The numbers were fine until they showed a peak in July.

Because there's a large portion of the rest of the world that thinks the apples are just as important as the oranges.

The number that the EIA,IEA,BP and even Stuart Staniford uses is 85 million barrels. But if you guys want to look at something different, fine. Just start using the number 73.

And I have no doubt that when any future developments or revisions show the crude+condensate numbers to increase and the opposite for all-liquids, some people here will be switching their apples and oranges again ;)

Here is the link.
Spreadsheets 1.1a, 1.1b, and 1.1c are crude and condensate only. These break it down country by country. The first is OPEC only and the last gives the total for all the world.

All Liquids, including ethanol, bottled gas, coal to liquids, other shit as well as a lot of water if found on spreadsheet 1.4.

Ron Patterson

IIRC, we actually had a thread devoted to this once: whether peak oil should be all liquids or not.  While both are interesting, all liquids is not peak oil.

As Robert points out, all liquids includes some double-dipping.  If you use diesel to make ethanol, both the diesel and the ethanol are counted.  

And IMO, ethanol really shouldn't be included, anyway.  The Hubbert model is based on geology, and ethanol simply does not fit into that.  That's not what Hubbert linearization is supposed to track.

The numbers that we discuss here today are guarranteed to change, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to view them in any particular way or to draw any tight conclusions. It's better to step back and look at the bigger picture and the longer term.

One can say that this lowers the bar for future numbers. One can also say that the bar has been too high for the last 6 months.

After about a year, I think the EIA eithers stops revising months, or the task becomes pointless. In the long run, if you look at a graph with a time frame of say 10 years and plot out both the original numbers and their ultimately revised form, you can barely see daylight between the two lines.

Looking at moving averages is a good way of getting a clearer picture by shutting out the noise.

According to David Fleming, Manifa's oil is sour and contaminated with vanadium.

Beneath the seabed off the coast of Saudi Arabia is an oil field called Manifa. It is giant, and its riches are almost untapped. There is, however, a snag. Its oil is heavy with vanadium and hydrogen sulphide, making it virtually unusable. One day the technology may be in place to remove these contaminants, but it will not be for a long time, and when, or if, it becomes possible, it will do no more than slightly reduce the rate at which the world's oil supplies slip away towards depletion.

Do they now have the technology to process it and make it usable?

Thxs for responding.  Just posting what I found from the WWWeb.  I think it is interesting where we read all these newslinks about KSA's proud press releases of rapidly ramping up their FFs vs other links talking about insufficient energy & water inside the kingdom.  IMO, Something appears out-of-whack.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

It was written by an Argentinean who actually lived through the Argentinean economic collapse of 2001. It is scary, really scary. It is far too long and far too good for me to even find excerpts to quote. There are just so damn many. Of course a lot of people here believe there will never be an economic collapse in the good old US of A. But eventually, just like in this essay, people will find their highly skilled training has no market in a severe depression. The middle class will become the desperately poor class. And just like in Argentina, there will likely be a tiny minority of the very rich and a massive majority of the desperately poor, and no in between.

At any rate, enjoy.

Ron Patterson

Bruce from Chicago

This has been a topic that has been discussed on other forums for years.  There are basically two schools of thought:  1) We'll shoot them all.  2)You won't be able to do that and they'll get your stuff.

I, too, live in the boondocks.  Here are the points I usually make in these discussions.  First, the locals will close the roads (both local and state highways).  This is easy in the mountains where I live.  

Second, considering EROEI, it makes little sense to spend the energy to try to get stuff from homes that are widely separated - especially when they may be hard to find and you don't know what they have.  

Third, just about everyone in the boondocks has guns and lots of ammo and will probably be far more motivated to use them then a bunch of city punks.  

Fourth, the locals have a tremendous tactical advantage since they know the area intimately. Further, a lot of us have plans in place as to what to do if this occurs.  

Fifth, I believe (that is, guess) that most urban/suburban people will stay where they are since it is likely the Feds will be handing out some kind of food.  

