2005 Advancers and Decliners
Posted by Stuart Staniford on June 15, 2006 - 12:24pm
The graph above shows the declining nations. There were some positive notes: near arresting of declines in Indonesia and Oman, and actual reversal in Australia. However, these were dominated by worsening declines in the US and the North Sea. Overall, the declining group accelerated from 900kb/d per year to 1100kb/d in declines.
The advancers look as follows:
While there was positive news in the deep water areas of Angola and Brazil, as well as China, this was more than offset by slowing gains in Russia, and reversals in Iran and Canada (though the latter may be temporarily constrained from getting all its oil to market). Overall, the advancing group slowed from 2700kb/d per year to only 2000 kb/d per year between 2004 and 2005.
Saudi Arabia held up increases well in 2005 but as most of us are aware, it's production has been decreasing in 2006 (a theme recently taken up at Econbrowser). To update my Saudi/Russia graph with monthly EIA data, here's the situation:
Russia has not reached it's December peak again yet, and Saudi Arabia may possibly be in decline, if the news reports hold up and the trend continues.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Both of which have probably hit peak
(Russia its 2nd peak)
Repetitive Comments Follow
The following is all based on Khebab's technical work.
Based on the Hubbert Linearization (HL) method, Saudi Arabia is at the same point at which Texas started its terminal decline.
Again based on the HL method, Russia's increase in production, following the post-Soviet production collapse, just made up for what was not produced earlier. As they have gotten closer to where cumulative production should be based on the HL method, their rate of growth has been slowing, prior to--IMO--a long term production decline. I have been predicting double digit decline rates for Russia.
Consumption is growing in the US, China Russia and Saudi Arabia.
There is increasing evidence that production is falling in all four countries.
This is the point that I have been hammering on for months--that we are facing the prospect of a severe net oil export crisis.
http://www.energybulletin.net/16459.html
http://aawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=6&id=5297
Now, I thought "Platts" had reported that Saudi is going to just try to maintain production at present levels--to stave off 8% declines, and turn them into 2% declines with "technology"...
It seems like the kingdom currently in Arabia does not have its story straight...
Westexas, do you believe that the Sauds can increase production that high?
Pigs will definitely be airborne shortly.
In reading the article posted, Saudi Armco stated:
"Saudi Aramco currently has half a dozen major crude oil increments at various stages of development, with a total production capacity of some three million barrels per day, according to the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer Abdallah S. Jumah.
"In other words, in the next five to six years, we will be adding production capacity. Some of that capacity will offset natural decline, while the remainder will serve to expand our maximum sustained production capability, which by the end of 2009 will reach 12 million barrels per day," he said.
"At the same time, in keeping with Saudi Arabia's current oil policy and as a commitment to world oil markets, we will maintain our surplus production capacity of one-and-a-half to two million barrels a day, even as our actual production grows."
This doesn't add up.
If you take an optomistic view of current Saudi oil production @ 9.5 mbd and take out 8% per annum for current fields depletion rates you come up with the following numbers until 2009:
year bpd
2006 9.5
2007 8.74
2008 8.04
2009 7.40
Add the 3 mbd they say they are adding to production, over 6 yyears and you can only get declines, and no net increase in production.
I have noticeed this on many Saudi statements, they say one thing and give stats that say another.
Naresh UK
8% decline and adding 3MB/Day from other wells?
Even their reported math doesn't add up (I had read somewhere else that with the other added wells they can cut decline to 2%)
Just take 9.5 MB/day and decline it at 2% per year.
At 2012 you have 8.4 MB/Day
At the 9.5 MB/Day 8% Decline and adding 3.5 MB/Day you end up with 8.76 MB/Day
Eh... what's 300,000 B/day give or take...
Of course it's the end of the day for me, my math could be off a tad :-/
"In other words, in the next five to six years, we will be adding production capacity. Some of that capacity will offset natural decline, while the remainder will serve to expand our maximum sustained production capability, which by the end of 2009 will reach 12 million barrels per day," he said.
The above is an interesting quote. He says that SA expand "sustained maximum production to 12 million." My impression is that SA's current sustained maximum production is 11.5 mbd....the 9.5 million they currently produce and the two million in heavy crude that they could produce that no one will take. A literal interpretation here suggests that the Saudi's are running very hard just to stay in place. They just may be nothing more than hamsters on a wheel at this point.
China: Oil giants plan to cut gasoline exports
The Standard
China, formerly Asia's biggest gasoline exporter, plans to cut shipments of the fuel for a fourth consecutive month to meet domestic demand, contributing to a shortage that boosted prices in the region.
PetroChina and China Petroleum & Chemical Corp, which exported an average of 466,386 tonnes a month last year, may cut shipments to as little as 130,000 tonnes this month, according to three traders involved in the transactions who asked not to be named.
Reduced supplies from China helped to drive benchmark 92-RON gasoline to a record US$90.55 (HK$706.29) a barrel in Singapore on May 15. Soaring demand in the world's third-biggest vehicle market is trimming its gasoline surplus, prompting Beijing to impose restrictions on exports.
(13 June 2006)
Singapore gasoline prices
My back of the envelope calculations show that this reduction in exports represents approx $235,620,000 loss in foriegn earnings every month (using the $68 start of year price) - offset slightly by the increased price of remaining exports.
A small example of the economic impact on producing countries as their net export capacity reduces. Although I am not an economist and do not fully understand global flows of capital, it seems to me that this represents a reduction in the ability of China to then import goods and services.
Repeated worldwide, the only winners in this scenario are countries whose export capacity related to thier consumption is so great that the increased price exceeds the lost exports.
For China losing revenue from gasoline exports has to be near inconsequential. The primary reason that China is the region's largest gasoline exporter is because no one really exports gasoline. It makes much more economic sense to import crude and refine near the point of use. Particularly for net oil importers.
All this means is that China developed its refining sector in anticipation of comsumption growth. In the meantime, they exported excess production. Now that consumption has caught up, they serve local markets.
What we do know is Russia has taxed themselves into a peak production. If they had continue to open up their oil exploration, some new fields will be in the developing stage, instead of in the planning stage. With that information, we know definitely they will not be seeing big increases anytime soon.
Saudi Arabia is aggressively bringing extra production just to stave off declining production from old fields. Going up to 12mbpd should be easy for them, but judging by the resources they have requested to accomplish means that it is not easy and 12mbpd anytime before 2010 is an optimistic prediction. To 15mbpd requires them to discover many new fields, which they are slow to announce if they have find new fields. Saudi Arabia refuses to simply pump more oil from existing fields. That is what they have stated openly. According to EIA and IEA, they believe Saudi Arabia can pump more oil from existing fields.
As for demand and supply, we are not satisfying oil demand based on $25. We are for $70 oil as right now there is more supplies than demand.
Talking about how to tell if we hit peak for two of the biggest exporters is to see refinery margins tighten a lot for heavy crude refiners like Valero, Exxon and Chevron refinery business! Then, you will know we hit peak as those are the world's biggest heavy crude refiners.
