From American University via Eurekalert, professor Matthew Nisbet demonstrates that the impact of peak petroleum on public health may be a way to unite conservatives and liberals in an effort to move away from fossil fuels and towards alternative forms of energy.
Peak Oil & Public Health: Political Common Ground?
WASHINGTON, D.C. (August 8, 2011)—Peak petroleum—the point at which the maximum rate of global oil extraction is reached, after which the rate of production begins to decline—is a hot topic in scientific and energy circles. When will it occur? What will the impact be? While geologists and economists debate the specifics, American University School of Communication professor Matthew Nisbet believes peak petroleum and the associated risks to public health may provide an opportunity to bring conservatives and liberals together in the move toward alternative forms of energy.
“Somewhat surprisingly, conservatives are more likely to associate a major spike in oil prices with a strong threat to public health,” said Nisbet—an expert in the field of climate and energy communication. “This could present a gateway to engagement with conservatives on energy policy.”
In a forthcoming peer-reviewed study at the American Journal of Public Health, Nisbet and his co-authors find that 76% of people in a recent survey believe oil prices are either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to triple in the next five years. A dramatic spike in oil prices is a commonly recognized outcome of peak petroleum.
Even more telling is that 69% of respondents believe a sharp rise in oil prices would be either “very harmful” (44%) or “somewhat harmful” (25%) to the health of Americans. According to the survey, strong conservatives were the most sensitive to these possible risks, with 53% believing that a spike in oil prices would be “very harmful” to human health. Similarly, in a separate analysis of the data, those who were strongly “dismissive” of climate change (52%) were the most likely of any subgroup to associate a sharp spike in oil prices with a negative impact on public health.
According to Nisbet and his co-authors, this creates a challenge and an opportunity for the environmental and public health communities. Peak oil and energy prices are often talked about in terms of economic and environmental impact, but rarely as a public health concern. Nisbet argues that his findings show reason to reframe the debate.
“These findings suggest that a broad cross-section of Americans may be ready to engage in dialogue about ways to manage the health risks that experts associate with peak petroleum,” said Nisbet. “Peak petroleum may not currently be a part of the public health portfolio, but we need to start the planning process.”
The study was co-authored with Edward Maibach of George Mason University and Anthony Leiserowitz of Yale University and funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 11th Hour, and Surdna Foundation.
####
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
For those wondering where all the concern about Peak Oil is coming from; one example is here in a link to a PBS related website:
http://www.planetforlife.com/oilcrisis/index.html
“Peak Oil Explained in a Nutshell
‘Peak oil is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline.’ That is Wikipedia’s definition of peak oil.
“The Earth’s total endowment of oil, before humans started using it, was roughly 2 trillion barrels of recoverable oil. Consumption has been rapidly increasing and about half is used up. Consumption is currently 31 billion barrels each year. Crunch the numbers and you will see the oil gone in 32 years presuming the rate of consumption does not change. That is not to be construed to mean that world oil production will be constant for 32 years and then suddenly go to zero.”
murrayv: I see that it was you that Richard was referencing earlier, about needing 1000 nukes to get oil from the shales (and not the sands).
So, one one peak oil proponent referencing another. That would be a circular reference. Or a perhaps a circle self snipped?
Peak Nothing
http://arxiv.org/abs/1107.4753
murrayv: your
Now go back and retrieve all EIA projections during the last 10 years, and compare them to actual.
Sure. Why not?
ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/forecasting/04842000.pdf
Seems the EIA tends to over estimate the demand for oil. They predicted, in 2000, that the demand in a high oil price scenario would be 94 million bbls per day in 2010. In a low price, 101 million bbls per day.
Here is a summary. The EIA basically overestimates everything but reserves.
http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/retrospective/index.html
Not even close. They have also consistently underestimated reserve growths as well.
Les Johnson:
I admire your forebearance but it is now clear that data, logic, and common sense roll off the Peak Oil advocates like water off a duck’s back.