Lastly, I think it is far more likely that a very high percentage of rural people will be heading for the cities since they do not have the capability to be self-sufficient.  In my area, few have enough water to grow food crops to feed a family; they depend upon propane for cooking and refrigeration and propane, diesel or gasoline to run generators for things like lighting and well pumps.

Todd; a Realist

I havwe  security cameras and you can bet mine will be active. I run it with a solar panel , wireless to the house/barn/whatever.

With 6 or 12 volt panels I can use fence charger panels with a cellpack battery to power them. Same with my laptop.

Consider a grain bin on many many farms full of grain.

Worth protecting? You betcha. With firepower? You betcha.

Cattle? Yup.

The food doesn't grow in the cities or burbs. It grows in the rural areas.

If gas get scarce who would you rather see get the petrochemical products? farmers or soldiers or politicos?

I submit that the food growers should be on top of the chain.

Way before ethanol was part of the current debates.

I have a really good friend who has almost one of every kind of horse drawn implement made.

Another who has harnesses aplenty.

But I would prefer a VW tractor powered with ethanol. That way I could use a two row corn planter and cultivator. With corn and a bit of hay you can raise and winter over both some cattle and hogs. Enough to cure the hog meat. Thats what we always did back when back was, way back. I mean sustainable for there was absolutley no free money handouts. You made it or died out. That was about 1930s/40s. I can still remember scraping the hair off those scalded hogs.

To this day I can't go very long without some good bacon.

On KSA/Ghawar

• For what it's worth, I see no reliable indications that they have much capacity and/or reserves hidden, and neither does Simmons in Twilight. The vast unexplored desert? Don't think so. Too much offshore drilling.
  
• I do see a lot that would suggest the opposite

On Groningen

• Production expected to halt within 20 years
  
• Produced till Jan 1 '05 (Groningen only): 2664 bcm (94,079 bcf)
  
• Total left (Groningen+smaller fields): 1572 bcm (55,515 bcf)
  
• Production ceilings total
  • '05-'08: 75 bcm (2648 bcf)
  • '09-'15: 70 bcm (2472 bcf)

Note: the numbers get confusing at times because of the blurring distinction between Groningen and other fields. I hope I got them right, including the conversions.

For Engish information:
The maximum volume that can be expected to be supplied from Dutch accumulations during the next ten years has been calculated taking into account the upper production limit (table 7). The resulting supply is 701 billion m3Geq, consisting of 276 billion m3Geq from [non-Groningen] accumulations supplemented by a maximum of 425 billion m3 Geq from the Groningen accumulation. In this scenario, the Groningen will continue to act as a swing producer, balancing supply and demand.

Note:

• do notice below how the yellow bars, 'undevelopped' and 'undiscovered', distort the real picture.
  
• non-Groningen production (lower bars) completely collapses
  
• projected Groningen production (upper bars) is higher than ever, which suggests wishful thinking. '06 is all of a sudden 10 bcm (20-25%) more than '05 (?!)
  

In regard to your plot of Saudi production, Texas had a very similar "twin peaks" pattern.   Based on the HL method, Texas peaked at around 56% of Qt.  Last year, KSA was at about 57% of Qt.  

Your discussion of the big fields/little fields in the North Sea is precisely the point.  Whether it's Texas, the Lower 48, the North Sea, KSA or the world, we find the big fields first.  

I would also point out that--at least according to Matt Simmons--the majors working the North Sea were surprised at how soon the North Sea peaked.  

Also, I don't think that you could come up with two more different regions than the Lower 48 and the North Sea, yet both regions peaked in close proximity to 50% of Qt (crude + condensate).

I realize that the Yibal Field is not an exact analogue to Ghawar; however, it's the same reservoir and it was redeveloped, like Ghawar, with horizontal wells.  Shell, with some of the best engineers in the world, was gearing up their surface production facilities at Yibal to handle a projected flood of new oil when production at Yibal started crashing.  Also, I believe that Ghawar is at about the same stage of depletion, as a percentage of OIP, that Yibal started crashing.

