 | The high potential of plug-in hybrids | The Oil Drum: Europe | Fatih Birol Presents the IEA World Energy Outlook 2007 |  |
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
Aad van Bohemen: “The theory of Peakoil says that we have currently used about half of the oil production that is available under ground. That implies that we can no longer produce more than we are currently doing, and that oil production is going to drop sooner than later. At the IEA we do not believe this, we think that we know that we are still not nearly halfway....." Interesting, "we think that we know that we are still not nearly halfway..."
That part got me also. I liked how he reframed the question to meet his answer. In addition to it being convoluted.
I'd like a more direct question and answers.
Do you think we will hit the highs seen in 2005 again and how many concurent months do you think that rate could be maintained?
Keep in mind, this is being translated from Dutch transcript. Unless you're intimately familiar with how Dutch people habitually structure their speech - and this is speech, not a written document - there's very little to be gained by looking at the minor details of his phrasing.
He is being polite.
"we think we know..."(say what?)
...and if he is wrong he gets to keep his job...
Ahhhh hah!
"still not nearly"
Are we 99% of the way to halfway?
It is what he doesn't say that seems most obvious.
It annoys me when they use the phrase "the theory of peak oil". It is not a theory. Provided you recognise oil is a finite resource then there MUST be a point at which you pump the most, and that past that point there is a decline. No theory there, just a statement of fact.
The only matter for debate is when that peak is and what shape it follows on the decline. Given that the shape is theoretically derivable, the only question is the precise when. The IEA needs some serious evidence if they are going to suggest their theory that there is much more oil to find. We need to get this the right way round.
Its the fact of peak oil
The theory of large amount of new discoveries to move the peak later.
Agreed. I forget who said it, but I love the quote:
Peak oil is a theory like the "round world theory".
The world is not round, not exactly. More elliptical and having a rather chaotic surface.
I'm convinced that we're in for a rough ride with lots of surprises...
Could we get past the flat earth stage and get into the ellipsoid phase now, please. Like in WGS 84.
That definition would be correct only with a symetrical "bell" curve, where mode = median = mean.
More likely, the actual curve is going to be skewed far to the right. In other words, the mode (peak) is far to the left of the median. In other words, it is quite possible for peak production to occur long before we reach the 50% mark. The reason: That 2nd 50% (and actually, quite a bit before that) is much more difficult and costly to get, and thus doesn't come on line at the same pace that the first 50% did.
The curve might be skewed to the left. Humanity might be so addicted to oil that it invests every last dollar in beating the logistic bottleneck and develops every remaining 10 barrel/day puddle simultaneously to keep the economic growth cycle going, followed by catastrophic collapse. Time will tell.
That is an alternative hypothesis, and time will tell. However, the extent of investment in new projects is not presently consistent with your hypothesis. It is more consistent with the hypothesis that as new oil becomes more costly to find and develop, the investments will become fewer and farther between, thus delaying the onset of new flows to < the flows lost to depletion.
Even without some sort of hyper development regime, it is not at all self-evident that the global, all-time production distribution is going to be symmetric around the peak. After all, in the past the world GDP and demand was significantly lower at the same time as big finds were easy. Now we are going to have to shrink demand by force, while no more large fields are available. World population and demand are not going to reverse in the future in a mirror image of the past. More likely is that there will be massive inertia trying to keep the status quo, leading to a catastrophic transition. Who knows, maybe magical new power sources will show up and save the day but until then, oil, gas and coal are going to be exploited (gas and coal will delay the crash).
Normal curves are symmetrical, but Lotka-Volterra (predator-prey) cycles are skewed to the left (crash is faster than growth). It depends on what assumptions you put into the model.
You can include a "effort function" in the D.E. that approximates how the market responds to scarcity. If the effort function is linear($X increase in price of oil always results in $Y increase in investment), there is no change to the shape of the resulting curve; it is still a normal curve, just a bit taller and shifted to the right.
To change the shape will require an "unreasonably aggressive surge in investment".
My technology effect concept is exactly a predator prey relationship. In this case the predator is advancing technology. And the prey is a poor little oil drop. Advancing technology is what transforms a symmetric relationship into a asymmetric one. Noye Moore's law effectively has this form. Eventually it reaches a real physical limit and transistor size no longer shrinks. In my opinion just about every example of refining technology to increase some variable results in a predator prey like relationship.
Thanks for real name for the curve I've been using shark fin.
Still like shark fin though :)