[Arthur75]

Two new docs from Laherrère (in French, but graphics quite self explanatory and labels in English) :

http://aspofrance.viabloga.com/files/Sophia2013.pdf

http://aspofrance.viabloga.com/files/Nice2013long.pdf

First one especially is a global synthesis with also his forecasts for coal.

These current discrepancy between these numbers and the "official ones"(and even more as relayed in the media) is really quite amazing ...



Some key graphs from the "sophia2013" doc above :

All liquids previsions 2007 and 2013 :



Coal previsions 2007 and 2013 :



Coal China :


Note that the IEA (WEO 2013) forecasts China future coal prediction below the "possible", and probably the only thing they put below the possible ...)

US natural gas :



US shale gas :



North America conventional gas :



Europe gas :



Russian gas :



All fossils 2007 and 2013 :



All fossils according to the IEA (WEO2013) :



All fossils per capita :



All fossils US and GDP :



France and energy bill :

[Subjectivist]

Excellent graphs. I think the cold winter in north america will use up a lot of the natural gas stockpile driving prices up and maybe stimulating drilling, but that is just a Blip in the long term trend.

[John_A]

Jean is always good for an introspective on peak oil, as obviously his early claims have changed as the older ideas have been discredited with respect to time.

Sorry Jean, but oil production ain't about building probability density functions, and your expertise in geophysics doesn't automatically convey to you knowledge of how resource economics works.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Jean predicting US oil production at less than 1.6 million barrels a day right about now. Why? BECAUSE GEOLOGY MATTERS, AS DOES PRICE. Better luck next time Jean, may I recommend some resource economics classes that you might not continue to make this mistake, even today?

The US has just recently discovered, drilled, and IS PRODUCING MORE THAN 1.6 MILLION BARRELS A DAY FROM NEW, BUT KNOWN FORMATIONS IN 1995 WHEN JEAN MADE THESE REALLY BAD TIME SERIES DATA FITS.

Figure 3, which considers the United States (Lower 48) and the Former Soviet Union, demonstrates the general symmetry of the profile, corresponding to a simple equation which is the derivative of the well known logistic curve. It is consistent with laws of statistics that the aggregate of a large number of assymmetrical independent distributions is symmetrical.

Lahherrere, J.H., 1996, Discovery and Production Trends, OPEC Bulletin, February 1996, p7-11

[Keith_McClary]

Sorry Jean, but oil production ain't about building probability density functions, and your expertise in geophysics doesn't automatically convey to you knowledge of how resource economics works.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Jean predicting US oil production at less than 1.6 million barrels a day right about now. Why? BECAUSE GEOLOGY MATTERS, AS DOES PRICE.

You don't need fancy math, just pick a URR and draw assorted curves with that area. They will all peak pretty soon.

Are you one of those folks that don't believe there is a finite URR?

[Plantagenet]

Its good to see Laherrere even trying to make projections of future oil production that include shale oil. The billions of barrels of oil that can now be produced from shale using fracking are a tremendous addition to conventional oil reserves, but they don't change the fundamental story.

Global oil production will inevitably peak----let the debate begin again as to when that peak will occur.

[John_A]

Are you one of those folks that don't believe there is a finite URR?

Of course there is a finite URR. The problem from this perspective is in two parts. 1) Lahherrere obviously underestimates URR at any point in time, fits his typical "all decline, all the time" line and presto...underestimates future production amounts. 2) He changes his URR to a bigger number, and does the same stunt, expecting a different result.

He should be asking WHY he is wrong, and then make adjustments for his myopia. Certainly the USGS folks have been doing this for decades, he should pay more attention to the scientist types who obviously know more on this topic than he does. And have...for decades.

Of course, it might not be considered polite to mention in mixed company that the USGS being correct, and guys like Lahherrere being wrong, is one of the prime reasons for peak oil sites imploding recently, including TOD.

[John_A]

Global oil production will inevitably peak----let the debate begin again as to when that peak will occur.

..rinse...repeat...rinse...repeat....

[Arthur75]

He should be asking WHY he is wrong, and then make adjustments for his myopia. Certainly the USGS folks have been doing this for decades, he should pay more attention to the scientist types who obviously know more on this topic than he does. And have...for decades.

