Peak oil production predicted for 2014

[Subdivisions]

Kuwati scientists update Hubbert model; findings debatable

Predicting the end of oil has proven tricky and often controversial, but Kuwaiti scientists now say that global oil production will peak in 2014.

Their work represents an updated version of the famous Hubbert model, which correctly predicted in 1956 that U.S. oil reserves would peak within 20 years. Many researchers have since tried using the model to predict when worldwide oil production might peak.

Some have said production already peaked. One earlier model by Swedish researchers suggested that oil would peak sometime between 2008 and 2018. And other researchers have argued there are decades to go before oil production goes into irreversible decline. The only thing they all agree on: Oil is a finite and very valuable resource.

The issue's profile was raised today with a new report projecting increased demand. After peaking above $130 a barrel in mid-2008, crude oil prices dipped to below $40 in early 2009 as global demand tanked amid the recession. Prices have been rising ever since and are above $80 now. Today, the International Energy Agency said it expects demand to resume the sort of growth that was common in recent years. Much of that growth has involved the modernizing economies of China and India.

...snip...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35838273/ns/business-oil_and_energy/


This is a couple of days old but the issue is as important as climate change. In fact, dealing with a decline in oil production is an automatic action toward alleviating climate change. But, I digress as that's a topic for another time.

The Kuwaiti scientists may already be wrong as oil production has been on a plateau (or what is known as the "bumpy plateau") since May of 2005 when conventional light sweet crude oil production peaked. Shortly thereafter, the energy reporting agencies began to include all petroleum liquids together. This, combined with a year of steadily rising oil prices which topped out at $147 per barrel, produced a very slightly higher peak in July 2008. For those two reasons, the July 2008 peak is widely considered to be artificial. But, the overall trend in conventional crude oil production since May of 2005 has shown a decline of around 1.4 million barrels per day per annum. Once Saudi Arabia goes into decline, and some believe they already have, then the entire world's combined production will enter a terminal decline as discoveries peaked in 1964.

Click on image for larger version:
http://www.peakoilsupplies.com/world-oil-production-chart-graph.html">

As for the Kuwaiti scientists' 2014 prediction for peak oil production, oil would have to climb back into the $100 - $200 range for an extended period to surpass the July 2008 "all liquids" peak. And it will take a colossal effort. Only then will oil companies be able to invest in exploration and bring new projects on line. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=acubV2MKZMA0&pos=10">But even that will be the dregs at the bottom of the barrel. Absent another peak on the bumpy plateau, we will bump along for how long no one really knows. Some educated guesses have us falling off a production cliff as soon as that 2014 date the Kuwaitis mention. Others have it further on to 2017 - 2020. Even the U.S. government has said peak oil production will occur. Of course they're wildly optimistic, predicting a peak in 2037. Despite that, and while many nations have begun preparing, the U.S. has no plan at all to address this problem. Indeed, most analysts agree that by 2037, the U.S. will be left with only what oil it can produce itself as the rest of the oil nations cease exporting oil, keeping what's left for themselves in what is known as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model">Export Land Model. That would leave us with less than a projected 1.5 million barrels of oil per day in 2037, versus the 22 million barrels per day we used today. And I don't have to tell you who's going to own that oil, do I?

In the meantime it seems that production is currently climbing toward another peak. That's great news! The bad news is that, despite an increase in production over the past few months, the price of oil is hovering around the $80 mark. Of course some will say that's evidence of speculation. But not one person who blames speculation will acknowledge that speculation happens in commodity markets when the fundamentals converge. It's the same for oil, apples, or wheat. When the supply of a commodity is unable to keep up with demand, the price goes up. This has always been the case. Why people choose to ignore this basic fact when it comes to discussing the price of oil is beyond me.

To learn more about peak oil production and how energy, both conventional and alternative, affects our daily lives, visit http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ (for the uninitiated) and http://www.theoildrum.com (more technical).

[anigbrowl]

1. Well, that's about the 50th prediction of the date that I've seen, but...

you might want to have a look at this - natural gas is causing pretty major changes to the overall structure of the energy industry, mostly (IMHO) for the good of both the economy and the environment. Which doesn't make oil irrelevant, by any means, but nor is it the the elephant in the room that it seemed a few years ago. If this prediction is accurate and oil production soon enters its long-term decline, it may turn out that rather than a military industrial showdown over the remaining reserves we'll just see a shift to other energy inputs instead.

