New BP statistical review

The new BP statistical review is out, with figures through the end of 2005. I'm sure I'll be making lots of graphs from it over coming months, but for now let me just point you at:
Let's hear a little from Lord "$40" Browne:

BP is one of the largest private sector suppliers of oil and gas around the world, and we talk to a lot of customers - individuals and businesses.

We are very conscious that people are nervous about the energy market. They want to understand why prices have moved as they have, and most of all, they want to know what we are going to do about it.

The first question is why prices are today at $65 a barrel Brent. The basic answer is the price has been driven by anxiety about the reliability of supply.

Despite conflict in the Middle East, and the impact of extreme weather conditions in the US and elsewhere, there has been no physical shortage.

Prices are high, because spare capacity is low, and because too many of the key suppliers seem at risk. The estimated amount of spare capacity in the market is around 1.8 million barrels a day, which is not only lower than normal, but also less than the production from Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, and of course Nigeria which has been the main source of the market uncertainty over the last six months, because violence has reduced supply by some 500,000 barrels a day.

That is why the world crude price and petrol prices at the pump are so high.

As well as prices, there are longer term concerns about climate change and energy security which are feeding anxiety here in the UK and elsewhere.

and later

The current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is around 380 parts per million. That figure has risen over the last 20 years by about 10 per cent. Last year carbon emissions increased by 2.9 per cent and the level of emissions worldwide is now about 20 per cent higher than it was when the Kyoto protocol was signed in 1997.

Of course, the detailed science of climate change continues to evolve. There are many things we don't yet know. But we in BP don't believe that we can ignore the mounting evidence, the weight of scientific opinion and the risks of a fundamental shift in the earth's climate.

Climate change of course is a matter of public policy. Technology is important but it's the framework of rules which will determine the pace at which technology is developed and applied. Governments have the power to create an energy market in which the externalities such as carbon emissions, and indeed the value of energy security, are properly priced for example through trading systems.

That will take bold leadership starting at the national and regional level. We won't move instantly to a global solution, but the individual steps are important and are the steps towards a long-term answer.

Only governments can set the rules in that way. But business has a crucial role to play as well.

The role of business is not to engage in politics or propaganda. Equally the role is not to deny reality. The role of business is to offer solutions.

That is what BP is trying to do - by investing in alternative sources of energy including wind, photovoltaics for solar and the new technology of carbon capture and storage. We will invest at least $8 billion in this new business over the next ten years.

And today we want to announce a new step in addition to that programme.

We are already one of the largest marketers of biofuels, which is a rapidly developing market capable of both improving energy security and producing fuels with lower emissions.

Now we want to do more, beginning with a ten-year investment of $500 million to create a dedicated biosciences energy research laboratory, attached to a major academic centre. This will be the first facility of its kind in the world.

We have already started discussions with several leading universities here, and in the US to identify which could host the BP Energy Biosciences Institute (EBI), with the aim of launching the first research programmes by the end of 2007.

BP.  We're more than just an oil company.

We're Benevolent Pandas.

Brobdingnagian Pom-poms?
Say what you will about BP, but they have been engaging in this corporate rebranding for a long, long time. I remember getting a call in 2000 that was basically a market-research poll contracted by BP to see whether folks had bought into their 'beyond petroleum' spiel.

I basically told them that they could call the company 'Happy Love Pandas' but they would still be an evil oil corporation. Sometimes I wonder what kind of impact responses like mine had.

That's not going to prevent me from buying some of their stock. BP's performance is the best of all the major IOC's.
uugghh. Try Halliburton. Oh, sorry, too late. What's the dividend on BP?

I always knew you were cool, Dave. No matter what the rhetoric, you know where the money's at.

:-) No worries, evil often mean profitable.
well what do you expect for a system that promotes such trait's.
Why own a resource extraction company that has no hope of replacing it's production.   Oil is increasingly the property of the country in which it is found, a paradigm shift of catastrophic proportions to the E&P world, particularly the majors.   Soon they will be reduced to doing contract extraction work, not the past model of exploring and producing for their own account, minus a "royalty".  Even the Canadians are now getting very nationalistic about oil - note today's story about Newfoundland refusing to let XOM and another major (Shell, I think) roll over them and threatening to cancel existing contracts.   Sounded like Venezuela.  And this from our northern neighbor.   I can't imagine wanting to own a major oil company when there are so many more attractive ways to play the future of oil.   By the time oil is over $150, the majors won't have any left to sell.
I agree. Many oil stocks ("growth" investments) will need to be re-priced -- i.e. as bond-like investments ("return on/of capital" investments). Energy production trusts are already priced this way and may be a better "investment" on that basis.
George Monbiot doesn't buy it, either:

