For a minute there I thought I had to get off my couch, when all the while the fact is we don't have to do anything much but keep things afloat for just a few decades more! In fact, we'd best shut up about PO, because if our offspring finds out we knew about it all along, they'll turn and wring our necks come 2036!
Joined: Nov 11, 2004 Posts: 977 Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:28 pm Post subject: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
Could someone please point me to where Michael Lynch's argument(s) are scientifically refuted? I've done a search here on po.com, and read a few of the resultant posts, but I haven't found a solid reply to his statements, particularly:
Quote:
The many inconsistencies and errors, along with the ignorance of most prior research, indicates that the current school of Hubbert modelers have not discovered new, earth-shaking results but rather joined the large crowd of those who have found that large bodies of data often yield particular shapes, from which they attempt to divine physical laws. The work of the Hubbert modelers has proven to be incorrect in theory, and based heavily on assumptions that the available evidence shows to be wrong. They have repeatedly misinterpreted political and economic effects as reflecting geological constraints, and misunderstood the causality underlying exploration, discovery and production. The primary flaw in Hubbert-type models is a reliance on URR as a static number rather than a dynamic variable, changing with technology, knowledge, infrastructure and other factors, but primarily growing. Campbell and Laherrere claim to have developed better analytical methods to resolve this problem, but their own estimates have been increasing, and increasingly rapidly.
_________________ Do not underestimate the difficulties of surviving the transition of peak oil, nor the dangers of global warming. We must embrace nuclear energy and renewables.
Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 1647 Location: Davis, California
Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 6:22 pm Post subject:
He basically says that the Hubbert Model doesn't apply to every field or producing region because each field/region is fairly unique geologically. I think he uses the Forties field as a execerize in showing how Hubbert Modeling may not fit the data quite right. _________________ Joseph Stalin "It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
Lynch assumes that the reserves will grow. They do and the URR indeed is a dynamic variable. However 'variable' means that one cannot simply fill in the numbers they desire. OK let's fiddle with the numbers and see where that leads us.
If I then look at the reserve growth in the past 25 years and the production profile in the past 25 years I get the following numbers.
2030
Consumed 2.050 Gb
Reserves 1.650 Gb
Production 48 Gb a year
2055
Consumed 3.675 Gb
Reserves 2.100 Gb
production 80 Gb a year
I did nothing strange here. I didn't even use Campbells equations or theories. What I did was just extrapolate the reserve growth and the production growth of the past 25 years into the future. Even this simple exercise shows you that we will pass the 50% depletion point before 2030.
Now in this exercise I made two dangerous assumptions. One is to trust the BP data which contains all the unaudited reserves of SA etc. The other is that I assume that reserve growth will be the same in the next 25 years as in the past 25 years. The reality is that the reserve growth curve is flattening. In the past 5 years the reserves grew less than the 5 years before and so on.
But despite this being a extremely optimistic "business as usual" scenario, it is clear that we will hit the 50% depletion point before 2030.
If you think that my assumptions are dangerous then have a look at the optimistic scenarios. They have one thing in common. They assume that reserve growth will accellerate. they have to in order to push the production curve farther into the future.
I can find no way to justify such an assumption. Reserve growth has been falling for the past 30 years. I can see no reason why that trend will suddenly be reversed.
Joined: Nov 21, 2004 Posts: 579 Location: ~170ft/lbs@0rpm (on my bike)
Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:14 pm Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oi
Quote:
The many inconsistencies and errors, along with the ignorance of most prior research, indicates that the current school of Hubbert modelers have not discovered new, earth-shaking results but rather joined the large crowd of those who have found that large bodies of data often yield particular shapes, from which they attempt to divine physical laws.
There is no attempt at 'finding' new physical laws, the modelers are attempting to make a rough estimate concerning the date of the Earth's peak in oil extraction.
Quote:
The work of the Hubbert modelers has proven to be incorrect in theory, and based heavily on assumptions that the available evidence shows to be wrong.
The work of those modeling this is fundamentally sound, stating it isn't implies there is an infinite supply of oil readily available, and since (to the best of my knowledge) the earth isn't inifinite, any subset of the earth isn't infinite either.
As per the assumptions, they must be refuted on a case by case basis, simply stating they're wrong is analogous to a proof using the vaunted ISS (I Said So) theorem!