The response of Richard Wakefield to me at August 12, 2011 at 6:17 am is a ‘keeper’. It
(a) ignores all my arguments and evidence,
(b) purports to be answering my question as to why he and others want to believe in Peak oil,
(c) does not address my question in any way, and
(d) sets me homework that – when completed – does not address any of my arguments and evidence and does not consider my question.
And he thinks this is cogent!
I suggest it is best to ignore these people. They and their assertions are not worth consideration.
Richard
James F. Evans says:
August 10, 2011 at 6:11 pm
========================
Thanks James for the reference. I’m reading up on abiotic oil (I read slowly) and appreciate the reference. I have no problem believing in abiotic oil. My issue is the dismissal of the organic origin. For us to be able to extract oil (organic or otherwise) it needs to have collected in a trap. So abioitic oil conveniently collects in the same traps that are full of organic compounds where organic oil is thought to have originated – porous sandstones and limestones on ocean floors that are eventually capped by clay or shale? If oil is abiotic and not organic then doesn’t this mean organic material cannot form oil deposits? This is where I have a problem. Are there oil deposits in porous rock units that were present before life formed on Earth and that do not contain any evidence of organic matter?
I know Russia is a large oil producer but it seems to me that they are exploiting structural traps in sedimentary basins pretty much like the rest of the world. I recall in the 1990s when Russian secrets started making their way to western countries. Much of it just didn’t work that well and the stuff that did work was already in use.
James F. Evans says:
August 10, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Richard Wakefield said: “The source rocks for Tupi has been identifie…”
HYDROCARBON PRODUCTION FROM FRACTURED BASEMENT FORMATIONS Version 5.1 (1999)
http://www.hendersonpetrophysics.com/fractures2.html
Take the time to review all the oil fields that have their origin from basement rocks.
===================================================================
James, I have been reading your links and more on abiotic oil. A number of issues jump out right away. First, the link above states several times within its text that the origin of the oil is thought to be from the overlying sedimentary layers, not the basement rocks. In fact, most of the reports in that link that I read point to oil in the basement rocks that should not be there but is – through thrust faulting, negative pressure regimes forcing the oil into basement fractures and other basic geological principles that put things where they shouldn’t normally be found. That does not prove origin. There seems to be very little evidence on oil originating in the basement rocks (non organic, non-sedimentary). Second, the concept of basement needs a better definition. You can’t define the non-sedimentary layer underlying a known (organic) oil deposit as the basement as though it is completely unrelated to the overlying deposit. That’s like standing beside a pretty girl at a party and pretending she’s your girlfriend. Not that I have done that. If you have highly fractured “basement” rock adjacent to a major oil deposit, you will get oil in the basement rock. That’s not a hard one to figure out.
So, you haven’t proven much with that link. “Origin” needs to be proven and in my world means “created from” and not merely “found within”. Do you have any evidence that known oil deposits were created from crystalline rock? I’ve drilled mineral exploration holes and sometimes we get methane in fractures, but so far no economic oil deposits. Hell I’d even take an economic mineral deposit.
Les, EIA reported reserves are summed from the reports of the producing countries. As has been said, OPEC reported reserves have not declined in 30 years inspite of 30 years of production and very little new discovery. KSA had 260 Gb of reserves ca 1988, has produced more than 100 Gb since then and still reports 260 Gb. Similar case for most of the rest of OPEC. Canada’s redefinition of roughly 300 Gb of tarsand bitumen to oil reserves is the other big gain in reserves. Prior to that reserves were conventional and deepwater petroleum. The reserves you choose to believe are severely overstated.
Les, the link I found in one of your posts above is this http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=50&pid=53&aid=1&cid=ww,&syid=2005&eyid=2011&freq=Q&unit=TBPD.
The figures in the table are all liquids, regardless of what the EIA call it. Petroleum is near 73 mb/d and has declined slightly.
The plateau, even for all liqiids, since late 2004 is about 85 mb/d plus/minus 2%.
