[JohnDenver]

There have been a number of threads where Monte invoked the "9.1% decline". For example, in this one rangerone314 suggested that oil might decline by 5.7% per year after peak oil, and Monte shot that optimistic nonsense right down:

5.7%? Try 9.1% in 50% in 7.6 years IEA World Energy Outlook 2008

Monte definitely seems to be predicting that oil will decline by 9.1% per year after peak oil, and drop to 50% in 7.6 years. But I just wanted to make sure.

Here's the figures for a 9.1% decline.

2008: 85mbd (actual figure EIA)
2009: 77
2010: 70
2011: 64
2012: 58
2013: 53
2014: 48

So Monte, are you signing off on that as your prediction? Or not?

[pedalling_faster]

the source of the 9.1% production decline figure for 2009 was Fatih Birol @ the IEA.

i have heard the figure referenced a few times, but it was always just for 2009, relative to 2008.

the best discussion i've heard about the 9.1% figure was this 'duet' with Robert Hirsch & Matt Simmons

http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/r ... /1213.html

[FloridaGirl]

I believe that 9% decline rate refers to existing fields. New production will make up for some of that.

But we need to start talking about the decline rate of net available energy. In the past, the energy input side of EROEI was negligable. Energy input is becoming more and more significant, especially for the marginal barrel of oil.

And, importing nations need to start focusing on net available energy exports. What is that decline rate?

[FloridaGirl]

Duplicate

[MonteQuest]

So Monte, are you signing off on that as your prediction? Or not?

Kind of a weak strawman, JD.

What I responded to was.

The one thing I'm not sure of is if agriculture requires 16% of petroleum and petro decreases by 50% over 12 years after peak oil (assuming 5.7% drop per year),why wont compesating by doubling the percent to 32% that agricultures uses of the total?

So, insert my input;

5.7%? Try 9.1% in 50% in 7.6 years IEA World Energy Outlook 2008

and it becomes:

(assuming 9.1% drop per year)

The IEA stated, "Without extra investment to raise production, the natural annual rate of output decline is 9.1 per cent."

If the 800 largest fields are currently declining at 9.1%/year, you think it is "out there" to assume a 9.1% decline post-peak, given that the investment in new production has crashed?

The IEA says even with investment, the annual rate of output decline is 6.4 per cent.

The The Financial Times wrote:

"The findings suggest the world will struggle to produce enough oil to make up for steep declines in existing fields, such as those in the North Sea, Russia and Alaska, and meet long-term demand. The effort will become even more acute as [oil] prices fall and investment decisions are delayed."

A couple of years ago, I was bashed for suggesting it would be over 5% when it was declared to be 4.5% from existing fields. And then last year it was revised upwards to 5.2%. Now, it has been revised upwards to 6.4%, only if we invest trillions.

I think 9.1% may be optimistic given this track record.

However, given this economic collapse we are experiencing, it may be more like Pops noted back in my Slow Decline thread.

Or (this just dawned on me) maybe the period between economic peaks progressively extends out so far that there is just never another peak. IOW, there is still oil in the ground but the traditional economy is so weakened it can't revive enough to bump up against capacity. The current "bubbles" in the US economy make for a BIG problem, perhaps The Second Great Depression could make the EIA's prediction of Peak in 2030 turn out to be overly pessimistic, I'll have to meditate on that further after I go turn the thermostat up, LOL.

[JohnDenver]

So Monte, are you signing off on that as your prediction? Or not?

Kind of a weak strawman, JD.

Monte, I'm not making any statement. I'm asking you a question, and you didn't really answer it.

Again, here's the figures for a 9.1% decline.

2008: 85mbd (actual figure EIA)
2009: 77
2010: 70
2011: 64
2012: 58
2013: 53
2014: 48

Is that your prediction of future oil production? Yes or no?
Are you predicting that oil production will be 77mbd in 2009, and 70mbd in 2010? Yes or no?

I think 9.1% may be optimistic given this track record.

Okay, but I'm wondering what that means in terms of actual figures. Are you are signing off on the above figures as your prediction? Yes or no?

[MonteQuest]

Monte, I'm not making any statement. I'm asking you a question, and you didn't really answer it.

I think I already did, at length.