Quote:
They have repeatedly misinterpreted political and economic effects as reflecting geological constraints, and misunderstood the causality underlying exploration, discovery and production.
Who, what, why, where, and how? Sounds like the ISS theorem strikes again!
Quote:
The primary flaw in Hubbert-type models is a reliance on URR as a static number rather than a dynamic variable, changing with technology, knowledge, infrastructure and other factors, but primarily growing.
But growing by how much? Certainly not enough to throw off the end result by more than lets say ~5-10 years? Human demand is increasing much more than the URR is, hence, it can likely be factored out by taking into account a conservative estimate of demand growth.
Secondarily, one must understand that nearly half of the change in URR (or possibly more due to demand) will occur after peak.
Lastly, the closer to peak we get, the smaller the change in URR...
this is related to my notion that as we get closer to peak, the more accurate an analysis becomes. Why? Because as the time before the actual peak decreases, so does the likelyhood of it being altered significantly.
Lastly, any analysis done isn't always accurate because there is no transparent accounting in the oil industry as a whole. Like the saying goes, 'garbage in, garbage out'. If various oil figures released by the industry and government are in fact incorrect , of course an analysis using these figures would be far from accurate.
IMHO this is a great way for the government/industrial complex to discredit anyone who runs contrary to their opinions.
Joined: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 1243 Location: Suburban tar sands
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:51 am Post subject:
Quote:
The primary flaw in Hubbert-type models is a reliance on URR as a static number rather than a dynamic variable, changing with technology, knowledge, infrastructure and other factors, but primarily growing.
Mathematical theorem:
If a variable is constantly increasing there are two possibilities:
1)It goes to infinity.
2)It approaches some finite limit.
Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:13 am Post subject: There are only two types of people !
The Realists & the rest (either optimist or pessimist).
The ASPO people as far as I can determine are Realists, for the main part people like Hubbert & now Campbell have no axe to grind. They worked in the oil industry & looked at it realistically. Hubbert was pooh pooh'd for years after he aired his theory, but what these "optimists" or more likely people with vested interests conveniently ignore was that he was ultimately proven correct in 1971. The well/field data displayed here proves him correct on every individual field to date !
They then say "but he said world oil would peak in 2000" & yes he did, but that was using the figures for world oil discovery, reserves & expected production available at that time, the late 70's early 80's when oil consumption was increasing, but hten is eased off for 10years. There have been a few major finds since then that put the peak back a few years, as was the case with his original US data, but it does not negate the fact that the peak will arrive fairly soon. The mmost believable optimistic date is around 2015, so only 7 years after the ASPO's prediction !
The optimists choose to ignore the basic facts that you can't pump a well dry at its peak production levels, just look at the US fields since 1971, they still pump oil, but much less than at their peak. So yes oil will still be available out past 2030 for many years, but at declining production levels EVERY year. So they say 1.2Trillion barrels is 40years worth of production at todays consumption rate, then accuse the ASPO guys of using simplistic maths !!!!???
They then forget to mention the IEA's expected 120mbd in 2025, which wipes 1/3rd off their estimated reserve times, so its 25yrs rather than 40, but hey lets not mention that to joe public when assuring them all is well for the next 40yrs.
I've always been a realist & numerous times in my working life, the management have said or indicated things & I have interpreted them realistically. They & some of my co-workers have accused me of being a pessimist. 9 out of 10 times I have been proven correct & the co-workers have apologised later. The management continue to spew out the rhetoric, but only the realists see it for what it is. Unfortunately there are vastly more optimists & pessimists than there are realists in the world & the realists always get painted with the pessimists colours which makes them easy to discredit.
Rather than asking where this guys figures have been scientifically refuted, better to ask where did he get his figures & why are most of his claims attacks on the ASPO rather than actually refuting evidence of the ASPO clearly exposed figures ?
Chris W. _________________ The roller coaster is still climbing, but it's near the top now !
Where there's a WAR there's a WAY
Joined: Jan 04, 2005 Posts: 146 Location: Somerset UK
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:56 am Post subject:
But clearly Hubbert and Campbell were short sighted with regards to the techno boom we now find ourselves in especially reference NanoTech (check the energy section) which they couldn't forsee and bascally they are wrong.