[tama]

2. The new method

of extracting natural gas from ground is anathema. Pumping huge amounts of various poisons into ground to get more natgas is mortal threat to ground water and agriculture - to be able to drink and eat.

[anigbrowl]

9. I'm not convinced about that

I do think such chemicals need to be regulating and fully support requiring stricter disclosure and record-keeping. Some in the industry have said it could increase the cost of drilling by about $100,000 per well, which would increase the cost of natural gas a bit, but I have no problem with that - $100,000 is not big money in industrial terms.

But you haven't shown any evidence of a 'mortal threat' to ground water or agriculture.

Here's a site that addresses the potential dangers of the practice, including a table from the EPA showing commonly used chemicals. For context, the liquid pumped into a natural gas well with this process is about 99% water and sand, and these chemicals are what makes up the remaining ~1% of the solution. Note that this is a site that addresses the potential risks of the practice, so please don't suggest I'm some sort of energy industry shill (some DUers do that reflexively - nothing personal). I have no connection with any energy companies, nor do I own any shares in such companies. I picked this site because they address your concerns and offer plenty of source data, but they also consider that those risks can be mitigated and managed with proper regulation and good practice.

http://www.earthworksaction.org/FracingDetails.cfm

When reading this, bear in mind that most of the chemicals employed in this process are very commonly used in cleaning products and foodstuffs. For example, if I offered you some potassium chloride you might think I was out to poison you. In fact, potassium chloride is used in lethal injections, and if you ate about 6 ounces of it you might well go into convulsions and die. But potassium chloride is on sale in the supermarket as low-sodium table salt, at the garden center as fertilizer, in bottled water as a purifier, and in ice-melting products used in severe winter weather, sold at hardware stores (and safe for gardens and pets). My point is that 'chemical' is not necessarily the same as 'poison'.

Also, that link rightly points out that some of these chemicals are present in quantities many times higher than the safe level established by regulation. Sounds awful, right? But you wouldn't drink the hydraulic fluid being pumped into the well, any more than you would drink gasoline, bleach, or other common household chemicals. So again, you need to consider the context in which these measurements are made - the toxicity of the solution going into the well is not the same as the toxicity in the environment. Flouride is naturally present in some freshwater and all sea water, and added to drinking water in many places to prevent cavities. This is perfectly safe, even though consuming a teaspoon of pure flouride would be fatal for many people.

I would point out that this extraction technique is also used for cleaning up toxic chemical spills and the like.

So yes, this process should be carefully monitored and regulated. But it does not follow that the use of chemicals in gas extraction is the mortal threat that you claim it to be. If you disagree, I think you should back up your assertions with evidence and explain what specific dangers you see.

[tama]

14. Thanks for the link

"Hydraulic Fracturing Chemicals - Coalbed fracture treatments use anywhere from 50,000 to 350,000 gallons of various stimulation and fracturing fluids, and from 75,000 to 320,000 pounds of proppant during the hydraulic fracturing of a single well.<6> Many fracturing fluids contain chemicals that can be toxic to humans and wildlife, and chemicals that are known to cause cancer. These include potentially toxic substances such as diesel fuel, which contains benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, xylene, naphthalene and other chemicals; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; methanol; formaldehyde; ethylene glycol; glycol ethers; hydrochloric acid; and sodium hydroxide.<7> Very small quantities of chemicals such as benzene, which causes cancer, are capable of contaminating millions of gallons of water."

"Potential Groundwater Contamination - As mentioned previously, hydraulic fracturing is used in many coalbed methane (CBM) production areas. Some coal beds contain groundwater of high enough quality to be considered underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ten out of eleven CBM basins in the U.S. are located, at least in part, within USDWs. Furthermore, EPA has determined that in some cases, hydraulic fracturing chemicals are injected directly into USDWs during the course of normal fracturing operations.<8> (Read stories by Peggy Hocutt and Laura Amos to learn how hydraulic fracturing of coalbeds and other geological formations has affected their lives.)