R Courtney – are you referring to your post here August 12, 2011 at 1:53 am.
Two things to note – USA reserves stayed at about 30 years for decades while both reserves and production declined in parallel. Years of reserves indicates nothing useful.
See my answers to Les on reserves being overstated.
People believe in peak oil because they have done exhaustive and holistic examination of the evidence for years, rather than depending on one meaningless ratio, or poorly reported data summaries.
PS Richard, one more point – reported reserves tell you nothing about peak oil per se. As the other Richard points out repeatedly, peak oil depends on flow rate. Smaller and deeper fields may add to reserves, but they do not produce as fast as Ghawar or Cantarell in its prime. Tar sands claimed as reserves add hugely to reserves but add trivially to production rate.
Les, re your meaningless comment about the circular snipped. Try doing the numbers yourself, or tell me whats wrong with mine. Do you think making silly comments advances your argument? Sorry, its just childish, and the last resort of those who have run out of intelligent data/information/arguments.
Here is a long (29:23) and somewhat shrill YouTube video on the worst-case possible consequences declining fossil fuels:
The End of Growth–Richard Heinberg
author of “The Party is Over” and leading peak oil educator,
talk about the future of our ‘growth’ society.
98 likes, 1 dislikes 9,051 views
What Peak Oil believers fail to understand is basic economics, and the basics of the oil industry.
The first essential to grasp is that production equals demand, over a one-year horizon. There is a very small difference between the two, made up of inventory changes. Please, believers, try to understand this fundamental point. It is crucial. The implication of this is that production must go down as demand goes down. Or, production will remain steady as demand is constant. Neither case is an indication of Peak Oil. It is simply the industry adjusting to meet the demand.
The second essential to grasp is that oil fields, even an oil well, has a life history of flow rate. Typically, a steady flow rate for a few years is then followed by a slow decline in flow rate. Eventually, the oil field is declared depleted and no more oil is extracted. This is not Peak Oil, this is normal for an oil field. This has happened many thousands of times, around the world, from the first oil well (Drake in Pennsylvania) – first according to some accounts – until today. Was this Peak Oil, because an oil field’s production declined? No. Not even close. Thus, to whomever mentioned Cantarelli and other large fields being in decline, the response is “So what? This is normal and predictable.” It certainly is not Peak Oil.
The third essential to grasp, as I wrote earlier, is that the price of oil has NOT INCREASED in real terms since 1980 when OPEC set the price at $32 per barrel. There is very little incentive to explore and drill and produce any more oil than we currently produce. The only incentive is to try to be the lowest-cost producer, and replace oil produced at a higher cost. A stable price for any commodity, especially over 30-plus years, is a clear indication that there is NO PEAK in the production. Low futures prices for the commodity, in this case oil, also shows that there is no impending shortage of oil. There is no PEAK OIL.
It is amusing to me to read and hear all the Peak Oil believers run on and on about declining fields, increasing demand (usually they report an escalating demand of several percent per year), and the unavoidable shortage that will be created. Despite facts that clearly demonstrate demand is flat or growing only linearly — and NOT compound growth of several percent per year – and further facts that improved technology is increasing the reserves faster than they are being depleted, Peak Oil believers continue to attempt to scare people into a panic.
If people would read the speeches of oil executives, especially from Mr. Rex Tillerson, Chairman and CEO of ExxonMobil, they would learn that lack of access to known oil deposits is a primary issue for oil companies. Those oil fields are off-limits, just as most of the off-shore US is off-limits. Even with huge reserves not exploited, there is no price increase, nor has there been a price increase in more than 30 years. This is, again, a clear indication that there is no Peak Oil.
Peak Oil is a myth. It has never happened, and never will. As I wrote earlier, if any true-believers in Peak Oil really have faith in their predictions, they could make a fortune in the oil futures market. Millions of investors around the world buy and sell those futures, and set the price. But, they must all be wrong, and the Peak Oil believers think they themselves are right.