Behind the spin, the oil giants are more dangerous than ever

The green rebranding of Shell and BP is a fraud. Far from switching to biofuels, it's drilling and devastation as usual

For a company that claims to have moved "beyond petroleum", BP has managed to spill an awful lot of it on to the tundra in Alaska. Last week, after the news was leaked to journalists, it admitted to investors that it is facing criminal charges for allowing 270,000 gallons of crude oil to seep across one of the world's most sensitive habitats. The incident was so serious that some of its staff could be sent to prison.

Had this been Exxon, the epitome of sneering corporate brutality, the news would have surprised no one. But BP's rebranding, like Shell's, has been so effective that you could be forgiven for believing that it had become an environmental pressure group. These companies have used the vast profits from their petroleum business to create the impression that they are abandoning it.

From Lord Browne,
The basic answer is the price has been driven by anxiety about the reliability of supply....

As well as prices, there are longer term concerns about climate change and energy security which are feeding anxiety here in the UK and elsewhere....

Yes, there is worry about the reliability of supply because the reliability of supply is basically nil.

And just because I am weak and have never published this one, a new hero is presented to the people.

Anxiety is high

later, Dave

Lord Browne is a leprechaun. Therefore, I must trust him.
Consistent with ASPO, another upward revision of URR.  As prices go up, so also does the feasibility of previously discovered fields.  We havent't needed new discoveries due to this reality.  This in part (with technologies) is the process that allows ever increasing quarterly global production of seemingly limited resources.  ASPO has recently increased it's peak production forecast to 86-mbd.  Not one legitimate modeler sees an all liquids Peak.  And they continually bring forward the Peak of Conventional Oil (from Y2K to 2005).
Another "new oil from old wells" story: 93706

My blog entry on it (written for a more beginner-level audience than the normal TOD fare):

There won't be huge fields found in mature basins,which icludes most of the world, but there can be ultimate production increases from redrilling old fields on closer spacing ect. I'm working on a couple of those projects on the Gulf Coast of Texas. So I think lots of people will get rich as oil becomes more scarce and expensive.
  Of course this kind of article is a distraction from the real problem, in twenty years twice as many customers will be chasing half as much production worldwide. But its still useful in that it encourages people to think about the problem and possibly help raise money for independents who are trying this kind of operation.
It's cheap shots like "in twenty years twice as many customers will be chasing half as much production worldwide" that cause stakeholders and decsion-makers and the media to discount the Peaksters.

Even by the most conservative modelers, ASPO & Koppelaar, it will be 36 years 'til production is halved from 2006.  Using the Scenario average, that day (of 42.5-mbd annual extraction) will not come for sixty years.  Nice try...

I never purported to be any good at math, I had 15 hours of Philosophy, twelve hrs. of Theology and 30 hours of English as well as a hell of a lot of LSD and beer at my university.In other words I was a Liberal Arts Major, and have really never regreted the general education which at least allows me to keep a sense of humor. I find your use of the cliched phrase "cheap shot" to be offensive. I try to be positive and add reasonable comments, not inflamatory ones, asshole.I'm perfectly willing to accept criticism and even correction and generally have no problem with admitting when I'm wrong and trying to do better. I try to learn from everyone even if I don't agree. You owe both me and this forum an apology.
I will do your math for you oilmanbob, I have MS in Computer Science and Advanced Certificate in Information Technology (Lots of Math) as well as a member of International High IQ Society...(good problem solver = more math)(scored 150, like that matters) My son score 160 he's 5 LOL
Then again maybe we should just have my son handle the math as I'm fairly certain he gets it from his mother (She's Russian) who was taking advanced calculus and was in college while the rest of her 8th grade class was probably doing trig?  (Their school system is still far advanced from ours) -- anyway... just trying to make light of the situation a bit.
Your right, its time to lighten up. I'm really good at some things and not so good at others, and I really enjoy learning from the various expertise of TOD contributors. I'm here to learn from others and learn the best way to contribute to the world, given my background and basic human insularity. As Tiny Tim said" May God bless us every one". I'm sorry if I overreacted and disturbed anyone.
I doubt anyone was disturbed, we have a recession dead ahead, housing bubble to burst, PO decline on the horizon, etc... etc... that's disturbing :-/
Don't worry, he specializes in personal insults.
Freddy is the blogging equivalent of a drive-by shooter. He pops up once in a blue moon when he has a single statistic that bolsters his cornucopian outlook, attacks anyone who disagrees with him, ignores all other data to the contrary, then vanishes again for months til he can find another single tidbit to drive-by and lob at people actually thinking about the problem. Freddy is best taken in small doses and with your sense of humor turned up to full. He has never answered any serious critique from Stuart, Prof G., or any of the rest of the TOD staff, nor from posters here who demonstrate more knowledge of the field than he does.