Calculations performed by EPA show that at least nine hydraulic fracturing chemicals may be injected into or close to USDWs at concentrations that pose a threat to human health. These chemicals may be injected at concentrations that are anywhere from 4 to almost 13,000 times the acceptable concentration in drinking water.<9>

Not only does the injection of these chemicals pose a short-term threat to drinking water quality, it is quite possible that there could be long-term negative consequences for USDWs from these fracturing fluids. According to the EPA study, and studies conducted by the oil and gas industry, <10> between 20 and 40% of the fracturing fluids may remain in the formation, which means the fluids could continue to be a source of groundwater contamination for years to come.

The potential long-term consequences of dewatering and hydraulic fracturing on water resources have been summed up by professional hydrogeologist who spent 32 years with the U.S. Geological Survey:

At greatest risk of contamination are the coalbed aquifers currently used as sources of drinking water. For example, in the Powder River Basin (PRB) the coalbeds are the best aquifers. CBM production in the PRB will destroy most of these water wells; BLM predicts drawdowns...that will render the water wells in the coal unusable because the water levels will drop 600 to 800 feet. The CBM production in the PRB is predicted to be largely over by the year 2020. By the year 2060 water levels in the coalbeds are predicted to have recovered to within 95% of their current levels; the coalbeds will again become useful aquifers. However, contamination associated with hydrofracturing in the basin could threaten the usefulness of the aquifers for future use. <11>

One potentially frustrating issue for surface owners is that it may not be easy to find out what chemicals are being used during the hydraulic fracturing operations in your neighborhood. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, attempts by various environmental and ranching advocacy organizations to obtain chemical compositions of hydraulic fracturing fluids have not been successful because oil and gas companies refuse to reveal this "proprietary information." <12>

As mentioned above, anywhere from 20-40% of fracing fluids remain in the ground. Some fracturing gels remain stranded in the formation, even when companies have tried to flush out the gels using water and strong acids. <13> Also, studies show that gelling agents in hydraulic fracturing fluids decrease the permeability of coals, which is the opposite of what hydraulic fracturing is supposed to do (i.e., increase the permeability of the coal formations). Other similar, unwanted side effects from water- and chemical-based fracturing include: solids plugging up the cracks; water retention in the formation; and chemical reactions between the formation minerals and stimulation fluids. All of these cause a reduction in the permeability in the geological formations. <14>"


More than enough evidence, together with principle of caution. Science knows actually very little of what goes on underground affecting growth of plants. Last but not least, nat gas is non-renewable fossile resouce and produces climate change.

[anigbrowl]

19. You're cherry-picking a bit

After cutting-and-pasting from the link I gave you (BTW, DU rules are that you should limit yourself to 4 paragraphs for copyright reasons), you chose not to include other information, such as:

From a public health perspective, if hydraulic fracturing stimulation takes place, the best option is to fracture formations using sand and water without any additives, or sand and water with non-toxic additives. Non-toxic additives are being used by the offshore oil and gas industry, which has had to develop fracturing fluids that are non-toxic to marine organisms.

...which shows that safer methods can exist and are already being adopted by industry.

and yes, natural gas is a fossil fuel, but one that's considerably cleaner than coal or oil. since we cannot replace our fossil fuel use with renewable energy overnight, it makes sense in the meantime to prefer fossil fuels with the lowest amount of carbon. My link to the Economist article upthread points out that the increasing use of natural gas may in fact hasten the adoption of a carbon-trading or even a carbon-taxing mechanism, which would increase the economic incentives for renewable energy and is thus a Good Thing.

I'm certainly in favor of the precautionary principle as a major tool in risk management. But risk management =/= risk elimination. Everything we do has a risk factor. Even renewable energy has risks - hydroelectric dams can impact the ecosystem downstream from the river and if a dam fails a huge environmental disaster can result. Wind farms affect bird populations and migratory patterns. Solar energy uses all kinds of nasty chemicals in the construction of solar panels and can impact the environment around the factories. Geothermal plants have to be assessed for whether they might affect earthquake or volcanic systems because the most energy is available in such reasons.

The point is that risk can be quantified and has to be weighed against the potential benefits, because there is no free lunch. there are even risks to inaction and the status quo. So evaluating and taking steps to mitigate risk is a necessary step in everything we do. Every time you eat there is a small risk that you could choke to death. But you have to eat, so you mitigate the risk by chewing your food properly and so on. Risk is a fact of life, and one that has to be addressed head-on rather than shied away from.