Refuses? I don't believe they can actually... Simmons pointed this out in his review of several of the papers noted from Aramco Engineers on the difficulties they encountered when trying to Boost the production; they have a sweet spot with the water cut and horizontal drilling, if they push much harder on those aging fields they will damage them severely.
If they're going to boost production it will have to come from other fields IMO.
With that said, if you want to be reasonable you must trust Saudi chief engineer and his official comments. It is his words against Simmons. Until the Saudi's are proven wrong, we cannot trust others who are making claims without proof. Even Simmons is willing to concede that he is just speculating.
Also, you are right that fields will get damaged. Nevertheless, experts still believed Saudi's can pump more than they currently are. Saudi Arabia despite its wealth does not apply state of the art advanced enhanced recovery methods in all their old fields. According to the Saudi's, they are very conservative with applying aggressively to produce more.
I by no means am saying Saudi's can produce more oil than they are now for many years to come. All this points to the fact that Saudi's do have more capacity to produce oil for the short term. Saudi's have price their oil based on many factors including refinery margins. This prevents them from pushing the oil prices down. They can only do this during a supply crunch, which we are expecting to last forever.
It is his words against Simmons. Until the Saudi's are proven wrong, we cannot trust others who are making claims without proof.
Likewise we cannot trust the Saudis claims without proof! They keep all their data to themselves and shove paper barrels at us and say trust us.
-C.
Excuse me while I go outside and laugh.
Repetitive Comments Again
Texas, the Lower 48, total US, the North Sea and Russia have all peaked in the vicinity of 50% of Qt, based on the HL method. Number of these regions showing higher production than what they had in the vicinity of 50% of Qt? Zero.
Using only production data through 1970, post-1970 Lower 48 cumulative production, through 2004, was 99% of what the HL method predicted that that it would be.
Using only production data through 1984, post-1984 Russian cumulative production, through 2004, was 95% of what the HL method predicted that it would be.
Deffeyes put the world 50% of Qt mark in December. World production is down since December.
Saudi Arabia is now at the same point at which the prior swing producer, Texas, started an irreversible decline. Saudi Arabia has admitted to a 5% decline since December.
Did oil companies in Texas stop finding oil in 1972, when we peaked? No, but we couldn't replace the large oil fields like East Texas.
The problem that Saudi Arabia has is replacing fields like Ghawar. Is it possible? Yes, in the since that almost anything is possible. Is it likely? No.
Saudi Arabia is the key, Almost no one would dispute the premise that is Saudi Arabia has peaked, the world has peaked. In any case, the HL method and the Texas model indicate that Saudi Arabia is on the verge of a permanent decline, and they have admitted to a 5% decline.
Just looking at US 48 states. If you use the URR and plug it to your models, they predicted a higher peak production than reality. For most countries, this is true. The reason is that most oil producing states will produce one giant field or a set of fields and wait for it to decline before producing another newly found oil fields. This seems to happen quite frequently in history. People don't always find all the big ones at once. They tend to find one and not come up with another one, until a later date. And then, they won't be in a hurry to produce the latter fields, until later.
I am not questioning PO dates if you have URR data. I see more peak dates prior to URR data set predicts and slower declines due to new production coming online after peak production dates. I have little confidence on predicting production numbers after peak production starts declining when new fields are being added.
Hard to think of an exception.
Your statement is one of the most nonsensical things I have ever read. If we accept it at face value, there must be huge numbers of shut-in billion barrel oil fields around the world.
The reason the HL method works is that we find the big fields first--whether it's Texas, Russia or Saudi Arabia. In effect, we are plotting the rise and fall of billion barrel oil fields. Are there exceptions? Yes. Will they make a difference? NO
Or let me restate it more clearly. So far, it has not happened. Therefore, what you are arguing--that we will see rising production beyond the vicinity of 50% of Qt--has never happened for any of the large producing regions that I have cited. To top it off, the available data--as predicted by the HL method--are showing production declines for Saudi Arabia and the world. What part of this is not clear?
Perhaps I have not been clear enough.
At my request, Khebab took only the production data through 1970 and used it to predict post-1970 Lower 48 production. We pretended that the post-1970 data did not exist. Khebab had no agenda. He treated this as a scientific experiment.
The post-1970 cumulative Lower 48 produciton data, through 2004, was 99% of what the HL model predicted it would be. Over a thirty four (34) year period. the HL method predicted the cumulative Lower 48 production within 1%.
Using the same method, post-1984 cumulative Russian oil production was 95% of what the HL method predicted it would be (through 2004). As Russian oil production has gotten closer to 100% of what the HL method predicted, the rate of growth in Russian production has slowed, and most recently started declining. I predict that Russia is facing a catastrophic decline.
Again, I am presenting easily verifiable facts. You are asserting that we should rely on the opinions of the oil producers.
Who's pre 1970 numbers are you using?
I don't believe it is fair to leave out Deep Sea drilling as most people do when modeling lower 48 states. Since pre 1970 already knew Alaska had oil, why does the model have to exclude it?
My point is that in real life, we always have oil fields that are developed later like Alaska and GoM, so using URR to predict peak is going to overestimate the time frame. We should hit PO a lot earlier. If peak is earlier, then the post peak will be less decline. Russia is a perfect example of that as you pointed out.
It's a combination of standard economist's obtuseness and outright propaganda for the oligarchic criminals who brought the country to its knees in the 90s.
At last they have been forced to pay a reasonable share of profits, comparable to that in Norway. There is no basis for blaming the flattening out of production on that. Russia is simply producing at the geological limits it was maintaining before the 90s collapse.
[OT] Is Stuart going to continue with the physics and energy in econimics series (or did I miss something)?
Also, the US figures for last year do not back up the idea of an increase in Venezuela.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=783d3834-5009-425b-a22d-b8acda2ea93b& amp;rfp=dta
Keep the Faith
Notice that the author of the National Post article made no mention of the North Sea or of the recent production declines worldwide.
That's what I'm afraid of.
Google the tragedy of the commons.
Reclaiming the Commons- Yes Magazine
http://www.yesmagazine.org/default.asp?ID=77
Boy, is it scary saying anything positive sometimes..
What if I'm wrong? What if they call me names?
Paden and Emmet - Silverado
They jumped you
out of the blue?
I had to get up anyway.
Me, I'm riding along
minding my own business.
Four cowboys come by, and we decide
to ride together. Friendly as can be.
I figure you should approach life like
everybody's your friend or nobody is.
Don't make much difference.
Suddenly everybody's
pointing their gun but me.
Guess they admired my horse.
Looks like that's not all
they admired.
Yep. My whole rig.
I don't care much about the rest...
but I surely will miss
that bay.
I don't.
Have you ever heard of the Machiavellian Theory of Intelligence? It's the theory that human intelligence evolved not for tool use or hunting or language, but for politics. For figuring out who can be trusted, who can't. Who's on your side, who isn't. Who is allied with friends, and who is allied with your enemies.
I haven't seen the conclusions of Machiavelli ever draw me to him as a really complete observer of Human Nature. Realpolitik, the modern version of the Lessons to the Prince, is seductive in its certainty, but gets its answers by removing the uncertainties of Humanity, and reducing spirit and emotion to calculable icons.
