The Oil Drum

This is a guest post by Jean Laherrere.


World Arctic cumulative discovery.

This is a guest post from Ugo Bardi and Marco Pagani. Ugo Bardi teaches chemistry at the University of Florence, Italy. He is the president of the Italian section of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) (www.aspoitalia.net). Marco Pagani is a physicist presently teaching and physics in secondary schools. He is a member of ASPO-Italy, a social and environmental activist, and the blogger of ecoalfabeta. (ecoalfabeta.blogosfere.it)

Abstract: We examined the world production of 57 minerals reported in the database of the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Of these, we found 11 cases where production has clearly peaked and is now declining. Several more may be peaking or be close to peaking. Fitting the production curve with a logistic function we see that, in most cases, the ultimate amount extrapolated from the fitting corresponds well to the amount obtained summing the cumulative production so far and the reserves estimated by the USGS. These results are a clear indication that the Hubbert model is valid for the worldwide production of minerals and not just for regional cases. It strongly supports the concept that “Peak oil” is just one of several cases of worldwide peaking and decline of a depletable resource. Many more mineral resources may peak worldwide and start their decline in the near future.

Professor Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government since 2000 and former head of Cambridge University chemistry department has submitted a paper to the recently formed All Party Parliamentary Group on Peak Oil (www.appgopo.org.uk).

I find this paper very disappointing, especially coming from someone of King’s calibre and position. It shows no original thought, preferring to cite the IEA, the USGS and historically static reserves-to-production ratios. It also shows no appreciation for flow rates or declining production from fields already in production, explains lack of new discoveries by low levels of exploration in the Middle East and attempts to square the development of unconventional oil sources with "radical reductions" in greenhouse gas emissions. King ends by saying hydrogen and fuel cell technologies have the potential to replace oil for transport. I'm left feeling King has presented a politician’s view rather than a that of a scientist.

The paper is probably the best indication we have to government's official position on the matter.

It is unclear how King's view as expressed in this paper relates to a conversation he had with David Strahan (author of The Last Oil Shock, link) in 2005 where King is reported to have said peak oil "in ten years or less".

Professor Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government

His full submission is reproduced below the fold.

Will 730 billion barrels be added to the reserve pool from reserve growth between 1996 and 2025 as estimated by the United States Geological Survey?

This post is the third part in a three piece series about the phenomenon of reserve growth in found oil fields. Insight in future reserve growth, often attributed to technological advancement, is crucial in determining the peak of conventional oil production. For those not familiar with reserve growth, it would be best to read part 1 first:

1. General introduction to reserve growth, what can we learn from the worldwide recovery factor in conventional oil fields?

This post is the second part in a three piece series about the phenomenon of reserve growth in already found oil fields. Insight in future reserve growth, which is often attributed to advancement in technology, is crucial in determining the peak of conventional oil production. For those not familiar with reserve growth it would be best to read part 1 first:

1. General introduction to reserve growth, what can we learn from the worldwide recovery factor of conventional oil fields?

In this second part various scientific studies about reserve growth in the United States, the North Sea and Russia are analysed. The third part will look at the reliability of the estimate from the United States Geological Survey in their World Petroleum Assessment 2000 with respect to future reserve growth.

The difference in vision between so called "optimists" and pessimists" with respect to the peak in world oil production is often caused by a view of future technological development in the oil industry. This development influences both conventional and unconventional oil production. Only a part of the oil in an oil field can be produced. It is claimed by oil companies and various institutes that technological advancement will increase the recoverable amount, thereby postponing the peak in conventional oil for several decades. In essence this means that the amount of recoverable reserve increases over time due to changes in technology, economy, insights. But also expected recoverable reserves increase over time due to past underestimates. This is why the term is called "reserve growth".

If you would read a random energy scenario study there is a very high chance that it is based on the United States Geological Survey's World Petroleum Estimate from the year 2000. This is because the estimate for the ultimate oil recovery of conventional oil + Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) of that study is being used as the basis for oil production projections in the:

International Energy Agency - World Energy Outlook

Energy Information Administration - International Energy Outlook

Since allmost all energy policies in the world are based on scenario's from these two institutes, it is of the utmost importance that the USGS figure of 3345 billion barrels for ultimate recovery of conventional oil + NGL is correct. If not so, then the studies from the IEA and EIA give far too rosy projections on continuously rising oil producion. Instead, the world will encounter a shortfall in the supply of oil far earlier then now anticipated. Besides the studies cited above the figures of the USGS are also used by oil companies such as ExxonMobil and even the Saudi's to give the impression that there is plenty of conventional oil remaining.

As I sat in the audience at the ASPO-USA conference last November, I felt gratified to watch Steve Andrews present the first M. King Hubbert awards to Al Bartlett and Matt Simmons. As we all know, Hubbert is the Godfather of Peak Oil, a man ahead of his time who predicted in 1956 the US Lower 48 would peak in the early 1970s. He joined the Shell Oil Company in 1943, retiring from that firm in 1964. From wikipedia we learn that after he retired from Shell, he became a senior research geophysicist for the United States Geological Survey until his retirement in 1976. He also held positions as a professor of geology and geophysics at Stanford University from 1963 to 1968, and as a professor at Berkeley from 1973 to 1976.

M. King Hubbert -- Click to Enlarge

But Hubbert's predictions about a US Lower 48 peak in about 1970 were ridiculed and attempts were made to push him aside. The principal architect of this USGS policy was Vincent E. McKelvey.

The Oil Drum is a great website and with every such site, there must also be great traditions established. It is with this noble goal in mind, and an antidote to the doom & gloom pervading every post nowadays, that I propose the first annual Vincent E. McKelvey Lifetime Achievement Award. But first we must learn something about V.E. McKelvey and the basis for the prize.