The key problem for KSA is that, at least at one time, Ghawar accounted for more than half of their production--and about 7% of world crude + condensate production.   If a field accounting for half of your production is crashing/declining, where does one go to replace half of one's production?

I assume that the Texas Railroad Commission must have raised the allowable for the East Texas Field in the Sixties, but East Texas production almost doubled from 1962 to 1972.  This was the last hurrah for the field.  It started its terminal decline in 1973 down toward its current production of 1.2 mbpd of water per day with a 1% oil cut.    

I'm sure that the conventional wisdom in 1973 was that the small (0.6%) decline in Texas production was just a "blip" before production resumed its upward trend.

Mathematically Ghawar and KSA in 2005 were where the East Texas Field and Texas were at in 1972.  And, as predicted by the HL method and by this historical analogue, KSA is showing declining production (around 9 mbpd in September, according to Petrologistics), while oil prices traded in a record high (nominal) range, and the Saudis are frantically expanding their drilling efforts.

Again, we saw this same pattern in Texas--higher oil prices + frantic drilling = lower production.

I realize that Texas is not KSA, but they are only swing producers we have had.   Also, the Lower 48 is not the North Sea, but the Lower 48 and the North Sea are, mathematically, peas in a pod, just as Texas and KSA are, mathematically, peas in a pod.

We can have long discussions about who the real power elites are, and never get anywhere, but regardless of who they are, they will need foot soldiers, people like the Bushes, and the Jesus fanatics in the documentary are ideal for that role. Which gives them a from of power, whether that qualifies as 'rea'l or not.

PS the silly acronyms get sillier al the time

Thats the way it is with Baptists. Now they can be led like sheep and thats the same as our current sheeple society.

Lastly I am really really pissed about the USA bending over backward to never in the least offend a muslim. Be he a violent of other type. All they have to do it pitch a bitch and everyone bows forthwith to Mecca.

I say piss on that bullshit. I am tiring rapidly of their petulance and demands.

Its getting nigh onto time for asskicking and time to realize that basically Mohammed was a warrior and Christ was a pacifist.

Regard all the countries that have been taken over by Islam more or less byh force and who says anything yet we heard constant screaming about apartheid for years.

Something is gone awry here and needs to be set straight.

Either forget the violence or glass the f**king deserts and let God or Allah sort it out. Enough is enough.

Besides they treat wimmen like shit yet NOW or no feminists ever speak up? Wonder why?

And Airdale if you're really a Christian born and bred, it will be hard to see a way out of the pacifist trap, but consider Identity Christianity; that may enable you to see your way to freedom.

The reason I didn't get tangled up with Christianity (as noted elsewhere, to my own detriment in life) is I'm just too scientific. I read tons of scientific stuff growing up and we had a fair amount of stuff about the Greek myths etc., so at a young age I could imagine Atlas holding up the world and at the same time know the earth is in space etc.

I understand it's pretty hard for a lot of people to imagine a Universe not filled with spirits and angels and a good God and a bad God. I like the Norse religion best, Yggdrasil the tree of life and Odin and all that. So you need a religion, but why one that welcomes one's destroyers?

Fitts seems to narrow in; though she remains a bit stuck in the Fed and corporate system, mere symptoms, still she grasps a lot more than the rest.

Protecting an ecosystem, whether it's small or the entire planet, is in ultimo a 100% useless exercise unless you tackle the root of the problems that threaten that ecosystem. Greens groups are nothing more than zookeepers.

The root of the problem is the economic system based on perpetual expoenetial growth. As long as that is not recognized, changing a lightbulb or car or refusing to fly or eating local organic, all of these have no value at all when it comes to climate change, zilch, none. They only serve as feel-good mental stimulants.

Growth economies gobble up ever more resources in order to perpetuate their growth, produce ever more waste, and push ever more of the natural world over the brink. Unless the growth halts, the destruction will continue.

