Introduction
Oil is a non-renewable resource. Hydrocarbons such as oil require millions of years to form. We can consider that the existing stock of oil in Earth’s subsoil a given; we cannot "increase" the reserves, just discover those that we still do not know of.
Every non-renewable resource coming from a finite storage can be exhausted, this exhaustion process can be described through a mathematical function and represented by a depletion curve. This theory of depletion of non-renewable natural resources was first put forward in the 1950s by King Hubert, a US geologist, based on actual observation of oil wells' production. Based on the analysis of new well discoveries in the United States, Hubert accurately predicted that the US production would reach a peak around 1970; the country reached peak production at about 3.5 billion barrels in 1971. In 1974, Hubbert (who passed away in 1988) also projected that global oil production would peak in 1995 at 40 billion barrels p.a. This prediction proved to be incorrect.
The production curve, also know as Hubert’s curve, is bell shaped; its peak (Hubert’s peak) lags a discovery’s peak and is reached some time after production surpasses discoveries (according to this model, the rate of oil production is largely determined by the rate of new oil-well discovery) and the stock of reserves is roughly half depleted, i.e., when the historic accumulated production reaches roughly the same amount as the remaining existing reserves in the ground.
Individual wells, fields, countries, and the world follow a similar pattern.
Peak oil theory is well grounded in physics and mathematics, and there is little controversy that peak oil production for the world will eventually be reached at some point in the current century. The controversy is about when it will happen (some argue we are there already), what will drive it, and what its consequences will be.
Another topic of controversy is the relative steepness of the projected rate of decline of the production curve. This is, perhaps, the main cause for concern about the economic and social impact of peak oil production, because a steep drop in the production curve implies that global oil production will decline so rapidly that the world will not have enough time to develop sources of energy to replace the energy now provided by oil.
Discussions on when this will happen vary somewhere between now and in the next 30 years. The peak year may actually have been 2005, but the peak year will only become obvious in retrospect, many years after it happens.
A production peak may be driven primarily by structural factors: Because there aren’t enough reserves to economically satisfy a growing demand, prices would rise dramatically, resulting in a curtailment of demand, possibly in the context of a prolonged recession.
Or the production peak may be driven by other, more-optimistic reasons:
- A major breakthrough in the exploration and development of other forms of energy makes them a much more economical source and replaces oil and gas because the new form is cheaper (before oil prices have increased dramatically).
- Humanity starts a demographic decrease due to another limiting factor (e.g., family planning, a pandemic, etc.) before the oil reserves are depleted and before the environmental impact of oil production has major negative consequences.
- The populace voluntarily limits their oil consumption because of reasons other than oil price increases; for example, because of the environmental impact (climate change) that results from its use.
There will probably be a mixture of all of these, and that mix will determine how hard of a landing peak oil production will have.
This discussion is really a reprise, to a large extent, of the Malthus theory on the evolution of population and the evolution of resources to sustain it, particularly production of food resources.
Over the last 200 years, technological advances have systematically allowed the growth of food production (and other goods) to outstrip the very strong demographic growth. The question today is still whether or not technology will again save the day. There is no universal law guaranteeing that it will. On the other hand, we have started in recent years to see a substantial channeling of resources, both financial and intellectual, to the development of alternative energy technologies; for example, most of the top VC firms are now focusing on this space. This is encouraging.
A look at the numbers today
Current oil production stands at about 85 million barrels of oil per day, or just over 30 billion barrels per year (4.25 billion metric tons per year; a metric ton of oil corresponds to about 7.3 barrels).
The chart below shows the recent evolution of production, which has been rather stagnant since 2005.
Discovery peaked 44 years ago (as can be seen in the chart below) at slightly above 60 billion barrels and is currently about 5 billion barrels per year, a sixth of current production/consumption—a 15% replenishment rate.
Worldwide proven crude oil reserves are estimated at 1,100 billion barrels, or 150 billion TOE. Europe and Eurasia, Africa, and South and Central America each have about 10% of the world reserves, but they are overwhelmed by the Middle East, which has over 60%.