It is also quite interesting to me to see that Peak Oil believers seldom (never, in my experience) change their minds. No amount of evidence, no amount of logic, and no amount of history sways them from their mistaken belief. Thousands of oil wells have gone dry. The price of oil has remained stable for more than 3 decades. Major oil fields are deliberately not being produced. Supply always equals demand over a one-year or longer horizon. Many, many oil-containing sedimentary basins around the world have never been explored. Yet, in the face of all this, Peak Oil believers continue to cry alarm.
Steve from Rockwood wrote: “First, the link above states several times within its text that the origin of the oil is thought to be from the overlying sedimentary layers, not the basement rocks.”
The reveiw acknowledges that one hypothesis suggests the oil is thought to be from overlying sedimentary layers, but read these several passages from the review:
“Recent work by Kitchka (1998), supports the theory of an inorganic mantle origin of petroleum. His paper introduces the concept that petroleum represents complex derivative of the fluid inclusions saturated with hydrocarbons in crustal and mantle minerals. He concludes that the multistage segregation and migration of deep petroleum are realised by fracturing and faulting. He cites a total of 370 oil and gas fields with commercial productivity from crystalline basement. Other hypotheses by Kropotkin (1986), Krishna (1988),Szatmari (1989), Porfir’ev (1974), Hunt (1998), and Gold (1980) & (1985), also consider the abiogenic/mineral origin of petroleum.”
“There are said to be numerous fields in the FSU producing from fractured basement reservoirs (Kenny 1996), but very little detail has been published in the West. Kenny (op cit) states that more wells have been drilled into crystalline basements within the FSU than all other nations combined, with the consequence of greater production. For example, the Caspian district has a total of eighty fields producing from crystalline basements. Unlike the majority of drilling operations which cease as soon as basement rocks are encountered (Aguilera 1995b), Krayushkin et al (1994) state that all of the hydrocarbon fields within the FSU producing from crystalline basements were developed intentionally.”
“One such example is discussed by Krayushkin et al (1994), involving an exploration project on the flanks of the Dnieper-Donets Basin. An initial geological study of the sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous rocks in the “Northern Monoclinal Flank” of the Dnieper-Donents Basin concluded that there was no potential for hydrocarbon production. The conclusion was made because of the absence of any source rock and the presence of active, strongly circulating artesian waters.
“However, the exploration and drilling programme which followed the initial study resulted in the discovery and development of12 fields with oil reserves equal to 219 million metric tons of oil equivalent, the major part of which is produced from the Precambrian crystalline basement (Krayushkin et al, op cit) ”
The observation of artesian water is an important note because oil floats on water, so finding water suggests there will be no light crude below it.
Also, because, you, Steve, and everybody else, including me, are so steeped in the assumption that oil is a “fossil” fuel, we assume it is, but that is an improper assumption, rather if there is any assumption to be made, it is that oil is abiotic because it has been produced in the lab abiotically, but never from organic material. So, in actual fact if any assumption was to be made, it would be that oil is abiotic, but no assumptions need to be made, all is needed is to fallow the facts & evidence where they lead.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2150&start=0
Murrayv: your
The figures in the table are all liquids, regardless of what the EIA call it. Petroleum is near 73 mb/d and has declined slightly.
Do you have a reading disability? If so I apologize for being so rough on you.
Again, look at the numbers in the link below, which I have posted several times. Production is up of crude oil only (73.4 in 2005, 74.4 in 2011). Your stating petroleum is near 73 and declining is a flat out lie.
Production of all fluids is up. (remember, oil is oil, regardless of the source) Reserves are up. Use the drop down buttons to look for yourself.
We are not at or near peak oil.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=50&pid=57&aid=1&cid=ww,&syid=2005&eyid=2011&freq=Q&unit=TBPD
your
Try doing the numbers yourself, or tell me whats wrong with mine.
