Search The Oil Drum with Google
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Local
- Streets: Utilitarian Corridors or Livable Public Space
- Summer Streets a Success!
- Plan for Hydro-Fracture Drilling for Unconventional Natural Gas in Upstate New York
TOD:Europe
- Oilwatch Monthly - November 2008
- The 2008 IEA WEO - Production Decline Rates
- The EU Strategic Energy Review: maybe not so depressing after all
TOD:Canada
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
- Oil Megaproject Update (July 2008)
TOD:ANZ
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
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
“Data always beats theories. 'Look at data three times and then come to a conclusion,' versus 'coming to a conclusion and searching for
some data.' The former will win every time.”
—Matthew Simmons, ASPO-USA conference, Boston, MA, October 26, 2006
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Prof. Goose, Heading Out, Stuart Staniford, Nate Hagens
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Gail the Actuary, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Khebab, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Local: Glenn
- 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
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Well-known Guardian (UK newspaper) writer George Monbiot is at last having some serious thoughts on Peak Oil at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2089988,00.html
These show that peak oil is well off the UK government radar: “The energy white paper the government published last week … mysteriously forgets to mention that the government intends to build another 2,500 miles of trunk roads and to double the capacity of our airports by 2030. If our economic lives depend on continued growth in the consumption of transport fuels, it must first have determined that such growth is possible. Mustn't it?” In fact it depends on the IEA for assessments and they say “Estimates (of peak oil) range from today to 2050 or beyond.” As Monbiot says “You might have imagined that the government would have shown just a little curiosity about whether or not its transport programme will bring the economy crashing down.” It looks they didn’t and it looks like it will.
By the way, if you think there are some barmy and brainless people writing comments on the TOD site, you should take a look at some of those that follow the story on the site above!
I agree about the "quality" of many of the comments in The Guardian relating to Monbiot's article about Peak Oil. What's both irritating and depressing about many of the reactions to the piece, is that the Guardian is a newspaper for the affluent and educated Middle Class, more or less.
The number of people who have an almost religious faith in progress, a tech-fix solution and the magical ability of market forces to conjure alternative sources of energy out of the air, is, candidly, rather frightening.
I've been debating Peak Oil with some highly educated, inteelligent, talented and influential people lately; and they just don't get it! The more I develope my arguments, the less they seem go get it! It's rather odd. It's almost as if I'm presenting an outline for a science fiction novel to a very sceptical publisher, who doesn't think the idea will fly with the public at all.
I think the consequences for our way of life are so enormous and challanging, if Peak Oil is imminent and we've done virtually nothing to mitigate it, that people simply refuse to face it, but prefer to turn away and party on!
Most Grauniad (sp intended)readers are paid out of the public purse.
Never had to meet a payroll or think about ROI's of any description. Completely paid out of taxes, they live in a nirvana of zero thought and the public purse. Good pensions too!
Good place to go if you want a job as :
Lesbian, Gay Outreach Coordinator
Five a Day Fruit Coordinator
Real Nappy Coordinator
These are actual jobs. Really.
Educated but still thick.
All well salaried, perked and index linked pensioned.
One day the ever open public purse may get tight though.
As Al Gore says "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it".
Even if he does understand it (and I think many people don't, even if you take the trouble to explain it) what can one person do to turn it round? ... so, party on and hope somebody else can fix it!
The Kyoto global warming targets, if achieved, would mean massively less FF use ... but also a massive recession ... so which democratic government is going to propose that? Who would vote for them?
Xeroid.
Or to paraphrase "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary does not depend upon his understanding of it".
Exactly.
Xeroid.
Gore was quoting the very perceptive Upton Sinclair.
The quote is from Upton Sinclair. Lots of people have used it.
"The more I develop my arguments, the less they seem to get it!"
Writerman, recognize that you are presenting information that contradicts decades of societal programming reinforced by everyday experiences. Thoughts do not float around freely in the brain. They represent specific physical pathways. While there are some opportunities for plasticity or malleability to alter the established pattern, the already conditioned responses are so interdependent and elaborately interconnected that, for most people, only a tremendous shock (analogous to ECT) or a great deal of time and effort to recondition will bring about the kind of reprioritization you intend to illicit.
