 | Has Fossil Fuel Consumption Within the EU Peaked? | The Oil Drum | Conspiracy or Stupidity: The Trouble With Numbers |  |
237 comments on Asking one of the less comfortable questions about our energy future...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
237 comments on Asking one of the less comfortable questions about our energy future...
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
- What "Lower Consumption" Means
- Tricking and Treating the Future
- Meeting Energy Decline Part-Way - Potatoes?
TOD:Europe
- The US stimulus and "green jobs"
- EROWI - energy return of water invested
- An interview with Stoneleigh - the case for deflation
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Saturday 7th November 2009
- The Bullroarer - Friday 30th October 2009
- Details of Solar Flagships Released
TOD:Net Energy
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
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and resolute courage, that we move on to better things.”
—Theodore Roosevelt
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- 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
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
ExxonMobil put the decline rate from existing wells at between 4% and 6% per annum. If we take the higher end number, which is below what some sources have cited, and look the EIA 2005 annual total liquids rate of 85 mbpd, we need about 5 mbpd of new total liquids production every year, to maintain constant production. So, from 2005 to 2015, we would have needed to add 50 mbpd of new production, or the equivalent of about 10 Ghawar Fields, based on production in recent years.
Of course, I think that the key driver is the ongoing, and accelerating decline rate in net oil exports.
And how is the weather today?;-)
Cloudy--with a chance of declining net oil exports.
Hi WT,
Would you expect the decline rate to be a steady number say 6% = 5mbpd every year or would it be 6% of the reduced figure? e.g. in the second year would you expect to see 79 - 5 (6% of 85) or 79 - 6% of 79?
If we were able to maintain flat production, we would need to add about 5 mbpd every year, assuming a 6% gross decline rate, but the point is, IMO, that Peak Oil is basically the story of the rise and fall of the big oil fields, and once the big fields start declining, we can't offset the big field declines with new smaller fields, which is what the Texas & North Sea case histories show:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/TexasAndNorthSea.png
Matt Simmons defines the gross decline rate as the decline rate from existing wells and the net decline rate as the decline after new wells are put on line. Basically, with stable or growing production from the big fields, we tend to have increasing production. When the big fields roll over, we tend to have a net decline rate. Texas has shown a long term net decline rate of -4%/year, while the North Sea has shown -4.5%/year.
Simmons has "The Oil Pyramid" chart in Twilight (Appendix B) showing that of about 4100 significant fields, the 14 largest put out 20% of our oil. I don't know what percent of these old elephant fields have had horizontal well production, but if they all have the 10% variety of sudden decline, this forces all the rest of the fields, over 4000 of them, to increase production 2.5% each year just to offset the 14 big fields' decline rate after water flood of the horizontal wells. That's a non-14-big-field global production increase of 2.5% each year just to keep production flat and falling behind demand.
Westexas wrote:
Small point but it is in fact an error to apply an estimated decline rate to "all liquids". Instead, it refers narrowly to conventional crude oil.
And that's the way it's used in reports from the IEA, for instance. The reason behind this is that oil sands, natural gas plant liquids production, biofuels etc. have very different output constraints from conventional crude.
For example see page 23:
http://www.iea.org/textbase/speech/2008/eagles_mtomr2008.pdf
And natural gas plants get their gas from what source? ExxonMobil was talking about a 4% to 6% decline rate in oil and gas wells worldwide. So, it would be more accurate to say that is is the production decline from conventional wellbores worldwide. But unconventional production is not exactly setting the world on fire right now. Last year, both Venezuela and Canada showed declining net oil exports.
When I mention peak oil, most people reply that it is overstated, and that they will just stay at home more.
They think oil only effects how much they drive.
How can we bring more awareness to the true impacts?
People think that it is a scare tactic, and do not understand what is really going to happen.
Write lots of Letters to the Editor in your local paper. Run for office on the issue. I did both, and now the paper has me on as an ongoing columnist for "Energy & Ecology"
Call your local representatives and ask them to send someone to the ASPO conference. People never talk your word for something that they don't want to hear. They have to go through the process themselves.
One of the problems is that Environmentalists have cried WOLF way to often and the public is naturally sceptical of another 'the Sky is Falling' scenerio. They won't believe peak oil is real until a chunk of sky takes out their house.
They don't know how to create a need.
Environmentalists seem exclusively focussed on climate change's impact on other species [ie saving the polar bear] or impact on foreigners [Pacific climate refugees] or impact on future people [by 2050 or 2100]. Which is too bad for them. They could have rallied a LOT more Americans to their cause by mentioning peak oil too: "oh by the way, since your food is no longer going to come in a wrapped package from out of state and there's not enough local food to go around...got a fishing rod? Oh that's right the remaining fish [outside the dead zones] have cancer.... Got orchards? Oh that's right they've been sold it off to developers....Got some good soil under your lawn? Oh that's right it was replaced with clay and chemicals.... Got back up water supply? Oh that's right it has all been going down the sewers.
...Well, don't you think we should make some changes around here so you won't starve whenever the trucks stop pulling up to the Safeway?"
they would have thought the environmentalists were even more delusional if they heard that.
that's simply not true. some recent developments in the suburbs may have that problem but not all. anyway where did the soil go? it went to the store. you can just buy soil. you can compost.
Vacant Lot Becomes a Garden
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/vacant-lot-becomes-garden.php
I am in the business of converting vacant lots to gardens.
Thank goodness we do have soil sources in stores right now and we have time to learn how to compost right now. When TSHTF, it will be much harder: You won't be able to just buy soil at a store.
There is a phenomena called PEAK SOIL, a result of irresponsible treatment of our soil resources on both farms and in residential areas. You could learn from studying the concept. [But as we all know from your prior posts, you are not here to learn, you are here just to argue for Business As Usual.]
1. peak soil? ok...did hubbert model that?
2. I have never ever in my life argued for BAU. not even close. BAU is ever increasing SUV sales when I've said we're moving to electric cars, conservation and et. electric cars are not BAU.
Perhaps you can go to the store and buy some 'thinking out of the box' in a box.
Speaking of "In the Box" thinking.
Infinite growth is impossible, but that does not mean that infinite collapse is inevitable. Try a bit of out of the box thinking yourself. Fossil Fuels enable BAU, but there's a whole lot of unusual ways to do business.
Come up with one new idea to do something you depend on with no FF input. Or dig up an old way to do it. Not every improvement in technology since 1850 requires oil, coal, or natural gas. That's 150 years of new ideas.
Crying Wolf - Wrong analogy.
If you remember the story, the child LIED to get attention.
Peak Oil, Climate Disruption, Species Annihilation, Acid Rain and Oceans, Ozone depletion, Pollution and Poison are not lies. Some of these topics have long lead times that present focused individuals have denied these problems and their consequences. As a rhetorical tactic they respond by citing the story of the "Boy who cried wolf". The truth is that the wolf really was there, but it was off on another hill and each time the boy cried, the wolf was closer.
Now the wolf is about to eat the sheep and the child.
Do you have a link for that?