Has oil production peaked?

[Gilitar]

First things first. I hope I'm not breaking a rule on this one. I figured this is probably the best place I know of to have a discussion on this topic.

Please keep discussion on topic. Please keep politics out of this one.

I was surfing the web and came across this article:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/14/news/economy/peak_oil/?postversion=2007091414

After reading it I then realized how much hurt we could be in if oil has indeed peaked. I just want to get my fellow BITOGers thoughts on the subject.

A couple of questions...

1. I heard that old oil wells that were once dry are filling back up. Any truth to this?

2. Do you guys think that oil production has or will peak in the near future?

Let me know what you guys think....

 

[Dominic]

Oil has peaked, it did so around 2005. We're on a downhill slide of production at this point. May I direct you to 2 sources.

1. "The End of Oil" by Paul Roberts (book)
2. http://dieoff.org/page224.htm
THE PEAK OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION AND THE ROAD TO THE OLDUVAI GORGE

Richard C. Duncan, Ph.D.1

Pardee Keynote Symposia
Geological Society of America
Summit 2000
Reno, Nevada
November 13, 2000

 

[drewjp]

In macroeconomics we actually discussed this problem in detail.

I can't remember most of it now, but we have peaked, and we're gonna be in for a world of hurt unless alternatives are financed now.
Also, we watched a film on how suburbs would just disappear....as they're based on the premise of commuting to work.

 

[gfcrane]

There is a minority opinion that oil has not peaked, but this school of thought is not shared by the majority of those who are supposedly in the "know." I can't remember any references as it has been awhile since I read about the subject. The basic premise is an argument on just how oil is formed. One side, the majority, insists carboniferous material from plants and animals are to blame, while one other explanation postulates that left over hydrogen from the early formation of the planet is constantly rising and reacting with deep dwelling bacteria. Yet another is that limestone, iron oxide, and water can form hydrocarbons under conditions of pressure and temperature in the mantle. These three constituents are abundant at plate boundaries. This, by the way, has been done in the lab and methane is formed from the carbon in limestone and hydrogen in the water.

One is forced to wonder as the oil industry professionals I have known display a somewhat profound disinterest in how, but focus on the where. If liquid hydrocarbons are constantly forming, the would still collect in natural traps. These traps may exist in non-traditional types of rocks, at which oil geologists tend to ridicule. The "refilling" of exhausted reservoirs is documented and clearly a fact. No ready explanation exists that I have discovered other than more liquids collecting.

Do a google search on terms like crude oil genesis, source of crude oil, etc.

 

[Kestas]

To add: http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1130.html

It is probably in the oil companies' best interest to perpetuate the thought of oil being scarce, when there may be considerably more available.

Remember the Schwartzenegger movie where an evil dictator controlled the air available to the citizen's of a planet? The climax of the movie came when it was realized that the whole planet could have been easily been supplied with cheap air the whole time.

Normally I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories. I'm just throwing this in here for discussion.

 

[bob_ninja]

See http://www.theoildrum.com/

There is a widespread belief that the production has peaked. There are many articles and discussions. As an example, I read an analysis of Saudi Arabia production that inidicated that they are not increasing production because they cannot (as opposed to by choice).

I doubt that old wells are refilling. Instead, I believe the technique involves pumping water into old well to force any remaining oil to come up where it can be pumped out. It is used to recover the last 10% or 20% or ??? that is very difficult to reach.

If any of these theories are true then the oild production could go on forever and even increase. The clear reality is that oil production increases are stalling so we have to assume for now that it is still a finite resources and any possible regeneration doesn't exist or is slow/produces low quantities.

In any case, the problem is that new production such as oil sands requires far more resources and energy than the old conventional sources. Thus you have diminishing returns as increasing energy is used to extracted dimishing oil supplies.

Indeed, the fact that oil sands are being developed which are far more difficult and expensive to work than old well used to be indicates that old wells don't have much left, even using the latest tek.

Finaly, the core problem is that ANY oil supply we can create seems to be quickly consumed by ever increasing numbers of engines, be it cars, trucks, etc. So we are making the problem only worse by assuming there is plenty of supply and everything is fine.

The oil price is telling the truth!

 

[Mr. Boston]

I peaked along time ago but keep on ticking...

Seriously, some authors claim there's no substitute for oil used in plastics. As I type this I'm drinking coffee from a plastic cup made out of corn oil.

 

[Lord Haw Haw]

Here's what the former chairman of Shell has to say about it.

http://news.independent.co.uk/business/news/article2966842.ece

To recap, he says oil could hit $150 a barrel, and peak oil will probably be reached within 20 years.

The amount of Saudi reserves is a state secret. That doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

There's a Saudi saying: "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a plane. His son will ride a camel."

I've read internet articles about life after peak oil. It's scary and depressing. I'm 53 and probably won't live to see the worst of it, but I feel bad for the younger people who will.

