[GaryM]

The “Peak Oil” theory surfaced recently during an event in Santa Barbara. Some people use this theory to argue against continued support for and development of our petroleum-based energy resources. I would like to share a few facts that may help put the issue in a more balanced perspective.


Joe Sparano


Peak Oil theorists usually neglect to mention that the Peak Oil theory is just that — a theory. It is based on a belief the world has reached the point of maximum production of crude oil, and is used to predict painful and disruptive catastrophes as the world adjusts to the alleged decline of this critical source of energy.

Unfortunately, arguing about Peak Oil is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It’s a theory that cannot be proved. Worse, those individuals who embrace the Peak Oil theory frequently also promote energy policies that can have costly and disruptive impacts on consumers and businesses.

In fact, until recently, the petroleum industry was prevented by U.S. policies from accessing much of the undiscovered, technically recoverable resources of more than 115 billion barrels of oil and 650 trillion cubic feet of natural gas estimated to be located on federal lands, much of it offshore. Whether those valuable energy resources will someday be available to American consumers remains in question.

Here’s what we do know about the world’s supply of petroleum-based energy:

In 2007, the highly regarded Cambridge Energy Research Associates, or CERA, a firm led by Pulitzer Prize-winning oil expert Daniel Yergin, reported that worldwide oil reserves had been vastly underestimated.




CERA estimated remaining global oil resources at 3.74 trillion barrels — three times the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the proponents of the Peak Oil theory. That finding led CERA to conclude that “the ’peak oil’ argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.”

Yergin noted, “This is the fifth time that the world is said to be running out of oil. Each time — whether it was the ‘gasoline famine’ at the end of World War I or the ‘permanent shortage’ of the 1970s — technology and the opening of new frontier areas has banished the specter of decline. There’s no reason to think that technology is finished this time.”

To illustrate that point, advanced extraction technologies such as Enhanced Oil Recovery, using steam or carbon dioxide, along with four dimensional seismic and other reservoir-mapping techniques plus improved drilling technologies, are constantly expanding our industry’s ability to identify and extract new reserves.

Using these advanced technologies has allowed the petroleum industry to access reserves previously not identified or that we were unable to produce economically.

In 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey conducted an exhaustive survey of world oil reserves and concluded they were far larger than previously thought. Of the total world endowment (potential supply) of 5.6 trillion barrels of oil, the USGS calculated that humans had consumed a total of just 18 percent as of 2000, leaving 82 percent of endowed crude oil to be used or found for future energy needs.

The Peak Oil theory also ignores the enormous energy resource available to the United States and the world in the form of natural gas stored in shale deposits. The Energy Department estimates the nation’s natural gas resources, using current recovery technology, could supply the country with all of its natural gas needs for another 90 years. Historically, estimates of the size of a particular recoverable resource have grown over time as knowledge of the resource has improved and recovery technology has advanced.

Natural gas is a petroleum product that is already used to replace other fossil fuels in certain energy supply applications such as electric power generation. It is also expected to be available in future commercial-scale processes involving conversion of natural gas to cleaner burning liquid fuels and as compressed natural gas for vehicles.

Petroleum companies are also taking a leading role in research, development and deployment of an exciting and promising array of unconventional, renewable and alternative fuels.

Some of them already are in use and are commercially available. Some are not yet ready for prime time. But many have the potential to play an increasingly important role in our energy future.

We risk damaging our economy and quality of life if we continue making petroleum products more difficult to obtain and more costly to use before we have determined which of the many promising alternative fuels are technically feasible, scientifically sound, cost-effective and ready for commercial-scale use.

Consumers should drive the ultimate decisions on what fuels they want and will accept — not policies based on unproven theories. Markets have proved to be very equitable and efficient at identifying and selecting new products and energy supplies.

If allowed to function without interference, markets will guide us to new petroleum-based fuels and the alternative energy sources we’ll need for a secure energy future.

— Joe Sparano is president of the Western States Petroleum Association. The Sacramento-based nonprofit organization represents the petroleum industry in California and five other Western states.