'People will always be selfish, and when they aren't, they still are, and when they really aren't, well that's just an abberation, or your data's off, or they are and they're just being sneakier than I am. Those who disagree are kidding themselves.'
But if I can attempt, from beyond the grave, to turn Ol' Niccola over once again, I'll offer this other, frighteningly cheery aphorism..
"The only way to destroy an enemy is to turn him into a friend."
But forget all that. The comment on human nature that I had posted on originally is really the one that works on my thoughts, being that 'Building up the Society.. or commons, social capital.. etc, is frequently in the best interests of the individual'..
It seems our Pioneer attitude or something like it, still has us thinking that isolation and the personal stash is the holy-grail in security. A little more cynically, of course, is the conclusion that the efficiencies and security of 'sharing' at the community and national levels flies in the face of the greater profit/power-potential in keeping people 'separate-but-scared'.. Hence the easy-demonization of words that share their roots with "Community" and "Social"..
I witnessed a great display, once.. I was a camp-counselor at a weeklong event hosted by a Maine Summer camp for Kids from Russia and America to meet up and do camp stuff together. It was 1987, basically on the eve of Glasnost, and cultural ties were happening here and there with the USSR, and this was a great example of ways of creating international connections and knowledge.
One evening, we invited one of the Native American Tribes in Maine to come in and teach us all a little about their culture. They demonstrated a ceremony down by the lakefront, and it turned out to be a ritual that would happen to offer peace to a tribe that you had been warring with. We watched this, and then learned some of the dances and actions that this process entailed; and it was all being spoken out, first in the Tribe's language (I don't recall which people it was), translated into English, and from that, translated into Russian. So this offering of peace was in the air around us, in these three deserving languages.
This is not to suggest that it's inevitable, just possible.
I've believe that a 50% reduction in per-capita energy usage is doable in North America (thanks to Amory Lovins). However, this alone doesn't allow me to sleep soundly at night. For one, just because it's doable doesn't mean it will be done and done in time. For two, it's still going to take a massive investment (ie. effort, time, and resources) and an equally massive social change.
Not that it won't happen, it will. But I suspect it's going to sting.
I don't hear anything but 'Faith in People' in jamaica's post. Take a pill, and get that chunk of Manflesh out of your mouth..
'Facts and Logic' sure sounds pure and euclidian, but you know that the 'Hard Numbers' are going to be affected by any number of subjective actions by well-intentioned Gentlemen-scientists.. I respect science, but I can't pretend that it doesn't get self-satisfied, cultlike and rigid in its thinking, just because human-beings are involved. It is one of our most classic dualities, Holding on (to a notion, in this case), and letting go of it. We get stuck holding on too hard, either to an outmoded religious or scientific concept, and it doesn't have the freedom to readjust to a changing world.
That's why having faith in Humanity is not at all anathema to this conversation, though it may simply be a key 'Harmonic' to the particulars of Petroleum production. We're not just talking about what is happening to Oil Production, but what personal, political and cultural actions are affecting our use of this resourse, and how we might be able to react to the next turns in this road. If our sciences are to play in informing and saving ourselves in this mess, they will only do so ~Within~ the context of Human Nature, which we cannot escape. Your annoyance at his (her?) optimism only reconfirms this to me.
What we are trying to do here is comb through the facts and gleen from them some guidance for the future, or at least tell us what scenario is most likely to happen. "Keep the faith" is exactly the kind of argument we DO NOT need here.
I believe, after examining the data from all oil producing nations for well over five years now, that we are indeed on the cusp of peak oil. I also believe that all the technology and other fixes that are supposed to save us from the terrible consequences of peak oil are mostly wishful thinking. Therefore I am forced into the conclusion that compared to the consequences of peak oil all other events in human history will shrink to insignificance.
However if either you or Jamaica has a rebuttal to my conclusion or Vegan's opinion, then we would be very glad to hear them. However simply uttering "keep the faith" adds nothing but religious opinion to the debate. And if there is anything we do not need here is religion.
And by the way, Vaclav Smil's opinions, expressed in the article in question, have been rebutted many times on this and other forums, as well as about a dozen books on the subject. His opinions that Middle East reserves expressed by BP and others, are just as likely to be low as high is absurd to say the least. And I would be very glad to discuss that subject if you would like.
I'm sure there are things that we don't need here, and 'BLIND Faith' might well be one of them, but there is a lot of blind faith around that is not borne out of religion, and there is a definition of faith that doesn't mean "Unquestioning Allegience to some Deity" .. But if you really want to disinvite any comments that say "I'm willing to bet that we can get ourselves through this somehow", are you also willing to be as exclusionary to our most-revered doomers, who are so happy to have to 'sadly inform us' of our thoroughly hopeless situation? Is either extreme inherently MORE logical or rational than the other?
My response was to jamaica's comments, however, and not the article he linked to, in case that piece had brought up some religious implications his own statements did not. To me, anyway, 'Faith' does not mean 'sit back, everything will be taken care of for you', it means 'Feet, don't fail me now'.. or "Dear God, don't let me F** this up" (Sheppard, The Right Stuff.. God, am I using another Scott Glenn line? God, did I just say God again? Bad Unitarian, Bad! Oh phew, we don't have sin, do we?.. do we?)
But Keep the Faith does not (necessarily) mean "Stay the Course", or "Business as Usual", and it does not preclude, in fact it necessitates keeping your eyes open to the facts of the world, and using your (G
* given) logic, reason, and also compassion, imagination, patience, understanding. MY faith is that, in addition to our fear, anger, gluttony, shortsightedness and inclination to punch and to steal; that we also have and remember to use our Logic, Reason, Compassion, Imagination, Patience and Understanding."My faith lies in my belief in the individual to develop non-violence. In a gentle way, you can shake the world."
no, no, no.. scratch that.. how about..
"Just what makes that Little old Ant,
Think he'll climb a Rubber-tree plant.."
(While you pity me, I hope I havenow demonically hexed you with this insipid song-virus. Blessed Be)
"whatever the faults of science they are miniscule compared to the faults of faith"
Should we really take that one on? The upshot of science is that it has become a faith that has given us precisely the problems that this site is here to discuss, plus Climate Science. My first thought, when I looked at this was to say 'wait, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, GM-food, Television..' , but clearly, it goes a lot further than that. Or is science simply a convenient and horrendously scalable enabler that has simply found some nice synergy with the same human foibles that gave us the Inquisition, Witch-burning and Pat Robertson?
No, it is with both of them, the stubborn certainty of one's own rightness, despite some nagging and inconvenient evidence to the contrary. Not all science does this, nor does all of religion. But the bodycount would be hard put to show one decisively ahead of the other.. Each tries to explain the world, and each inevitably comes upon the questions and ramifications of power and control, and too often gets snarled there..
Religion does have a head start, but Science has been catching up pretty methodically, especially if you count all the Bunnies and Doggies who die, painfully displaying very poor and overdone applications of eye-shadow and Rat-poison.. it may allow for self-questioning, and revisions, but cold-hearted calculation may not be the best path towards Sainthood.
