Oil Production Peak
-
Looking for a source, I searched Google: Petroleum Review compiles oil projects coming online[^] And turned up this link (might've been what you read): http://www.copvcia.com/free/ww3/111707_oil_depletion.shtml[^] (dated November 16, 2004) My first question was, "How long in advance do they normally know these things?" In other words: there may be 3 scheduled for 2007, but by the time 2007 rolls around will there be 30 scheduled? But the article answers this when it says: Of the 68 confirmed projects that ODAC analysed, 56 are due to come on stream in the next three years. Seven are scheduled to start pumping oil in 2008, three in 2009 and just two in 2010. Since it takes, on average, six years from first discovery for a major project to start producing oil, any other new projects approved now would be unlikely to add further supplies until after 2010. Anyway, people can checkout the article for more information. (Although, it should be noted that the article I linked to is published by the "The Oil Depletion Analysis Centre" which may be biased. There's always google.) ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Brit wrote: And turned up this link (might've been what you read): No, that wasn't what I read. The Petroleum Review report I read was published in January of '04. The article you cited says ODAC used the Petroleum Review report, but found additional projects through 2010. Nevertheless, they still estimate the peak in 2007. Thanks for the link.
-
A recent report published by the Petroleum Review compiles all oil projects coming online in the future. Apparently, there are 18 projects that will start producing in 2005, 11 in 2006, 3 in 2007, and 3 in 2008. According to the article there are no significant projects currently planned after 2008. As a result other reports are claiming that the peak could occur as soon as 2007. What do you think? Are the new reports on target, generally misleading, or patently overhyped?
You have to also consider the quality of the oil being pumped and not just the amount. The fields being brought on line now are not new fields. They are fields that were explored long ago and passed over for more lucretive, higher quality fields. Lower quality crude is going to require more processing, be more expensive and result in less end product. So no matter how many new projects are started, the cost of that resource is unlikely to go down, or even remain stable. So effectively, the peak has already passed. Personally, I think we are about to find out the hard way why it is a bad idea to make an entire global civilization dependent upon a single natural resource. 2007, 2008 sounds about right for the lesson to start. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
-
A recent report published by the Petroleum Review compiles all oil projects coming online in the future. Apparently, there are 18 projects that will start producing in 2005, 11 in 2006, 3 in 2007, and 3 in 2008. According to the article there are no significant projects currently planned after 2008. As a result other reports are claiming that the peak could occur as soon as 2007. What do you think? Are the new reports on target, generally misleading, or patently overhyped?
The best way to understand those numbers is to be able to compare them to a similar set produced back in 1985 and again in 1995. I don't have them, but I suspect you will discover the same 'predictions' were forecast back in '85 and '95. Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] Gently arching his fishing rod back he moves the tip forward in a gentle arch releasing the line.... kersplunk [Doug Goulden] Nice sig! [Tim Deveaux on Matt Newman's sig with a quote from me]
-
You have to also consider the quality of the oil being pumped and not just the amount. The fields being brought on line now are not new fields. They are fields that were explored long ago and passed over for more lucretive, higher quality fields. Lower quality crude is going to require more processing, be more expensive and result in less end product. So no matter how many new projects are started, the cost of that resource is unlikely to go down, or even remain stable. So effectively, the peak has already passed. Personally, I think we are about to find out the hard way why it is a bad idea to make an entire global civilization dependent upon a single natural resource. 2007, 2008 sounds about right for the lesson to start. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Add to your point the fact that oil is not just used for fuel and heating, but is a vital 'feedstock' for many plastics, chemicals and pharmacueticals that we are quite dependant on. As the supply narrows, there will be increased pressure on fuel usage from these other 'vital' consumers. Makes Iran not look so dumb to want to build nuke plants. Maybe we should start doing the same... Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
-
Add to your point the fact that oil is not just used for fuel and heating, but is a vital 'feedstock' for many plastics, chemicals and pharmacueticals that we are quite dependant on. As the supply narrows, there will be increased pressure on fuel usage from these other 'vital' consumers. Makes Iran not look so dumb to want to build nuke plants. Maybe we should start doing the same... Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
Rob Graham wrote: Makes Iran not look so dumb to want to build nuke plants. Maybe we should start doing the same... What about geothermal? Most people don't realize the upper west of the US sits atop one of the largest supervolcanoes in the world (it's what powers Yellowstone). More than enough energy there to support several geothermal power plants. -Sean ---- Shag a Lizard
-
Add to your point the fact that oil is not just used for fuel and heating, but is a vital 'feedstock' for many plastics, chemicals and pharmacueticals that we are quite dependant on. As the supply narrows, there will be increased pressure on fuel usage from these other 'vital' consumers. Makes Iran not look so dumb to want to build nuke plants. Maybe we should start doing the same... Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
Rob Graham wrote: Makes Iran not look so dumb to want to build nuke plants. Maybe we should start doing the same... My power provider, Duke Power, runs 3 nuclear plants and is looking into creating more nuclear plants[^] here in North/South Carolina. The 3 current plants provide energy to over 50% of their customer base. 3 nuclear plants are looking to obtain licenses for the first time in almost a decade. BW
I want pancakes! God, do you people understand every language except English?
Yo quiero pancakes. Donnez moi pancakes. Click click, bloody click pancakes!
