Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
In oil, as in other extractive industries, you have what is called the “R/P ratio”. In the R/P ratio, “R” is reserves of whatever it is you are extracting, and “P” is the production rate, the rate at which you are extracting and using up your reserves.
Figure 1. World annual oil production in billions of barrels (blue line), and years left at that production rate (R/P ratio, red line). Right scale shows the proven oil reserves for each year, in billions of barrels (dotted green line). DATA SOURCE: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2011, a most fascinating Excel spreadsheet. PHOTO Spindletop Hill Gusher, 1901
When you divide the amount you have in reserves by the rate at which you are extracting the resource, you get the number of years the reserves will last at that rate of extraction. Accordingly, I include the R/P ratio in Figure 1 as “Years Left”
A couple of things to point out. First, the “Years Left”, the R/P ratio, is currently more than forty years … and has been for about a quarter century. Thirty years ago, we only had 30 years of proven oil reserves left. Estimates then said we would be running out of oil about now.
Twenty-five years ago, we had about forty years left. Ten years ago we had over forty years left. Now we have over forty-five years left. I’m sure you see the pattern here.
Second, this is only what are termed “proven reserves” (Wiki). It does not include “unproven reserves”, much of which is in the form of unconventional oils such as shale oil and oil sands. Even discounting the unproven reserves, while the rate of production has increased, the proven reserves have also increased at about the same rate. So the R/P ratio, the years left at the current rate of production, has stayed over forty years for almost a quarter century..
Now, at some point this party has to slow down, nothing goes on forever … but the data shows we certainly don’t need to hurry to replace oil with solar energy or rainbow energy or wind energy in the next few decades. We have plenty of time for the market to indicate the replacement.
Don’t get me wrong. I’d love to find a better energy source than oil. In fact, the huge new sources of shale gas will substitute in many areas for things like heating oil, and will burn cleaner in the bargain. And I do think we’ll find new sources of energy, humans are endlessly inventive.
I’m just registering my protest against the meme of “OMG we’re running out of oil we must change energy sources right now tomorrow!!”. It is simply not true. We have plenty of time. We have decades. We don’t have to blow billions of dollars of our money subsidizing solar and wind and biofuels. The world has enough oil to last for a long while, plenty long enough for the market to determine whatever the next energy source might be.
w.
NOTE: Oil figures, particularly reserves, are estimates. Oil companies are notoriously close-mouthed about their finds and the extent of their holdings. The advantage of the BP figures is that they are a single coherent time series. Other data gives somewhat different results. As far as I know the increase in proven reserves despite increasing production is common to all estimates.
It’s always 40 years out….. that’s because 40 years is a good number in any industry so the predictor will be retired by then and therefore unaccountable…..
RE: Dave Springer: (December 15, 2011 at 7:28 am)
Ref: Thorium Reactor Replacement for Exhausted Carbon Power
“Until someone invents a material that can simultaneously resist the corrosive action of molten salt and the embrittlement action of high neutron flux the liquid salt reactor is dead in the water. There are no known materials from which to build the pumps and plumbing that can last long enough to make it economically feasible. This is the same problem that plagues hot fusion schemes – there is no known material that can withstand the fusion chamber conditions for long enough to make it economical to operate.”
I will accept this as a note of caution, lest someone think this development is a sure thing. There do remain a number of nontrivial problems that must be solved before these reactors can be mass-produced. However, the fluoride salt has been described as relatively inert because the two components of the salt are more strongly attracted to each other than almost anything else. The Oak Ridge demonstration liquid-state reactor, which only had a molten salt reacting core running on thorium-derived U233, but without the external thorium breeder blanket, reportedly ran for several years with no show-stopping problems of the type you suggest.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/11/the-contribution-of-fossil-fuels-to-a-feeding-humanity-and-b-habitat-conservation/#comment-828426
Fission reactors have the advantage that there are no repulsive forces that block entry of an errant disruptive neutron into a nucleus. Fusion requires the collision of two mutually repelling nuclei as they both have a strong positive electrical charge; it has been likened to playing golf with each ‘hole’ on top of a ten-foot volcano-shaped mound.
