Indeed. I've always found the argument "let us invest, you're too incompetent to do it" pushed by Western politicians and pundits (oil companies are less to blam for that particular line of reasoning) towards oil producing countries profoundly annoying and, let's say it, racist and/or contemptuous.

It's particularly striking when coming from European countries that produce a few tens of billions of cubic meters of gas per year and addressed to Gazprom, which produces 600bcm/y, but it similarly applies to criticism of Pemex, PDVsa or Saudi Aramco.

These companies could produce more if (i) they wanted to and (ii) it was physically possible. The common wisdom ignores (ii) completely, forgets about (i), and instead goes on a wild goose chase about 'competence.'

As regards (i), it should be enough on its own to make us focus on demand side policies: even if one thought that the resources were there, the simple fact that the countries holding the reserves may not find it necessary to produce them at our convenience (ie as fast as possible in the short term) should be enough to signify the need for us to be able to do with much less oil altogether. That we even refuse to consider it never ceases to amaze me.

And of course, as you point out, the problem is even worse than that.

Intuitively from a layman of moderate intelligence its almost the other way round. The more above ground restrictions you have the longer the "plateau" should be as the curve is stretched out. increasing depletion steepens the curve.

AFAICS either the way spatial and temporal dimensions operate in this universe are not understood or money can increase the OOIP for CERA to be correct.

hubberts model best fits unregulated exploitation?

at best they can argue the estimate of OOIP is wrong significantly?

am I being unfair?

Boris
London