Incivility is certainly justified in this case, but I will not resort to it.
Being a vegan means we don't need the 70% of agricultural land for cattle pasture or animal feed crops anymore.
There are three statements here. I agree with the first, "resourseful and inventive bunch." I have problems with the second (and especially the third), "and not only will we survive we will prosper."
Prospering implies an infinite growth rate against a finite resource base.
This article is, IMO, just part of my "Iron Triangle" thesis. There are powerful forces that are intent on persuading consumers to continue the 50 mile commute in a $50,000 SUV to and from a $500,000 mortgage lifestyle.
Sadly, we are now talking about exceeding the carrying capacity of not just some local ecosystem or island but the entire planet.
People are either unaware of the problem or if aware have decided that there is nothing they can do about it so we should just party on until the music stops. Since their doesn't seem to be anything stopping the year to year increases in temperature, especially in neck of the woods, I guess I can understand the latter view.
Anecdotal evidence that some people are taking action doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy. Once the major governments of the world set attainable and enforceable and timely goals to drastically reduce our energy consumption, then I will have some reason for hope. However, given the fact that China is building a coal plant a week, doesn't give me much reason for hope.
"People are either unaware of the problem or if aware have decided that there is nothing they can do about it so we should just party on until the music stops."
So which are you? ..or are there more than Two kinds of people out there? We're not anecdotally working on changes to make you feel all warm and fuzzy. I don't personally know you well enough for that. There are other reasons..
If I didn't care, I wouldn't be participating at this site.
How long have you been a student of PO?
I have seen Valclavs pieces before.
On a personal level, like most in the western world, I would prefer VS to be right and Campbell et al to be wrong and in a perfect world, technology and ingenuity would 'take care' of us.
However, the numbers (IMO) just dont stack up. All oil provences go into decline, and ergo, in due course the world as total oil provence will go into decline.
CTL ,biodiesel, Tar sands etc all may help mitigate the worst effects for a while, but only for a while as the gap between readily accessible liquids and base load demand grows inexorably larger with time as we go beyond peak.
Could be we are at Peak now, could be there are still a few elephants or half - elephants out there which will shift peak date at little further away.
jamaica22. You got kids?
If you have, pray that Valclav is right, but act as if you agree with Campbell et al.
And no, dont go looking for another site. Keep coming back:
Faith is nothing if not tested.
rgds
Yes I have a kid and yes the earth's resourses are finite, but I believe the human spirit is infinite. Who would have believed in the 80's that I could have a little Gateway sitting next to my desk that would be more powerful than the first Cray supercomputer, but it is. Things are moving faster now so in just 10 years we will be wowed I am sure.
But in the mean time:
'Plan for the worst, hope for the best'.
And remember:
'If you fail to plan, you plan to fail'.
Mudlogger's statement:
Vaclav Smil's declarations:
I agree with these statements Shocker as it may seem!
Yes we are an ingenious species!
We invented the Invisible Hand.
We invented various dieties.
We invented belief in human dominance over Mother Nature.
We are so clever.
Surely we will invent new forms of
delusionment that will help ease our
child-like minds over "the edge"
when Global Peak Oil finally appears
undeniably in our rear view mirrors.
(The only thing we have to fear is ...
inconvenient truth by itself.)
..
I think the thing that people like Valclav forget to mention is that we may not experience the apocalyptic scenarios that Kunstler et. al are proposing, but we that's if people are willing to start cutting back. Ask yourself, are you willing to live like they do in rural China? Are you willing to see the middle class dissolve and the elite to become overwhelmingly wealthy while the rest of us become servile workers in ever growing cities or rural areas that have become third world? So it may not happen this year, but even Valclav won't deny that it will happen eventually, and since the sun is the only energy source on our planet with oil being a long-term store, what's going to take it's place? Fusion/hydrogen? Where will the H2 come from? Water, great, we're allready in a major carrying capacity type of worldwide water crisis... Natural gas, wait, we're allready getting tight on stores! S**t, it seems like we're already tight on resources. And it takes resources to come up with alternatives, but wait, hmmm, isn't there another option? I know, solar towers! Or how about wind farms! Wait, steel is getting in short supply... but they could just stop making hummers and cars and wait, that's not what I wanted in the first place... and what's happening with electric cars? I can't take a cross-country road trip with my 2.5 children in a car that has a range of 100 miles and goes 35 mph!
I agree with other posters, Valclav's arguments are dangerous, on the level of the fire department coming to your house and saying "That fire could be bigger or smaller than we think, it's impossible to rule out either possibility but it's better to just not panic. We'll come back tomorrow and check on it." Hurrah for human ingenuity. According to many different people an oil shock to $120 a barrel would shut down food shipments to the continents interior, at least temporarily. Judging from the way people reacted after Katrina, I'm buying a few guns...
Oh, and don't use the "keep the faith" comment to promote your cult of optimism. Americans seem to thing that the world is only right when everybody has a s**t-eater grin on their face. Tell that to the kids in China making your $10 digital watch. "Keep the faith kids, someday you'll be blind and begging on the streets, but Joey over in the states doesn't know what time it is, so keep working!"
I'm done ranting now, sorry.
I have faith that mankind will do whatever it needs to preserve itself. I'm hoping for better.
Ammond
(I wonder what a hybrid gets it's extra oomph from if not technology?)
Thus peak-oil aware consumers should shop carefully for hybrid cars and look closely at fuel economy claims.
Hybrid torque is good for emergency situations. It also allows the wee ICE to keep the family size vehicle at a steady speed on a grade.
Excessive use of oomph for oomph sake will lower gas mileage.
This is such a common sentiment among techies. They assume all technologies follow Moore's Law. Just bc/ a computer has twice as many resistors today than it had a couple years ago doesn't mean all technologies have an every 2 year doubling rate. Furthermore, just bc/ we can process information faster does not necessarily translate into solutions for technical problems. When I took pharmacology in medical school in the mid-90's we were told computers would be powerful enough in just a few years that we would just load in the structure of a bacterial protein and presto the computer would come up with a compound that would destroy or inhibit the bacterial protein function. More than ten years later (and 32 doublings of transistor density and processor speed) we really aren't any closer to doing this. In fact, much like oil discovery, antibiotic discovery peaked in the 1960's and is in decline. Only 2 new classes were invented in the last 3 decades and these are expensive and have a narrow scope of application. Most technologies follow an S-shaped curve where the initial phase is slow and then there's an explosive growth phase and then it levels off. We're in desperate need of major breakthroughs and paradigm shifts if technology is going to save us. We are reaching the upper flat arm of the Industrial technology S-shaped curve. I don't think that the information revolution counts as a major breakthrough or scientific paradigm shift that will save us from peak oil and climate change.
Technology is pushing the envelope now. Processing really can't go much faster with current technologies as you can see by the current processing speed (the argue is of course hardware / software one drives the other, we won't go there)... let's just say with current technologies we've just about hit a wall.
Now maybe the J. Cricket crowd of nanotechnology will be our next leap but I personally feel that's 10-20 years away as it's all lab/theory at this point.
