<Estimating the World Production Decline Rates from the Megaproject Forecasts The Oil Drum DrumBeat: November 20, 2007>

190 comments on WSJ Article - Oil Officials See Limit Looming on Production

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Pitt the Elder on November 20, 2007 - 11:02am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

For numbers they like to include oil sands as if they were oil.

Of course they do - it is currently the source of large amounts of oil, after all.

It then follows that technology will figure out how to get oil out of capped wells.

It already has, to a certain extent - enhanced oil recovery technologies have allowed substantially more of the oil originally in place to be extracted than used to be the case.

If you're trying to make an argument that the peak oil theory is not debased, you need to carefully consider what you're going to say and what the real argument is.

Both of your arguments here are off the mark - peak oil is not about reserves. Peak oil is about flow rates, and it's clear to everyone that flow rates are restricted in tar sands (physically) and the Middle East (politically).

In many ways, the peaker obsession with the amount of recoverable oil remaining is a red herring - it really doesn't matter if there's enormous amounts of oil remaining if we can't access it. Many people are clearly resistant to the idea that not much oil is remaining - and for good reason, since you have poor evidence of that - but most people will agree with you that there are above-ground issues limiting the flow rate of oil right now, from political (OPEC quotas, unrest in Iraq/Nigeria, hostile climates in Venezuela/Iran) to physical (manpower and infrastructure capacity limits in the tar sands).

You may really, really believe that the world's used half its oil, but that's simply not the best way to talk about the subject.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FiniteQuantity on November 20, 2007 - 11:24am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Of course they do - it is currently the source of large amounts of oil, after all.

They have reserves greater than Saudi Arabia per CERA. They are pumping astonishingly low amounts of oil if that is the case? Do you think they would benefit from increasing their rig count? Seems puzzling, such a large oil reserve and such a relatively low flow rate???

It already has, to a certain extent - enhanced oil recovery technologies have allowed substantially more of the oil originally in place to be extracted than used to be the case.

Has enhanced oil recovery stopped Mexico from peaking? Has it stopped the US from peaking? Has it stopped the North Sea from peaking?

Both of your arguments here are off the mark - peak oil is not about reserves. Peak oil is about flow rates, and it's clear to everyone that flow rates are restricted in tar sands (physically) and the Middle East (politically).

Well I hope CERA is reading that comment because they are the ones who talk about oil sands reserves being larger than Saudi Arabia without considering flow rate. You appeared to realize that and be defending them a few sentences ago.

Many people are clearly resistant to the idea that not much oil is remaining - and for good reason, since you have poor evidence of that

A peaking of oil production in the majority of oil producing nations is considered good evidence that "not much oil is remaining". A peaking of discoveries and gradual decline over a fourty year period is great evidence that "not much oil is remaining". Only a strong faith-based approach to oil discovery can counteract that. The faith is strong at CERA and the IEA and the mainstream media. Their faith is going to be severely tested as oil prices soar and oil production stagnates or declines. If it weren't such a looming disaster I would say that it is gonna be fascinating to see how long CERA, the mainstream media, the politicians, the average joes, etc., can keep the faith.

Many people are clearly resistant to the idea that not much oil is remaining - and for good reason, since you have poor evidence of that - but most people will agree with you that there are above-ground issues limiting the flow rate of oil right now, from political (OPEC quotas, unrest in Iraq/Nigeria, hostile climates in Venezuela/Iran) to physical (manpower and infrastructure capacity limits in the tar sands).

I don't believe that "above-ground issues" are limiting the flow rate. That's CERA and the mainstream media and the other faith-based oil prognosticators and pundits.

You may really, really believe that the world's used half its oil, but that's simply not the best way to talk about the subject.

I didn't say a word about what percentage of the oil has been used.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Pitt the Elder on November 21, 2007 - 1:06am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Seems puzzling, such a large oil reserve and such a relatively low flow rate?

Only if you're being purposefully obtuse. Tar sands produce oil, but require more work than conventional wells to get the same amount of oil. Those two facts are not in conflict.

Has it stopped the US from peaking?

Bait-and-switch fallacy.

You talked about technology getting oil out of capped wells, so I talked about enhanced oil recovery, so now you're pretending we're talking about technology preventing a peak. Different topics.

You appeared to realize that and be defending them a few sentences ago.

Re-read what I wrote, then.

A peaking of oil production in the majority of oil producing nations is considered good evidence that "not much oil is remaining".

The listener gets to decide what constitutes "good evidence", not the speaker. You can insist you're providing "darn good intelligence" until you're blue in the face, but that won't make your points one iota more convincing.

For example:

A peaking of discoveries and gradual decline over a fourty year period

This backdating trick undercuts your point. Technological advances have allowed more oil to become recoverable than was originally possible, effectively adding "technological discoveries" of oil to the regular geological discoveries.

If we discovered no new oil but recovery rates increased over time to 100%, your method of plotting oil discoveries would show years and years of zeros even while remaining recoverable reserves were rising year after year. It should hardly be a surprise that that kind of evidence is less than fully convincing to everyone.

If it weren't such a looming disaster I would say that it is gonna be fascinating to see how long CERA, the mainstream media, the politicians, the average joes, etc., can keep the faith.

How long has Campbell "kept the faith"? He's been predicting imminent decline for, what, almost 20 years now?

It's a grave error to assume that someone who disagrees with you is irrational and mistaken.

I don't believe that "above-ground issues" are limiting the flow rate.

You're simply wrong. As the most obvious example, insurgents have been repeatedly targetting oil infrastructure in Iraq and Nigeria, keeping hundreds of thousands of barrels a day of existing production from being used.

You may believe that the key is below-ground issues - and you may be right - but don't let that blind you to reality. That you disagree with something an opponent says doesn't mean you must disagree with everything they say.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Kiashu on November 20, 2007 - 8:54pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Reserves are significant because they put a definite limit on flow rates. When there's only 10% of a field left, the flow rate's going to be slow no matter what you do.

And when you're describing these things to people, if you never mention reserves, then they won't understand why flow rates can't be increased. There's a tendency for people to reply to knowledge of peak oil with, "well, perhaps we're short today, but tomorrow the price will go up and more will be produced, so nothing to worry about." Knowledge of reserves, and the interplay between reserves levels and flow rates, that changes that.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

190 comments on WSJ Article - Oil Officials See Limit Looming on Production

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version