free html hit counter Peak Oil Debunked: 86. PEAK OIL IS DEAD

Thursday, September 08, 2005

86. PEAK OIL IS DEAD

My title is tongue in cheek, but it's basically true. The early peak chicken littles (Campbell, Deffeyes, Simmons, Boone Pickens, Ruppert, Heinberg, "Olduvai" Duncan, Savinar etc. -- See #51) have been conclusively discredited. Why? Because oil is definitely not going to peak before 2010 (and probably not before 2015-2020, more on this later -- JD).

This fact is proven in a report called "Oil Production Outlook 2005-2040" by an ambitious amateur researcher from the Netherlands named Rembrandt H. E. M. Koppelaar. He describes his method as follows:
Which does not help to the clarity of the peaking date is the way most institutes and geologist model the peak of oil production. Central to their approach is the estimated total amount of oil that will ever be extracted (I.E. Estimated Ultimate Recovery). In the present this figure varies between 1850 and 4000 billion barrels. Most estimates lie around 2500 billion barrels. Because the total amount of oil that will ever be extracted is a guesstimate a lot of the predictions done in the past by all kinds of experts were totally wrong. Too much factors are involved and the arguments from all sides vary widely.

A better way to estimate to peak is to look at it from an oil production perspective. How much oil are we producing now? Which part of production is in decline? What is the amount of new oil production is coming online? Because of the more certain nature of these figures a probable estimate for the near future can be obtained.

The production figures from 1996 to 2004 are well documented in the Oil, Gas, Coal and Electricity Quarterly Statistics from the International Energy Agency which is updated every quarter. The countries that have already peaked can be read in these figures. Future production can be estimated by the decline rates of current fields and the new oil projects coming online. New projects are well documented because of the huge costs, leading times and multiple parties involved. These figures can be obtained from various sources.Source (P. 4-5)
Mr. Koppelaar's idea is simple: instead of using the usual Hubbert curve voodoo to predict the peak, he has combed the Internet for information on new projects scheduled to come on stream. He extrapolates the current depletion of nations beyond their peak, and adds in the scheduled new flows to obtain the future production numbers for 2005-2010. His conclusion:
A total gross capacity of 19.94 million barrels per day is expected to be added to the world production stream between 2005 and 2010. Due to declining oil production a net capacity of 9.5 million barrels per day is expected to be added to the world production stream between 2005 and 2010. [...] Conclusion: It is very unlikely that a peak of world oil production occurs before 2010. (Source: same as above, P. 22)
The graph looks like this (click on the image for a clearer picture):
Figure 2 – World liquids production outlook 2005-2010

What does this mean? It means:
a) Colin Campbell has demonstrated his incompetence, yet again.
b) Boone Pickens (who can afford to pay for data like that Koppelaar collected, only much more detailed and better) is a profiteering sack of shit. He goes on TV, saying "Never again will we pump more than 82 million barrels", when he knows from the numbers that that isn't true. He's a peak oiler because every time he opens his mouth about peak oil, his bank account shoots up. (See #12.)
c) The early peakers have done a great disservice to the cause of peak oil awareness. The only thing the public is going to remember is a bunch of squealing chicken littles whose predictions turned out wrong. Why, if peak oil is so critical, didn't Deffeyes or Campbell put in the effort to do what Koppelaar has done? They were totally irresponsible as scientists -- failing to make even the most minimal, cursory checks of the accuracy of their predictions. Because of their irresponsibility and laziness, they have given the best ammunition possible to the enemies of peak oil awareness, i.e. "Why should we listen to you idiots? You predicted the peak, and you were WRONG. Har!"

----------
Note: Those interested in learning more about this kind of analysis should go to the following thread at The Oil Drum: A little more on CERA. Rembrandt is posting there.

28 Comments:

At Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 3:12:00 AM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This, if true, is good news, but it shouldn't allow us to become lax. On the contrary -if we see we have more time than we thought, this should spur us on even faster.

Peak Oil _will_ happen sooner or later.

The earlier we start, the better.

According to Hermann Scheer, president of "Eurosolar", the world uses roughly 0.01% of the energy which hits the globe in form of solar energy every day.

THAT'S where we have to tap into.

BTW: Great blog, JD! Got me out of my PO gloom. Nowadays, I'm neither a doomer nor a cornucopian. I'm a skeptical. We don't and can't know the future. The thing is too complex.