[tama]

26. I've reached my conclusions

Fossile fuels cannot be replaced by renewables, period. We really really don't know if and what and how much renewable energy can be produced sustainably in economies of scale, but it is certainty that modern way of life with couple hundred energy slaves cannot be sustained (and that the future energy slaves are for banksters and other top dogs of this pyramid scam, not for the little guy). Industrial agriculture based on fossile fuels cannot be sustained. A technofix to solve a problem tends to create couple more problems, technocracy is a vicious circle since nature cannot be controlled, only participated.

That's the predicament. Happy news is that we do know how to feed, cloth, medicate ourselves with our gardening skills in a sustainable way ("permaculture" etc.). By doing less work and by doing healthy and rewarding work with human dignity and respect for all life. Sooner we start learning to live in balance with our environment and ourselves, the sooner we heal and the less we hurt.

[anigbrowl]

43. OK. Can I have your old computer when you're done, since you won't be using it?

[tama]

44. Internet would be nice to keep

I just don't know how to do it sustainably and for how long this lasts. I don't have to know, living day by day and using internet as long as it's available to connect with fellow beings and sharing and learning works for me.

As for my old computer, I gave it away and the one I'm using is not mine. So sorry, cannot help you with your need for old computer as I have none to give.

[Subdivisions]

5. Please show some of these predictions. Also, please tell me how

you interpret the graph I provided. Remember that the July 2008 peak was achieved by oil at $147 per barrel.

[anigbrowl]

6. I'm sorry - I forgot to include the link I was referring to. Here it is:

http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15661889

It's a longish article but the basic point it makes is that the energy industry built up a global infrastructure for natural gas over the last 5 years in particular, but at the same time new identification and extraction methods have radically changed the natural gas market. Contrary to expectations, it turns out that the US has massive natural gas reserves - so much that we won't need to import any for the foreseeable future, and also that we will be much less dependent on dirtier and carbon-heavy energy sources like coal. We have so much gas, and it's sufficiently easy and affordable to extract, that it can substantially reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil. This is an unexpected win for both the economy and the environment.

[Subdivisions]

7. I'm not talking about natural gas in this thread. And, how long before

just the United States' fleet of vehicles are all natural gas?

Also, you denied peak oil production but you didn't comment on the graph I provided like I asked you to.

The trouble with Cornucopians is that they don't ever have an answer and they ALWAYS default to the "technology will save us" schtick. You're talking about natural gas. Fine. But not even nat-gas can replace oil for everything we use oil for. And, as for other alternatives? There's not a single scalable alternative in existance now or foreseen that can take crude oil's place in our civilization.

[anigbrowl]

12. I certainly did not deny peak oil production

I just pointed out that this peak has been called many times before (believe it or not, I've been reading the oil drum website almost since it was set up) and that the unexpected availability of other fuels means that the decline of oil reserves may not be as catastrophic as it seemed just a few years ago.

Alternative sources of energy such as nuclear, solar, wind, tidal and geothermal are all important and I'd like to see more of them. None of them can solve the problem by themselves. Nuclear power has risks, although I consider them to be manageable, and am more worried about the impact of burning too much coal, and we have yet to see any results from the 'clean coal' lobby (although I'll be delighted if they can actually deliver). Renewable energy is fantastic but has a long way to go before it can replace fossil fuels.

So I entirely agree that declining oil reserves are a big issue, but not that it means the impending doom of civilization or imminent economic collapse. We are making progress on reducing our dependence on crude oil as a primary fuel source as well as in other areas (like plastics manufacturing). I see it as a manageable problem and think there's great economic potential in diversifying our resource use.

[Subdivisions]

16. Ok, then we are sort of on the same page here. If the decline in oil production

stays steady at the current rate, then I agree that it doesn't mean the "impending doom of civilization or imminent economic collapse". But no one can deny that a world without sufficient supplies of oil will be a very different world. And while the delcine remains steady, there probably won't be an economic collapse. But there WILL BE an economic contraction. In fact, that is EXACTLY what is happening as a result of the real-world manifestation of the decline in production, as illustrated in the graph I provided in my OP.

BUT...