-- Stewie Griffin -
Add to your point the fact that oil is not just used for fuel and heating, but is a vital 'feedstock' for many plastics, chemicals and pharmacueticals that we are quite dependant on. As the supply narrows, there will be increased pressure on fuel usage from these other 'vital' consumers. Makes Iran not look so dumb to want to build nuke plants. Maybe we should start doing the same... Anger is the most impotent of passions. It effects nothing it goes about, and hurts the one who is possessed by it more than the one against whom it is directed. Carl Sandburg
I'm all for building more nuke plants. However, if there is one thing the international community could do that would really help matters would be a full court press to get a practical fusion plant online - regardless of the cost. If we could do that human energy concerns would become a laughable little side note of history (kind of like Marxism and liberalism). If we can't achieve that, than we might as well bomb ourselves back into the stoneage. A quick death of human civilzation would be kinder than a slow lingering death. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
-
The best way to understand those numbers is to be able to compare them to a similar set produced back in 1985 and again in 1995. I don't have them, but I suspect you will discover the same 'predictions' were forecast back in '85 and '95. Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] Gently arching his fishing rod back he moves the tip forward in a gentle arch releasing the line.... kersplunk [Doug Goulden] Nice sig! [Tim Deveaux on Matt Newman's sig with a quote from me]
Chris Meech wrote: The best way to understand those numbers is to be able to compare them to a similar set produced back in 1985 and again in 1995. I don't have them, but I suspect you will discover the same 'predictions' were forecast back in '85 and '95. According to this ( Link[^] ), predictions in the 1972-1981 tended to say that oil would reach peak production around the year 2000. At that time, they were predicting peak production in 20-30 years (specifically: 1985, 1996, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, around 2000, before 2004). Compare that to this prediction which is claiming a much closer peak - just 3 years. (Most of the more recent predictions listed on the same page say the peak will occur in less than 15 years (many give less than 10 years), not the 3 years predicted here.) I would also mention this: - Oil is a limited resource, which means it must peak at some point. - If we disregard these warnings about peak production, is there any possible way to anticipate an oil peak before it happens? That doesn't mean that this prediction is true, but it means that we have a choice between either a potentially flawed prediction or reject all predictions which will definately result in an unanticipated oil shortage eventually. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
You have to also consider the quality of the oil being pumped and not just the amount. The fields being brought on line now are not new fields. They are fields that were explored long ago and passed over for more lucretive, higher quality fields. Lower quality crude is going to require more processing, be more expensive and result in less end product. So no matter how many new projects are started, the cost of that resource is unlikely to go down, or even remain stable. So effectively, the peak has already passed. Personally, I think we are about to find out the hard way why it is a bad idea to make an entire global civilization dependent upon a single natural resource. 2007, 2008 sounds about right for the lesson to start. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
Stan Shannon wrote: So effectively, the peak has already passed. Total agreement. I sat down last year and did a heap of calcs that showed it was in 2003. I'm sure other folk have gotten different answers. Stan Shannon wrote: it is a bad idea to make an entire global civilization dependent upon a single natural resource. Now I disagree with the word "entire", I'd replace it with majority. We need to build more fission reactors and start serious research on fusion. Regardz Colin J Davies The most LinkedIn CPian (that I know of anyhow) :-)
-
Chris Meech wrote: The best way to understand those numbers is to be able to compare them to a similar set produced back in 1985 and again in 1995. I don't have them, but I suspect you will discover the same 'predictions' were forecast back in '85 and '95. According to this ( Link[^] ), predictions in the 1972-1981 tended to say that oil would reach peak production around the year 2000. At that time, they were predicting peak production in 20-30 years (specifically: 1985, 1996, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2000, around 2000, before 2004). Compare that to this prediction which is claiming a much closer peak - just 3 years. (Most of the more recent predictions listed on the same page say the peak will occur in less than 15 years (many give less than 10 years), not the 3 years predicted here.) I would also mention this: - Oil is a limited resource, which means it must peak at some point. - If we disregard these warnings about peak production, is there any possible way to anticipate an oil peak before it happens? That doesn't mean that this prediction is true, but it means that we have a choice between either a potentially flawed prediction or reject all predictions which will definately result in an unanticipated oil shortage eventually. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
I would also mention this: - Oil is a limited resource, which means it must peak at some point. - If we disregard these warnings about peak production, is there any possible way to anticipate an oil peak before it happens? That doesn't mean that this prediction is true, but it means that we have a choice between either a potentially flawed prediction or reject all predictions which will definately result in an unanticipated oil shortage eventually. huh? http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/fd.htm[^] Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
Brit wrote: And turned up this link (might've been what you read): No, that wasn't what I read. The Petroleum Review report I read was published in January of '04. The article you cited says ODAC used the Petroleum Review report, but found additional projects through 2010. Nevertheless, they still estimate the peak in 2007. Thanks for the link.
-
I'm all for building more nuke plants. However, if there is one thing the international community could do that would really help matters would be a full court press to get a practical fusion plant online - regardless of the cost. If we could do that human energy concerns would become a laughable little side note of history (kind of like Marxism and liberalism). If we can't achieve that, than we might as well bomb ourselves back into the stoneage. A quick death of human civilzation would be kinder than a slow lingering death. "The Yahoos refused to be tamed."
C'mon Stan - practical fusion is only ten years away now - whereas it was only ten years away in 2000, 1990, 1980, 1970... ;) "The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it." Albert Einstein Dave