Garrett Hardin suggests that not only are these people and organizations useless, they are harmful: the main responsibility of the herdsman is to minimize suffering.

Not prolong it.

My 3rd point concerns this crude + condensate versus all liquids debate going on here. The peak oil "purist" will say the former is important, the latter is not. However, the all liquids is better from an argumentation point of view. Why? Because if peak oil people talk apples, and the other side is talking oranges, then everybody talks past each other. I prefer to beat people up with their own data. So, I'll use the exaggerated all liquids data, which the EIA indicates is down this year over last in the daily average.

Dave, we are obviously not going to settle this here so we will just have to agree to disagree. You can count  bottled gas, ethanol and also the oil it takes to produce ethanol along with the water in Orimulsion and a lot of other questinable hydrocarbons if you wish. Some of us will just count barrels of oil however. In the end I believe it will be crude oil that counts. That is, when we reach the crude oil peak we will have reached the peak of crude oil.

Wait...does that make sense? ;-)

Ron Patterson

I bought a bar of silver in 1975 when I was in the service, for $5/oz, and it stayed at that price until I sold it in 1978, when I was starting college on the GI Bill, (and was selling my plasma for beer money)

The price immediately spiked to $50/oz, and I was kicking myself vigorously. Then it collapsed back to $5 when the Hunt Brothers went bust, and stayed at $5,  more or less until the recent commodities boom. It soared to $14, and now is about $11.50.

There is no reason for this price spike, especially since the primary use for silver -- photography -- has been largely supplanted by digital. I suspect it is an overflow from gold speculating.

But somebody is hoarding; probably both the Chinese govt. and hedge funds. I remember reading a few seasons ago that a rogue Chinese government trader was under house arrest for buying 15,000 tons of copper! ("here's your order sir, where should I set it?") I figure that, since most gold is in the vaults of the central banks, China wants to hoard something, and why not other metals?

Those who try to corner markets always fail. But this boom involves all commodities, including oil.

We here at TOD try to look mostly at oil, but with the spectacular commodities bubble going on, it would be reasonable to assume that much of recent oil price hikes have been associated with it. And it would also make sense for prices of all commodities, including oil, to fall much further than we might expect when the bubble bursts. (or perhaps when a number of bubbles burst, including housing, debt in general, confidence in our present govt to be anything remotely resembling honest and efficient, etc.).

The reality of peak oil (finite resources do not multiply infinitely) is not something open to assault. Timing of peak, effects of peak, interpretation of peak, and so - very open to discussion. That finite resources become exhausted is not open to discussion in this sense.

It may be a benefit of living in a fairly dour and pessimistic land, noted for its mechanical engineering prowess, that essentially no one in Germany, including all the most respectable main stream media, has any doubts about finite resources being finite, and the necessity of planning and adapting to the world as it is - while still attempting to retain as much personal comfort as possible, of course.

I keep thinking that this discussion about peak oil is becoming strangely America-centric again, with its emphasis on two extremes of looming catastrophe or no insoluble problems, neither of which reflect reality as experienced by other people very well.

Even this idea of peak oil being a movement is pretty strange. I do not belong to a peak oil community, I am merely someone with a fairly strange interest in this subject and its various ramifications - as our the other people posting here (in that sense, we can be considered a community, of course). That it seems as if the U.S. has spent the last 25 years dreaming does not mean that other places have not forgotten the all too clear lessons of the past.

That Falling Feeling

...most analysts were surprised by the dip in prices from the Aug. 8 historic high of $79 per barrel to below $60 in recent days. Suddenly the alarmists who foresaw an imminent era of oil scarcity are silent...

In fact, the current oil crisis has nothing to do with a catastrophic shrinking of global oil resources, while the specter of rising Asian demand is largely a myth--China has huge potential to reduce its oil consumption. Supply is tight because two decades of low prices discouraged the exploration and development of new fields in the world's most oil-rich areas...