-C.
The other day I had to update my annual Norton software agreement. It occured to me that my computer is now exactly 2 years old and I don't already wish I had a better, faster one. When I bought my previous computer in 2000 (700 mHz/ 64 MB RAM) I found that by the time it was out of the box, I could get a 1 GHz/ 128 MB computer for the same price. Yet I looked into what was available. For the same price as I paid 2 years ago, I get the exact same computer except with a 20" monitor instead of the 17" monitor. Is the PC market no longer be growing exponentially as it did in the 80's and 90's.
Am I missing something here or are we for practical purposes already falling off the technological curve?
Moore's Law in affect...
-C.
Well, we're definitely in a plateau of sorts... unless nanotechnology saves the day.
Semiconductors are reaching their limits and that's why you don't see us making leaps and bounds with processor speeds now.
Just a quick scan of the article (there are tons)
So we have PO and PT (Peak Technology) real close to each other, isn't that nice.
-C.
Some other comments on Singularity:
It's an interesting read, I'll leave it to you in coming up with which path to accept :-)
-C.
Fyi, here's one of my favorite sites to visit daily:
PhysOrg.com
-C.
Instead, I would use a lawsuit analogy, in which some suits are thrown out as without merit, if not downright frivolous.
Donal, yes many things are "thrown out as without merit".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-1813695,00.html
Article was about peak oil and also peak ideas. An excerpt:
''Even if we did throw money at the problem, it's not certain we could fix it. One of the strangest portents of the end of progress is the recent discovery that humans are losing their ability to come up with new ideas.
Jonathan Huebner is an amiable, very polite and very correct physicist who works at the Pentagon's Naval Air Warfare Center in China Lake, California. He took the job in 1985, when he was 26. An older scientist told him how lucky he was. In the course of his career, he could expect to see huge scientific and technological advances. But by 1990, Huebner had begun to suspect the old man was wrong. "The number of advances wasn't increasing exponentially, I hadn't seen as many as I had expected -- not in any particular area, just generally."
Puzzled, he undertook some research of his own. He began to study the rate of significant innovations as catalogued in a standard work entitled The History of Science and Technology. After some elaborate mathematics, he came to a conclusion that raised serious questions about our continued ability to sustain progress. What he found was that the rate of innovation peaked in 1873 and has been declining ever since. In fact, our current rate of innovation -- which Huebner puts at seven important technological developments per billion people per year -- is about the same as it was in 1600. By 2024 it will have slumped to the same level as it was in the Dark Ages, the period between the end of the Roman empire and the start of the Middle Ages.''
Kurzweil has a web site that tries to ferret out info about these innovations, some of which are mindboggling -- for instance, I saw him describe a synthetic-hemaglobin that would allow a human to hold their breath for an hour under water.
I tough we were just sleeping tighter than is the US. At least he is arguing/bargaining against Peak Oil, thus elevating the debate here from non existant to existant. Denial phase is out, he is now in the second phase.
I hope the debate will be picked up in french Quebec, I will then stup up and bring forward my report and probably ask for some help from Khebab.
I have presented my report to my city council and we plan on putting up a biointensive gardening course in fall. Each solution that I bring up will be positive to our economy no matter what happen.
I dont have faith, I only work toward reaching goals.
At least there is a consensus on what needs to be done !
For a problem as wide ranging in scope and impact, and with the diversity of knowledge, experience & POVs present on TOD, it is a remarkable achievement that we have reached this consensus.
As the MSM becomes more "Peak Aware", I think this consensus will carry forward. And then result, at some (too ?) late date, in social & political action.
I wish I had written that.
Now the follow up questions. How do we do this without starting WWIII? How do we transition to a a zero growth economy without starting a civil war?
Step 1- Make sure we don't lose our right to vote.
I really don't trust Diebold..
"Hal? Did you get my vote? Hal?"
Wait, I actually don't know the 1984 story, but Poetry will have its Justice..
Anyone NOT read the Kennedy article yet?
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
Bob Fiske
If only it were that simple. Sadly, the major alternative to oil, notwithstanding that oil is a liquid and coal is not, will be coal. Biofuels will play a limited role and perhaps they should, considering the questionable economics and energy return of ethanol.
We are desperately trying to bring fuel availability up to the level of consumption to which we have become accustomed. You will hear politicians mainly talking about supply, not demand. Supply is fun; conservation is not. Instead, we should be defining the level of fossil fuels and renewables that we can use and still have a viable, sustainable world that has not been burned to a crisp. Then we need to define and mandate policies that bring our consumption and population down to a level that meets that viable and environmentally sound level of supply.
This approach would require a radical decrease in our level of consumption and would require serious incentives and disincentives to bring down our population.
Right now, this approach is not politically viable. This is unfortunate because our current approach is getting us nowhere. All we have now is some bullshit goal to make us independent from the Middle East in a couple of decades. Meanwhile, the earth burns.
Great post and rather amusing at that. But Cynus you have it all wrong. You have stated only two positions here. Actually there are hundreds of positions but there are THREE main positions. There is the position of the "Cornucopians", the position of the "Peak Oil Optimists" and the "Peak Oil Pessimist". You have stated the position of the cornucopians and the peak oil optimists. The position of the peak oil pessimists, of which I am one, is that we are indeed on the cusp of paak oil, and the consequences of peak oil along with the consequences of global warming, falling water tables, soil erosion, global pollution, growing population, falling world grain production, species extinction, and far too many other things which I have not time to list, will result in the End Of The World As We Know It.
All the "fixes" that you list would be great. But all of them combined would be far too little too late. We are already deep into overshoot and there is no way of backing out of that in order to save us from the terrible consequences peak oil and all the other problems brought about by the overwhelmingly evolutionary of Homo sapiens.
Problem is, the world is incredibly complex.
And we humans are incredibly ignorant and incredibly arrogant.
I mean all of us, especially me.
(The more I learn, the dumber & humbler I feel. I learn a lot from all you TODders out there. Thanks.)
Many in the happy/optimistic camp have no training in science.
They haven't even heard of Murphy's Law and/or if they have, they do not understand its application to complex systems.
They haven't heard of Thermo's Laws of dynamics and/or if they have, do not understand their application to every gizzmo that appears to work by "magic".
(gee, i turn the key and the car just "goes". i flip the switch and the computer just "goes". i push another button and my wishes are fulfilled. ergo, rule #1 of the universe: there is a push button solution for everything.)
That is why the optimists are optimistic.
Ignorance is bliss.
Should we give up?
Of course not.
But we need to wipe those smug smiles off our faces.
We are standing in deep doo doo and the Rescue 911 helicopter is not coming to magically lift us out of the muck. We're either going to crawl out of it on our own or die here while we stand by, daydreaming.
Fortunately, I never studied law. Of course, neither did Murphy.
"Strive Mightily, as Lawyers do in Law, but eat and drink as friends" Shakespeare
"Do not worry about your difficulties in Mathematics. I can assure you mine are still greater." --Albert Einstein
-C.