So it's better to do the right thing now.

 
At Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 3:22:00 AM PDT, Blogger Dukat- said...

JD, I don't know what drugs you are on but they must be good. The world has begun it's decline from it's peak and there is evidence everywhere. For example.

1. High price of crude oil has shot upto $70 a barrel from $10 in a span of just 5 years, that alone tells you that we are running out. The government has already admitted peakoil blaming the high price of oil on supply problems.

2. The US massive account deficit due to the usa having to import their oil at high prices.

3. USA invading oil countries. They claim they are there to catch the terrorists, but the only thing I've seen them do is setup camp around the oil pumps.

4. Sadui saying they will increase production but they can not as their wells have been overproduced and are about to colapse from massive amounts of salt water injected into them.

5. The world has stopped building oil refinary plants.

6. Lessing of the middle class. What seems to be happening is that the middle class can not afford fuel and are joining the poor class.

7. exxon mobil running adverts and spending money trying to educate the population that we have run out of oil.

8. No new major oil reserves recently found.

9. All of the major oil fields today that supply over 49% of the worlds oil are over 50 years old and about to colapse due to over production.

10. Inflation has soared not fully disclosed by the governmentto the people, but independant sorces suggest that the rate is close to 10% now.

I can't believe you would attempt to try to convince people of "no oilpeak, everything ok" by using hearsay of a foreigner claiming he had special insight that no other person in the world has for you to claim "MAN LOOKS ON INTERNET AND DISCOVERS MORE OIL".

You make yourself look more decredited everyday.

 
At Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 3:43:00 AM PDT, Anonymous EnrgySpin said...

If the Koppelaar's data are accurate then his predictions will be correct. My own modelling attempts to use "Hubbert" kind of depletions curves proved to me the mathematical difficulties of fitting data to these particular kind of curves.
If peak in the next decade as opposed to the next 2 years is what lies ahead of us, then it is time to move out of our complacency and doom and really work on getting the renewables up and running.
NREL's work on biofuels has proved that biofuels DO result in a net energy gain and now it is time to look into the sustainability or lack thereof of the various biofuel pathways.
The definite loss of refinery capacity brought by Katrina will lead to higher gasoline prices but at the same time guard against an accelerated depletion and offer sustained market signals to move along the renewable energy pathways.

 
At Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 3:53:00 AM PDT, Blogger JD said...

Hi energyspin. Welcome to POD.
I read your analysis of Pimental's EROEI calculations. Nice work!
Hope you'll post here from time to time. :-)
JD

 
At Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 4:09:00 AM PDT, Anonymous EnergySpin said...

Thank you for the kind words JD
I decided to take up the definite issues with Pimentel's work on biofuels with the journal editorial boards and contact directly the biofuel NREL researchers.
I am kind of disappointed that NREL researchers decided not to look at the actual publication and assumed that he was ONLY using outdated data since they could have "debunked" him in nano-seconds.
Since Pimentel's studies were represented in manner that does injustice to NREL's (and the corresponding EU, Japan agencies) work by various non-technical online journals/forums I cannot remain silent on this anymore. The worse thing that can happen is for someone to call me stupid, even though I used high-school level number crunching and his own data.
Regarding a post I am working on something that can show how biofuels can actually stretch the oil supplies. The question of sustainability has to be answered by agricultural researchers working for the USDA/REAL/EU/CSIRO and this is something that we all should insist on: real, accurate, cutting edge well designed experiments from our institutions. As individuals lets try and work on the demand side where we are in control and stop using various paradoxes as petty excuses against a (much needed) lifestyle change.
Can you delete the post by "enrgspin"? I hit the submit button too early :-)

 
At Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 4:54:00 AM PDT, Anonymous JW said...

Actually C. Campbell projected that world oil production peaking will occur around 2010, which to me is in line with the Koppelaar Report. And the likes of Simmons (2007-2009), Deffeyes (before 2009), and Goodstein (before 2010) aren't too far off.

Now, the report concluded (p.32) that PO will happen between 2010 and 2015, and according to the Hirsch Report on Peak Oil from the viewpoint of risk management that gives us at most 10 years to prepare for it. The outcome although will certainly not be the end of the world, it will still be very painful to say the least.

 
At Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 7:51:00 AM PDT, Blogger auntiegrav said...