What has happened recently is a global-market mood swing, in the face of evidence that consumption growth is slowing while production is still rising. U.S. oil inventories--and even reserves--have turned out to be higher than had been previously thought...

In a situation where fleeting news can move markets, almost anything can happen next, from a new spike to a further drop in the oil price. Right now, the spike is the most likely scenario in the medium term--say, one year or two. But a bit farther out, between roughly 2010 and 2012, there is a good chance that supply trends will overtake demand, raising spare production capacity to a range between 7 to 10 percent of demand. That large a cushion would drive down both the price of oil and the market's major vulnerability to minor rumors.

In the same issue is an article that is a little bit better...as far is it goes, by Rana Faroohar. It tells us basically that the era of easy oil is over, but still doesn't connect the dots to Peak Oil:

Big Big Problem
Pity Those Poor Oil CEOs: Despite billions in profits, the majors are full of gloom, warning of steadily rising costs and lower prices.

The bottom line: value creation at oil companies is stagnating. Companies are making more than ever before, but they're also spending unprecedented amounts to generate those profits. The problem is a perfect storm of factors: two decades of underinvestment, rising oil nationalism, the maturing of old reserves and more and more risky exploration projects. All of which has conspired to limit Western majors' access to easy oil, and to send costs spiraling out of control (graphic). "People just look at oil company revenues and think things must be great," says Jeffrey Currie, Goldman Sachs's head of commodity research. "What they don't see are all the tremendous challenges in today's operating environment, and the slew of difficulties going forward."

"There is no doubt that the view from the CEO's office these days is less than buoyant," says Daniel Yergin, the head of Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) and author of The Prize, a Pulitzer-winning history of the oil business. "CEOs are concerned about more-restricted access to new resources, the rise of resource nationalism, the shortage of people and certainly by how rapidly costs are rising. This is a long-term industry, and there are big, unanswered questions about how different the energy supply system will look in 10 to 15 years."

...Whatever happens, the terrain will undoubtedly get more difficult--and more expensive. Most industry insiders expect more companies to face problems like the ones seen by BP. After two decades of underinvestment, people and equipment are being pushed to their limits--a recipe for problems. Safety and infrastructure spending will have to increase, particularly as companies push into rougher terrain and deeper water. Companies like Shell are spending small fortunes to develop new super-strong alloys to be used in such projects. The recent equipment failures on BP's crucial Thunder Horse platform show just how tricky the new frontiers of oil will be.

The average layperson doesn't read Forbes, unless your researching something or are in a higher socio-economic status read forbes.

I had visions of them extracting every last drop just quicker till it's 100% empty.  

the article is on line at forbes.com but its behind a subsciption wall.

Sorry!

Soy and palm oil would likely be the biggest among these, and the most destructive. Europe seems headed towards large-scale imports of "environment-friendly" fuels. There go the forests. It's like the word 'green' dissolves all ability at critical thinking.

I think this should work, it's still a top story at Hugg:

http://www.hugg.com/

And Hugg's a good energy/environment read as well.

I am a big fan of electric cars. I recently attended an energy think tank in which I was asked what we would be driving 75 years from now. I answered "electric cars." I believe this is the future.

However, the oil industry and the auto industry have historically not gotten along very well. They are definitely not "buddies." Just one example:

Catfight!

I am aware of lots of examples like this where the two industries were fighting each other.

No, just the opposite. The whole point of making the most accurate predictions possible is to allow the best possible decision making and preserve the most people.

The pessimism comes from the fact that most of the "doomer" and "peak oil" predictions were first made 30 to 40 years ago. They predicted we would be in serious trouble if nothing was done to stop the exponential growth of population and industrial production. Despite these predictions, almost nothing was done.

The "biggest irony" is that even 40 years after Hubbert made his excellent predictions the US main stream media still does not agree that finite resources can actually run out.

Personally I am trying to spread the message as much as possible (I hand out books frequently). And I buy local food, wind power electricity, and telecommute as much as I can.