So far, thorium nuclear appears to be the most likely, indefinitely sustainable candidate to replace carbon power when it runs out.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/11/the-contribution-of-fossil-fuels-to-a-feeding-humanity-and-b-habitat-conservation/#comment-828614
There are numerous examples of petroleum wells that exact oil from fractured basement. as opposed to the common assumption that these are very rare.
HYDROCARBON PRODUCTION FROM FRACTURED BASEMENT FORMATIONS Version 5.1 (1999)
http://www.hendersonpetrophysics.com/fractures2.html
Tim (the Tool Man), further to my previous comments on how I can’t tell the “peak oil” either before or after it happens, consider the following:
Colombia … care to predict which one will be the peak?
UK … what would you have said about the UK peak in 1990?
Qatar … what would you have said about the Qatar peak in 1990?
Now, if you think that this only happens in countries that don’t produce much oil, we have …
Note the problems with determining the peak. Saudi production “peaked” in the 1980s, and didn’t exceed that production for more than two decades. It has dropped in the last two years … so did Saudi Arabia see “peak oil” in 2008, or will it be exceeded again?
If you want larger aggregations, we have:
I’m sure that you can see the problem … which is that, as I pointed out, a host of things can affect the production rate. A “peak” may end up being nothing of the sort, merely an interim pause, followed by up to a couple decades of lower production, on the way to the next high point … which in turn may not be the final “peak” either.
Since I can’t tell the timing of “peak oil” either before or after it happens … of what use is it?
w.
Here’s ExxonMobil’s 30 year outlook. Go down a few lines and click on download pdf”. Interesting they show electricity growing the fastest at 40% increase from today. Also interesting they essentially write off the OECD countries as stagnant but show large growth non-OECD countries.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/energy_outlook_view.aspx
Willis wonders “Since I can’t tell the timing of “peak oil” either before or after it happens … of what use is it?”
There are a large number of countries where the peak is more obvious, the US being one.You wondered about California earlier where there production looked like it might have peaked in 1968 but then increased again to 1985. Right now California is producing very roughly half what it was producing in 1985. Do you think that one has peaked?
You’re right in that we will only know the peak for sure once its past. Possibly a number of years past, but it is arguably the most important energy event that we are looking forward to because it heralds the beginning of the end of oil certainly, but possibly fossil fuels in general. The growing energy gap that forms post peak oil will need to be filled by some other resource.
We have a choice. We can go down the road of other fossil fuels and use those up or we can choose renewable energy that hopefully will be less damaging to the environment and is well…renewable and wont run out. Then our energy issues are ones of management rather than finding the next “fix”.
But the important thing to realise is that peak oil is where it happens and that could be happening right now. Your suggestion of 40 years away is wishful thinking and not supported by your citations which show oil production flatlining for 6 years or so. Maybe you’re right, maybe you’re wrong but one thing is for certain – for us to transition to new technologies takes time and (energy) resources. It wont be easy and if we dont do R&D now while energy is relatively plentiful, we’re going to be limiting our options and increasing our risk.
@ur momisugly willis
when oil prices drop significantly or demand drops significantly oil co’s slow down their production and drilling efforts even in individual fields
there is more factors to the the production curves of fields than depletion or flow rate
what happened in the 1980’s is no mystery nor is the time frame different fields were exploited and produced
using hubbert linearization assumes maximum physical production throughout the lifecycle of the field uninterrupted by what the actual oil market may or may not be doing
Willis writes “I looked “across all of the oil fields” in California, and no, they didn’t do what you claimed they would do.”
I’m not sure how to respond to that one. California has fairly clearly peaked now. Do you think a major find is still hiding there? Look, if you dont believe in peak oil then fine. Thats your perogative.
At the end of the day people far smarter than me have determined that diversifying our energy sources particularly with renewables and putting massive amounts of money and effort toward the R&D is the best thing to do and I’m inclined to agree with them.