So, this makes it OK to waste every possible oil-based resource we can get our hands on? No need for conservation, then? Nothing wrong with transporting food for thousands of miles when we could get good nutrition locally? Nothing wrong with wrapping everything in 3 layers of plastic?

O.K.! I'll start burning barrels of oil because I like the black smoke they make. COOL!! Send out the Navy jets on more training missions. Make sure they dump fuel (enough to run my farm for a year on each flight) before catching the 3-wire!

 
At Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 7:53:00 AM PDT, Blogger JD said...

Actually C. Campbell projected that world oil production peaking will occur around 2010

That is incorrect. ASPO and C. Campbell are currently predicting 2007 as the peak date, as you can verify for yourself by going to www.peakoil.ie and checking the latest newsletter. Campbell is also predicting oil production of 82mbd for 2005, even though that is clearly wrong (current production is closer to 84.5mbd). He's asleep at the switch.

Deffeyes (before 2009)

This is also incorrect. Deffeyes is predicting Thanksgiving 2005 as the peak date.

Here it is in his own words:

******************
Brian Stempeck: I want to start off -- and kind of the main point of the book, one of the first things you talk about is that world peak oil production is going to hit its peak this Thanksgiving, a very happy Thanksgiving for everyone. Explain why that is, that'd be great.

Ken Deffeyes: Well, it comes from watching the production statistics in the same way that M. King Hubbert predicted the United States peak in the early 1970s. I've done the same thing, followed the same math and wind up seeing that it's this Thanksgiving, but I did that to make the economists nervous. There's really about a three week uncertainty on either side of Thanksgiving as to when it actually peaks.
************
http://www.eande.tv/transcripts/?date=082405

 
At Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 7:56:00 AM PDT, Blogger JD said...

So, this makes it OK to waste every possible oil-based resource we can get our hands on? No need for conservation, then?

Absolutely not, auntigrav. Conservation is priority #1, and this blog has never said otherwise.

 
At Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 11:24:00 AM PDT, Anonymous Víctor (Barcelona) said...

Please, JD, look at this web:

http://217.76.137.42/ficheros/First_Break_2.jpg

You can see on it a very similar picture of Hubbert's peak in ASPO news about the "peak-oil". But, this time, it was included in the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers (EAGE) conference, with the colaboration of the Society of Petroleum Engineers. In its august number, the newsletter "First Break" edited by EAGE, you can read declarations of Mr. Nemesio Fernández Cuesta, chairman of upstream sector of a big private company, Repsol YPF, a big one in the oil and gas industry.

¿Have you any idea about why are so similar both pictures of Hubbert's peak?

Let me tell you these extrange things: Repsol-YPF peak-oil about 2.012 (ASPO 2.007); Repsol-YPF peak-gas about 2.020-25 (ASPO 2.020)

Are you surprised?

Of course, it was private information.

Thanks
Víctor (www.crisisenergetica.org, ASPO Spain)

 
At Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 7:43:00 PM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists shows how Exxon Mobile Corporation have announed the NON OPEC WORLD will peak in the next 5 years.

Exxon = NON OPEC WORLD in next 5 years. Again, that's all the oil, outside of OPEC, in 5 years.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj05cavallo

So soon we will have to pump an extra 5 to 10 million barrels a year because we have to
a/ Replace oil decline outside of OPEC
b/ Keep up with normal economic growth energy requirements.

So how much oil is in Saudi Arabia? No one knows! Exxon say the non-OPEC WORLD is about to peak and we will be relying on, you guessed it, Saudi Arabia.

But here's the latest on SA from the New York Times.

Senior Saudi guy says SAUDI ARABIA CANNOT make 20mbd, 15 mbd might just be possible... and that's it. The peak.... the world's peak.

(See "The Breaking Point by New York Times at....
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/e0cdc282-ee47-11d9-98e5-00000e2511c8.html

So in other words, even with my crude maths I get demand overtaking supply soon, and then the worldwide geological peak occuring when SA hits 15 mbd.

What are they pumping now? Was it 8 or 10 mbd... anyway, here we go for a stab in the dark. With worldwide demand increasing, and the non-OPEC world beginning to peak, we need a lot of extra oil each year. My rough guesstimate FROM THE OIL MEN THEMSELVES is 2007.

That's not according to Colin Campbell, but simply Exxon Mobile and the NYT article on the Saudi dude.