I'm trying to do my part by driving vehicles with relatively decent mileage.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

I'm trying to do my part by driving vehicles with relatively decent mileage.

---

That merely enables someone else to have affordable energy. It doesn't extend energy supplies one minute in the future. Let's for a moment consider (pretend) that we have an infinite supply of petroleum ..but have reached some finite technical production roadblock that can't be mastered/overcome. With you driving a more energy efficient car ..you've merely "made room" for someone else who isn't/wasn't using it ..or are enabling them to use it (whatever "it" is) ..more.

You're effectively making it more affordable to be used just as much as it was yesterday ..and the day before. Not one drop of petroleum was "saved" by your conservation.

Now stop pretending and see what image comes into view. Zero hour is no further away with your purchase and use of an efficient car. I don't even think that your wallet is any thicker. The purchase of your car probably outstripped any real savings in $$$ over a cheap gas guzzler.

That's the situation we're in now and from here on out. Sure we'll develop more efficient technologies and conserve simply due to price, but there won't be anything except a deadend if we can't crack the limitless energy nut. Since so much of the planet's population support systems depend on free flowing and abundant liquid energy, I don't really think that technology can replace it in a timely manner given how close we are to empty. At least not at the levels of functionality that we (for lack of a better term) "enjoy" today.

It's just not, in any way I can figure, sustainable. Now, in my ongoing campaign for sensible solutions, if we have a global impact war or plague ..then we may be able to reduce the population enough to survive IF we learn some lessons.

I say ..hit the reset button and work 24/7/365 to crack the energy nut. Otherwise, it's academic.

 

[Kestas]

Wisely said, Gary. I've been telling people the same thing. Why conserve?... so we can put our children through this misery of conservation? Let's consume the oil as fast as we can! Once it's gone everybody will be in the same boat, minus the geopolitical angst that surrounds today's oil.

 

[Gary Allan]

The problem is, as it is with every "push comes to shove" event, many things are happening at the absolute worst time. Why, when there were decades of opportunity to develop third world economies (aka China), did it have to occur NOW. Not 20 years before peak oil ..but just when it will truly turn bend into break

.

Now I'm sure some economic theorist ..in the numb vacuum of supply and demand, will see it as some totally sensible evolution in economic pressures and differentials ...but why elevate those to a status that they will assuredly never be able to sustain/maintain? That is, why put MORE people into energy intensive situations when energy will be at a premium?

It's sorta like someone is at the helm and says, "Hey!! I see an iceberg!! Ever play chicken with an iceberg??".

You know the rest of the story

 

[Shannow]

LOL a the iceberg analogy.

It's a crazy ride seeing that we are burning at an unprecedented rate, and even serious research won't be carried out until it's "economically viable".

That dip (when research becomes viable due the cost benefits) is going to be felt by 95% of the world.

The profits are going to be made by 5% of the world.

Of course we'll move full steam ahead.

 

[oilyriser]

Quote:

---

The problem is, as it is with every "push comes to shove" event, many things are happening at the absolute worst time. Why, when there were decades of opportunity to develop third world economies (aka China), did it have to occur NOW. Not 20 years before peak oil ..but just when it will truly turn bend into break

.

---

If people had gotten their act together in the 1600's -1700's instead of burning witches and locking up scientists, peak oil could have come much sooner.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

LOL a the iceberg analogy.

It's a crazy ride seeing that we are burning at an unprecedented rate, and even serious research won't be carried out until it's "economically viable".

That dip (when research becomes viable due the cost benefits) is going to be felt by 95% of the world.

The profits are going to be made by 5% of the world.

Of course we'll move full steam ahead.

---

It does seem like someone is saying "Let's just get this deforestation and oil reserves thing out of the way so we can move on to what's beyond it". I really don't think that they (apparently) figured out if what's beyond it is functional. All that's important is that there will still be a market for what's left.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The problem is, as it is with every "push comes to shove" event, many things are happening at the absolute worst time. Why, when there were decades of opportunity to develop third world economies (aka China), did it have to occur NOW. Not 20 years before peak oil ..but just when it will truly turn bend into break

.

---

If people had gotten their act together in the 1600's -1700's instead of burning witches and locking up scientists, peak oil could have come much sooner.

---

Yes, I guess it would have. I put the time line a little further back though. If we hadn't seen the fall of the Roman Empire ..and the total loss of most history and technology in the various "ages" ..I think that we may have been further along by now ..for better or worse.

We've gone nowhere fast for the past 45 years. We can play music on smaller storage devices and can communicate across vast distances without difficulty. We can watch the world in real time. We can cook using a microwave. Aside from refinements ...what can we do now that we couldn't do before?

 

[oilyriser]

cure for impotence
cure for baldness... but see #1. for side effects.

 

[Gary Allan]

Yes ..I forgot the most significant breakthroughs in modern science. Heff was pleased.