It seems to me you’re suggesting we should stop all that nonsense and simply develop lower grade fossil fuels. Where is your vision? I call shenanigans on your comment “I’d love to find a better energy source than oil.” because you’re advocating extending oil’s life as long as possible.
TTTT,
California is a bad example, because they have not allowed either new exploration or drilling for decades. During that time drilling technology has advanced exponentially. It is entirely possible that California has not come near its peak oil potential. But without exploration and drilling, we just don’t know.
Smokey writes “It is entirely possible that California has not come near its peak oil potential. But without exploration and drilling, we just don’t know.”
Thats a fair call but in the scheme of things doesn’t matter. IF we’re at peak oil right now then by the time California was explored, developed and on line, it would only be bolstering a globally flagging resource.
California doesn’t contain another Ghawar.
Doug says:
December 15, 2011 at 5:00 pm
jrwakefield says:
December 15, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Shale gas will be short lived
Really? Do you have data from the hundreds of organic shales available? (we’ve only drilled a few) Data on refracs? (a refrac can be a good as the first, with no new well required) Do you have a good idea of how much cheaper and efficient the whole process can get? Some of the blanket statements seen in this thread are absurd.
———-
I already posted a link to this. Look further up.
TimTheToolMan says:
December 15, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Saying that it works in some places is hardly a ringing endorsement of something that you have claimed works at every level from individual fields to the whole world. That is obviously not true, Tim. You can try all you want to change the goalposts and act like you meant something else … but your statement is still not true.
I don’t know, Tim, because we have not allowed new explorations or offshore drilling in a whole long time …
In any case the output from all of OPEC did the same thing, dropped by half … but now it is way above where it dropped from. So obviously, dropping by half means nothing. The answer to your question is, we simply don’t know what the future production rates will be.
If we will only know it once it is past … how can it be something we “are looking forward to”? Particularly when we may not know until a couple of decades after …
No, we do not have a choice at the moment. Oil is the only liquid transportation fuel that is anywhere near market-ready. You can “choose renewable fuels” all you want, but they will cost 2-4 times what fossil fuels cost.
If you think that replacement will happen without huge subsidies, you don’t understand fuel. And if you think the world can afford to subsidize your impractical green fantasies, you don’t understand the recession …
w.
jrwakefield says:
December 15, 2011 at 8:11 pm
I’m not going to root through your posts hoping to guess which link you’re referring to. You know both what it is and where it is. When you deign to tell us I’ll take a look, but not before. Do your own homework, because there’s no way I will do it for you.
w.
Willis, re your graphs. Those graphs do not tell the story. How much of the latter production is from tertiary recovery? Saudi Arabia is a case in point. The granddaddy of all, Ghawar, is in tertiary recovery. They are pumping in more seawater around the deposit’s periphery than they get out in oil. Classic sign of old age, and imminent decline. The graphs also do not include how much in new oil is expected to be brought on line. Do a graph of that and you will be surprised. Finally, the graphs also do not show by how much the source countries are consuming more of their own oil, which affects how much can be exported. The graphs also do not show how much one country in particular is buying up deposits around the world, thus hording. Guess who that is.
The over all issue with peak oil is none of what you display in the graph. It’s about each country having to deal with less flow rate than their own consumption. Soon as there is more demand than available oil, prices spike, forcing a country into recession, which is the road to permanent decline.
This wont happen evenly around the world. Those countries most a risk are those who import the most, have the highest decline in domestic production, and have very high, unsustainable, debt levels. The perfect storm is often the straw that breaks the back. And which countries fit that profile? The US and the EU.
Willis writes “If we will only know it once it is past … how can it be something we “are looking forward to”?”
Because once it arrives, we will again go through what the US went through in the 70s. Prices will again skyrocket. People will suffer, especially the poor. Except there will be no coming back from it we will have run out of choices.
