If he didn't he should have. What if the production data were reported weekly, or daily. Where is averging in all this, to discern the trend from the fluctuations? The trend is flat production. It'll take months or more to say otherwise. It's only years from now, averaging out the noise, that we'll put a month/year on peak. But it'll be academic.

It was either Cambell or Deffeys who said that peak should be indicated by whether producers are able to sustain production for at least 5 years.

I also think that this event develops on at least year-long scale. Month to month variations are too minute to indicate (almost) anything - pretty much like following day-to-day price variations.

I would appeal though that we should be equally fair on both sides - a dip in output in one or several months is as much a proof to the "peak-oil-now" theory, as much as a similar short-lived growth is a proof to the opposite.

The current trajectory of the URR is "aimed" directly at 2200 GB.

But for a laugh, you ought to include the EIA's IEO 2006 projections.

Pitt the Elder wrote:

Everything in "all liquids" is a direct substitute for a major use of oil. EIA and IEA both refer to all liquids as "oil supply". Looking at that number is the only reasonable thing to do.

I disagree completely with your statement. The various liquids in the reports are not equal in their ability to produce energy from each barrel of product. That's because there's less energy in a barrel of ethanol or propane than there is in a barrel of crude or products like diesel or JP5 fuel.

Adding all these into a total distorts the facts about the energy available. Without getting into a further discussion regarding the EROEI for oil vs. ethanol, just summing the energy available over time would be better than a total in barrels. That approach would certainly give a better picture of our situation.

Even better would be some attempt at an EROEI analysis, since, as we all know on TOD, the amount of energy required to produce corn ethanol is much higher than that required to drill a hole in the ground. And, were there to be an EROEI approach, this would also capture the fact that oil is no longer being found in large quantities by simply drilling, but now is recovered by major industrial enterprises placed far off shore. This would show that it's becoming ever more difficult to supply the energy demand of consumers outside the small world of the energy producing sectors. To do this would provide all who were interested with a much better grasp of the reality, without there being a need for detailed understanding of the sort we see here on TOD.

E. Swanson

Oh...and don't forget Refinery Gains!

One indicator of the scam-ish nature of the "all liquids" category is that it includes "orimulsion,"

No it doesn't - orimulsion hasn't been produced in about a year.

If a fuel requires FF inputs its derivative rather than alternative, right?

Re: Almost too hard to think about for some reason I can't quite grasp

EROEI is a fallacious concept because all energy is not created equal. Suppose that we used metal return on metal invested (MROMI) to decide which metal to produce. Now suppose for sake of argument that it take 10 pounds of iron to produce 1 pound of gold. The MROMI is therefor .1. Obviously using this reasoning no gold should be produced.
This is the reason EROEI is too hard to think about. It makes no sense, even if 99% of the posters here believe in it. It is fallacious. It is impossible to determine which form of metal/energy should be produced without taking into account market prices. When prices are left out of the equation, it all becomes nonsense. So don't strain your brain, just realize that EROEI is pure bullshit.

thanks for that. I forgot that energy industry itself uses a lot of energy.

I tried to calculate "peak energy" (my comment below the page), I forgot that:
* for every 6 boe generated by wind/solar industry you need at least 1 boe (do anyone have better figures?? I have only these bad estimates what I can barely recall)
* for every 10 boe produced from tar sands you need maybe 8 boe energy?
and so on.....

this means that if we add new energy capacity, let's say equivalent of 10 million boe, we actually need perhaps something like 0.5 million boe for doing that. It goes to energy infrastucture (fixed energy "cost") & operation. We should be able to calculate this better, we know EROEIs of every energy type & we can estimate the possible additions in energy production by energy type.

lets say one barrel of ancient-bio-diesel is extracted and refined in the US, and is used as an input to a US farm which produces one barrel of less-recently-deceased-bio-diesel.

That would be a very bad assumption.

The majority of the energy used in producing US ethanol is natural gas, both for fertilizer production and for the fermentation/distillation heat. The amount of actual oil is quite small. Indeed, there's no reason to assume the amount of oil used per liquid btu of ethanol is greater than the amount used per liquid btu of oil itself, especially considering how other ethanol producers (notably Brazil) tend to be much more efficient than the US.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course, but there is a fundamental difference between "barrel of oil equivalent" and "barrel of actual oil".

That's just hair splitting. I didn't say per fill up, did I?

All Liquids were not created equal.

Exactly, and the cost to the user incorporates this factor.

Calorie, you are getting too sarcastic with this post. I haven't the time to search the thousand or more posts, seeing how slow the web site is responding right now.