I suspect Freddy Hutter will be singing a vastly different song, or even using another internet pseudonym in a few more years. As for his increasing quarterly production numbers, I'd like to see the sources of his data because I don't see any meaningful increases at all in the EIA or IEA data. I think right there Freddy is blowing smoke.

Well, good. I'll stick to my statement that there will be half as much oil with twice as many people wanting to use it in twenty years then. I can barely predict how much money I'll have in my bank account tomorrow, let alone get much out of a crystal ball. The I Ching works a little better...and some Shamin still examine chicken and goat guts and swear by them. Its a little hard on the goats and chickens though.
  My Uncle Charles Passel in Abilene died happy, respected and well off drilling wells in the Fort Worth Basin, but he never spotted a location based on my Aunt Alda's claim to be able to witch up oil with a dowsing rod. These scientific types all seem to lack faith in the intuitive process. And she never quite forgave him for not letting her dowse new locations, she thought if he'd just follow her hunches they could be the richest people in Abilene. Its a pity I never asked her about the Barnett Shale.
Freddy was posting a lot on the Energy Resources board in 2004.  He was strongly advocating that oil would be back below $35 by the end of that year.  He tended then to be a bit derogatory about other board members.  Here is a snippet from one of his posts:

"Y'all were wrong in 2003. Y'all were wrong about SARS. And oil over $40 for months on end is as likely as your nat'l gas of $10-$15 was. When members learn about demand destruction and substitution principles,they will end that jarring thud of their heads banging the wall season after season."

Hey, nobody is right all the time.

Nice "Dig" ashaddock,

We're all (I hope) here to try and achieve the same goal and it's not to perform drive by fruitings :O)  (Mrs Doubtfire...if you recall)

In the Yukon it is said that one does not need to be able to outrun a bear, just the poor slob u are out with.  Similarly in the analyst business, i am fortunate to be right more often than the rest of 'em.

There are two elements to this discussion.  Being right on forecasts and giving correct statistics.  My record is clear on a plethora of forums on the forecasting front.  And on stats, it was the ASPO cheerleaders at Yahoo's EnergyResources that flamed me for a year for posting with detailed analysis evidence that their emperor (Campbell) had no clothes. After i was kicked out for blasphemy, Colin admitted that my calculations were in fact the correct ones and he restracted his URR and production analysis and replaced them with mine.  I was one of very few that he shared his Excel data with and i was confident that i had found mistakes.

It is unfortunate that many have cult like postures on the Peak issue and cherry pick their data to suit the agenda.

2005 global production has exceeded 2004 by 1.0-mbd.  The monthly production record was set in Feb/2006.  2006Q1 is the highest production quarter in history.  And despite Mile's and others pondering the likelihood of a Recession after the hurricanes, Unemployment rate has gone down and Real GDP up just as my GAO link in October had espoused.  Life is unfolding as it should and as foretold by yours truly in the TOD archives.  Have i made any wrong predictions?  Maybe one or two.  Have i ever got a stat wrong?  Very rarely.  My analysis is based on study.  Many here base assertions on wishful thinking and often the truth hurts, eh.  That separates the analysts from the neophytes and gives me a high degree of confidence when i suggest something.

The monthly production record was set in Feb/2006.  2006Q1 is the highest production quarter in history.

No it wasn't, Freddy , and no it isn't (ask the EIA).

In Feb 2006, I show IEA corrected at 84.625, lower than May 2005's 84.755. The EIA reports 84.4mb/d for Feb 2006, lower than their report of 84.7 for Dec 2005. The average of the EIA/IEA is lower for Feb 2006 than the average for either May 2005 or Dec 2005. What are your figures from Freddy?

