118 comments on Peak oil: BP, Conoco CEOs say it's here - also IEA's Fatih Birol really freaks out
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Like many people you confuse PO with the effects of PO. At TOD we really should try to be precise with terms.
Strictly speaking Peak Oil means peak of production, you are talking about consequences of PO. You are referring to what Roger Rapier calls Peak Oil Lite - even if production has not peaked, it will have effects similar to an actual peak.
I would concede they are saying the same thing as Peak Oil Lite, a shortfall will cause high prices. But they haven't admitted that oil supply will go into terminal decline - not yet.
I think there is an important difference. The message that IEA gives is that while the consumers will have a rough ride for a bit, the onus is on the suppliers to get their act together. This allows consumers to remain complacent.
The message we would like to give, is that consumers must not wait for suppliers to increase supplies (we believe they can't), but must be proactive in developing alternative sources and promoting conservation. If IEA said forget about oil, develop renewables, it would be quite a different outlook.
Even with the IEA's fairly stern warning, I expect we will have several more rounds of calls on OPEC to increase output, and OPEC saying they are not going to. OPEC play a dangerous game with that.
BobC:
I understand what you say, but I think that what you are describing was the IEA's earlier position - flag the potential effect and urge OPEC to produce more. Now, they are saying that non-OPEC is in decline ("geological" fact), and that overall production is likely to be 12.5mb/d less than we expect it to be - in 7 years!, i.e. that it will be lower than today, unless some sort of miracle happens (ie Iran and Iraq investing massively; and SA pushing its production up).
It's even more negative than the CEOs, in my view, and pretty damn close to real PO.
Did they use the word miracle? No.
You are still reading what you want to hear, not what they said.
Well, he does say that existing production will decline by 25mb/d by 2015, and will be replaced by 25 mb/d if all goes well:
Lots of conditions for production just to remain flat... Fine, I said "miracle", but it's not really a stretch from his words.
The way I read it, he foresees declines of 25 mbd from existing fields (2/3 of 37.5), offset by anticipated additions of 25 mbd. So he sees a supply plateau, not an actual decline. But also no growth to meet growing demand (i.e. a shift in the demand curve) unless OPEC does something surprising. Peak Lite, high prices.
The long-term numbers are pure fantasy. I expect he knows that, but can't speak to it until it becomes internal consensus at IEA, so he's putting the warning into the medium-term scenarios. It's pretty easy to extrapolate from questions about OPEC's medium-term capabilities, to even bigger questions about the even bigger increases that would be required in the long term, as non-OPEC continues to decline "geologically".
peace,
lilnev