Re: Some janet and john figures for biofuel

John Beardmore wrote:
In message <e0s8ag$b5d$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steve Firth <%steve%@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Gerald L R Stubbs wrote:
The message <e0rt0t$9o9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
from Steve Firth <%steve%@xxxxxxxxxxxx> contains these words:

when it happens it is apparent.

That is untrue for the majority of fields, the majority enter a plateau phase where extraction continues at a steady rate lower than peak but continuing for an unpredictable period thereafter.

It may be true at the level of individual drilling platforms where for some while the output is determined by the size of the pipe rather than anything else.

Not sure that it apples to fields or oil producing areas as a whole though. I would have thought that the larger the area, the less of a plateau you'd see. Can you point at a graph of North Sea output as a whole over time ?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/North_Sea/Oil.html

The main reason that the north sea is still going strong is that
extraction techniques have developed somewhat since the seventies.

Which means that predictions about when or even *if* we have hit peak are not possible.

Well, it means the curve may skew to the right some what. Question will always be 'How far ?'.

If you think there is mechanism by which a peak will not occur, please state it or stop talking out of your bottom !

I've not said a peak will not occur, I have said that it is not something which is predictable using statistical techniques. Not only that, but of itself it's not actually a figure which predicts when the oil will be exhausted as Hubbert's failure showed in the US.

I don't know if it's a blindness on the part of the doom mongers, but most seem to treat "peak oil" as if it meant "oil all gone".

The north sea is past peak,

That is a prediction, how do you know that there isn't a field to or larger than Buzzard?

I guess the point is that as time goes by it becomes less probable.

But I can't get excited about this - nobody has ever said that discovery stopped as soon as it peaked !

But the doom mongers continue to behave as if that is exactly what will happen. And many, yourself included, behave as if depletion of a local resource indicated exhaustion of a global resource.

We didn't know about Buzzard until just five years ago. How do you know that extraction will not continue to improve?

Likely it will, but I won't be betting the farm on getting out 2.4 times more than expected world wide though.

Since I'm not given to making lunatic predictions, I haven't predicted that world wide oil will give 2.4 times more oil than predicted. I have, however, stated the fact that Hubbert underestimated US oil reserves by a factor of 2.4 and that factor is still growing as production continues.

however. I don't need to predict this, as it has happened.

How do you know it has happened?

Falling production ? Increasing imports ? Increasing prices ? More complete exploration ? Finding less ?

Certainly suggests an increasing probability that it has passed its peak. Of course, there remains a small probability that some huge new find will occur, but as exploration etc become more complete, that must become less probable.

Interesting article on

http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,,1464119,00.html

if you can be bothered. Seems to me that it covers Campbell's credentials fairly well, and illustrates that he's not overly hung up on gaussians - strikes me as a fairly balanced view.


And if you look here, you can see that Campbell's peak prediction has been passed and that Campbell is back-pedalling on his original claims.

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2005/09/peak_oil_commen.html

His approach may seem pragmatic to you, but it's a moot point if changing one's doom-laden prediction is pragmatism or an attempt to save face.

That is
why the majors are selling off thier interests.
Whatever new fields have come onstream, the North Sea is past peak.

That is a prediction.

So ? What's to get worked up about ? The probability of it being wrong seems to be small.

If you'd rather he express it as

'the North Sea is _probably_ past its peak'

I suppose that's fair enough, and more formally accurate, but I can't get excited because it seems reasonably likely to be correct.

Even Campbell himself now admits that "peak oil" doesn't have quite the meaning that the media have attached to it "However, the importance is not so much in the date of peak itself but in recognition of the long, remorseless decline that follows."

It's important to note that the long remorseless decline *is* long. For example, Campbell himself states that Arabian oil production peaked in 1974 at 21.2 Mb/d. If we get all handwavy about peak oil we could run around like headless chickens about being 30 years past the peak of oil production in Arabia. However current production is 20.5 Mb/d and in thirty years time Campbell himself expects production to be 19 Mb/d.

That's sixty years of production after the peak at just 2Mb/d less than peak production.

This assumes that 1974 remains as the peak, akthough current production is so close to peak that if the politics of the region gets sorted out, the currently untapped reserves in Iraq and Iran could push production up to a new all-time high.

That is why the UK is now a net importer of oil.

No, the UK is a net importer of oil because we consume more oil than we produce. We actually produce more oil than we did in 1991.

Seems a bit improbable given the 'dash for gas' and falling CO2 output.

Umm, the dash for gas refers to the conversion of UK electricity generating plant from coal fired to gas turbine. Falling CO2 output results from the conversion from burning carbon to burning methane.

I can't see what that has to do with the production of crude oil from the North Sea.

Any figures to back this up ?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/North_Sea/Oil.html
.

Relevant Pages

  • CERA says peak oil theory is faulty
    ... Does the peak oil "myth" just fall down? ... Press reaction to CERA report... ... theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: OT: Herere the savings from Arctic drilling Ð75 cents a barrel
    ... Ron Ruff wrote: ... production becomes so high that alternatives are more attractive. ... Oil production will peak when the cost of extraction makes it ... Have you somehow managed to miss the discussions of peak oil going ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=3A_OT=3A_Here=27re_the_savings_from_Arctic_drilling_=D07?= =?ISO-8859&
    ... then so will production, unless the *cost* of production becomes so ... Oil production will peak ... when the cost of extraction makes it more expensive than other energy ... Have you somehow managed to miss the discussions of peak oil going on ...
    (rec.bicycles.tech)
  • Re: Some janet and john figures for biofuel
    ... Not sure that it apples to fields or oil producing areas as a whole though. ... If you think there is mechanism by which a peak will not occur, please state it or stop talking out of your bottom! ... I have, however, stated the fact that Hubbert underestimated US oil reserves by a factor of 2.4 and that factor is still growing as production continues. ... you can see that Campbell's peak prediction has been passed and that Campbell is back-pedalling on his original claims. ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: BBC: protestors halt train
    ... be forgiven for thinking that oil production is governed purely by ... oil discovery and production. ... Hubbert's prediction is still sound because he ...
    (uk.railway)