I agree that the emphasis should be on preparing for peak oil, and not so busy about running around predicting dates. The Hirsch report says it would take at least 10 years of a Manhattan style project to prepare... and where is that project? What are the government doing to prepare? Where is the sense of urgency?

Here's where I draw issue with you JD.

Your writing seems to pooh pooh peakniks while also claiming to back peak oil awareness. You bag Campbell for making a prediction... yet then almost end up agreeing with his prediction! Yet you still engage in attention seeking behavior by writing a title like "Peak oil is dead."

Wow, you must be some big time hotshot journalist or something to think of sensational headlines whose article actually whimpers and then dies in conclusion. Can you make up your mind, are you for peak oil awareness or not? Oh, I forgot... peak oil is dead.
FFFFFFFFFRRRRRRRRRTTT

 
At Thursday, September 8, 2005 at 10:05:00 PM PDT, Blogger JD said...

we need a lot of extra oil each year.

No we don't. The U.S. is currently wasting 10mbd (=the entire production of Saudi Arabia) on frivolous bullshit like suburbia, sprawl, SUVs and single-passenger commuting. None of that is strictly "needed".

My rough guesstimate FROM THE OIL MEN THEMSELVES is 2007.

Read the data. Koppelaar's paper, and CERA, show that projects coming on stream will delay the peak until 2012 at the earliest. If you've got a disagreement with that, argue with the numbers. Telling us about your "stab in the dark" and "guesstimate" and "crude maths", doesn't lend your case a lot of credence.

Your writing seems to pooh pooh peakniks while also claiming to back peak oil awareness. You bag Campbell for making a prediction... yet then almost end up agreeing with his prediction!

LOL. Which of Colin's numerous failed predictions are you referring to? In 1989, he predicted a peak at 58mbd in the late 1980s. In 1991, he predicted a peak at 65mbd in the mid-90s. In 1997, he predicted a peak at 70mbd in the early 2000s.
http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/worldoil.html
Now, he's predicting a peak in 2007 at 82mbd.
http://www.peakoil.ie

Production is currently at 85mbd and booming. As Koppelaar has shown, it will blow through 90mbd without any problem at all.
Colin Campbell is a senile idiot, a pseudo-scientist, and a disgrace to the cause of peak oil. Furthermore, I don't bag him just for being incompetent. I also bag him for furthering the agenda of peak oil fascists by printing their screeds in the ASPO newsletter (see #29).

Can you make up your mind, are you for peak oil awareness or not?

It depends on what you mean by "peak oil awareness" (see #74). Insofar as "peak oil awareness" means worrying about oil prices and the status of the Saudi oil fields, I am against it. The problem isn't how to meet demand for oil; the problem is how to eliminate demand for oil by waging war on waste, particularly by fuel hog car culture nations in the first world.

 
At Friday, September 9, 2005 at 12:29:00 AM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think, JDs point is the notion that the PO alarmists and doomers (Campbell, Heinberg et al.) are actually doing the whole issue a big disservice.

PO is an issue, a grave issue. But telling people a)"PO happened yesterday" (when it hasn't) or b)"We're all gonna die soon" is just counterproductive and harmful to the absolutely central task for mankind in this century: making the transition to renewable and environmentally sustainable energy sources.

I think doomers who want to abandon modern technology and retreat into a medieval lifestyle (save for the modern gun in the cupboard) are just as bad as cornucopians holding on to "business as usual". Both of them try to escape the responsibiliy that comes with the power of technology.

And that, IMO, is the main theme of mankind on this planet.

Man wants the power of technology without taking responsibility for it (normal-cornucopian) -or now he ditches technology to go back and live "in harmony with nature" (doomer-escapist).

If anybody forgot -we've been dumped out of the garden Eden for "eating the fruit of knowledge" long ago. No way back.

We have to grow up.


Tim

 
At Friday, September 9, 2005 at 1:02:00 AM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exxon = NON OPEC WORLD in next 5 years. Again, that's all the oil, outside of OPEC, in 5 years.

http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj05cavallo

So soon we will have to pump an extra 5 to 10 million barrels a year because we have to
a/ Replace oil decline outside of OPEC
b/ Keep up with normal economic growth energy requirements.