Hi Stuart,  As u mentioned in another thread, IEA releases a preliminary figure for the each calendar month in the second week of the following month.  This is followed by four revisions.  The most commonly used is the one in the next preliminary; This result is duplicated in the Full Report for that month.  Then IEA follows up with two more revisions in the next two consecutive full reports.  The figures i have used are from those third and final revisions.

Further, these monthly totals are not cast in stone.  About every six months, IEA goes back with revisions to the four previous years as they receive more interim and final stats.  They correct the annual production figures, but we never know what months were affected and thus there is some discrepancy.

While on stats, the valid concern at ASPO is that many nations are using former URR figures in subsequent annual submissions.  We know several countries have found that while they have extracted much, some fields have not drawn down.  Inward seepage has replenished all drawings.  Some would call that "the Gold effect".  Others judge the phenom to reflect inadaquate measuring in the first instance and/or better techniques of measuring fiels volume on the subsequents.  But Colin Campbell seems to be afraid that we are seeing procrastination and nonchalence at play which may mean that when those nations get a round tuit and give their new URR's, we will see drastic write downs.  In turn this affects his "past production" and "future production" numbers and when the Peak "was" or "will be". This is why he is constantly moving both the conventional Peak and all liquids Peak from  Y2k to 2015. Really it is an acedemic concern, not related to production, unless one believes that the Hubbert Peak is also the Extraction Peak.  Again, for conventional crude, it is an exercise in academics for purists, but if Campbell's figures suggest an all liquids peak within five years into the future, then there are some very grave misconceptions out there by stakeholders and decision makers that will have to be addressed.

Again it leads to the discussion, is URR falling or going up?  For those of that believe URR is rising, we are at ease about futue production.  But if in reality, URR is falling despite ASPO's upward paper revisions that are based perhaps on faulty provided data, then the arm waving and antics of those on the book selling and speakers bureau circuits could have substance.


"Gold effect?"

Maybe. Maybe wishful thinking? Maybe the tooth fairy? Maybe just the lower specific gravity of oil finding it way to the top of the formation vis a vis formation water over long periods of time versus a human lifespan but a blink of an eye in terms of geologic time.

I happen to believe that URR will go up over time as new techniques and some relatively old techniques such as CO2 injection boost recovery, but I have not seen evidence that this will be enough to significantly delay a peak, and am unable to reconcile a tweaking of URR with much of an extension of the age of abundant cheap oil.

Increases in what is conventionally thought of as the amount of original oil in place, what I interpret as your "golden effect" is real when reservoirs are conected [typically replenished though faulting from below] but this does not appear to be nearly enough to stave off a peak. Think one thousand barrels a second. Ask yourself who is going to drill with the intent of tapping into a depleted reservoir to the "gold." Go one step further and ask yourself who is going to continue to produce from anything offshore in the expectation of a trickle of oil refilling a deplested reservoir ... and if a large reservoir exists at greater depths why not simply drill into to that lower formation and be done with it?

Your comment "again it leads to the discussion, is URR falling or going up? For those of that believe URR is rising, we are at ease about futue production." this a the wrong question unless you believe that the URR growth is real, is pervasive / or at least truly significant and that other reservoirs are indeed just waiting for a drill bit as increases in URR for a given field don't lead to a new peak for even that field. Even the often cited example in the GOMEX [Eugene Island?] has never recovered to its peak. It has after a partioal recovery merely continued to produce what IIRC is chemically different crude longer that the original estimated productive life. In the grand scheme of things BFD!!!

In regard to the reported reserves of many OPEC nations, you can't seriously believe that those reserves are actually static. Since they are reported as being the same year after year they must be arbitrary. They might be too high. They might be to low. They are for damn sure wrong. Stop endorsing this nonsense, it diminishes whatever credibilty you might otherwise have.

In summary, you might be right or your position might constitute what I would with all due respect call a "golden crock."

Gold = Abiogenic
The difference between Colin Campbell and the fundamentalists here, at Yahoo EnergyResouces and other Peakist forums, is that Colin has had an epiphany of sorts and has come to terms over the last two years that the integrity of his database is more important than this previous heavyhanded doomster message.  Since confronted, he has accepted his errors and their ramifications and has moved on in a more objective fashion.  Many of his disciples are still hung up on that Y2K Hubbert Peak that failed to materialize under any definition and can't come to terms with themselves.  I liken them to the liberal left that continues to relive the Y2k & 2004 USA Elections for President and Congress.  What couldn't conceivably happen happended in all cases.  Bush is there and Republicans are in Majority.  Same with all who told us of Tony Blair's demise before he garnered a third Majority.