The tendency of most people is to specialize. Few people can hold many different concepts, some of which seem to be in opposition, and make the connections to see the wholistic problem. This, of course, is the problem I like to call "Engineer Tunnel Vision" or ETV.
Your average engineer focuses on a problem and tries to discover the best possible solution, and he or she will generally ignore the knock-on consequences. Or, like a scientist, they will admit that they do not know what the future effects may be and, here is the rub, the real sucky part of this problem, they will claim that we cannot know if future results from the fix will be positive or negative, AND THEREFORE THEY WILL GO AHEAD AND DO IT ANYWAY.
Thus we have radioactive materials spreading from the Savannah River plant through the groundwater; teflon, a terribly noxious material, is in everyone's blood; holes in the ozone; GM crops that turn out to be preferred by pests and which screw up other plants. The list is virtually endless.
Now we face the list of problems Darwinian has presented and one must ask, "So, will the engineers and scientists come up with techno fixes for the techno fixes that got us into this screwed up position? Will those fixes cause even worse problems down the road?"
Of course they will. And, sickly, sadly, the one thing that scientists and a few engineers admit is incomplete knowledge, SO THEY WILL DO IT ANYWAY.
My argument will be countered with the time honored misdirection and obfuscation, "Think of all the lives penicillin saved, how many people are fed, how many people are healthy, you don't want to go back to the dark ages, do you?"
First, there is the complete misrepresentation of simpler times. The creed of the techno people is that people whether they be hunter-gatherers, medieval peasants, or farm workers in eighteenth century America, were somehow all milling around unhappily just waiting for the blandishments of technology to rescue them from hell and put 24 hour cable in front of them and a pizza roll in their little hands. Bull.
Secondly, war, famine, pestilence, and disease all continue pretty much unabated, except that we are sooooo much better at killing each other now that we have the technical means. So, to cite that as a difference between simple societies and our techno society does not wash.
The main difference is the impact we have on the environment and the sheer numbers of people we kill with our technology either directly or indirectly.
In other words, we have all the downside of past non-technical civilizations, but little or nearly none of the upside.
Now all of the techno fixes to what were non-problems in the first place are coming to a head. This enourmous interelated techo-clusterfoink is coming at us and coming at us fast.
No one is willing to admit that it was ETV that got us to this point and that ETV will not be the thing that will save us.
Too bad, so sad. Thanks for all the fish, and so long!
Too bad the world hasn't had some omnipresent moderator floating above all humans, to keep us in check. "No, you can't use this new invention, it will eventually lead your grandchildren to screw up the world." Or, "yes, that technology is okay, as you can't possibly use it to do any damage."
We are what we are. As you say, "Too bad, so sad."
The whole reason that science replaced alchemy and spiritual revalation as the primary epistomological method was to get away from the sectarian violence in the world.
The sectarians are still at it and are always trying to lower the level of discourse and draw us in to arguments. Even the true believers of any political stripe do this, they want to change the facts by challenging us personally, not by refuting the information directly.Don't sucker in to their game! This wastes precious time and emotional energy better spent on addressing the problem.
I read a recent press release that said 74% of workers hate their jobs. Now, if people keep doing a job they hate, it seems reasonable to me that they also don't care about future permutations from ETV or anything else.
Move intercity frieght from heavy trucks to electrified rail and we use 95% less energy (and teh energy we use is very flexiable, electricity).
Move people around town on electric rail lines instead of private cars. About a 12:1 energy savings directly. By changing the urban form into a more compact and energy efficient city, that savinsg is usually more than doubled.
Such LARGE efficiency gains for a segment of our energy use will give us a "backbone" that can survive and give us a fighting chance of getting "ahead of the curve".
It's funny, articles like this can say "peak oil is wrong" but at the same time carry a subtext that peak oil in a more moderate and general sense is true.
I mean, why even suggest that human inventiveness is a factor, unless you are acknowledging that known methods, practices, and resources, are insufficient?
Indeed if you are going to do a paragraph on "energy transitions," you've bought into peak oil. IMNSHO.
And yes, reading that article for a second time has brought to ligth that they are advocating many of the mitigation solution forward as to get trough this.
For something to be true or false, it as to exist first.
Take a look at the man himself:
http://www.geog.psu.edu/alumni/smil.html
The 'interview' with Vaclav Smil is interesting.
From the Interview, I would not have thought he was a more of a Peakist.
I've followed a bit Mr. Smil and I have read some of his books. He seems to be a bit obsessed with Peak Oil Pessimists, but he is no cornucopist either.
I think his possition is that we need an energy transition, and that this can be achieved through use of markets and technology AND a more modest life style. Although I think he is too optimist about the role of EOR and technology in general he paints a picture of the challenge that I am sure all we little peakniks would endorse:
First, the primary point that peak oil people are making is that we are approaching the peak of oil production and that our current civilization is completely dependent on oil at the moment. We've all noted that this doesn't mean automatically that things must fail but it does mean that an alternative source of energy as useful and convenient as oil must be found to replace oil. And guess what? So far no such energy source has come forward. Smil overlooks that one pressing fact. He overlooks that as coal production peaked, oil was present and available and the only question was how to get more of it. Right now what replaces oil? Smil has no useful answer for this.
Further, he clearly states erroneous things and lets the reader assume that he is correct. Hubbert placed no specific date on global peak but he did suggest roughly 50 years. And his paper was published in 1956. How Smil can conclude that Hubbert suggested 1993 to 2000 as the range for global oil peak escapes me unless he can provide some other reference (and note that he does NOT provide references, here or in anything else he ever writes on this topic).
Smil then makes statements like "They are convinced that exploratory drilling has already discovered some 95% of the oil originally present in the Earth's crust and that nothing we do, be it SUV replacements or new offshore drilling, can help us to avoid a bidding war for the remaining oil." Note that he totally ignores the discovery data of the last 100 years. Just ignores it completely. Discoveries peaked 43 years ago in 1963 and have been generally downhil since, with a few minor upward ticks but today discoveries are so small that we get public announcements from IOCs about how they are redeveloping existing fields because new fields are so hard to find.
Smil is locked into a particular worldview and anything that dares challenge that worldview gets attacked, emotionally, and without facts or rigorous logic. His entire article there has little to no factual basis and resorts to ad homimens, character assassination, and attempts to discredit modern scientific analysis of reserve issues with prior failed analysis. This is the "people cried wolf in the past and were wrong so they must be wrong now" school of thought. He fails entirely to actually discredit the current data and resorts to this sort of thinking which demonstrates the desperation of himself and those like him to hold onto the illusions they've created.
Where is it written that we must find a single replacement for oil? Nowhere. And the chances are exceedingly high that we won't find any single replacement. We'll use some ethanol (first from starch, then from cellulose), some biodiesel, some EV's, some improved ICE technology (hybrids, clean diesels, diesel hybrids, HCCI), and a whole lot of conservation and social adjustment as we ride the downside of the Hubbert curve.
Further, Smil looks at this one issue without taking it in context. This issue is not occurring in a vacuum. This issue is driven by the core problem of population versus available resources which is causing other problems and will cause yet more problems before we either solve it or it is solved for us.