The assumption is often made that we all have the same mental filtering system and all one needs to do is submit the requisite number of inputs to redirect the system. However, there are enough subtle variations in how sensory input is processed to account for differing reactions to the same information.
An extreme example of an atypical filtering process is the autistic savant who blocks the heaps of distracting sensory data the rest of us constantly wade through and intensely focuses his or her mind on one area of interest. It is thought by many that this type of focusing reflecting unusual temporal lobe physiology (part of the filter system) accounts for their heightened perceptions and memory.
I'm guessing the typical TOD reader has a filter that tends to ignore a lot of the noise that most people get caught up in. It seems like the people you are having a difficult time with are increasingly unwilling to attempt to process verbal information that conflicts with their established patterns of thought and the noise that continues to reinforce those patterns.
Don't give up. FWIW, I've had success with several seemingly hopeless cases.
You can see the exact same effect here too when a non-polically correct opinion is delivered.
Try suggesting that a 20% decline in petroleum production in five years -- to early 1990s levels for example -- might NOT cause collapse/depression/mass dieoff.
Heresy!
Admittedly, a 40%+ decline would be pretty interesting.
"only a tremendous shock (analogous to ECT) or a great deal of time and effort to recondition will bring about the kind of reprioritization you intend to illicit."
Apart from a very small percentage of people, I think you are right - a short, sharp shock (God, one of the Thatcher government's phrases!), will be required. Candidates:
* A GOM hurricane to put oil above $100
* Stock market collapse when KSA run out of excuses and admit they have little or no spare capacity
* Recession which sees mortgage foreclosures hit a few % of the population
The last of these may not be sudden will I think will happen anyway over a period of a few years but whether recognition of the cause will come with it, I wouldn't like to say.
Hi,
Hmnn...interesting question, what are the conditions for change.
I offer space, as in "emotional space" or acceptance, as productive. (In a way that shock and/or hard times can never be.) Emotional space, or "unconditional positive regard" - (positive and yet disinterested attention) allows the brain to think. Acceptance and connection, respect for autonomy (seeming contradictions) - are what people crave. Most people have a lot of the negative, going some ways back.
www.cnvc.org, www.newconversations.net, www.gordontraining.com.
I noticed that too --- the completely uninformed comments that is.
Who is the Monbiot for the United States? The U.S. needs one, as I am sure we could come up with much more alarming figures for planned road building and airport expansion here. Add roads to the things like coal we should have a moratorium on. We talk incessantly about better gas mileage, EVs, VMT, etc., but there is little talk about the crux of the problem -- more roads everywhere. When you are in a hole, stop digging. That's what we need to do --- stop digging.
Best hopes for peak roads. Stop the roads, lay the rail.
Just a little strange fact, but every airport across the US has some sort of "Master Plan" (capital letters) usually for 5 to 20 years out, and most of them include some aspect of development and expansion.
First Law of Holes: Stop digging.
Updated World Production Forecasts including UK Oil Production Decline
The UK Govt must believe that peak oil is many decades away! The UK is building more roads while continuing to import more oil. The UK has been a net importer of oil since 2005.
The UK Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) states that UK had proven and probable (2P) reserves of 6,120 million barrels at year ending 2005 (816 million tonnes of crude, condensate & NGLs * 7.5 barrels/tonne).
Ultimate recoverable reserves for the UK is flattening as shown in the chart below. This reflects the lack of recent large UK oil discoveries. No new oil discoveries provides more support to continued decline in UK oil production rates.
Fig 1 - Ultimate recoverable reserves including possible reserves (UK DTI) - Click to enlarge
UK DTI production for 2006 was 535 million barrels. Thus, UK reserves (2P), for year ending 2006, is estimated to be 5,585 million barrels (6,120-535).
The reserves to production (R/P) ratio is only 10.4 years (5,585/535). This means that the UK would have no more oil production after ten years, assuming the UK could produce 535 million barrels per year. In reality, the oil production declines each year so that the UK would still be producing oil after ten years, but at low rates.
The 2006 annual depletion rate of the remaining reserves is a high 8.7% (535/6,120). If the depletion rate is held constant at 8.7% for 2007, then the 2007 UK production will be 486 million barrels (.087*5,585). This represents an annual production decline rate, from 2006 to 2007, of at least 9.2%, which disagrees with this optimistic DTI forecast which shows a production increase from 2006 to 2007. The trend from a peak in 1999, from the DTI forecast, shows a consistent decrease in annual oil production. If depletion rates decrease down to a more reasonable 6%, UK oil production could drop suddenly this year.