In short, trust the silent majority (and the Courts) when the noise gets unreasonably loud...

My publishing of the Oil Depletion Scenarios is as a messenger and careful analysis of their data with some degree of due diligence.  That is proposes that most of the Peakist Cult find the results offensive is unfortunate but it explains fully why the media, their friends, their neighbours, their co-workers and their family continue to dismiss their message.  Due to the hurricanes, speculation in the oil futures and much insurgence in Iraq, Cultists have been able to convince the gullible.  But, the GOM is back in the game, speculators had to cover their positions and Iraq is again up to 2-mbd production from the recent lows of 0.4-mbd.    

By all measurements the 2005 Peak was wrong.  The chance of a Peak in 2006 with presently known medium term activity is as likely as Trinidad-Tobago winning the World Cup...

Obviously Freddie is more interested in propping up his belief in the Republican agenda than discussing the data about world oil production and demand.  I suggest everyone ignore him and continue discussing the facts as they come in.   Fredie can go to Rush Limbaugh's site and play cheerleader.
I agree completely. All of these facts are ruining what had been a great opportunity to whip up any doom scenario we want. In the future let's have no more facts, analysis or disagreement. Just pure doom fun!
OK, assuming Freddy is correct.  Why is my gas getting more expensive?  Why are oil-rich countries rewritting contracts with oil companies?  Why did we really go to war with Iraq?  Why do we really give a damn about Iran?  Are these just "normal" things?
Debate it with Freddy. He may be wrong, he may be right. But through the discussion we can learn, share and maybe change our minds or even agree.

However, there is a real "shoot the messenger mentality here" that wants to mark any opposition as trolls and then ignore them hoping they go away. "How dare they doubt that the end of the world is coming", they seem to say.

Gas is getting more expensive because oil supply is diminishing. Oil rich countries have been rewriting contracts for thirty years as the power has shifted to them. This continues.

The other two questions are complex and depend on who "we" is. Why did France and Russia try to stop the Iraq war? Why are Russia and China tying to protect Iran. These are also complex.

The answers to your questions and mine partially involve oil and partially other issues. Life is complex and few things are black and white.

Many people want to live in a simple world and believe what they want. I live in a very complicated world with lots of grey. I would like to be able to discuss it with people on this site, preferably those who disagree with me.

I'm not a singing with the choir kind of guy and don't think this has to be a singing with choir kind of website.

Debate it with Freddy. He may be wrong, he may be right. But through the discussion we can learn

I agree, we should have a Freddy VS Jason here.

Anyone from TOD want to step up to the plate and challenge Mr. Freddy, pull out your spread sheets and diagrams and go to town.

No need for spread sheats from what I can tell. Freddy appears to be intentionally disingenuous. See my post above at 11:23 ET. When the position being defended by Freddy places significant reliance on the year over year totally static reserve numbers reported by middle eastern governments [my operative assumptinon whether fair or unfair is that ever government lies whenever convenient.]

That reported reserves remain precisely the same year after year is either a cosmic coincidence or [by application of Occam's razor probably] total nonensense. I think that as a minimum Freddy Hutter needs to provide some evidence to establish a measure of credibility ... or switch to a more plausible line of reasoning ... or simply admit that he is merely trying to bait the more passionate believers in the concept of a near term peak in world oil production.

I became aware of this site three years ago.  I was searching for clues as to why things were changing.  I have looked at many explanations for these changes.  From the information I read, it appeared a link in the chain of energy source processing had changed somewhere.  This change has now persisted to the present.

Peak supply/extraction/export of the energy source is the most parsimonious explanation I have discovered.  I tend to believe Occam's Razor rather than more convoluted theories.

I appreciate your veiwpoint and respect it, the world is not black and white.  But, there are also times to take a stand.  For me, that time is past due.

I didn't notice any reliable facts presented.
THe previous post was an exaggeration, but not that much. Using aspo studies, the amount of oil available per person might be halved by around 2030-2035, the poster suggested 2026.

2030 is not that far off, I hope to be alive then, and hope even more that my children are. It would really be nice if our leaders were spending 1% of their time thinking about this.