Willis writes “We do not have a choice at the moment. Oil is the only liquid fuel that is anywhere near market-ready. You can “choose renewable fuels” all you want, but they will cost 2-4 times what fossil fuels cost.”
This is the dilemna we find ourselves in. I agree there are no obvious alternatives to oil right now. And any change to electricity based transport is going to be a long and painful process. What kind of a transition do you think it would be if we left it until we were well through our coal reserves? What kind of world will we be living in anyway?
Willis writes “If you think that replacement will happen without huge subsidies, you don’t understand fuel.”
I’m quite certain huge subidies are needed.
“And if you think the world can afford to subsidize your impractical green fantasies, you don’t understand the recession …”
The world is already subsidising that which you apparently hate. Understandably its backing off during the recession too. You may have missed the part where we’re are already spending a lot on renewable subsidy and believe it or not, I’m not a decision maker in that process.
TimTheToolMan says:
December 15, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Tim, the question was not whether California contains another Ghawar. That’s just you playing silly games. It was whether the production had peaked.
I’m getting tired of you moving the goalposts. You make a statement. Then when it’s shown to be incorrect, you say in the scheme of things it “doesn’t matter”. You’re wrong, Tim. It matters because it shows we may not be able to see the “peak oil” for decades. It matters because you claimed that “peak oil” worked at every level from the field to the planet. And finally, and least importantly, It matters because it shows that you were wrong, Tim.
Having claimed it “doesn’t matter”, then you go off on some totally different tangent like “California doesn’t contain another Ghawar”, as though anyone had ever claimed that.
The discussion was about California and peak oil. Both Smokey and I have shown that we don’t know about the peak. I’ve shown that there are lots and lots of places where there are double peaks, often separated by decades. If you had any huevos, you’d say “OK, I was wrong” instead of doing all of that unseemly wriggling and trying to change the subject.
w.
The peak oilers are as relentless as the warmists. Though when you see someone post that “fusion is dead” you know they are full of it.
TimTheToolMan says:
December 15, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Tim, don’t fall back on that bull about just following other peoples’ advice. THINK FOR YOURSELF. Don’t just say “people far smarter than me have determined blah blah blah …”. Stand up, grab your left nut for luck, look hard and long at the data and the arguments and MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND. Look at the costs of replacements for liquid transportation fuels. Consider the discussions and ideas of people on both sides. Richard Feynmann wisely said that “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” … and meanwhile, you advocate turning off your brain and blindly following said experts … believe I’ll take Richard’s advice and pass on your advice, thanks.
I don’t mind putting money and effort towards R&D as you suggest. But that’s not what’s happening. Instead, people like you, who think they are listening to smart people, are putting massive amounts of money, but not into R&D—instead, they putting the money into subsidies for unworkable renewables, AKA pouring it down a rat hole …
w.
PS—And if you are going to just follow the experts and not think for yourself, then tell us who these “people far smarter than you” are and where we can go to read their wisdom. Then you can go away, because if all you are is a parrot for far smarter people, why should I listen to you?
TimTheToolMan says:
December 15, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Willis writes “If we will only know it once it is past … how can it be something we “are looking forward to”?”
Since we may not know for a decade afterwards that the peak has even happened, how will knowing make even the slightest difference?
I still don’t see the value in putting huge effort into something we may not even know has occurred until years afterwards.
So we get to that point someday, and we look back … and you say “See, “peak oil” was 20 years ago” … and that helps us how? What does that do for us? How does that make things better?
That’s why I don’t deal with “peak oil” much. I find it a useless concept. We can’t see it coming. We can’t see in in the rear-view mirror until we’re way past it … so what is the benefit, what is the advantage? Where’s the gain, where’s the beef?
w.
PS—What happened in the 1970’s was that Nixon established price controls on fuel. If you think price controls are somehow related to peak oil, perhaps you better go back to reading your “people far smarter than you”.