Distribution of proven oil reserves worldwide by region:
This level of proven reserves corresponds to about 35 years of current consumption levels; surprisingly, in spite of dwindling discoveries and growing consumption, this ratio (proven reserves relative to consumption) is at about the same level as in 1970, although it has come down a bit since 1990, after a peak of about 45 years.
Proven oil reserves expressed in years of current consumption:
The reason for this stability is that stated oil reserves have increased substantially over an almost 40-year period.
Why?
"Reserves" is not a physical notion, but a political-technico-economical notion. As a result, the definition of "reserves" varies by country.
Some countries (such as the United States) define reserves as "oil that we reasonably consider to be able to extract in the future from the known physical resources, with the known techniques, and in the present economic conditions." These are also called "proven reserves."
In other countries, "reserves" generally correspond to the sum of 100% of proven reserves, 50% of the probable reserves, and 25% of the possible reserves.
There are four drivers of reserve growth:
- New discoveries.
- Technical improvements; i.e., an increase in the proportion of the oil in a reservoir that may be extracted. The recovery factor is around 35% currently; a 1-p.p. increase would increase the reserves by one to two years of consumption.
- A change in economic conditions; i.e., if the market price of oil increases.
- A change in the judgment about those reserves, often driven by non-technical considerations. Consider that the production quotas of the OPEC countries are proportional to the reserves they publish and that the share prices for public oil companies is affected by the amount of the reserves they declare.
So the conclusion is that, driven by a variety of technical, economical, and political factors, proven reserves have increased because of a reclassification between types of reserves (between probable/possible and proven) rather than through new discoveries (which, as we have discussed, are very low). The chart below roughly illustrates what has happened.
How close are we to the peak?
Recapping from our theoretical discussion on the depletion curves, the peak happens after discoveries have peaked, after consumption has overtaken discoveries, and once total accumulated consumption/production is roughly equal to the remaining reserves.
Looking at the numbers, one concludes that two of the conditions for a production peak have occurred, and a third may be occurring:
1) Discoveries peaked 44 years ago (by coincidence, the United States discoveries peak happened 41 years before peak consumption, although the lag for the worldwide case could vary substantially from the US case).
2) Consumption overtook discoveries in 1980, about 28 years ago (in the United States, consumption overtook discoveries about 32 years before the peak, again possibly just a coincidence of dates).
Global oil discoveries and production:
U.S. Oil discoveries and production:
3) Total accumulated output may be roughly equal to existing proven reserves (this could vary somewhat, depending on estimates, and even more so on probable and possible reserves), the final condition, which is expected to coincide with Hubert’s peak. The chart below illustrates where we might be today.
In addition, (i) the flat output for the last three years and (ii) the decline (albeit slow) since 1990 of the reserves in terms of number of years of current consumption are not encouraging signs.
Finally, as illustrated by the chart below capital spending on oil and gas exploration has more than doubled since 2002 (for example, presently there are more oil rigs at work in the US than at any time in the last 20 years), but there has been no major change of trend in oil discoveries, at least not yet, although lag and inflation in production factors may be at play here.
The map below shows in red the countries believed to be past their peak, and countries believed to be before their peak in green (but with many of these expected to reach their peak in the next 5-10 years). The largest producer, Saudi Arabia, is shown green, although some argue that it has already reached its peak. Saudi’s Gahwar field the largest oil field in the world is a particular source of concern as it is expected by several specialists that once the peak is reached its decline may be very fast.
Conclusion:
There are significant factors indicating that peak oil production is about to be—or has already been—reached, but it is impossible to estimate/predict this with precision, and this will only be clear in retrospect. Regardless of the exact timeframe, the data shows that this is a pressing issue that will almost certainly affect the current generations. Further, there is a reasonable chance that, once the peak is reached, production may decline quickly, rather than slowly, causing at least significant economic crisis, although it could be much worse.
It is clear that the energy policies of the last 30 years, particularly in the United States (which consumes significantly more per capita as other developed nations (for example the US consumes about 25 barrels per person per day per year, almost twice the level in Japan, and 10 times more per capita than China), have served us poorly and have wasted the warning of the seventies’ oil crisis to reduce our dependence on oil. The Europeans have at least taxed gas heavily and have invested more aggressively on alternative energy and public transportation systems.