The Hirsch report thinks it would take at least 20 years to prepare - there is nothing that indicates it is too early to start.  What is the down side for the US to begin using less hydrocarbons now rather than in ten years if optimistic views are correct?

The narrow viewpoint is the "lost opportunity" and the economic costs with the invalid assumption that the foregone choice must have always been better anyway, something that is entirely dependent on the choices and the motivating factors. I asked Halfin about that once - the next choice of a junkie will be his drug hit. Would denying him that hit be worse than giving him that hit? Is a junkie's use of his resources to obtain that hit in the longer term best interest of the junkie or not? Halfin never replied.

But sometimes choices must be made for other than economic reasons. Warfare is a simple example of this. Choices are made for strategic and tactical reasons first and economic reasons are not primary motivators. We are now facing a potential crisis unlike anything homo sapiens has previously ever experienced. We have never had this level of technology. We have never had this many people with lives dependent on this technology. A failure of this technological civilization could be catastrophic for both our species and our planet. It makes perfect sense to do serious risk analysis and management of this problem so why not do it? I can tell you why - quite simply, those who worship the market don't want to be told that the market is not omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. (It says so right on the package!)

Junkies are amazingly resourceful. They think of ways to keep the game going years after OD seemed certain.
And tho it usually ends up the same way, a few junkies just confound you and live forever.  
"In Feb 2006, I show IEA corrected at 84.625, lower than May 2005's 84.755. The EIA reports 84.4mb/d for Feb 2006, lower than their report of 84.7 for Dec 2005. The average of the EIA/IEA is lower for Feb 2006 than the average for either May 2005 or Dec 2005. What are your figures from Freddy?"

The diference between these two numbers is 84.625 mbd is 99.846616718777653235797298% of 84.755 mbd.  

Is Freddy trying to tell me that this is a sign that there is alot of extra capacity out there and I should relax or could it be that we are so close to the peak here that only a mathmatician thinks the diference between these numbers is important.

We are spliting a percent here are we not?  IMO this doesn't look rosy.  Please tell we where I'm wrong?

Except maybe for Mike Lynch, most of us believe that Production will Peak at the top of the Hubber Curve of all liquids oil.  Thus with ASPO & BP joining others in raising URR (due to discoveries, reserve growth or feasibility matters not), the potential Extraction Peak is likewise moved into the future.

Because ASPO uses a URR that is more realistic defined than BP, we deduce than that the all liquids Peak will be 2010/Q1.  And this calculation from Colin Campbell's data is known to be the most conservative of our 11 modelers.

We then move on to show that we are indeed on this forecasted path by monitoring Production.  The folly in using annual data is that there have been 9 years since the oil crisis days where annual production actually was less than the previous year.  Production has cycles just like the economy and politics and weather and they are weakly related.  Having said this, there is then greater folly in watching quarterly figures and making decisions on monthly data is outright lunacy.

None-the-less we all watch, doomsters in the hopes that the occasional downtrend will not recover ... which never happens.  And the optimists and pragmatists are looking for occassional new record highs to validate the upward trend.

That's it in a nutshell.  2005 had 1.04-mbd higher production than 2004.  That record validates the overall trend. On the medium term, 2006Q1 84.55-mbd production broke the previous record of 84.44-mbd in 2005Q2.  Q3 & Q4 were hurt by hurricane and insurgency factors, but again the trend is validated and extended to 2006.  The most unreliable indicator of monthly production set a new high of 84.72-mbd in Feb/2006 and we have a tentative high of 85.0 in May (yet to be revised).  By all indications these monthly figures show us that a new quarterly record may be set in Q2 and that would almost quarantee 2006 Production greater than 2005.

Most Depletion scenarios are counting on an annual increase of 1.25-mbd thru this decade.  We are right on target when we look at production and spare capacity (currently 2.8-mbd for OPEC & 0.9-mbd globally.

In summary, those looking for a Spring 2005 Peak or at best a plateau, are just being silly.  None of the Depletion Scenarios is in jeopardy.  None.  URR indicates that we a way to go yet; and extraction is verifying that hypothesis.

Freddy: To summarize: You think the all liquids peak will be 2010. Someone who thinks the peak is 2005-2006 is a crazy "doomster". Who told you 4 years is going to change a thing? According to the MSM (and the sheeple), you and the crazy "doomster" are the same guy. We have seen the enemy and he is us (Pogo).  
Incorrect, Brian.  My review of the Colin Campbell's 2006 data leads me to agree that it points to a Peak in 2010.  But because of his long history of upward revisions, i am in the camp of a Peak in the 2030 area to which he is merging towards as he realize other URR estimates are closer in line with reality.