Why should I do the numbers? Your calculations have nothing to do with the argument. Your calculations are a strawman calculation. The empirical data tells me that there is increasing production and increasing reserves.
Do you think making silly comments advances your argument?
It does not advance the argument, but it amuses me…..
your
Two things to note – USA reserves stayed at about 30 years for decades while both reserves and production declined in parallel.
Well, except the US has only about 5 years of reserves. And has since 1984. Based on 1984 production reserves, the US should have run out of oil in1990. Note that I am not including imports in this calculation.
Years of reserves indicates nothing useful.
I totally agree. Look at the US. Its reserves in 1984 were 28 billion bbls. Reserves in 2009 were 20 billion. Of course, the US, after imports are deducted, produced 103 billion bbls of oil between 1984 and 2009.
How do you suppose that happened, Murray? Producing 103 billion bbl from a reserve of 28 billion? Magic?
This is also a reply to your post on OPEC reserves not declining. I find it odd that they are not increasing, for the same reason the US reserves have not shrunk as much as they should have. Reserve growth ratio, according to the USGS, is between 1.3 and 4.6 of the original reserve, for a given field. That’s an increase. And existing field reserve growth is 3 times that of reserves added by finding new fields.
http://www.geoexpro.com/sfiles/4/12/9/file/realityofreserve34_35.pdf
Let me make it easy for you. The US produced, on average, about 11 million bbls/day from 1984 to 2009, using EIA data. 10.896 million bbls/day * 365 days * 26 years = 103.4 billion bbls.
RE: Roger Sowell: (August 12, 2011 at 9:19 pm)
“Peak Oil is a myth. It has never happened, and never will.”
I am willing to accept that the first part of this statement may be true as a result of science reporters being carried away by the need to have a sensational story. Oil prices are quite low now when compared with 2007. I have even seen one video that goes so far as trying to use Peak Oil to explain why the USA is fighting in the Middle East.
However, the “never will” part sounds like a proclamation of ‘Forever Oil’– unless it is meant to be qualified by ‘in our lifetimes’ or is a reference to the fact that the graph world petroleum production is not likely to be the simple Gaussian curve often depicted.
I think ‘Diminishing Oil’ will be unmistakable when finally recognized, and the farther off in the future this happens, the more gentle will be the decline.
Spector: I agree. And the Diminished Oil will probably be due to reduced demand, rather than running out entirely.
James F. Evans says:
August 12, 2011 at 11:03 pm
James, just focusing on the Caspian Sea, the geology is very well understood as a major sedimentary basin. Again, how can anyone conclude abiotic oil origin when the oil deposits are sitting in organic-rich sediments exactly where you expect them to be. I suspect if you deconstruct the 370 claims of abiotic oil you will see the oil emptying into organic-rich sedimentary basins. What we need (to prove abioitc oil) is to see oil contained in organic-devoid porous rock units so that there is no other explanation. Pointing to the world’s largest and organic-rich sedimentary basins and suggesting that just because drilling goes into crystalline rock below is proof of abiotic oil is not enough for me. I would gladly change my point of view if there was a straight forward case of oil production not in an organic-rich sedimentary basin. Below is a link to the geology of the Caspian Sea. I went fishing there in 2006.
http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/geology-and-petroleum-potential-of-the-caspian-sea-region
Les, I stand corrected on my slight decline comment. Hadn’t checked recently. Will be back to OK at end of Q2. Max increase since 2005 is o.6 b/d on 74 b/d or 0.8%. that is the plateau we keep talking about.
As for your USA example – it does nothing to refute peak production in the USA way back in 1970/71. No one has suggested that new discoveries aren’t made or that in the USA because of reporting regulations reserves don’t grow. What we are saying is that new discoveries plus reserve growth are less than production, and have been for a long time. We are also saying that very soon, new production being brought on stream annually will be less than decline of existing producing fields, meaning that total production will go into decline.