If that decline accelerates, then civilization will collapse. Why? Because weed need more oil to get off of oil, not less. Crude oil has to fuel any alternatives that are implemented, including natgas, until we are free from it. Currently, oil is used to gather the raw resources needed for alternatives, for instance the manufacturing of a wind turbine. Also, we must consider that natgas, while great for food production as a ferilizer, cannot be used to manufacture the plastic devices found in a hospital. When you get your head around the fact that oil is not just a transportation or electric generation fuel and realize all the other things oil is used for, much less the oil used to gather all the materials together in one place for processing, it becomes clearer just how irreplaceable that stuff is. And all it takes to effect the economy is for the price to be so high that many things, from lipstick to syringes and IV bags, can no longer be manufactured profitably. Depending the true timing of the peak of oil production, the production of these products may experience a long decline or their availability may collapse, follow oil wherever it goes.

The one biggest problem with oil is this: Everyone believes it will always be there. And that's how they will continue use it. This is the core issue that makes getting the message out about peak oil so important. Using it wisely will ensure a long decline. Taking it for granted will drive us right off cliff at full speed.

[anigbrowl]

22. I don't think you're reading my posts very carefully

When you get your head around the fact that oil is not just a transportation or electric generation fuel and realize all the other things oil is used for...

I already have my head around that. In the message you replied to, I specifically mentioned the use (and increasing replacement) of crude oil in the manufacture of things like plastics. Less oil used for fuel = less upward pressure on the price of oil as a manufacturing input.

The CNBC report that you dismissed as a joke was pointing out that the importance of oil as a factor of economic growth is declining, and that decline also seems to be accelerating. That's because many people are aware that it won't last forever and are actively developing alternatives. The less oil we need to use, the longer we will be able to keep using it in areas where we have yet to find a viable alternative.

In short, our efforts to deal with the declining availability of oil are beginning to yield results, even though much more work remains to be done.

[Subdivisions]

23. The 'you' is generalized. It's doesn't necessarily mean YOU. Remember,

we're not the only ones reading this. Besides, I've already said that you and I are sort of on the same page. We just see things from different angles. You are concentrating on a message that says it's not all bad. I'm simply attempting to establish to people who either don't know, or don't believe, that there is a problem.

Edited to add: We seem to be jumping between sub-threads. It's getting confusing.

[anigbrowl]

25. yeah, let's continue on the other thread if necessary

We both agree that shrinking supply is a long-term problem. I do not dispute the fact that oil is running out, but feel we should also pay equal attention to both sides of the supply-demand equation. Also, not instead.

[Subdivisions]

27. Agreed. I must admit that I have been distracted during most of this

discussion. My 11-month old grand-daughter decided to pay me a visit. And she's very hard to ignore. =)

[Lagomorph]

3. Peak oil? Again?

sigh....

[Subdivisions]

4. What do you mean by 'again'? 'Peak Oil' is not a theory. In fact, it has happened

in every single depleted oil well in history.

People who deny there's such a thing as peak oil NEVER bother to substantiate their opinion. That includes you.

[Lagomorph]

37. OK , it happened.

So what? If they want energy, there's plenty of it to be had. If they want to clean it up, they can do that.

The elephant in the room is that if we switch technology, many people with "dirty" jobs will be sitting around for a few years waiting for green jobs to show up. There's little infrastructure in place to support a large workforce and a lot of resistance to turning yet more of our countryside into energy plants. The environment must be protected, it's the law of the land, and it will interfere with the transition every step of the way.

[hunter]

8. Peak Oil is why "The Great Recession" won't end.

We're going to bounce between high oil prices and decreasing economic activity all the way to the bottom. It will be a thoroughly unpleasant ride for most of us.

We ought to be building an economy that's not dependent on oil, but we can''t do that until we face the fact that most of the easy oil is gone. Our civilization burnt up all the easy oil in an economic joyride. Now we will face the consequences. This economy was built to run on cheap oil and it isn't working so well on expensive and more difficult to extract oil.

I keep thinking how when I was a recent high school graduate gasoline was almost free. I was loading and unloading trucks and I could make enough money working just an hour to fill the tank of my little car. A kid like me today (assuming that a kid like me could get such a job, and he probably can't!) pays four or five times as much for gasoline but would be lucky to be paid even one and a half times what I was.

It's only going to get worse.

I'd be happy to be wrong about this.

[Subdivisions]

10. Peak Oil is NOT a joke. But this is: Coming Soon: Economic Growth Without Oil

The world may soon achieve something long dreamed of by governments and policymakers: higher economic growth without using more oil.