The prudent and reasonable approach is not to be in denial, but rather to assume that peak oil production may be nearly reached (or reached already), creating the sense of urgency needed to seek solutions and prepare accordingly for the potential consequences which may be grave.
In the meantime, the consequences for investors may also be extreme. Stagflation may be a likely result, this is an environment that is negative for equity markets. Fixed income investments are likely to perform even more poorly as interest rates are likely to rise. Gold as it correlates strongly with oil prices will likely outperform equities. Oil producing nations (Russia, Middle East, Nigeria, Angola, Brazil, Canada) are likely to fare relatively better than oil consuming nations (US, Western Europe, Japan, China).
In terms of sectors best bets would remain in energy sector both traditional and alternative. Best way to play the sector would be in oil field services particularly in companies with deep sea drilling capabilities, although I would like to point out that even in an escalating oil price environment it is possible for there to be an over supply of rigs and oilfield service companies which would put a downward pressure on day rates and profitability of these companies. Companies with access to reserves are also attractive investment opportunities particularly in countries where expropriation by the local government is less likely, so companies operating in Canada for example look quite attractive.
Finally, defense is also likely to do very well in this context. Oil producing countries will likely want to step up defense spending to protect their resources. And the global powers that are net importers such as U.S., China, India and Europe may feel tempted to use their military force to guarantee that oil producers have governments in place that will continue their supply to the global markets.
Related Articles
|
This article has 26 comments:
- Alan von Altendorf
- 254 Comments
My Website
Sep 19 04:35 AM- Xpert
- 3 Comments
My Website
Sep 19 05:03 AM- Xpert
- 3 Comments
My Website
Sep 19 05:08 AM- cjwirth
- 42 Comments
My Website
Sep 19 08:56 AMAlternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment.
We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from "outside," and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.
This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: www.peakoilassociates....
I used to live in NH-USA, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil? Email: clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com or give me a phone call which operates here as my old USA-NH number 603-668-4207. survivingpeakoil.blogs.../
- cjwirth
- 42 Comments
My Website
Sep 19 08:56 AMAlternatives will not even begin to fill the gap. And most alternatives yield electric power, but we need liquid fuels for tractors/combines, 18 wheel trucks, trains, ships, and mining equipment.
We are facing the collapse of the highways that depend on diesel trucks for maintenance of bridges, cleaning culverts to avoid road washouts, snow plowing, roadbed and surface repair. When the highways fail, so will the power grid, as highways carry the parts, transformers, steel for pylons, and high tension cables, all from far away. With the highways out, there will be no food coming in from "outside," and without the power grid virtually nothing works, including home heating, pumping of gasoline and diesel, airports, communications, and automated systems.
This is documented in a free 48 page report that can be downloaded, website posted, distributed, and emailed: www.peakoilassociates....
I used to live in NH-USA, but moved to a sustainable place. Anyone interested in relocating to a nice, pretty, sustainable area with a good climate and good soil? Email: clifford dot wirth at yahoo dot com or give me a phone call which operates here as my old USA-NH number 603-668-4207. survivingpeakoil.blogs.../
- redbaron
- 154 Comments
Sep 19 09:04 AM- Fred Banks
- 117 Comments
Sep 19 10:22 AM- Oil-Finder
- 3 Comments
Sep 19 11:38 AMFor almost 3 years I have been collecting news about oil discoveries around the world. These are real prospects that have been drillled and quantified. I have placed them at the following link, and it is an on-going project:
peakoil.com/fortopic35...
In 2006 I cataloged 10.65 - 25.9 billion barrels.
In 2007 I cataloged 32.22 billion - 36.75 billion barrels.
In 2008 to date I have cataloged 19 billion barrels to 21.2 billion barrels.
That's 61.87 to 83.85 billion barrels of discoveries in less than 3 years. Compare that to the ASPO graphic above showing extrapolated decade-ending discoveries for 2010 at around 60 billion barrels.
While my effort is unscientific, I have reason to believe it is on the conservative side. There are many discoveries which are made whose resource sizes are never announced in the press, and merely get buried in some company's quarterly statements as additions to reserves. Those are nearly impossible to catch with my unscientific methodology.