Willis suggests “THINK FOR YOURSELF. Don’t just say “people far smarter than me have determined blah blah blah …”. Stand up, grab your left nut for luck, look hard and long at the data and the arguments and MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND. ”
I have Willis. I’m simply pointing out that my preferred preference lines up with what is happening in reality and it is your preferred path that is a fantasy. I dont doubt that we’ll use fossil fuels as needed during our transition. Its just that I also dont doubt that we’ll be making that transition.
“You make a statement. Then when it’s shown to be incorrect, you say in the scheme of things it “doesn’t matter”.”
I cant help it if you dont understand. From a global perspective, one region going from a possible peak back into new production growth with a new discovery means little in the scheme of things. For it to matter most regions would have to reverse the production direction and thats not likely to happen.
Willis wonders “So we get to that point someday, and we look back … and you say “See, “peak oil” was 20 years ago” … and that helps us how? What does that do for us? How does that make things better?”
Whoever said anything about making it better? Or benefitting from knowing? At the moment you dont believe peak oil is an issue because we’ll always be able to increase production to meet with the demand.
I’m pointing out that there is a concept called peak oil which is dependent on production rate and not on proven reserves and that your fixation on proven reserves is missing the most important aspect of fossil fuel depletion.
TimTheToolMan says:
December 15, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Tim, don’t play those kind of childish games with me. I discussed subsidies extensively at “The Dark Future of Solar Energy” and you commented on that thread. I discussed subsidies extensively at “Between Wind and Water”, and you commented on that thread. So you know very well that I know about the subsidies on renewables.
So when you claim I may have “missed the part where we’re are already spending a lot on renewable subsidy”, you are talking out of your fundamental orifice.
You may have missed the part where I pay attention, Tim. You know damn well that I am very aware of the size of the subsidies on renewables. Not only that, but I know that you know, and I’ll thank you to give up pretending otherwise.
w.
Willis writes “You may have missed the part where I pay attention, Tim. You know damn well that I am very aware of the size of the subsidies on renewables. Not only that, but I know that you know, and I’ll thank you to give up pretending otherwise.”
And yet you insist I’m living in a fantasy green world? Dont pretend you’ve got the high moral ground here Willis.
TimTheToolMan says:
December 15, 2011 at 9:29 pm
First, I’m beginning to believe you can’t read. You claim I don’t think peak oil is an issue because I think that “we’ll always be able to increase production”. But I never said anything even remotely similar to that. Instead, I clearly said “Now, at some point this party has to slow down, nothing goes on forever …” In other words, certainly there will be a peak at some point …
Second, if even as you say above, you agree knowing about peak oil doesn’t make it better, and you agree that there is no “benefitting from knowing” when the peak is … then what good is it?
I believe that peak oil is an issue, it’s just a useless issue because we can’t pinpoint it, particularly in advance. I don’t think we’ll be able to know when it was until it is long past. Which means it is of no use to me.
Part of this is “once bitten, twice shy”, because for folks of my age, we remember being told very seriously years ago, by folks just as driven and sincere as you are today, that the peak in oil production in 1979 was the date of the “peak oil” for the world. Oil production fell from 1979, and did not return to higher levels for a decade and a half. During that time the “peak oil” folks made all kinds of claims …
So perhaps you can explain again how paying the slightest attention to “peak oil” helps? Because it sure didn’t do us any good when it was claimed to have happened back in 1979 …
w.
PS—Consider this history:
And now here we are in 2011, and after all of the “peak oil” hysteria, world oil production is still rising. How were any of those predictions worth more than a bucket of warm spit, Tim? What did they do for us? How are we better off from the thousands and thousands of hours those guys put in on those forecasts? WHAT’S THE POINT OF “PEAK OIL”?
Even King Hubbert himself couldn’t even make the magical “peak oil” formula work … draw your own conclusions.
w.
TimTheToolMan says:
December 15, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Say what? Tim, in all seriousness, I don’t understand your response at all.
I pointed out that you are pretending that I don’t know something that you are quite certain that I do know. Bad TTTT, no cookies.
And that’s your reply? That has nothing to do with the discussion. Try addressing the issues.
w.