Actually look at what they predict - non-OPEC peaking 2010-2015 but including NGLs and other liquids (minor amounts of tar sands, GTL)it plateaus through to 2030. So according to ExxonMobil even if there is no additional oil from OPEC production will plateuo through till 2030. Look here:

http://www2.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/outlook04_18.pdf

 
At Friday, September 9, 2005 at 1:11:00 AM PDT, Blogger JD said...

Beautifully said, Tim. Welcome to POD.

I think it's confusing for people because they think PO is a black and white, us or them, cornucopian/doomer issue. They don't realize there are moderates like myself who are trying to combine the best points from both sides.

 
At Friday, September 9, 2005 at 1:15:00 AM PDT, Blogger JD said...

Actually look at what they predict - non-OPEC peaking 2010-2015 but including NGLs and other liquids (minor amounts of tar sands, GTL)it plateaus through to 2030. So according to ExxonMobil even if there is no additional oil from OPEC production will plateuo through till 2030.

Nice find, anon. Thank you. :-)
I'll post up on that soon.
JD

 
At Friday, September 9, 2005 at 2:36:00 AM PDT, Blogger Dukat- said...

"Campbell, Heinberg et al." I DID NOT KNOW THOSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PREDICTING PEAKOIL EVERY 5 YEARS AND CHANGING DATES, I'M ALSO PISSED OFF THAT ANOTHER PEAKOIL AUTHOR WAS A RUN TO THE HILLS Y2K FREAK. Maybe peakoil isn't the problem, it's GREED and PUBLIC SELF PROMOTION. I guess with all the pro peakoil sites, it's about time someone builds a peakoil "reality check" website. Good work jd.

 
At Friday, September 9, 2005 at 5:02:00 AM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course PO is about greed, if we could get those that don't need them out fo their cars that's half the problem solved already. And the rest is solvable with a few more changes and would follow on as a result of the death of car culture anyway..

 
At Friday, September 9, 2005 at 5:07:00 AM PDT, Anonymous Omnitir said...

The U.S. is currently wasting 10mbd (=the entire production of Saudi Arabia) on frivolous bullshit like suburbia, sprawl, SUVs and single-passenger commuting. None of that is strictly "needed".

That’s a great point. There’s a hell of a lot of slack in the form of the Western standard of living!

Here’s what really shits me about many doomers: they seem determined to come up with ways to sustain their standard of living, yet regard continued technological and scientific investment as wasteful. They don’t believe that technological civilisation can solve its problems through increased complexity in the form of further technological development.

As Tim pointed out, there is no going back.

If peak is around 10 years off, we have enough time to make the necessary technological advancements. Even if it takes 20 years to make drastic changes, we will still have enough time - because a hard and fast crash is impossible with the massive standard of living westerners have to soften the blow.

And like many peak oil aware people, I’m also very sick of the pessimistic doomer bullshit.

 
At Saturday, September 10, 2005 at 12:53:00 AM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

My problem with doomers:

Geologists like Campbell et al. dismiss economists who make over-optimistic future predictions for their lack of expertise in the field of geology -and justly so.

However, the same geologists then go on to predict the "end of economy" while lacking the corresponding expertise in economy too.

Meanwhile, ex-cops (Ruppert) ex-lawyers (Savinar) and ex-musicians (Heinberg), neither professionally proficient in economy or geology, make a living from scaring the gullible public with doomsday scenarios on PO, preaching conservation by all means while jetting around in airplanes from one PO gathering to the next.

Cuckoo!


It might be a bold notion to have, but in IMHO, PO is a godsend for humanity.

Because: The implications of global warming are actually far more hazardous than PO. THAT stuff is really scary!

So, If PO forces us off the hydrocarbon addiction early enough, this might well save our asses from being drowned in fifty or baked in a hundred years.



Tim

 
At Sunday, September 11, 2005 at 2:22:00 AM PDT, Blogger EnergySpin said...

"preaching conservation by all means while jetting around in airplanes from one PO gathering to the next." good point.
However I would not go as far as say they are totally irrelevant. Anyone is entitled to their own opinion, let's not forget that. Regarding peakoil writters, even though Heinberg was the one who introduced me to PO, "The End of Oil" by Paul Roberts is a far more engaging book. PR actually addresses energy issues in the context of depletion, climate change and geopolitics and does not recourse to Heinberg's inaccurate or outdated about the Energy Payback Time or the EROIE of the renewables (especially wind). He also adopts a more pragmatic point about the rate of our weaning off from hydrocarbons ( a point I disagree, I wish we stopped burning them yesterday) especially natural gas. Skeptical is the way to go .... hoarding food, buying ammo and investing on the next big thing in composting toilets is counter-productive as a society-wide policy. But people are free individuals so these are acceptable responses

 
At Sunday, September 11, 2005 at 2:43:00 AM PDT, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agreed, energyspin.

