<DrumBeat: October 17, 2007 The Oil Drum World Energy and Population: Trends to 2100>
<ODAC Newsletter, Monday 15 October The Oil Drum: Europe ODAC Newsletter, Wednesday 17 October>

27 comments on Oilwatch Monthly - October 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Matt on October 16, 2007 - 10:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

I want to remind the reader of this post that Gail and me wrote an article entitled:

"Did Katrina Hide the Real Peak in World Oil Production? and Other Oil Supply Insights"
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3052

clearly showing a peak in crude oil production in 2005. A PDF version (1 Mb) is now available here:

http://sydneypeakoil.com/downloads/KatrinaAndPeakOil2005.pdf

We have now to set aside oil and gas fields for the sole purpose of serving as an energy input into all those projects which are needed to de-carbonise our economies. Global warming is accelerating at alarming rates. Read a study from the Naval Postgraduate School
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/May032006_Dr.WieslawMaslows...
already from last year, that Arctic sea ice in summer could be gone by as early as 2013, leading to warmer waters around Greenland. This in turn will speed up the disintegration of its icesheets. A 5 m sea level rise this century is now possible as warned by NASA climatologist James Hansen in many of his papers. A good summary from Carbon Equity can be found here:
www.carbonequity.info/PDFs/Arctic.pdf

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Rembrandt on October 17, 2007 - 4:27am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

clearly showing a peak in crude oil production in 2005. A PDF version (1 Mb) is now available here:

A peak yes, but likely a temporary peak. An issue that is also adressed on the first page of this month's oilwatch monthly.

You and Matt write in the article that

This annual decline of 1.8 million bpd can be broken down to about .6 million bpd annual
decline relating to the countries Nigeria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia (combined), and about 1.2
million bpd for other countries below the black line. One might argue that the production of
Nigeria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia (Figure 8) is not necessarily in long-term decline, so should not
be below the black line. Since the production for these countries has recently declined, it is
shown in this group.

Consider the case that this 0.6 million bpd of production decline stops and reserves. Then we would not have a decline but an increase, above peak levels of 2005.

One of the things we need to do now is monitor the data, and confirm the 2005 peak in world oil production. We cannot know whether this peak was a geological peak per se.

In that case the 2005 peak wasn't the peak, and production shall continue to increase.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Matt on October 17, 2007 - 7:42am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

You quoted by cutting the sentence in half. What we said:

We cannot know whether this peak was a geological peak per se, or whether there were other factors, such as geopolitical feed back loops involved

and we specifically included the link to this post:
Geopolitical Feedback Loops in Peak Oil
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3017#more

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Moe_Gamble on October 17, 2007 - 10:45am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think it's misguided to think in terms of a "geological peak" versus some other kind of peak (and it leads to too many stupid arguments here). Peak will always and necessarily be a result of combined geologic and economic factors.

And when people estimate recoverable reserves, the estimate is based on combined geological and economic factors, which is why the HL model works.

Obviously there is a lot of oil in the ground, even though it is a finite amount.

And obviously we could pump more of it at any given time if we were willing to throw every last dollar in the world at it to create a higher peak.

Memmel is right--the effective peak happened a couple of years ago, because it was the end of the easy, most versatile, most economically-produced stuff. As it takes more energy to get and refine the current stuff, we are in effect getting less even if we technically produce more.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jkissing on October 17, 2007 - 5:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Also consider that all liquids includes a still growing volume of ethanol. Forgetting the very large energy inputs in producing this particular liquid, much akin to tar sands, it contains 1/3 less btu/gallon than gasoline or crude. If the ethanol component of all liquids were simply reduced by 1/3 of the ethanol contribution, we would see all liquids declining faster than recent charts indicate.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tgstone on October 17, 2007 - 5:22pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I suspect more people would buy into the concept that demand is increasing faster than supply capacity and that excess capacity will soon be absent from the system as a result. Once this occurs, prices will rise until there is sufficient demand destruction to bring supply and demand back into balance.

The above can be successfully argued without requiring the listener to accept that oil production is peaking. It is sufficient to get this listener to accept that the rate of increase in supply capacity is slowing; a much easier argument to make regardless whether it understates the actual situation.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

27 comments on Oilwatch Monthly - October 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version