Rising efficiency, conservation and substitution are steadily reducing the amount of oil needed to fuel an increase in the goods and services produced around the world.

Oil demand in the rich, industrialized countries of the West already appears to have peaked and the trend in developing economies is towards an ever-smaller increase in the amount of oil consumed for every extra unit of economic growth.

Global oil intensity—oil demand growth divided by economic growth—has fallen by about 2 percent a year over the last decade and the decline is now accelerating, spurred by high oil prices, moves to alternative fuels and measures to curb global warming.

...snip...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/35890963


Since you're aware of the problem, have you noticed lately that oil CEOs, market analysts, and mainly the MSM, have gone from referring to the oil problem as "peak oil" and are now actively pushing the new idea of "peak demand". Why can't we EVER know the whole truth about an issue? Why does is ALWAYS have to be spun a certain way or shrouded in obfuscation?

Many coutries are already enacting mitigation plans. Some people would have us think that they are all dead wrong about the situation with oil production.

[anigbrowl]

15. Whaaaaat?

Since you're aware of the problem, have you noticed lately that oil CEOs, market analysts, and mainly the MSM, have gone from referring to the oil problem as "peak oil" and are now actively pushing the new idea of "peak demand". Why can't we EVER know the whole truth about an issue? Why does is ALWAYS have to be spun a certain way or shrouded in obfuscation?

Look, your OP cites a report from MSNBC. Here you cite another report from CNBC (part of the same company) pointing out that oil use is being decoupled from GDP growth. Both news reports are from 'the MSM'. In fact, both are coming from the same media company. But you take one at face value and dismiss the other as 'a joke' and complain about spin and obfuscation.

Neither report claims to be a complete analysis of our energy future; they're both short articles presenting different energy-related data points. I find them about equally interesting and am inclined to give them about equal weight. But you're saying we must uncritically accept one and completely ignore the other, even though the different pieces ofnews they report are not mutually exclusive. That's just illogical.

[Subdivisions]

20. You completely failed on this one. The joke I referred to is

the re-defining of the problem from "peak oil" to "peak demand". That's the spin I'm referring to. One is controversial, the other seems to be acceptable. Production and demand are very much parts of the same picture. The attempt to paint demand as the issue, and not a decline in production, is a joke. So is any notion of an "oil-less growth". I agree, however, that there is a problem with oil

Also, I don't think demand has peaked. As of the latest numbers I have, which admittedly are a few months behind, world oil demand was still increasing. I will have to go see if my numbers can be updated (meaning if the data is available yet from IEA/EIA) but I suspect that world demand has slowed but has not begun to decline. Which would mean the CNBC's (et. al.) spin is moot.

Finally, from the CNBC article:

But it does mean global oil use will eventually peak and start declining—and "oil-less growth" may not be far away.

Here, let me fix that:

But it does mean global oil production will eventually peak and start declining—and "oil-less growth" may not be far away.

Why can't they just say it? P-R-O-D-U-C-T-I-O-N!

As for oil-less growth...I'd like to see that.

[anigbrowl]

24. I don't think I'm the one failing here

CNBC did not say that world demand for oil is in decline. We know quite well that the opposite is true, as the economies of countries like China and India continue to grow. What they reported was a small but increasing decline in the use of oil as a factor of economic growth.

There are two articles, both from the NBC group of companies. One talks about changes in supply. One talks about changes in demand. You are complaining that the article about demand is not about supply.

It's like if I come to you and say 'I've been using less oil lately, without going broke!' and you're replying with 'OMG there is less oil available!'. Well yeah, that's why I'm using less of it, and doing so is turning out not to be as costly as expected. Nobody is redefining the problem, we're adapting to the problem by changing our consumption patterns.

Are you saying nobody should report on changes in demand, just because there is also news about changes in supply - brought to you by the same company?

[Subdivisions]

11. I agree 100%. And, it is going to get worse. And,

like you, I would be happy to wrong about this. And, deny as they may, deniers have no substance in their denials.

[arcadian]

13. "the U.S. has no plan at all to address this problem."

I should be shocked by this, but I've come to learn to expect this sort of thing from the governing powers.

[Lagomorph]

33. Well, geeee....

What's all that alternative fuels and alternative energy research for then?