Of course, it might not be considered polite to mention in mixed company that the USGS being correct, and guys like Lahherrere being wrong, is one of the prime reasons for peak oil sites imploding recently, including TOD.

1) Laherrère is a scientist type (and certainly as much as USGS)

2) his projections have overall been quite good if not the best ones.

3) You should check a bit more the *current* production data

4) Saying (directly or not) that TOD "imploded" because of peak oil now being pushed far in the future or something is totally "hilarious". It stopped because people running it were tired of doing it (and some internal stuff I think), but if anything, more because of the consequences of peak oil being around now (precise date doesn't matter at all) were sufficiently obvious for anyone reading the news.

5) peak oil is passed for sure per capita (and for a long time), and also in global net energy value for liquids

6) maybe you should be aware that peak oil for the US was in 1970(end of year), that you won't find many experts (if any serious ones) to tell you that US tight oil will bring it back to 1970 level, and for your info US 1970 peak was also the prime reason for the first oil shock, much more than the "arab embargo" little song (together with majors/countries rebalance on barrels revenus, and dropping of Bretton woods in 71 and associated $ devaluation).
And western majors and US diplomacy --wished for-- a higher barel prices, always good for majors anyway, and necessary to start Alaska, Gom, North Sea at that time, ie increase out of OPEC market share for the majors.
Maybe below picture makes it clearer (doesn't look very much like an embargo now, does it ? )


7) Do you know that OECD oil consumption is decreasing since 2005 ?

8) Have you heard of something being akin to a little crisis currently ? Or not ? Of a few recent/current wars and tensions ? Not at all ? Of a bit of propaganda also, no ?

[Pops]

The best thing about Laherrere is he points out the lack of data and lack of certainty right off the top. Unlike various other forecasters (and PR reposters and message board prophets) who pretend to certainty, he points out that the data is bad - opaque is a compliment - there is greater variance between sources than between years, and that's marketed oil volumes. Actual well by well data production data is nonexistent and reserve numbers are made up at best, he said back in the '90s that US reporting rules were poor and they gotten worse. Since the mid oughts he's said giving any estimate with greater than one or two digit precision is to give the impression of greater certainty than is realistic.

But then an error of a trillion barrels only moves the needle a score of years.

His method is to make a curve to fit the ultimate and from what I've seen he takes the ultimate from someone else. The earliest plot I've found is for an ultimate of 1,750Gb of "conventional oil"; the mean value proposed by the USGS and Petroconsultants at that time ('93?) which implied a peak around 2000. His curves since '06 call for a peak a little later in 2020 and 2Tb URR If his first plot os off by 20 years in a range of 200 that will be a feat.

But I add in the text that this curve is to show simply what the geology can offer with the ultimate being the surface below the curve. But the supply has constraints from investment, politics, wars, insecurity and other constraints of the demand (high prices or recession). Any curve with the same surface below can fit depending the constraints. This is why I was also the first one to speak about a bumpy plateau instead of a peak.

What is important is to give the reader a production curve which has a surface below the curve equal to the ultimate. The curve can be modified to satisfy the constraints as long as the surface is conserved: any area below the model should be compensated by an equal area above the model.

All the BAU forecasters (EIA, IEA, CERA and uncountable keyboard geologists) used to simply draw a straight line that continues past growth. One of the things the Chicken Littles like Laherrere have done is to force the BAU reporters to face the fact of depletion. They may call it something else, "Peak Demand" is popular or they may say consumption will fall because of climate change and government policy, etc, but their curves are finally bending - albeit the bend will never, never predict near term peak.

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2832

[John_A]

He should be asking WHY he is wrong, and then make adjustments for his myopia. Certainly the USGS folks have been doing this for decades, he should pay more attention to the scientist types who obviously know more on this topic than he does. And have...for decades.

Of course, it might not be considered polite to mention in mixed company that the USGS being correct, and guys like Lahherrere being wrong, is one of the prime reasons for peak oil sites imploding recently, including TOD.