Your figures also assume we peaked this year in all liquids and that demand above 85 mbpd continues.

We don't know any of that for sure. Read what Pops wrote.

[Ludi]

Monte, I'm not making any statement. I'm asking you a question, and you didn't really answer it.

I think I already did, at length.

So that's a "yes" then.

[MonteQuest]

Monte, I'm not making any statement. I'm asking you a question, and you didn't really answer it.

I think I already did, at length.

So that's a "yes" then.

No. Asked and answered.

[skeptik]

The Financial Times has reported that the IEA concluded that without extra investment to raise pro­duction, the natural annual rate of output decline is 9.1 percent.

So if you just continue pumping, no maintenance, no workovers, no new wells, - do nothing but pump - the IEA reccons overall decline would be 9.1% per annum.

Fair enough, but of course that never happens in real life - maintenance & workovers happen all the time. The real life decline rate would be much less.

[Ludi]

No. Asked and answered.

Ok, my mistake.

That's an "I don't know."

[JohnDenver]

the source of the 9.1% production decline figure for 2009 was Fatih Birol @ the IEA.

i have heard the figure referenced a few times, but it was always just for 2009, relative to 2008.

the best discussion i've heard about the 9.1% figure was this 'duet' with Robert Hirsch & Matt Simmons

http://www.financialsense.com/Experts/r ... /1213.html

Thanks for the info. Again, here's the figures for a 9.1% decline.

2008: 85mbd (actual figure EIA)
2009: 77
2010: 70
2011: 64
2012: 58
2013: 53
2014: 48

Have Fatih Birol and the IEA signed off on that as their prediction of oil production? No, they haven't. This is the reference scenario from the IEA 2008 World Energy Outlook Source:


Have Matt Simmons and Robert Hirsch signed off on that as their prediction of world oil production? Yes or no?

[MonteQuest]

Once we know in hindsight that world oil production has peaked, I think a decline rate in excess of 9.1%/yr may well be in the cards, especially given this economic collapse which has stifled and shut down much of the needed investment.

[JohnDenver]

Monte, I'm not making any statement. I'm asking you a question, and you didn't really answer it.

I think I already did, at length.

So that's a "yes" then.

No. Asked and answered.

I'm sure I'm not the only one still confused by your answer. It's not really clear.
Are you predicting the 9.1% decline in production indicated below? Yes or no?

2008: 85mbd (actual figure EIA)
2009: 77
2010: 70
2011: 64
2012: 58
2013: 53
2014: 48

[MonteQuest]

So if you just continue pumping, no maintenance, no workovers, no new wells, - do nothing but pump - the IEA reccons overall decline would be 9.1% per annum.

Fair enough, but of course that never happens in real life - maintenance & workovers happen all the time. The real life decline rate would be much less.

No, this new investment required will be above and beyond normal expenditures. The much less figure is 6.4%. A change of 3.3 years before a 50% decline. 70/6.4%=10.9 years as opposed to 7.6 years.

If present trends continue, the world will need to invest $16 trillion over the next three decades to maintain and expand energy supply," Claude Mandil, Executive Director of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, said today. This number, much larger in real terms than the comparable figure for the past thirty years, is equivalent to 1% of annual global GDP over the period.

[MonteQuest]

Ok, my mistake.

That's an "I don't know."

No one knows what the actual decline rate will be.

It is one of our biggest problems.

[JohnDenver]

Once we know in hindsight that world oil production has peaked, I think a decline rate in excess of 9.1%/yr may well be in the cards, especially given this economic collapse which has stifled and shut down much of the needed investment.

So... despite 9.1% depletion, the financial crisis and lack of investment, you don't have enough confidence to state that we've peaked?

[MonteQuest]

Are you predicting the 9.1% decline in production indicated below?

Asked and answered.

Your figures also assume we peaked this year in all liquids and that demand above 85 mbpd continues.

We don't know any of that for sure. Read what Pops wrote.

[MonteQuest]

So... despite 9.1% depletion, the financial crisis and lack of investment, you don't have enough confidence to state that we've peaked?

We won't know the answer to that exccpt in hindsight. But we may never produce 85 mbpd again, given the drop in needed investment. We may have already lost the keen edge we were rdiing on that kept us on the plateau.

When, and if, the economy recovers will tell the story.