[harkadog]

17. Yet another peak oil prediction. The oil deniers never give up.

Oil is not expected to run out until 2344 and then we will probably find other sources. http://www.trendlines.ca/freddyhutterscenario2200.htm Stop the drama and get a grip.

[Subdivisions]

21. Bwaahahahahaha!

You used Trendlines as a source!

You are immediately discredited on this issue!

[harkadog]

30. The peak oil crowd has been discredited for decades.

[Subdivisions]

31. Ha! A single-sentence rebuttal! Niiiice!

You have a one sentence explanation of why every single depleted oil field in history has experienced "peak oil"?

Edited to add: How many barrels of proven oil reserves were discovered in 1965? How many were discovered in 2008? Was there a "peak" in oil discoveries? And, if so, how does that peak in discoveries compare to the amount of oil produced every year since?

[harkadog]

39. LOL. You go "bwwaaa...."

as your sole response and then you complain about me with a single sentence? I wonder if some posters even read what they put down. Have oil fields been depleted? Yes. So what? New ones are found. I don't know how old you are but I am old to to remember in the late 60s and early 70s they were saying we would run out of oil by 1990. Not just peak oil but actually run out. Of course these type of predictions have been going on for centuries. Malthus said we would all starve in the 1800s and people believed him. Ehrlich said the same thing in the Population Bomb in 1968 and people believed him.. Never happened.

[Subdivisions]

41. Sometimes I wonder if some people read the whole thread. My comments on

this subject are all over this thread. So, you're barb is dull.

Now, go do your homework and come back and answer the questions I asked. Or kindly remove yourself from this discussion if your mind is made up.

[harkadog]

48. You are the one here with your mind made up.

You have an agenda and anyone can see it.

[taterguy]

42. Is new oil being created?

If the answer is no, then the only question is how much time we have left. Honestly, I don't know but it seems like the rational thing to do is to conserve as much oil as possible, so that we'll have a slight chance of finding viable alternatives before we run out of the stuff.

If the answer is yes then please share your scientific expertise.

Malthus and Ehrlich were individuals with ideas that turned out to be wrong.

Peak oil is based on scientific fact, unless there are some facts that I'm unaware of.

[harkadog]

46. People at the time claimed that Malthus and Ehrlich was based on 'scientific fact'.

You say peak oil is based on scientific fact. If that is true why when you Google 'peak oil' you will get all sorts of predictions about our oil supply. Some say 10 years, some say 400 years. Are this all facts? As far as new oil goes it is a fact that new oil fields are being discovered every year. Some are big,some are not. It is also a fact that with increased technology more oil will be found and we will better be able to produce oil from non traditional sources such as shale.

[taterguy]

49. My question is whether or not new oil is being created

Yes or no?

If you google anything you can get a multitude of answers. Some are good. Others not so much.

[harkadog]

51. Oil is generally thought to come from plant fossils like coal.

Certainly new oil is being created today, no one suggests any different. When I was in school it was taught as scientific 'fact' that oil came from dead dinosaurs. That 'fact' has hit the dustbin quite some time ago. Plant fossilization never ends so new oil is being created. Whether it is being created at the rate it is being used does not seem likely. Scientists also say they have found oil like hydrocarbons in meteors. So does this mean oil is in space? The jury is still out but recent radar has shown oil like hydrocarbon lakes on Titan, a moon of Jupiter. Is this from plant fossils? Not likely.

[tama]

45. The boy that cried wolf

The lesson of the story is not that the wolf never came - it did and does.

Your logic is similar to claiming that because doctors predicted that I would die then and then and didn't die when they predicted so then I'm immortal.

[harkadog]

47. Poor analogy

The point is that people have been predicting an end to needed resources for probably as long as people have been around. All -- not some -- all of these predictions have proven to be false. The idea that we are facing some crisis because of 'peak oil' is a mockery of science.

[tama]

50. No doubt

Science deserves to be mocked. It's its fault, anyway - and that's a scienterrific fract!

[harkadog]

52. Not the fault of science

It is the fault of so-called scientists putting forward half baked theories as science and then getting an illiterate media to promote them.

[tama]

53. Yeah

media is so-called.

Illiterate theories, on the other hand, are full baked, on the other hand, so-promoted.

[Nikki Stone1]

18. NBC=GE=Nuclear Power.

Get ready for Cap 'n Trade....