Actually, doomers like Savinar and Heinberg do a good job at shaking people up. I find this a good thing.

But the danger is that many people don't have a sufficiently critical mind in order to move beyond that paralyzing doomer stuff.

And paralysis (or trying to step back into the Garden Eden) is absolutely counterproductive.


Tim

 
At Saturday, October 29, 2005 at 1:29:00 PM PDT, Anonymous ZarDoZ said...

PFC Energy had a nice peak oil paper..

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/events/040908_pfcpresentation.pdf

The only problem I have with it is they use a OPEC creaming curve that they got from ASPO and do not take into account any changes in OPEC discovery rates that might happen now that their extra output is gone. or changes in production due to better tech.

Another thing to look at is GTL and CTL that is going to add some if the price keeps going up (at $60 to $80 I would think the money is there).

As with all predictions of this type, any change in the data over time will make todays charts and graphs worthless..

 
At Saturday, December 17, 2005 at 10:27:00 AM PST, Anonymous Martin said...

I am very surprise why you need use such vocabulary to make your points. Shit, idiot etc. does not make your points stronger.
I read a lot of about PO and I did not see at all that somebody who is bringing attantion to possibility and/or reality of PO would be using such style and vocabulary as you do.
It speaks itself about you and your credibility and how sure you are about PO.

Martin

P.S. I do have feeling that you are very scared of PO. BUt let me tell you this - you cannot change world and reality this way. Sorry it does not work.

 
At Saturday, April 29, 2006 at 6:05:00 PM PDT, Blogger Mel. said...

It speaks itself about you and your credibility and how sure you are about PO.

Ah. As opposed to your cadaverous internet demeanor, which no doubt supports the fact that you've got exact dates and quantifiable scientific evidence about the when, where and what of PO.

Here's another one: shut up.

 
At Saturday, June 9, 2007 at 8:50:00 AM PDT, Blogger Caseygrl said...

I love your blog, JD. You understnad that PO is a big issue, yet you also try to soften what the doomers "project". I applaud you, profusely. I have been talking with my dad, who is a geology nut and also a big person on politics (owns 2 businesses, one consulting, the other converting paper records to e-records) and works from home about 90% of the time. I have metioned your site to him, and he agrees with you that the PO pessimists are somewhat full of bologney. He doesn't see the Peak happeneing for at least a few more years, and that even when it does happen, we will be able to transition to a better, alternate-fueled lifestyle.

Great Blog! I will keep coming back to read your latest blogs

 
At Saturday, June 9, 2007 at 11:50:00 PM PDT, Blogger Felix said...

So... 19.5 new million barrels of oil. Right, can you elaborate from were?

I have the following wild, wild guesses:

Central asia: 1 mb/d.
Iraq: 5 mb/d (supposing all the hype about their huge reserves is right, i just pulled the number out of my pocket).
Iran: 3 mb/d (production has declined to half of what it used to be in the 70's, might be lack of investments...)
Alaska: 1.5 mb/d.
Tar sands: 2 mb/d.
Shale oil: 5 mb/d (read it somewhere, keep the faith strong!)
A bunch of ridiculosuly small new oil fields: 1 mb/d (they might add up).

Rounds up to extra 18.5 mb/d. The lion's share of this increment resides into Iraq, which somehow now gained the potential to become the next saudi arabia, and the whole shale oil deal.

All this hipothetical development will take at least 10 more years to come online at full strenght. If all goes well, and considering a 2% per year average decline in all the other fields, we might experience a plateau of economic stagnation for 10 years, then we are toast.

I suppose peak oil is only a big deal if its only a year or two away. On the other hand if its 10 years away i will sleep in peace tonight, becase my mind cannot understand time periods as large as 10 years.

 
At Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 12:04:00 PM PST, Anonymous Todd said...

As an update, oil peaked in 2008 at 74 mbd. It never reached 90mbd.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home