1) Laherrère is a scientist type (and certainly as much as USGS)

Lahherrere is retired industry, and studying data...poorly...does not a scientist make. What is his experience in economics? The USGS has some of those folks. Want a reference? What is his experience in resource discovery process modeling? The USGS practically invented that kind of stuff, want a reference? What is his experience in petroleum engineering? (none based on his Scientific America article with Campbell, proof available on request) The USGS has those as well, and they don't screw up on the basics like Campbell and Lahherrere did in that Scientific America article. What is his experience in unconventional resources? The Survey has those as well, both on the geologic and engineering side. Interested in a list of authors specializing in this kind of stuff? What is his experience in global geologic studies to do a bottom up analysis of resources? Survey has been doing those and estimating things since before Lahherrere was born, and he doesn't do THAT at all. Where are Lahherrere's estimates of reserve growth? The Survey was doing those before Lahherrere ever slapped a curve on time series data and pretended it was predictive in nature. The USGS used HUbbert's methods (from the late 1960's), and if it is good enough for Hubbert and the USGS, why doesn't Lahherrere account for these things?

Lahherrere needs more experience in the pertinent areas to even think he could be employed by the USGS, because it is unlikely they would confuse random curve fitting with insight the way you apparently are.

2) his projections have overall been quite good if not the best ones.

Except for the one I referenced which was hideous in its inaccuracy....maybe that was just a boo-boo? (in my best Starship Troopers voice..."would you like to know more?")

3) You should check a bit more the *current* production data

Yes...we know that peak folks play kick the can really well....and his current estimates all keep getting bigger than his old ones....see a pattern here? And there are reasons why...have you ever seen his introspective on how he managed to get it so wrong back in the 90's, or does he just hope that folks only view his modern estimates through the same rose colored glasses you are utilizing?

4) Saying (directly or not) that TOD "imploded" because of peak oil now being pushed far in the future or something is totally "hilarious".

Except for the references to how professionals have been begun chewing on the editors and contributors to TOD for getting it so wrong you mean? Because when they do, in front of thousands of folks, they generally aren't laughing about it.

It stopped because people running it were tired of doing it (and some internal stuff I think), but if anything, more because of the consequences of peak oil being around now (precise date doesn't matter at all) were sufficiently obvious for anyone reading the news.

You should check out some of the why TOD died threads around here, when your peers begin using you as a punchline in a joke, it behooves those being made fun of to close up shop and hope that others will remember anything they do currently, with the same rose colored glasses you are using for Lahherrere, and not mention their TOD days with a giggle.

I can assure you, the kind of professional pounding some of these folks are already being subjected to is not a pleasant experience.

5) peak oil is passed for sure per capita (and for a long time), and also in global net energy value for liquids

Hubbert never said it was per capita, and wiki doesn't either. Revisionist definitions will not save the concept.

Peak oil, according to M. King Hubbert's Hubbert peak theory, is the point in time when the maximum rate of petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production is expected to enter terminal decline.[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

6) maybe you should be aware that peak oil for the US was in 1970(end of year), that you won't find many experts (if any serious ones) to tell you that US tight oil will bring it back to 1970 level, and for your info US 1970 peak was also the prime reason for the first oil shock, much more than the "arab embargo" little song (together with majors/countries rebalance on barrels revenus, and dropping of Bretton woods in 71 and associated $ devaluation).

Peak oil for the US was also in the 1970's for natural gas and it DID come back against those same experts declaring the natural gas cliff in America in 2005....so how many times must one peak be eclipsed by another before "experts" playing kick the can have at least a 50/50 chance of getting it right? Hubbert was 1 for 3 in his original 1956 paper (not the one where he declared peak in the US before 1950...interesting that "experts" don't reference that one though ) and I'm not sure anyone has done any better since. Obviously Lahherrere hasn't. Or Deffeyes. Or Duncan. Or Heinberg. Or Campbell. Or Ruppert. Or Savinar. Or Ugo. Or TOD. Or Fatih. Or Asklett. Or ASPO. Or PCI. Or Hughes. Any other "experts" you wish to discuss or is this august group about cover what passes for "experts" in the rose colored glasses world?

7) Do you know that OECD oil consumption is decreasing since 2005 ?

You want to talk about side effects of peak oil, fine. Decreasing demand is a GREAT side effect. Unfortunately, this particular one hasn't happened ENOUGH yet, and the proof of why peak oil isn't doing its job NEAR well enough is as close as your local freeway. Better luck next time maybe? How is your local doing, has peak oil managed to stop this manifestation in your neck of the woods because I have news...once upon a time, it was SUPPOSED to.

