New peaks in oil production (no peak oil yet)

[bananas]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/eia-reports-new-peak-in-crude-oil-at.html

April 24, 2011

EIA reports a new peak in crude oil at 75.282 million barrels per day

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) is reporting a new monthly peak in crude oil and lease condensates for January 2011 at 75.282 million barrels per day. This is 600,000 barrels more than July, 2008 (74.669 million barrels per day).

The IEA had reported a new peak in world oil supply (that includes other fuel liquids at 89 million barrels per day in February 2011)

These are important for the whole peak oil argument. World oil production is still slowly moving up. It is not declining yet. Claims of peak oil having already occurred in 2008 or 2005 are wrong. Even with Libyan oil production out, there could still be new highs in world oil production.

<snip>

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/iea-reports-that-world-oil-supply-rose.html

April 22, 2011

IEA reports that world oil supply rose to an alltime high of 89 million barrels per day in February 2011

<snip>

The EIA also seems to be confirming a new peak in world oil production at 88.1 million barrels per day in the first quarter of 2011 Supply includes production of crude oil (including lease condensates), natural gas plant liquids, biofuels, other liquids, and refinery processing gains. World crude oil and liquid fuels consumption grew by an estimated 2.3 million bbl/d in 2010 to a record-high level of 86.7 million bbl/d.

<snip>

Here is a projection from 2009 at theoildrum which talked about a peak in 2008 and projected a drop of 4-5 million barrels per day in 2011 to 80-81 million barrels per day. The actual level of the same EIA numbers is higher in 2010 at 86.1 million barrels per day. 6 million barrels per day higher than projected and 500,000 barrels per day more than the "peak" in 2008.

<snip>

[Yo_Mama]

1. Peak Oil Is A Religion

The End Of The World came in 2008, and when it didn't, they just held a meeting and rescheduled the date. There's some psychological research on that.

Still, what is absolutely true is that it takes more and more money to produce a constant amount of supply. But this current surge is more a matter of currency speculation and loose money than supply/demand factors.

[GliderGuider]

4. So is climate change...

:shrug:

[Eddie Haskell]

11. Peak oil is inevitable.

Cheap oil is over. Do the new figures include unconventional sources?

[notesdev]

2. The real problem

Peak Intelligence

The world's population keeps rising but the total number of IQ points seems to stay the same

[GliderGuider]

3. A couple of points

When talking about Peak Oil (as opposed to the consumption of combustible hydrocarbons) I don't bother looking at total liquids production. That measure includes NGPL as well as refinery gains, biodiesel, ethanol, liquids produced from coal and oil shale, and non-oil inputs to methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) - none of which come out of oil wells. Crude&lease condensate is the measure to look at when one is trying to assess Peak Oil.

About the new data point:

An increase of 0.8% in two and a half years tells us nothing. Oil production is still on the plateau it has been on since the beginning of 2005. Over the last 6 years, including the one new data point (1 out of 60) the average production has been 73,373 barrels per day, with a high of 75,283 and a low of 71,540. That's a variation of +/- 2.5%. .Not to mention that the EIA has a habit of going back and revising past data, as there is some imprecision and variability in the reporting practices of producing countries. We have no way of knowing if the current number for January will hold up over the next year.

The new data point means we have not yet rolled off the plateau, but it doesn't mean Peak Oil has not yet arrived. The six-year plateau of production, while the price varied by +/- 55% over that time is ample proof of that. When the decline might begin is anyone's guess.

[Yo_Mama]

5. Well

First, I don't see how one can leave the oil shales and tar sands and so forth out of it, and you need natural gas to produce synthetic crude, so that production level is important. And conventional oil wells often produce gas and crude. In WWII, when the need was great and supply lines were cut, coal gasification and shale oil was already starting up. It just became cost prohibitive during peace time but now it is getting to the point at which it is cost-justified.

But basically, the problem is an economic one, and economically stuff that can be used as petroleum is what matters, so that is how I look at it.

Economically, peak oil does not make any sense at all. If we have to have it, we will produce it. The constraint comes when the cost of production rises above the economic utility, which certainly hasn't happened on average yet. The cost of oil is however controlling the global economic growth rate.

At the extreme end of the scale we now have claims of direct diesel (Joule) from cyanobacteria. That is quite unproven as practical, but at at some price level it seems likely that such a production stream will kick in. It also seems likely that it will eventually settle below $100 a barrel in 2008 constant dollars.

I expect world "combustible hydrocarbon" (to use your terminology) production growth rates to stay slack for another two years and then to zoom up in about ten years.

The current ledge for world oil prices is actually Canada's tar sands projects. Before oil prices crashed, there were a number of new projects planned. Because prices crashed and supply was far too high after the economic downturn in 2008, many of those projects were canceled or suspended. But they will ultimately be back.

Also, it will only take another year of the current economic malaise before the political pressure for the US to exploit more of its oil prices will mount to the point at which we do so. The decision makers are about to be walloped.