Because of the 90% rule, the USA is not representative of the world. Most of the rest of the world was reporting 50% probabilities (or most likely) reserves until OPEC decided that their reported reserves would remain constant. EIA just sums the numbers they get, without question. Their “empirical data” does not reflect reality.
The USGS, in their 2000 projection applied USA reserve growth experience to all the rest of the world, among other errors. They have a long history of being wrong and providing gross overestimations and were even censored by Congress once years ago. their 2000 projection is already grossly wrong, consistent with their record.
Assume 74 mb/d production, and assume decline of 2% per year for 10 years. We will produce 245 Gb during those 10 years, but annual production will still be down, and new discoveries will still be brought on stream. Peak oil does not suggest that anything stops, except growth in world production.
Check the Megaprojects WIKI for new capacity in the pipeline and see how much longer it will offset declines. That is real empirical data.
Les – about being unable to read – go back and check where I said we would need 1000 nukes, and note that my request that you check ny calculations referred to the oil shale estimations. They are not a strawman. If you really thought they were you would probably jump all over them. You seem to “see” what you want to when you read. Insulting comments are consistent with your childish sense of humor.
Reserve growth
Excerpt from a 2002 report on the USGS 2000 estimates:
4.10 Reserve Growth (Chapter RG) General Failings
4.10.1 Reserve Growth Causes
The un-stated assumptions of the RG projection are that RG is purely a function of geology and is uniformly time dependent. Neither assumption is valid. What are the real conditions?
– Reporting practices A)
In the USA, regulations require companies to report proven reserves. Proven reserves are defined as 90% probability10. If a company is quite capable of making an accurate 50% probability (most likely) initial estimate, but is constrained to report only the 90% probability estimate, (certainly the case in the USA for the last 30 years), their reported reserves will grow over time as more drilling is done and more reserves are proven, converging finally on the original 50% estimate. (Reserve growth being growth of “proved” reserves is clearly recognized on page RG-2).
In the rest of the world the tendency is to report proven plus probable – defined as 50% probability10. If the uncertainty of such estimates is similar over a large number of fields there will be a rough balance with shrinkage of some fields balancing growth of others, and near zero net growth as a result of development. Laherrere has illustrated such an actuality.11
– Reporting practices B)
Historically, especially in the years of corporate ownership and booming discovery, it was in the interest of the petroleum corporations to under-report reserves, even when not constrained to by regulations. Low discovery years could then be compensated by reporting some of the pocketed reserves, thus keeping shareholders happy. In the late 1960s under-reported reserves were probably very large. Subsequent nationalization and declining discovery rates, in all probability, have largely emptied the corporate reserve pockets. They can’t be emptied twice.
– Technology
Before about 1930 oil discovery was largely random and estimating reserves was a matter of guess work. Technology has progressed through gravimetrics, seismology, digital analysis, 2D and 3D imaging, data base development, computer correlation of well logs and seismology, enhanced well-logging and widespread computerization with PCs and supercomputers and sophisticated imaging software. Estimating reserves was associated with pretty high confidence levels by the 1970s and had become something approaching an exact science by the early 1990s.
In the early days it was logical to estimate conservatively and err on the side of caution.21 Technology has allowed updating of prior conservative estimates, providing reserve growth that will not be repeated.
Since 1980 or earlier, initial P50 non-USA reserve estimates would have been sufficiently accurate to allow for relatively little growth due to technology.
– Politics/Quotas
OPEC quotas are decided, to no small degree, relative to reserves. OPEC members who want to increase their quota are motivated to announce higher reserves. Whether OPEC reserve growth, which was very high in the 1980s, was a case of emptying pockets of unstated reserves left over from nationalization, of applying new technology to old estimates or to quota wars is unclear. However, there is real risk that present reported reserves are overstated, especially as they have grown moderately for a decade regardless of production. Future shrinkage is more likely than future growth.