Maybe the new high sulphur oil production, starting in 2007, from the Buzzard field is causing the DTI forecast increase. However, Buzzard’s 60 million barrels/year will only be just enough to keep UK production constant from 2006 to 2007. In 2008, the irreversible steep production decline would continue.
The effects of these UK production decline rates have been included in the following updated charts which are derived from a bottom up forecast from over 300 oil regions/megaprojects.
The chart below shows the annual production rate declining at 1%/yr until mid 2009. Afterwards, the production rate declines faster at 3%/yr to the end of 2012.
Fig 2 - Forecast Crude Oil & Lease Condensate Production - Click to enlarge
World total liquids production has been on a peak plateau since the start of 2006. Increased forecast production of natural gas liquids and ethanol should extend the plateau until the end of 2009. After 2009, the world will use less oil.
Fig 3 - Forecast Total Liquids Production - Click to enlarge
Ace,
Great work, and thanks for the update.
But, do you EVER post any good news?! :-P
3% decline within 5 years, and less than 80MMBPD by 2010 (eyeballing) not a pretty picture.
ace - thanks for this. You are right that Buzzard was expected to halt - for just one year - the 9-10% annual decline in production. However, I recall someone here saying a few weeks ago that they were not sure this had actually happened. Does anyone have info on this - has Buzzard come fully onstream to offset the declines elsewhere, or have declines of other fields accelerated so much that Buzzard is unable to stop an overall fall in production?
Maybe Chris Vernon, MUDLOGGER or one of the other seniors working in Scotland have some info.
ace - another late comment - I see you have moved the total liquids peak from July 2009 forward to mid-2008 compared to the last version I saw. What new data is this based on?
From your chart a DRASTIC and ever-widening gap between demand and supply will exist in little over two years from now. That will surely see the world economy in massive trouble.
Maybe this should be re-posted at the top of today's drumbeat or be an article in its own right with further explanation.
Hi doctorbob,
The forecast data have changed due mainly to applying appropriate annual depletion rates of remaining reserves to many other countries after applying it first to Saudi Arabia.
For Saudi Arabia, the annual depletion rate for remaining reserves is assumed to stay below 5.5%/yr as shown by the black line. This produced the declining production rate after mid 2009, shown by the blue line.
Saudi Arabia Forecast to Dec 2020 - Click to enlarge
The main reason for peak total liquids moving to mid 2008 is that I decided to apply the constraint of limiting the annual depletion rate of remaining reserves to other countries which have passed peak production. Essentially, this means that the production decline rates are steeper when the peak is passed as shown by the chart below. At the summit of the curve the production decline rate is zero. A year after, the decline rate is small. However, ten years later the decline rate can be steep.
US Oil Production Theoretical Curve - Click to enlarge
Another example: The North Sea peaked in 1999 followed by three years of very low production decline rates of less than 1%/yr. Seven years later, in 2006, the production decline rate is 9-10%. It could increase to 12% in 2008. Past 2008, the decline rate could drop back to 10%.
Before applying this annual depletion rate methodology, the North Sea C&C forecast for mid 2009 was 3.7 mbd; after 3.3 mbd. Russia: before 9.4; after 9.0. Mexico: before 2.8; after 2.6. USA: before 5.5 mbd; after 5.2 mbd. Other countries also changed.
Before the changes, the total liquids peak was 87 mbd on July 2009. Now, it is 86 mbd on July 2008, but it was also 86 mbd on July 2006. Maybe peak total liquids has passed. Nevertheless, I think that specifying a “peak oil plateau” is more helpful than forecasting a peak month. When world total liquids production goes off the plateau at the end of 2009, the production rate could fall quickly. As Colin Campbell says "It's not as important when you peak, it's the vision of the long decline that follows."
I will post an update of the forecasts after the next EIA data release, due next week.
It always seems to surprise me just how many comments are 'clutching at straws' in persuit of endless economic growth - those folks 'just don't get it' but, unlike me they probably don't spend much time on this site! I've just tried to redress the balance a little - comments this morning by ChrisB1.