Further, studies shown by ASPO and others illustrate that the "Hubbert Curve" of no other commodity has led to higher prices or disruption.  That aspect of the doomster outlook is laughable and has no economic basis.

Freddy: Let me get this right.  You are not saying this isn't PO, you are just saying that URR isn't until 2010.  If I'm not mistaken this is exactly what westexas has said repeatedly about how production was in the lower 48 using HL.  
I guess I'm still not getting something here.  You also state that slight variations up or down are going to be pounced on by either camp to prove thier position.  My point is that while 100,000 bpd +/- does add up, this in the big picture a slight fraction of a percent(<.2).  Diesel truck fuel has gone from $1.25 to over $3.00 in 5 years or 240%.  Subtracting any "fear premium" for any disaster, war or what not, this is a huge increase.  240% vrs <.2%.  Take a months worth or even a quarters worth of data (or more) over 5 yrs. from this (to smooth the curve (s).  There must be something I don't understand because I don't see why I should relax- and I really wish I could.  trying to run a business with diesel,gasoline, propane, and plastic price increases this is getting a little dicey.
Should we really discount all efforts to improve the recovery rate.  There are at least 2 trillion barrels "left behind" in conventional fields.  If someone could raise the URR by even a few percent, it would mean 10's of billions more oil ultimately produced.  Seems to me it might be easier to raise URR a few percent then it is to find new oil.  Maybe the current methods don't really increase URR and they only speed up the depletion, but even small increases in recovery would make a huge difference.
With the current and projected oil prices, I don't think we have to worry about anyone discounting any effort that has even a prayer of helping.  There's far too much money to be made by contributing even a little to a collective solution for every possibility not to be tried.

The big problem with current analyses, in my opinion, is the never ending search for a silver bullet, or the use of a lack of one to predict doom and gloom.  Short of aliens showing up and giving us a magic gizmo that turns sea water into light, sweet crude, there won't be a silver bullet, but a whole pocket of silver BB's.

I suspect that increases in URR will be a major player in the next 10 to 20 years for exactly the reason you mention: A relatively minor improvement there can significantly alter the situation and push the post-peak part of the oil production curve to the right by several years.

I think the truest think peakers frequently say is that the age of cheap oil is over.  Peak oil doesn't mean no oil, but it does mean a very long and expensive transition to other fuels and technologies.

Short of aliens showing up and giving us a magic gizmo that turns sea water into light

Bloody hell; yesterday it was desalinization, today it's converting the oceans into light! Then I read beyond the comma ... :)

Ah, but does URR or proven reserves equal production?  A cursory glance at the data shows (once again) a suspicious number of countries with no change in their proven reserves.  Take for example countries that actually have some (in principle) verifiable numbers, Norway and the UK.  Norway's proven reserves were 9.7 billion barrels in 2004 and 9.7 billion barrels in 2005 (again that suspicious constancy), while its production was 3.19 million bbl/d in 2004 and 2.97 million bbl/d in 2005.  Ditto for the UK - proven reserves in both 2004 and 2005 were 4.0 billion barrels, but production declined from 2.03 million bbl/d in 2004 to 1.81 million bbl/d in 2005.  Both are experiencing production declines at 10% or better to date in 2006.

Who cares what the URR is if production no longer has any relationship with reserves?

Exactly. And not only the production rate but the production cost. My father, who is 80 and was an attorney in oil and gas civil practice told me how years ago people on Moonshine Hill at the Humble Field in Harris County, Texas would go out and lower buckets down old, shallow, depleted oil wells and bring up oil by hand. I myself witnessed a guy with a vacuum truck going well to well in the Minerva-Rockdale field and sucking up shallow oil seepage into old wells. Either of these fields has at least 70% of the oil that was in place still in the ground. But even a small independent can't afford to produce that kind of oil at $20.00 a barrel because the production rate is so low. At $70.00 a barrel it might be different. But, a workover rig costs $4,000.00 per day in the US,a pump and downhole pump and sucker rods and tanks and permits and filling out production reports costs more so a well needs to make 2 or 3 barrels a day to have any hope of paying for the workover costs even with $70 prices. A major company or a large independent can't make money like this. So ultimate resource recovery has more to do with economics than reserves.And how willing you are to work cheap. I know, I used to own 5 wells at Saratoga, when I sold them and calculated my time and costs I made $5.00 an hour over a year and I got the wells for free. Wish I had them back though, that was at $18.00 oil.
Al Gore on Larry King Live last night:

KING: Gas prices -- we've only got a minute left.

