29, 2007 - 1:38pm

Nice report from the GAO, and like most reports from the government, it is 5 years behind. We already know everything in the report. "The future of when peak oil happens is uncertain" - that took a lot of study to say, ha ha ha. The end of the world is uncertain too. We must recognize that peak oil is certain, and start doing something productive instead of trying to calculate the exact date. We are losing precious time every day that goes by. We are wasting money on wars, exotic, unrealistic plans, and other political B.S. instead of spending on a real solution. Teach everyone how to grow food in their yard so they won't starve. Learn how to live without cars and planes. By the time global warming heats up by 1 degree, we will be out of oil. The earth can protect itself. Go back to nature.

Nowhere is Now Here!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sam Foucher on March 29, 2007 - 3:01pm

From the chart, we can derive a probability density function:

Below is the cumulative density function (cdf):

There is 5% of chance (F05) that PO data < 2007, 50% of probability that PO data < 2034 (F50) and 95% of probability that PO date < 2114 (F95).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Halfin on March 29, 2007 - 3:37pm

Nice work! I'll repeat the reference to the survey paper on the advantages of combining forecasts:

http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~clemen/bio/Published%20Papers/13.Combinin...

Abstract: Considerable literature has accumulated over the years regarding the combination of forecasts. The primary conclusion of this line of research is that forecast accuracy can be substantially improved through the combination of multiple individual forecasts. Furthermore, simple combination methods often work reasonably well relative to more complex combinations.

To me, this clean, simple averaging approach is far more likely to be a good guide to the truth than Stuart's efforts to read the tea leaves of every jog and squiggle in the Saudi production function.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sam Foucher on March 30, 2007 - 2:19pm

Thanks for the article, it's a good reference.

Note that the maximum likelihood derived from the pdf above is between 2012 and 2017.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SamuM on March 29, 2007 - 4:10pm

Right tool, afaik, but GIGO.

Look at the data going in.

If they had included all the CERA/IHS/USGS rehash studies, they could have pushed the probability of <2034 to near zero.

What we need to feed is:

- independent (i.e. done without other studies data)
- different methodology (e.g. bottom up, HL, economic, loglets, whatnot)
- credible (i.e. now back of the envelope calculations)

...studies. Also, for balance measure, we would probably need also to include some earlier estimates that have been proven wrong (too early), because it is likely that some of the other late peak estimates are wrong too (assuming somewhat normal distribution, even if tailed).

Then we MIGHT get some useful data. Perhaps. Agree?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Asebius on March 29, 2007 - 4:35pm

Sounds like a plan. I'd love to see that done.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

doctorbob on March 29, 2007 - 5:58pm

IMO, exactly right SamuM. A mean calculated from results produced with such disparate methodologies, has little value. Many of the studies (e.g. CERA) use data or assumptions that are demonstrably incorrect, or use methodologies that are irrelevant. Such results should be excluded from any mean that is calculated. Even then, a mean is of limited significance as most Contributors who have done detailed analyses and leading commentators (e.g. westexas) seem to be homing in on a narrow window of "nowish" to 2010.

The most interesting thing about this, is that it raises awareness of this probability amongst the MSM. It will be interesting to see how this develops and its effect on oil prices (now towards $66), esp. combined with Iran's antics with the captured sailors. It's almost as if they are trying to stir up antagonism and strengthen excuses for an attack later this year.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Halfin on March 30, 2007 - 2:08pm

I don't necessarily agree that you want independent data in this kind of averaging. If many experts agree with a particular line of analysis and write papers supporting each other, then it makes sense to take the fact that that is the widespread consensus into consideration. Anyone who fails to recognize that near-term Peak Oil is very much a minority view is deluding themselves. The averaging process should reflect that reality.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

noutram on March 29, 2007 - 7:30pm

Always with the sexy graphs... :o)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

cgron on March 29, 2007 - 7:37pm

Is it possible to redraw the pdf/cdf charts in 3D with depth representing which underlying data set was used (USGS, etc)?

In other words the analysis is too flat, equally weighting all the studies.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer on March 30, 2007 - 7:44am

Great way to look at the data! I question your methodology a bit though. Shouldn't the forecasts spread over mutiple years only contribute a fraction to each year in the PDF? The way you plotted it, the total area in the plot represented by the studies with large ranges is disproportional to the area representing rest of the studies. Doesn't this overweight the studies with large ranges?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Engineer on March 30, 2007 - 8:25am

Note if you do the PDF/CDF the way that I suggested F05 is 2005, F50 is 2022 and F95 is 2053. I eyeballed the data off the chart so the numbers are probably +/- a year or so.

Can someone point me to a tutorial for posting charts?

Thanks.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Calorie on March 30, 2007 - 9:22am

You must first find a place to host your image (Google "Image Hosting" to find a number of free sites), then use the "img" tag. Here is the tag Khebab used for his first graph:

Note that if you are using Mozilla Firefox, you can select a section of rendered text and graphics and use the "View Selection Source" command to see the underlying HTML. You can use this to figure out how to do something someone else has done. You can do something similar in Microsoft Internet Explorer.

I don't think you can host an image at the Oil Drum unless you have special privileges (see "Personnel" block on the right-hand sidebar).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sam Foucher on March 30, 2007 - 11:17am

hmm... good question. What would be the weight then?

Each study has the same weight for each year (i.e. 1/18). A study with a large time span (e.g. 2005-2140) would be basically non informative because it would then affect each year the same way (i.e. it would simply raise the minimum probability floor). Note that I have not included the studies that are just saying "After 2030", If I include them I get F50 around 2050.

IMO, studies that are including shale oil should have lower weight for instance because there is a low probability that this source will affect the peak position.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.