Incidentally, the ASPO chart on discovery rates is rather misleading to the average viewer. When making this chart, the ASPO backdated the discoveries according to how much oil they've actually produced since they were discovered. This biases the chart toward older discoveries because, after all, they have a long history of production from which to judge their actual discovery size. In other words, if they had made that same chart in 1950 or 1970, it too, would have shown a trailing-off effect because the more recent discoveries had produced little to date, and therefore would have been deemed small in size. This would have given the uneducated viewer the impression that the rate of discoveries had been trailing off. Sometimes it takes decades to get an accurate assessment on just how much oil there is in a given area. The more recent discoveries likely will, over time, be deemed larger than their initial estimates.
Nobody doubts that production of oil will someday decline. But before you make a judgement on whether this peak is near or far off into the future, you'd be doing yourself a favor by not relying on the estimates cited by peak oil theorists. These are hardly un-biased people.
- Shiv139
- 14 Comments
My Website
Sep 19 11:52 AMThe problem with predicting peak oil is that proven, probable & possible reserves are used. The swing factor which can defer peak oil for many, many years is the unknown. To date just about 1/4 of the earth surface has been explored. With technology now available, shallow water and mid water has been explored for some years. We are now well into the age deep and ultra deep-water exploration. It has never been done before because the price of oil never did justify the investment. Driven by demand for oil from emerging markets in India and China, oil prices have now risen well over the marginal cost of ultra deep-water. As a result, there has been huge investment in ultra deep-water. Coming from this economic viability, we will have increased exploration. This combined with technical feasibility & equipment availability, will ultimately bring new reserves. So yes, we will continue to rush towards peak oil; but we are likely several years away.
In the mean time we are in a demand led secular bull market for oil. Increasing demand with supply side concerns have pushed oil prices ahead of fundamentals. Within this bull we have recently entered a cyclical bear. During this period of the cyclical bear (approximately 1.5 to 2 years), I expect oil prices to revert to economic equilibrium (where marginal cost equals marginal revenue - somewhere between $50 and $70 per barrel); at these price levels investment in ultra deepwater is viable.
Then the next cyclical bull within a secular bull will emerge. Over the course of the secular bull (roughly 2003 to 2019), you will see some things happen:
1. Structurally, the world is less energy intense (a $ of GDP has a smaller energy dependency compared to the past) compared with the seventies. The energy intensity of emerging markets will reduce considerably. This will reduce the impact of oil prices on the real economy; this is a net positive because investment can continue at higher price levels because the real economy is able to absorb the higher price with lesser demand destruction.
2. Since oil is a finite resource, there will be many new conservation technologies which will result in demand reduction.
3. For the same reason, there will be new alternative energy technologies which will reduce dependence on oil.
Today, the oil demand curve is generally inelastic; however, we have now reached that part of the demand curve where the price elasticity is high. At these elevated prices, two things will happen in the long term - (a) the demand curve will change from very inelastic to less inelastic as energy alternatives are adopted & (b) the entire demand curve shall shift inwards as a result of shifts to energy alternatives and more importantly, because technologies to improve oil energy utilization will evolve.
From an investor perspective, oilfield services and drillers are very appealing. Integrated Oil Majors, E&P & refiners too, but to a much lesser extent - today most opportunities in exploration and production are led by the State. In addition, in the years gone past, the majors commanded respect because they had the intellectual property & equipment required by the business; this drove nations to production share agreements with the Majors. Today engineering, IP and equipment can be obtained as a service from fantastic companies such as Schlumberger and Transocean. Yet, at this point in time, because of our entry into the cyclical bear, I would wait for valuations to get better before committing to the sector. Trading position (few weeks - risks are low oil is oversold); short term position (few months) risks are high; long term position (a year) risks are high; secular position (12 years) risks are insignificant. Expect a contraction in valuations in oilfield services; but do not expect it to be very harsh; I would say 50% to 65% from peak value is what can be looked for. For drillers, the backlogs created provide a high degree of stability but leverage could end up being a significant risk if new build contracts are terminated (delivery delays & performance are fairly common reasons for termination).