Have you heard of something being akin to a little crisis currently ? Or not ? Of a few recent/current wars and tensions ? Not at all ? Of a bit of propaganda also, no ?

What little crisis? You mean the one caused by the highest nominal prices in the history of the world in 2008 that caused local recessions but didn't cause TEOTWAEKI? Wars? You mean, the ones where the US went into Iraq and DIDN'T take their oil? Or the one where we went into Afghanistan and DIDN'T build a pipeline to steal their oil? Or the one where Israel is finding plenty of natural gas to fuel their economy in the eastern Med?

Crisis? Humans have had crisis since long before you were born, and oil was ever discovered. It is unreasonable to pretend that only since 1859 have we suddenly decided to only have them over oil, when it is obvious we enjoy having them so much, we don't even need that little of an excuse.

[Arthur75]

You're way too boring for any discussion Johnny
(and I abhor these little multiquotes ping pong games)

Btw I never said peak oil per capita = peak oil.

peak oil per capita is peak oil per capita, passed around 1980 on a plateau since then, seriously on the downslope since 2005

(and Exxon is in Kurdistan if you didn't know, not even talking about "service companies")

And not even mentionning that the key strategic aspect regarding the middle-east and the US, is more keeping the oil market in $, highly linked to the "security" role of course.

And have you heard about things like :



Or not ?

Fyi : peak demand is the most cowardish concept possible.

[John_A]

You're way too boring for any discussion Johnny
(and I abhor these little multiquotes ping pong games)

Btw I never said peak oil per capita = peak oil.

Any evil twin then perhaps?

5) peak oil is passed for sure per capita (and for a long time), and also in global net energy value for liquids

You certainly appear to be talking about them as though peak oil per capita has been passed for sure, and while you might not have directly linked them, you sure appear to be talking as though they matter. Why would you even mention it if its doesn't matter? I agree with you of course that peak oil per capita isn't peak oil, I could even be pushed to mention that peak oil per capita is so irrelevant that you shouldn't have mentioned it in the first place.

(and Exxon is in Kurdistan if you didn't know, not even talking about "service companies")

Good thing I didn't say anything about service companies then.

And have you heard about things like :



Or not ?

I've heard of Greece spending more money than they could ever hope to generate or tax, and going into the toilet, absolutely. Fortunately, that had everything to do with the Euro and integration into the EU than it did their oil production.

So no, I would NOT have confused the Greek political and spending problems (similar to the American home=ATM problem in 2008) with their oil production rates. I tend to focus on root causes rather than a oil-centric view of the world. But just to show that anyone can come up with a peak-centric view on...anything really...I will participate in this exercise with something of far more importance.

Fyi : peak demand is the most cowardish concept possible.

Really?

"Peak oil drives prices up in the first place. It has its own mechanism. We're sort of at peak demand right now," Campbell told Reuters from his home in the village of Ballydehob, West Cork. "I think presently the price limit is about $100."

Goodness gracious I wonder if anyone has told this idea of yours to Lahherrere's co-author on the Scientific America article back in the late-90's?

[John_A]

The best thing about Laherrere is he points out the lack of data and lack of certainty right off the top.

And the worst thing is he then does is NOT quantify that certainty. Saying "gee I am uncertain" completely negates the value of the upcoming conclusion because no one knows if the author is talking about a P99 or P01. Except with those scientist folks at the Survey anyway. But then, they are scientists, and scientists quantify their uncertainty all the time, because it is the RIGHT way to do this thing.

[Pops]

The best thing about Laherrere is he points out the lack of data and lack of certainty right off the top.

And the worst thing is he then does is NOT quantify that certainty. Saying "gee I am uncertain" completely negates the value of the upcoming conclusion because no one knows if the author is talking about a P99 or P01. Except with those scientist folks at the Survey anyway. But then, they are scientists, and scientists quantify their uncertainty all the time, because it is the RIGHT way to do this thing.

His point of course is there is no reliable data so stating a probability is misleading.

His error margin of course is obvious, he plots in Tb increments so the margin then is +/- .5 Tb.

Even then the difference between peak dates - external factors excluded, is about 20 years.