We're a Castrophist Cult
sends my blood pressure through the roof. However, I am starting to feel pity for people like him who just can't deal with reality, who are so alarmed that we may be right here at TOD that they have to write this kind of faith-based nonsense.
There is a deep-rooted belief, formed during the Industrial Era, in Progress which never ends. This would have come as quite a surprise in, to pick a time, the 17th century. The roots of this notion lie in things like Watt's steam engine and the publication of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. Technology & Economics -- the twin miracles that make this neverending Progress possible.
Dave,
I think the Vaclav's of this world want your blood to boil. They are counting on pushing your emotional triggers. Step back and take a deep breath.
Learn to enjoy the art of the rhetoric.
Smiling Smil writes:
Brilliant.
The reader who is mind melded with Smilin Smil has this deep "nuanced understanding" whereas the PO cultists totally lack this refined ability to grok the truths that are so obvious they need not be spoken. This is good stuff. He establishes an inferential "Us" versus "Them" framework without stating it outright.
Human "inventiveness and adaptability". Why that of course describes me and Smilin Smil but not them doom/gloom cultists. Why he and we are so "Human", so right while "they" are so alien and so wrong.
Once you start dissecting the man's writing style, you see that he is gifted in the art of mind manipulation.
That is an interesting point of view and humans certainly can adapt quite a bit. It is possible that some technofix could work (biological organisms genetically altered to eat and liquify tar sands?). But I have to stick to the facts and the plausable.
The oil companies are not drilling like mad now because they know there is no more oil. Who else would know better? The high price of oil certainly gives them every reason to do so.
Renewable energy projects are having a really tough time. They produce small spits of energy and require large machines to even do that.
We have a society that needs to spend Trillions on defense projects but can't invest even a few billion on future renewables. Our weapons are now so powerful that even an accident could wipe us out (Nuclear exchange, biological release, take your pick).
The one world problem we could solve, overpopulation, we have not even begun to think about talking about it. Just mentioning it in our society is all but impossible.
The environment continues to be destroyed. Dead zones are now appearing in the Gulf of Mexico and the MSM treats it as a natural occurence. It couldn't be pollution, could it?
No, I need to see real change with real progress before I can have faith in human adaptability.
The environment continues to be destroyed. Dead zones are now appearing in the Gulf of Mexico and the MSM treats it as a natural occurence. It couldn't be pollution, could it?"
I agree that the number one problem is over-population! Figure out an acceptable way to cut the worlds population by 2/3 over the next 10 years and all of the rest of the problems mostly go away - Peak Oil, Water shortages, global warming, etc..... BUT, I have no idea how to accomplish such a solution. Maybe some of you might have some ideas of how to do it?
As to the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico, the problem is NOT the excess nutrients in the Mississippi River. Any 10 year old who has had an aquarium can tell you what the problem is. The problem is lack of oxygen! For a minor fraction of what 1 "Government Study" of the problem would cost you could rent 4 diesel air compressors and place them on boats or barges and place them in the flow of the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico. Attach hoses that will reach the bottom and large bubblers like those in an aquarium to the hoses. Run the comressors 24/7 for 4 to 8 weeks and measure the oxygen level in the areas of the Dead Zone to calculate how many oxygenation stations would be needed to eliminate the Dead Zone. The permanent air compressors would be wind powered (lots of wind in the GoM). Seeing as how it will be the Gulf fishermen that will be reaping the bonanza harvests from the highly oxygenated water with high levels of nutrients (free curteous of the midwest farmers), I suggest that they should be the ones to pay for the wind oxygenators. (Midwest farmers have to pay for their land, equipment, seed, fertilizer, vet bills, etc..... and gulf fishermen only pay for their boat as of now)
Anyone want to bet that no-one will take the time to try it? Too cheap and simple for the big spenders in DC or Gulf Coast state governments. Sigh ------
nets with very small holes, haha, yes u must be joking.
Oil importers do not buy oil from oil producers such as Brazil or the UK but from oil exporters. Internal demand gets served first before oil is exported. Below is the table of largest world oil exporters in 2004.
Volume is 2004 exports in million barrels/day.
1) Saudi Arabia 8.73 Million b/day exports - Trillion (or more) dollar question. Massive increase in drilling (half of US gulf rigs going there). No sign of increased production to break prices (as SA has done on occasion in the past).
Once Saudi Armaco source predicted 2% annual declines (-8% natural decline + new drilling = -2%), but higher ups claim current excess production capability with an extra 1.5 to 2 million b/day to come. Others see -5% to -8% annual declines despite more drilling and current production is all they can produce. Domestic demand growing by ~100,000 barrels/day/year.
2)Russia 6.67 million b/day exports - Officals have stated that exports will drop significantly in next three years. Production +2.7% in 2007, +1% in 2008 & 2009, ? in 2010, declines after that. BUT domestic demand growth will "eat" the +2.7% 2007 increase and more.
3)Norway 2.91 million b/day exports - Production declines of -8% 2005 vs. 2004, -10% 2006 vd. 2005. Declines every year in the future
4)Iran 2.55 million b/day exports - Down dramatically from Shah, recent trends are up & down
5)Venezuela 2.36 exports - Political driven drop, current levels seem difficult to sustain (V bought 100,000 b/day from Russia for 6 months recently to meet contracts). Massive VERY heavy oil/asphalt reserves, minimal investment to extract
6) United Arab Emirates 2.33 - May increase production
7)Kuwait 2.20 - Recently acknowledged decline in field that produced 2 million b/day is down to 1.9 million and heading towards 1.75 million
~2008. Claims new fields will = declines
8) Nigeria 2.19 - MASSIVE internal problems/war, 800,000 b/day shut
in. New development supposed to balance natural declines
9) Mexico 1.80 - Massive offshore field that produced 2 million b/day in 2004 offically scheduled to decline by 14% annually from 2006.
Leaked Pemex study showed range from 14% to 40% annual declines. Nearby small heavy oil field to be exploited by 2009. Offshore discovery discredited, but heavy oil field found in 1920s (many small pockets of gunk) was producing 29,000 b/day, Pemex plans to expand production dramatically from this old field.
- Algeria 1.68 - Realistic plans to expand production by several hundred thousand b/day
- Iraq 1.48 - ???? Recent production declines but the near future is unknownable
- Libya 1.34 - Realistic plans to expand production by several hundred thousand b/day
- Kazakhstan 1.06 - Last two really big fields found in world found here (2000 & 1988 from memory) Easily another million b/day once pipelines, etc. built.
- Qatar 1.02 - Apparently stable but older fields, but puzzling stop to development in late 2005 after ConocoPhilips drilling on edge of field found dry holes
The UK is becoming a major oil importer again, as their North Sea wells dry up and demand increases.The US has, in rough #s, a -$800 billion annual trade deficit. -$300 for oil, -$200 billion with China, -$300 billion with everyone else (EU about -$120 billion of the -$300 billion).
The US plans to massively increase our liquified Natural gas imports in the next years.