Source: http://www.noozhawk.com/local_news/arti ... il_theory/

[Arthur75]

"lol"

[Carlhole]

The “Peak Oil” theory surfaced recently during an event in Santa Barbara. Some people use this theory to argue against continued support for and development of our petroleum-based energy resources. I would like to share a few facts that may help put the issue in a more balanced

PeakOil.com is like a middle school band class. And you're like the substitute teacher. You'll just get a lot of spit wads thrown your way when you try to broach conventional wisdom here.

For what it's worth, here's a recent similar post from another thread:

That Sci Am article perked my interest about Leonardo Maugeri. He wrote The Age of Oil: The Mythology, History, and Future of the World's Most Controversial Resource.

It was published in 2006. It's an excellent history with commentary throughout about the doomsayers that have always accompanied the oil saga. The author has plenty to say about the oil shocks of the 70's which he documents very well as having little to do with the actual supply of oil.

Despite the ever-present doomsaying, the real danger, from the producers perspective, has always been the threat of market glut. During the reign of the Seven Sisters and then the subsequent short-lived domination of OPEC, it has always been a challenge for oil producers to keep the many participants from completely flooding the globe with crude and destroying the market. The Seven Sisters, arguably, managed this difficult chore much better than OPEC (whose control completely broke down in the 80's, leading to a glut of cheap oil which lasted for the next decade and a half.

As far as memes go, Hubbert's Theory is a whole hell of a lot easier to quickly grasp than the reality of what the oil producers have always been up against. The reality is that oil supply is exceedingly complex. And predicting future supplies is just this side of reading goat's entrails. Hubbert himself admitted as much.

I like contentious debates. And it's always been my philosophy to read both sides of any issue at hand. This book is tailor-made for you if you are interested in the peak oil debate and want to be more knowledgeable about the whole history of it. Once the historical portion of the book is finished, Part Two begins with a chapter titled, "Are We running Out Of Oil?".

My experience here on PO.com, however, has been that posters only read the one side of any issue that they agree with - and prefer to attack messengers of contrary news and views. So I doubt whether many here will pick up a copy of this book at their local library, as I did.

[Arthur75]

Peak Oil theorists usually neglect to mention that the Peak Oil theory is just that — a theory. It is based on a belief the world has reached the point of maximum production of crude oil, and is used to predict painful and disruptive catastrophes as the world adjusts to the alleged decline of this critical source of energy.

Btw, peak oil isn't a theory : It is a primary school level mathematical fact. Consuming a finite non renewable resource has to go through a maximum in production.

The actual translation of this fact regarding oil and planet earth, or predicting the exact date isn't science, nobody says it is, this doesn't change the basic fact (or mathematical truth) though, of course.

[Carlhole]

Btw, peak oil isn't a theory : It is a primary school level mathematical fact. Consuming a finite non renewable resource has to go through a maximum in production.

It's a theory.

That's why it's called a "theory".

[Arthur75]

It's a theory.

That's why it's called a "theory".

No it's not

Who calls a primary school level theorem a theory ? Nobody
Then you can use sentences like "did we passed peak oil or not ?", no use for the word theory of course.

[Gorm]

if peak oil is a theory, then you have not understand it.

[PeakOiler]

So much for theory.

[MD]

Somebody better call Exxon Mobil quick and tell them to stop their investments in LNG and Algae. They need to get back out there and drill-baby-drill!

[Cloud9]

There is a tad bit of difference between vast and infinite. One can be affected by demand, the other cannot.

[hillsidedigger]

150 years ago oil wells in Pennsylvania were often not more than 35' deep.

So what if vast reserves of gunk exists at 35,000' deep? It won't help.

Ultimately, the more oil that is left in the ground the better of humanity will be.

[Carlhole]

The Peak Oil Theory is a theory. That's why it is so named.

To take a hypothetical example, if the National Ignition Facility were to prove that fusion energy were possible and feasible, the dependence of the world on fossil fuels would quickly disappear. This would completely demolish any presumed "mathematical" certainty of the Hubbert Bell Curve for petroleum extraction.

Now, I realize that it is a matter of religious belief here on PeakOil.com that human beings are incapable of invention or adaptation and so it is also matter of belief around here that fusion energy will never be realized.