There is no down trend. Petrol in the UK is now as cheap as it was 3 to 4 years ago. There will be no crisis!!
Well Reggie, keep playing devils advocate & your house value will go up forever. We WILL all be driving water powered airo cars in the next 2 years & world overpopulation & human polution will all sort themselves out. Oh & the price of all goods will be set at £1 regardless of what it is, forever & there will be no inflation too _________________ The roller coaster is still climbing, but it's near the top now !
Where there's a WAR there's a WAY
I just logged on for the first time, and am of the opinion that Hubbert's curve has already been proven, as far as American reserves go. Whether it peaks globally, next week or in a few decades, peak is inevitable and to argue otherwise the debater has to call into service obfuscatory speech, linguistic bafflegab and unnecessary jargon.
I've mentioned before that the UK field data presented on pages 11-13 of the presentation has some problems. Here are the corrected graphs
Lynch doesn't mention that both Hutton and Maureen have reached the end of their life and therefore the ultimately recoverable reserves(URR) is actually known.
With respect to the Hutton graph which Lynch believes shows that the slope of the line depends on which data points you use, the URR is known and when compared to the estimate from the worst possible two data points the estimate is only off by some 25%.
The Montrose graph in the Lynch presentation has a mislabeled x axis, and is actually production versus time. When the data is graphed correctly you can see that the initial estimate of URR would actually have been an over estimate by 10-20%.
Overall these graphs are fairly representative of the medium to large size fields in the UK DTI data base. Some fields do show evidence that the tertiary recovery has moderately increased the URR from the expected trend. Other fields seem to have a prematurely shortened life. In general once the field is on the down slope it looks like you should be able to make a good estimate of the URR and any tertiary recovery , while it may be economically viable, probably will not increase the URR very significantly.
Joined: Oct 12, 2004 Posts: 592 Location: The Pit of Despair
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:27 pm Post subject:
I understand that Michael Lynch finds the Hubbert modeling methods rather unscientific, and that oil production is based on a lot of variables other than geology. I agree on this!
Mr. Lynch, if you are reading this, perhaps you can indicate whether you will agree that some of the Hubbert modelers' assumptions are bound to turn out true.
1) Initial production of conventional oil was 0, and final oil production will be 0, since there is a finite amount of oil to extract.
2) Annual production in between the initial and final numbers will be a positive number, and if you made a graph where the x-axis is the year and the y-axis is that year's production, the area under the resultant curve--whatever shape it may be--would be the ultimately recoverable oil.
3) Somewhere on the curve--again, whatever shape it happens to be--there will be a peak year for production. That peak year could be 2004 if some major cataclysm destroys all humanity in 2005, in which event the peak would be defined not by geology, but by catastrophe.
You dispute the Bell-type curve typically modeled by Hubbert theorists for oil production, but I wonder if you could provide a global production model of your own that would help to ease our minds. I am willing to accept that 1) the Hubbert curve is based entirely on observation, and that 2) the amount of ultimately recoverable oil cannot be known.
The point of the Hubbert model is that it is, at least, a model! Until I see a better model, I am going to live my life based on the best model there is, and so far, it is Hubbert. If you have an alternate production model, or could point us in the direction of one, it would be a great starting point for discussion.
For my daily oil shots, I've had it this way, that ER is the more serious but PO.com the more fun. But ER is catching up on the fun side.
They have an energy expert who says oil is itching down towards 30 $, ehhm last year, and now the oil IS going down towards the 40 $ once... once speculators leave the market.
He also says something like, that you can extract more oil over time than initially thought, I think it's called 'reserve growth'. Or something. Anything you guys know something about?
From: "wilfrid02144" <mclynch@a...>
Date: Sat Mar 5, 2005 10:23 am
Subject: Re: Old predictions
I still stand by that comment. We appear to be in a speculative
bubble, as the fundamentals (inventories, supply etc.) are improving
over last year and it's hard to argue for prices being this high.
As long as the funds pump money in, the price will rise. But the
odds favor a large 2nd quarter inventory build, which could
(finally) reverse the psychology.