Alan
Second, the figures are fuzzy. The author starts out talking about light, sweet crude and ends up treating natural gas and tar sands/oil shale ect. as if they were additions to crude reserves.
Third, no mention of the environmental costs. These costs will accelerate with processing tar, ect. because it takes so much more energy to make it useful.
Fourth, and possibly most important, no mention of the hue increase in demand because of the huge population increases in the world and the rapid evolution that is just beginning of the peoples of China, India, Indonesia, Pakisan, rural Turkey and Latin America. If the 600 million people in the developed world used up the bulk of the cheap light crude in 100 years, then 3 billion people (China + India + developed world) are going to use up what is left on a very accelerated schedule.
The indomitable human spirit did not save the Mayans, the Mexicans, the Incas from collapse and invasion,or all asia and most of the middle east from the Mongols and the Black Death.And I betcha there were plenty of Polliannas in the bunch.
I'm sure it actually DID save these civ's, again and again.. until it didn't. They all had their great generations, their close calls, their finest hours.. who's to say which this is to be for us?
Plague, Black Death.. can't talk to those. I think you're off topic.
I personally am a main stream protestant christian, and believe that we are stewards of the earth and not owners. I'm sure that this influences my postings and views. But, I'm not such a fool as to deny this and immediately discount other's views. I want to read them and critique them, because as a middleaged guy who has done some self examination I know I am often wrong, although seldom unsure.
I appreciate your candor.
I do think that there has been a disconnect about what constitutes optimism in this digest today. When you say 'Cheerful Thinking', I have to imagine that you mean some kind of 'Forced Cheer for its own sake'. But when I think of tackling a problem, the more insurmountable the better, I am energized by the need to look at the obstacles, look at our tools, look at the junkpiles, think about old techniques, new combinations, etc.. I don't know if we'll pull it off, or what it will look like, or how we'll be living on the other side of this challenge, but I don't think I'm a so-called cornucopian, and I do think that we have tools and materials that we can use to address this. We have all sorts of ways of using energy more efficiently that we don't employ, we certainly can find ways of living with far less than we consume in the US, and part of the excitement of this, is that we've known for a long time that there are great problems with this High Protien universe we've been growing too used to, and that this is a chance to make a break from some of that. I appreciated the position that Lou Grinzo stated a few days back, with the engineers from Apollo 13 saying 'You're telling me what you want, I'm telling you what we've got'..
The optimist says it's half full,
The pessimist that it's half empty..
The Engineer will tell you that your glass is twice the size it needs to be..
Cheerfully, in spite of myself..
Bob Fiske
I am a member of an 800 member discussion group on commerical aviation orders (in good standing and generally respected). Quite a few professionals read this group and many post as well (Rolls Royce program manager, fleet & route planner at Qantas, China salesperson for Boeing, active & retired engineers in the field). A more influential group than most. VERY fact based.
I would like to make sure that I have my facts straight before posting this analysis there.
Alan
AFAIK, Britney Spears is a bit flaky
AFAIK, GW Bush will be judged by history as one of the worst half dozen US Presidents. LBJ & Grant already members of the club.
AFAIK, Photovoltiac panels leveled off in price for the last two years, but will be cheaper in 2008 than today.
AFAIK, neither Democrats or Republicans plan to mention Peak Oil in the 2006 election campaign.
No quesiton about George II. I might add that the rear view mirror may view Nixon more favorably that his successors with the exception of Ford?, Carter, Bush I, and Clinton. Was it Gore Vidal who called Nixon the last President with a Christian conscience? Something to consider.
AFAIK; excellent...thank you for enlightening me.
I am pretty good at TLA's but I haven't been "task-trained" on FLA's.
Title: Peak Oil: A Catastrophist Cult and Complex Realities , By: Smil, Vaclav, World Watch, 08960615, Jan/Feb2006, Vol. 19, Issue 1.
Could it be that the Saudis are purposely limiting production as they notice the increase in Russian production in an effort to keep the market price higher than supply/demand would otherwise dictate?
It seems like Russia's meteoric rise on these charts would dictate a simple response from the Saudis who don't have much control over Russian production: slow down or decrease producction to avoid a glut of petroleum on the market.
Or, am I being too simplistic in my analysis?
Chinese Oil Production (EIA)
Click to Enlarge
I could get an additional 45 to 50/kbd from Bohai Bay. I'm still looking for the rest. As some of you know, some of China's fields are old and depleting rapidly. Yet, we see this increase.
Russian, Iranian oil reserves offset falls
Blah..Blah..
and
We know that North Sea is mostly very good light and sweet - and in rapid decline. Russia has been adding production significantly - but crude there is not quite light. The quality of the crude is definitely down. This is not a new idea here, but may be a bit underexplored.
There is information available, but it costs (http://www.petrotechintel.com/pti/cims.html).
The old eastern fields continue in decline.
I expect this or next year to be China's peak production year.
I seem to recall that the EIA has been predicting that the US would actually increase production in 2006 over 2005, and possibly in 2007 over 2006. Some of this is due to recovery from hurricane damage (I guess they are assuming no repeats of Katrina, Rita et al). It will be pretty impressive if the US moves from being the king of the losers to one of the gainers over the next couple of years.
You are correct about the US, although the effect is more pronounced here in the short term. GreenEngineer also makes a good point about Russia.
Everything below zero on this graph, is in effect the oil production that has not changed. What the graph shows is oil production that has been fluctuating. This data is for crude oil+lease condensate only, so it shows the top 6 million barrels per day out of 74 million barrels per day of total global production. It is not the Total Liquids data of 85 mbpd as per our discussion of a few days ago.
The thinnest point on each country's "area" represents 100,000 barrels a day of production. I got this by creating a baseline for every country in the world by taking its lowest production point in the last 15 months and then subtracting 100,000 barrels. The one exception to this here is Saudi Arabia. There is credible evidence to suggest that their production has been lowered to 9.1 million barrels per day recently, so I set their baseline to 9.0 million barrels.
The order in which I have "stacked" the countries is an effort to make the peaks and valleys flatten each other out starting from the bottom, to allow the viewer to see the real effect of increases and decreases on the total.
Notice the large increase of "The Rest of the World." We often overlook that.
The 4-year version is available here:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/6/11/9302/16595#186
Iran 'will not bow to pressure'
Nuclear energy was more important to Iran than extraction of oil, he added. Oil makes up 80% of Iran's foreign exchange earnings.
WTF? Are you kidding me? They would give up 80% of their earnings just to have Nuclear energy?
Obviously if one thing is more important than the other, you would give the less important one up if asked to choose right?
Insanity...
Or, for rhetorical effect, someone in a position as stressed as his might say most anything, and different things to different audiences.
Either:
1.) He's a Nut and just makes comments for the sake of making them
2.) He's a Nut and is running out of oil and really wants Nuclear power
3.) He's a Nut and is running out of oil and really wants Nuclear power and weapons
Did I miss anything?
Oh and he's not bringing you any toys this year!
-C.
It seems to me Iran is actually playing its cards pretty well right now, provided the US doesn´t attack it soon... But they don´t appear to be doing anything that would suggest they were nutters.