Flash – The O&GJ just lowered their Middle-east reserves growth base estimate by 180 Gb.22
4.11.3 Robustness/Reproducibility
It would be appropriate to test the applicability of the growth factors. Consider that large fields discovered long ago, under conditions of high uncertainty and high motivation to understate, show substantially higher growth than small fields discovered recently under conditions of initial estimation accuracy, motivation to overstate and requiring few wells to be proven.21 A good test would be to divide the total population of oil fields into large field, medium and small field groups. The large field group will have most of the oil, and the small field group most of the fields. Now divide each group into young, middle-aged and old subgroups. In the young group include fields less than 30 years old but for which known growth is now zero.
From Morehouse21, one can confidently predict that the zeroth year large-old growth factor will be not less than 6x the corresponding small-young growth factor. If the resulting 9 growth factors are then applied to the subject population by size and age the USGS results will not be reproduced. Using a single growth for all fields overstates potential growth substantially.
Example: Prudhoe Bay had “proven” P90 reserves of 9 Gb and P50 reserves of 12.5 Gb in 197712. Production peaked in 1988 and by 1997 “known” oil could be confidently projected as 12- 12.5 Gb. Secondary recovery (infill drilling and re-pressurization) had been extensively applied13 so expected growth was already zero. If 1977 is taken as the zeroth year the USGS factor would have estimated growth of 45 Gb vs an actual of less than 3.5 Gb or more than 12 times too high. (If the initial P50 reserves estimate had been used, real growth would probably be slightly negative). Prudhoe Bay is a large young field. Imagine the error multiple on a small young field outside the USA reporting an initial P50 estimate.
The reserve growth estimation fails the test of robust reproducibility.
11)J. H. Laherrere “The Evolution of the World’s Hydrocarbon Reserves” http://www.dieoff.com/page178.htm Table. “Oilfields in Petroleum Systems – Variations from 1993 to 1997
21)D. Morehouse, “The Intricate Puzzle of Oil and Gas Reserves Growth” Natural Gas Monthly 7/97 http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/features/Morehouse.pdf.
22)Sandrea & Salomon “Future of Deepwater, Middle East Hydrocarbon Supplies” O&GJ 6/17/02 p 22-32.
murrayv: your
Les, I stand corrected on my slight decline comment. Hadn’t checked recently. Will be back to OK at end of Q2. Max increase since 2005 is o.6 b/d on 74 b/d or 0.8%. that is the plateau we keep talking about. </I.
Technically, the increase is 0.6k bbl/day, or 600,000 bbls/day. Its not a plateau if the production has increased. Quit hand waving. Of course, that does not include the 5 million bbls/day of excess capacity in OPEC, which is 2 million higher than 2005. Thus, total production capacity increase since 2005 is 2,600,000 bbls/day, or about 3.5%. No plateau there, I am afraid.
your
Les – about being unable to read – go back and check where I said we would need 1000 nukes, and note that my request that you check ny calculations referred to the oil shale.
estimations. They are not a strawman
They are a strawman calculation. That is not the argument. The argument is whether we are at peak oil NOW. As for my comment about reading? It seems to have been proven by yourself, as you state you had not read my reference. The defence rests.
Global production is up, and global reserves are up. We are not at peak oil. Your hand waving explanations does not change the data.
murrayv: your
What we are saying is that new discoveries plus reserve growth are less than production, and have been for a long time. We are also saying that very soon, new production being brought on stream annually will be less than decline of existing producing fields, meaning that total production will go into decline.
Yes, this has been said since 1870. If you keep saying it, it will eventually come true. But not for a long, long time.
murrayv: your
Reserve growth
Excerpt from a 2002 report on the USGS 2000 estimates:
4.10 Reserve Growth (Chapter RG) General Failings
What you fail to do here, Murray, is state that this is an unpublished, unsolicited petition to the USGS, which was rejected. And you were the author.
I note how you try to make it look authentic, by describing it as “Excerpt from a 2002 report on the USGS 2000 estimates:”, instead of what it really was. I would love to see the rejection letter from the USGS.
tsk, tsk, tsk.