One of the main factors slowing combustible hydrocarbon production is political instability in areas of the world in which there are large potential deposits. No one will put money into Venezuelan resources; you need a stable government that respects property rights to justify larger upfront costs.

The way I see it, oil production is being controlled by governmental stability. The first step that will probably produce a sharp rise in production is that in about five years, the US will move to greatly expand its oil/oil substitute production. The second step that may produce a sharp rise in production is a technology such as the one Joule claims to be developing. Because the primary barrier to production of conventional/alternate resources is high upfront investment combined with political uncertainty in many areas that have deposits, even a relatively expensive method of producing liquid hydrocarbons from algae may become economically viable if it can be located wherever a company chooses.

A stable price of oil at $75 a barrel could potentially produce a 25% production increase in 15 years.

[GliderGuider]

6. You are aware that economics is a religion, right?

Most people don't realize that not only is economics a religion, but it is an earth-based religion, similar to Wicca or shamanism. The foundation of all economics is in the natural world, and unless the natural world supports human activity, it doesn't happen. All statements about human events that do not take the laws of nature into account are pure statements of faith. The reason you can say, "Economically, peak oil does not make any sense at all" is because you have fallen into this trap. As one example, you fail to appreciate the concept of Energy Returned on Energy Invested - the "economic" idea that shows most of our attempts to replace oil to be little but cruel hoaxes.

[kristopher]

7. Just making things up again, GG?

Econ isn't a religion:
Define: religion
a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Economics is a tool that is concerned with the flow of resources through cultures. That *includes* the limitations of technology and resources.

Your appeal to some undefined "laws of nature" is nothing but rhetorical sleight of hand and has no functional meaning in the context used. There is no "trap" except the one you are trying to lay.

EROEI is not foreign to economics, in fact, it is a concept that is fundamentally derived FROM economics.

[GliderGuider]

8. Just stirring the pot again, kris. Inviting people to think differently.

The invisible hand probably belongs to the invisible sky daddy...

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[kristopher]

9. False statements and deceptive arguments are an invitation to think differently.

But it is hardly an effort to have pride in.

[GliderGuider]

10. What is Truth?

What is Falsehood?

Who is it that judges?

There is no pride, there is only play.

[happyslug]

13. Depends on your definition of Religion...

Under the definition you use, Buddhism is NOT a religion, it does NOT depend on any Supernatural justification. On the other hand most people call it a Religion.

More on Buddhism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism

As to Economics being a Religion, a stronger argument for that can be made then Buddhism. Economist great founder was Adam Smith, viewed as the founder of Western Economics AND Marx called Adam Smith the most important economist prior to the raise of Communist Doctrine in the 1800s. The best example of this is the "Invisible hand of the Market Place" which has been used by Economists to justify what they say Economics is (The term is attributed to Adam Smith, but he did NOT use that phase in his Book on Economics).

More on the "Invisible hand of the Market Place":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand

Now, most people do not call the "Invisible hand" supernatural, but I am just pointing out that it can be viewed that way, much more then some of the Doctrine of Buddhism. Just pointing out, if your definition of Religion is a World View agreed by a group of people, Christianity, Buddhism, Marxism, and Western Economics all meet that test. If you add Supernatural belief to that definition, all but Christianity falls out of that test. Thus if Buddhism is a religion so is Marxism, and Western Economics, if Marxism, and Western Economics are NOT a religion neither is Buddhism.

Thus the better definition of Religion, is a World View adopted by a group of people. This is is line with various decisions of the US Supreme Court on the Issue of Religion than any requirement that the definition of Religion includes some Supernatural content.

One Last Comment, the Statistician W. Edwards Deming, once pointed out that Economics is NOT based on double blind side experiments, i.e. one thing change in the test group, and you have a control group without the change. Such double blind side experiments is the Holy Grail of any Scientific test, and a type of test NEVER done in Economics. Thus Deming refused to call Economics Science, for it failed that test, i.e. Economics is NOT based on double blind side tests, but observations that may or may not be valid for the subjects have other causes and input into their difference in actions in most Economics comparison.

More on Deming (Through NOT his comment on Economics):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming

[AtheistCrusader]

12. Ignoring production values, at least US consumption continues to decline.

Higher prices, more efficient vehicles, and the emergence of alternate fuels is making a dent.

A BIG dent. (It's starting to creep up a bit now though, pointing to a slight economic recovery, so we need to get in front of alternative fuels (electricity, etc) and behavioral changes ASAP)

Conservation is an enormous part of this.

[bhikkhu]

14. "Conventional Oil" peaked in 2005

There's a bunch of difference measuring baskets used, and they seem to have gotten more complex since the conventional peak.

For the most part, arguing an exact date or definition is beside the point anyway - like the old "arranging the deck chairs" thing, really. There's very little argument over where we're at when it comes down to it, aside from paid props and fading ideological hacks.