[NeedleCast]

28. This goal post has been moved so many times its not in the stadium anymore

[Subdivisions]

29. By all means, let's hear all about it... n/t

[NeedleCast]

32. Not denying

Just stating that I really don't have any more reason to believe this peak oil chart over the literally hundreds that have been posted on DU. Increasing demand and decreasing supply usually leads to one thing. However, each time it doesn't happen makes it a little harder for most people to accept the next chart or graph as "the one."

[Subdivisions]

34. The graph in my OP is derived from data provided by the EIA. They

report the numbers every month. That number is then plugged into the graph. It is what it is. Unless you think the EIA is flat-out manipulating the data to show a decline.

Edited to add: You're of course welcome to parse the data yourself and let me know if your graph looks any different than the one in my OP. The data can be found here: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/petroleum.html.

[NeedleCast]

35. According to that chart, assuming it's accurate

We'll see oil production at less than 50 mbd by 2015. I don't think that's likely.

My issues with this stem from the fact that, since the early 80s, I've been hearing that we're just about out of oil. That we had 10 years left. Five years left. Two years left. All those folks have been wrong, over and over, so it does make it harder for me to take it seriously.

[Subdivisions]

40. Well, I don't deny that there have been some foolish prognosticators

sounding the alarm a bit too hastily. And it's understandable that that could make some leary of the topic. Hubbert accurately predicted U.S. peak production. However, some of the false-alarm skepticism may derive from his world production peak prediction, based on his models. He predicted world peak for any time between 1995 and 2000. What he couldn't know is the serious reduction in the production of oil resulting from the Arab oil embargo of the '70s. Then, there was a subsequent decrease in demand as the oil embargo, oil prices, and President Carter suggested conservation was the new paradigm. This event marked the realization that the U.S. had passed the peak of its oil production and that we would become a net importer. This period of history contributed in moving Hubbert's predicted peak for world production back up to 10 years. Considering Hubbert could not have known of these developments, I'm willing to give him a pass. And, there will be other nits to pic about Hubbert's Peak. There will be other things he could not have included in his thesis that will or have affected the timing of the peak. But one thing is clear: There will be a peak followed by a decline. Since hindsight is truly 20/20 with peak oil, we won't know for certain until we're well passed it.

[tama]

36. The confusion is understandable

and the reason is that no one really knows as OPEC data is big secret and can only be guessed and or inferred.

But the consensus among best educated guessers (e.g. theoildrum.com) is today that we have passed the peak or are at it - meaning it's downhill from here. And even the official optimists are not really denying that anymore.

[taterguy]

38. We're running out of a non-renewable resource?

Who woulda thunk it?

Sucks to be us.

[Crop Circle]

54. We need to transition to a steady state economy soon

Subdivision, thanks for posting this. We'll find out the hard truth of peak oil soon. It should be obvious by the end of this decade at the latest, unfortunately! The demand destruction caused by the Great Recession is masking the reality of peak oil somewhat because ave. worldwide demand has fallen below supply for the first time since the oil shocks of the 1970's. With demand from China rebounding recently, we may bump up against the peak oil supply ceiling in a year or two.

An economy that requires continual growth to function will eventually collide with limits to growth on a finite world. Eventually has finally caught up with us! Peak oil is one of the first, and perhaps the most significant such speed bump we'll encounter sliding down the slope of energy descent as we enter Kunstler's "Long Emergency".

Here's a link to the Center for the Study of a Steady State Economy:

http://steadystate.org/

Also, this article by Richard Heinberg, called "Life After Growth", is an excellent synopsis of these issues:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/51816

[Subdivisions]

55. Wow! Thanks for your comments, Crop Circle. And, before I go on, please allow

me be the first to welcome you to DU.

I'm glad to see that you are aware of the peak oil "ceiling". Yes indeed, as soon as the economy attempts to recover, we will once again hit the supply ceiling and prices will shoot up, halting the recovery. This "stair-stepping", as it is known, will continue until we reach critical levels of depletion, at which point we will sail to the bottom of oil production capacity. The only thing missing is in the equation is the timing.

[Crop Circle]

57. Thanks much! I've been 'steeping in' peak oil for a few years now .n/t

[Canuckistanian]

56. Welcome to DU, Crop Circle

Interesting links, thanks.