But, therefore, the certainty of a peaking of oil supply (rather than a peaking of oil demand) is a matter of belief rather than mathematical certainty, because one must believe that future advances are impossible.

You're free to believe whatever you wish. I have always believed that the future holds much in the way of surprise for us all.

[rangerone314]

USGS and their estimates... seriously?!?!?

The USGS was so on the mark with their US-48 estimates and Hubbert was so wrong.... NOT! Pin the tail on the donkey estimates...

[Revi]

You have to consider the source. Joe Sparano is from the Western States Petroleum Association. They have an interest in continuing business as usual.

Who cares if it's a theory or not.

It's a theory that's happening pretty much on schedule.

Peak oil is here.

[mcgowanjm]

Using PO May 2005 Deffeyes/Campbell/Bakhtiari I've
been able to call the economic political collapse
better than with technical charting.

Nice theory. BTW, science doesn't have that many laws.
There's a reason for that.

But Wall St can teach those Hadron Collider guys something on how
to create black holes.

[shortonsense]

USGS and their estimates... seriously?!?!?

The USGS was so on the mark with their US-48 estimates and Hubbert was so wrong.... NOT! Pin the tail on the donkey estimates...

Yeah, Hubbert was so right about peak natural gas in the US. And his estimates for world oil....bang on, right?

Give it a rest, Hubbert was right in exactly one instance of his original 4 guesses. And no one ever talks about the other 3, we can't have anyone questioning the mythology, now can we?

And are we confusing the normal "peak oil" here with the hysterical, arm waving, bring on the zombies "peak oil"?

The two seem to get interwovened, and then the people on both sides spend their time talking past each other. One side thinking of it purely as a technical exercise, one day the rate must drop, and thats it. The other side attaches the end of the world, famine and starvation and crash ( now including financial crashes as well, just for fun ) and don't really care about oil much, its just there as a trigger for their favorite survivalist fantasy or excuse to become Amish.

[Dr. Ofellati]

You're free to believe whatever you wish. I have always believed that the future holds much in the way of surprise for us all.

Well CH, I've appreciated most of your posts over the last few years, including those on 911. Your semantic argument here, however, is a dry dive into a 20 foot deep stone quarry.

The word "theory" is only applicable when there is some reasonable doubt as to whether an event will happen or not.

Do you believe that the sun coming up tomorrow is theory, because it well may not?
Do you believe that it's a theory that you will die?

There is only so much oil in the ground.
If we pull the oil out of the ground, Peak oil must occur - the only question is when.
The only way this cannot be so is if we find a way of making oil or the earth finds a way of making oil. Those are the equivalents of the sun not coming up tomorrow.

Your reference to mathematical equations is completely irrelevant - it doesn't matter how we extract the oil. If we stopped altogether, then PO is behind us. If we stop for 500 years and then begin extraction again, then PO may be more than 500 years in the future.

The word "theory" is completely inapplicable to the concept of Peak Oil, which is MORE certain to occur than the sun coming up tomorrow.

People seem to conflate the unpredictability of when Peak Oil will occur with whether Peak Oil will occur. That conflation is incorrect.

Peak Oil must occur. Therefore, quite fundamentally, it is ridiculous to suggest that it is a theory.

If you disagree, then refute by simply providing an example of how Peak will not occur.

Good luck with that.

[Dr. Ofellati]

eeeeee

What is your purpose here?

[mcgowanjm]

How "right" does Hubbert have to be?

Down to the month?

May 2005 PO. Bahktiari Ace Foucher Deffeyes: I'll stick with them.



what hubbert missed IMHO. EROEI w(c)ould be ignored for as long as possible.

http://www.inteldaily.com/news/154/ARTI ... 07-08.html

And excellent posts above, Dr O.

[Homesteader]

Btw, peak oil isn't a theory : It is a primary school level mathematical fact. Consuming a finite non renewable resource has to go through a maximum in production.

It's a theory.

That's why it's called a "theory".

Not in terms of oil production in the U.S., or a few dozen other oil producing countries. In those countries Peak Oil is a fact, history, proven beyond a doubt, etc. . . Get your head out of your butt.