GORE: Yes.

KING: Gas prices going to go down?

GORE: Well, I've seen a number of -- over the last several decades I've seen this happen several times, where they spike and then they do come back down.

But each time they go to a higher plateau. We almost certainly are at or near what they call peak oil, defined as having recovered a majority of the oil reserves at a certain price, affordability range. And so with the new pressure on the consumption side from China and India, if they come back down, they won't stay down long.

KING: What do you drive?

GORE: I drive a hybrid. Tipper and I got a Lexus hybrid. And we have a couple of Priuses in the family with our children. And I encourage people to make environmentally-conscious choices because we all have to solve this climate crisis.

Pssst!  Already discussed in today's DrumBeat.  ;-)
Good BP or bad BP?

Beyond Petroleum or

Burn the Planet?

We have grat familiarity with BP in Galveston. I'm sure all of you heard about the explosion last year at their Texas City refinery that they acquired from Amoco when they purchased them. Recently this was determined to be the most polluting refinery in the nation as well as the most unsafe. In addition, they bribed the city council in Galveston to rush through a lease on Pelican Island for a LNG terminal. Local folks are sueing the city because the agreement results in a defacto sale and violated the Open Meetings law. I myself think that even if the citizens win the laws are such that the lease will remain valid.
  On the other hand they are manufacturing solar, and are a 1/4th owner in Green Mountain Energy, the largest marketer of wind energy in the US. So, their management seems schizophrenic. Of course, their carbon credits from the wind can be used to offset their European refining CO2 emissions.Maybe BP stands for Bullshit Pronouncements!
Bigger Profit
Beyond Parody
Bull Poop
PB = Pompas Buggers

(works for the dyslexic anyway right?)

Belligerent pantaloons.
One of the predictions of the ASPO was that right before the global peak, there would be the "rush to OPEC" to make up declines.  It looks like this is occurring as according to BP, non-OPEC was down last year, and the global situation was up only because of OPEC.  I wonder if it is safe to say that non-OPEC has peaked?  First we had the light sweet peak, now the non-OPEC peak, OPEC and global peak is in the headlights.  It's all playing out just as us PO-ers have been predicting.
Looking at the BP figures again, I wonder if non-OPEC peaked in 2002!
I've never understood the discrepancy between the BP Statistical Review Total World Production (81.1 Mb/d for 2005) and EIA/IEA numbers (c.a. 84.5 Mb/d).  Aren't all values for total liquids (Crude + tar sands + NGL's)?   BP appears to exclude Sasol CTL (150,000b/d), but otherwise I would expect the values to show better agreement.  Has this come up on an earlier post?
BP also doesn't include ethanol, gas-to-liquids or refinery gains (I think rightly in each case).
Thanks smekovo

Refinery gain (+5%) accounts for the difference.

From the BP speech, I found this interesting:

And we've invested in the North Sea. Over the last five years BP alone has invested $4.4 billion in North Sea fields. That investment has sustained production of oil and gas way beyond all the predictions of decline which were made ten or 20 years ago.

I thought the predictions were about 2010 peak, instead the actual 1999. What doom and gloom north sea decline predictions is he refering to?

From the 2005 BP Stat Review spreadsheet:
2005 Daily World Consumption: 82459 kBd
2005 Daily World Production: 81088 kBd
Daily deficit: 1372 B
Yearly deficit: 500761 B
Deficit in # of days = 500761 B / 82459 kBd = 6.1 days

So, the world consumed half a billion barrels more than it produced, or 6.1 days worth. Was the shortfall made up from SPRs?

Sorry -
Daily deficit: 1372 kB
Yearly deficit: 500761 kB
Deficit in # of days = 500761 kB / 82459 kBd = 6.1 days

Forgot my kilos.

The confusion lies in BP's definition being the narrowest of all the analysts.  Using the broad measure accepted at TOD, there was a shortfall of 0.8-mbd in 2002.  Surplus of 0.5-mbd in 2003, surplus of 0.8-mbd in 2004 and the same in 2005.  The highest surplus ever was 2.5-mbd in 2005Q2 when speculators gave up their positions.