I have stressed, over the past two years, that the peak plateau was the important point, the point we are at right now. Many of my posts have stated this line:

We are at peak oil right now! Meaning, of course, that we are on the peak plateau right now. Other times I have been more specific saying: We are on the peak plateau right now! I would have not said now if I were speaking only in the past tense. Also I have stated, many times, that though the peak month is likely May of 2005 but 2005 will be the peak year. Of course I mentioned both in the same paragraph, simply to emphasize that the peak year was the most important.

If you had been following TOD a little closer, you would have known that. And I don't care whether you wish to stand corrected or not, you are simply wrong. You should not post such crap about other people's position when you haven't a clue as to what the hell you are talking about.

Ron Patterson

I think you're being unfair. We've debated C+C vs. all liquids extensively, starting over a year ago. It's not like people are suddenly cleaving to C+C because the All Liquids numbers don't support their position. I would say most (but not all) of us decided long ago that C+C are the numbers to watch, for a variety of reasons. We aren't suddenly changing our positions now.

Ron, please provide references to one or more of your previous posts at least one month old in which you emphasized that 2005 is very likely to be the peak year, without also mentioning May 2005 in the same breath, and I will stand corrected.

Talk about a distinction without a difference. Ron is right. We are only talking about monthly data because we are still so close to the probable peak year.

Regarding C+C versus Total Liquids, I have an idea. Why don't we match the volume measurement up with the price? In other words, we match the volume of crude oil, or C+C, up with various crude oil prices.

The most recent EIA data show that the total input into US refineries was 15.2 mbpd. Of that 15.2, crude oil accounted for 14.9 mbpd, or 98% of total inputs. Somehow, I suspect that refineries are concerned about the liquid that accounts for about 98% of refinery inputs.

While determining the time of Peak Oil is important, and certainly interesting, here's what is more important:

1. When supply fails to meet demand - likely now
2. When net exports fall - WT's ELM - also happening now

Any slight uptick in supply won't affect either of these problems much.

-edit to mention - There's a major cold outbreak poised to hit the upper midwest. And my local weather gal (Boston) mentioned the possibility of a significant snowstorm in the NE around next Monday. As they say, stay tuned.....

Robert, the lions share of the new OPEC gains comes from Angola, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. I acknowledged that Saudi had some spare capacity and my statement was about the OPEC 10. Andola and Iraq are not part of the OPEC 10.

I believe the IEA numbers are considerable different from the EIA's C+C numbers, so let's just wait for them. But in the meantime, I do not believe that the OPEC 10, outside of Saudi, has very much spare capacity. And I do not believe that, after this increase, Saudi has much if any left.

I cannot make it any plainer than that. And my bet still stands. I will bet anyone $100 that the average C+C number for 2005 will be higher than those for 2008. $100 just ain't that much people. Someone please take me up on my bet.

Looking at the October IEA numbers, they have OPEC crude up 410,000 barrels per day but OPEC liquids up 570,000 barrels per day. NGLs were up 160,000 bp/d. That is one hell of a jump for NGLs just from OPEC. At any rate, of that 410,000 barrels, 100,000 came from Saudi, 100,000 from Iraq and 120,000 from Angola. That means only 90,000 came from the other 9 of the OPEC 10. I think Robert, that I am still correct in my assesment that of the OPEC 10, only Saudi has much spare capacity.

But for non OPEC the figures are for liquids, not crude oil. So we will have to wait for the EIA data to see if the rest of the world had such a momentual increase in NGLs as did OPEC. If so, then the October C+C figures will come nowhere close to the May 05 figures.

So let's just wait for the EIA data, shall we?

Note: I checked OPEC's own web site ant their numbers for C+C match what the IEA reported for Crude. But the OPEC site does not give All Liquids numbers. So there is no way we can verify that vast jump in OPEC All Liquids. At any rate we know 160,000 bp/d of the OPEC increase was for Liquids and will not add to the C+C figures. Another reason I think the 2005 record will not be breached.

Ron Patterson

But how long can they sustain any increase of that magnitude?

And, if that spare capacity is in Heavier crudes, can anyone process it? (as Ace suggests)

Do you think it will be sustained?

And it would have to be, as we need the extra oil NOW to get thru winter demands, but with only a small break, we enter into DRIVING season with below average gasoline stocks (and possibly low crude stocks as well).

So, if OPEC/KSA cannot keep production up at a new high of about 1MMBPD above current, forced demand destruction will occur via price.

This why I think the Triple Yergin is still in sight.

EDIT: Would just love to be wrong...we need more time.