Mike Lynch Amherst
--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "artgroot" <art.groot@s...>
wrote:
>
>
> --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "lawrence_01749"
> <lawrence_01749@y...> wrote:
>
> > Interesting contrast to the analyst quoted by Ron Patterson, who
> > (June 2004) predicted that volatility would shake out of the oil
> > market, and prices would now be headed for $25. Anyone else
have
> > some old predictions that got trashed?
>
> The meter is still running on Michael Lynch's $30 oil prediction.
> Here is some background...
>
> On Oct. 22, 2004 (ER message #64807), Ron Patterson provided the
> following paraphrased quote from Michael Lynch: "I think by the
time
> we have this meeting again [i.e., one year after Sept. 04 - AG]
oil
> will be under $30 a barrel. Everything driving [the] market is
short
> term and is not based on supply related problems."
>
> Michael Lynch more-or-less confirmed this forecast the next day
(ER
> message #64840): "As my remark makes clear, this is a guess at the
> price (I would say educated, but you can disagree) and accuracy at
> short-term price forecasting is extremely difficult and has never
> been done well by anyone."
>
> Perhaps fortified by prices that had dropped to the low $40s,
Michael
> Lynch wrote on Dec. 7, 2004 (ER message #67000): "Are people still
> convinced that my suggestion that oil will be $30 by next fall is
> unrealistic?"
>
> We haven't heard from Michael Lynch since early January, 2005 when
> the oil price was last under $45/barrel.
>
> AG (47 N, 84 W), who foresees himself making no predictions
He also says something like, that you can extract more oil over time than initially thought, I think it's called 'reserve growth'. Or something. Anything you guys know something about?
Yes, it's quite simple. For the purpose of this demonstration we'll talk about a hypothetical field called "David".
1965 - David is discovered.
1969 - David is estimated to have 14 billion barrels of recoverable resources, oil-in-place is estimated at 29 billion.
1995 - David has peaked, but is still producing briskly, with advanced extraction methods such as water injection with horizontal maximum wellhead recovery wells.
1996 - Total amount of oil recovered from David is now 14 billion barrels and it is still flowing briskly. Total recoverable resource estimates is changed from 14 billion to 20 billion.
Reserve Growth in my hypothetical field is 6 billion barrels.
In almost every case, early estimates of recoverable resource have proved to be low, particularly with newer extraction technologies in the mix. This is due to a variety of reasons which might no longer be in place (currently published estimates on new finds are probably not as inaccurate as they were before).
Lynch's point is that Campbell et. all usually hold to the original numbers which have almost always proven to be extremely conservative, to a fault even, when they make their predictions. Lots of people who decry the failure of Ghawar make such a big point that in the '70s the field was estimated to have a cerain amount of recoverable resource, and we may be nearing that number now. What they fail to remember is that those numbers from the 70s are usually low, and not by small margins!
Also compelling is Lynch's illustration that for the last 10 or 15 years his predictions have been much closer to the mark than Campbell's.
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:20 am Post subject: Re: Michael Lynch - Disputing Peak Oil
FatherOfTwo wrote:
Could someone please point me to where Michael Lynch's argument(s) are scientifically refuted? I've done a search here on po.com, and read a few of the resultant posts, but I haven't found a solid reply to his statements, particularly:
Quote:
The many inconsistencies and errors, along with the ignorance of most prior research, indicates that the current school of Hubbert modelers have not discovered new, earth-shaking results but rather joined the large crowd of those who have found that large bodies of data often yield particular shapes, from which they attempt to divine physical laws. The work of the Hubbert modelers has proven to be incorrect in theory, and based heavily on assumptions that the available evidence shows to be wrong. They have repeatedly misinterpreted political and economic effects as reflecting geological constraints, and misunderstood the causality underlying exploration, discovery and production. The primary flaw in Hubbert-type models is a reliance on URR as a static number rather than a dynamic variable, changing with technology, knowledge, infrastructure and other factors, but primarily growing. Campbell and Laherrere claim to have developed better analytical methods to resolve this problem, but their own estimates have been increasing, and increasingly rapidly.
Sometimes the PO crowd reminds me of those religious people who interpret every headline as a sure sign of Jesus' imminent return. After running outside to look at the sky a couple of times, it's hard to take them seriously.
Unlike Jesus' return, there is no question we will run out of oil someday, but someday could be a little farther away than a lot of people here would like to believe.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 121, 122, 123Next
Page 1 of 123
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