- Brian Pursley
- 280 Comments
My Website
Sep 19 01:35 PM"Peak Oil theory is garbage as far as we’re concerned." -- Robert W. Esser, geologist, 2006
- Realitychecker
- 1 Comment
Sep 19 04:31 PMThe reality is that global oil production has been on an undulating plateau since c. 2005 and its consequences are likely to become increasingly unpleasant for us all. In the 1970's a 5% shortfall in supply caused the price of oil to almost quadruple initiating a serious recession. If we are now on a plateau, the resultant oil demand destruction due to recession will temporarily correct the supply/demand imbalance and reduce the price of oil. When the global economy starts to expand again the demand for oil will increase, but supply constraints will cause its price to start increasing again, which in turn precipitates another recession. This cycle will continue until the oil plateau ends with an irreversible decline in oil production, how long this plateau lasts is debatable, but it may not be that long.
If the world has failed to develop sustainable alternatives to oil when oil production eventually goes into decline we will all be in deep trouble. Fossil based energy, in particular oil, has enabled the global economy to expand allowing the population to grow to 6.7 billion, the resultant energy crunch will be disastrous without viable alternatives capable of providing equivalent amounts of energy suitable for electricity generation and feedstock’s for the petrochemical industry.
A combination of stupidity and greed by the banking sector combined with weak ineffectual regulation, allowed a housing bubble to develop that has now burst, causing the current financial crisis. A major concern should be that this banking crisis, combined with the economic consequences of an oil production plateau, will drain the global economy of the wealth needed to fund the massive investment needed to develop and construct alternative and sustainable sources of energy for power production, transport fuel, and feedstock’s for the chemical industry.
This link gives an excellent “crash course” in economic concepts and peak oil, www.chrismartenson.com.... In addition, the book “The Last Oil Shock: A Survival Guide to the Imminent Extinction of Petroleum Man” by David Strahan is well worth reading.
- Allen Fuller
- 28 Comments
Sep 19 05:04 PMWhy do you say oil is renewable? Of course, at a certain cost, a decent chemist should be able to manufacture it from raw elements or basic compounds like water, carbon dioxide, etc. But at that point you need more energy to create it than you would get out of it. Where is your energy going to come from?
All you have to do is look at the fact that DISCOVERIES peaked 40 years ago. You can't pump what you haven't discovered. If peak oil is garbage, then where is all the new oil being discovered? There's a lag time between discoveries and production too, so even if discoveries suddenly and miraculously jumped WAY up, you'd still have a gap before they can contribute to existing production, which is projected to start declining around 2010 or so.
Economists point out that higher prices will cause supply to increase. This is true up to a point; higher prices make previously uneconomic oil suddenly worth extracting. But at some point the price itself will cause so much hurt to the economy that it won't matter that we have "more" oil available at that price.
- Allen Fuller
- 28 Comments
Sep 19 05:09 PMWhere are the mythical "400 billion barrels" in the Bakken formation? (The USGS came out and said that was a myth; real reserves are estimated at 4.3 billion, nothing to sneeze at but only a few months' worth at our current consumption.)
When are we going to see the "oil" from so-called "oil shale", and at what price? Where are we going to get all the water, and how can we possibly scale up production to the levels required? If you study these so-called solutions, they can only contribute a small part of our consumption over a long range of time.
I'm not a doomer; I believe we will have economic hardship but eventually we will move to true renewable sources like wind, geothermal, and solar. I hold out hope for fusion research as well. But it's time to admit reality regarding fossil fuels.
- Ronmac
- 50 Comments
Sep 19 05:15 PMRead the Peak Oil proponents theories a little more closely, they never talk about reserves like you do, it is al about how much you can produce...i.e. flowrates. I notice your "catalog" of discoveries has almost no flowrates. Therefore not much relevant to the Peal Oil theory.
Brian Pursley you have the same problem, regardless of how it is formed, how much can you flow?
The factor that is very concerning to me though is reduced oil demand due to a world-wide depression/deflation..... that case, the price of oil may decline neck and neck with declining demand.
- mangolfer
- 151 Comments
Sep 19 07:13 PM- mangolfer
- 151 Comments
Sep 19 07:15 PM- JJJ
- 1 Comment
Sep 19 07:47 PMWe have seen more supplies come online each time the price of oil has gone up from 10 to 20...30$ per barrel, but why haven't these latest surges in price brought on massive production increases? Oil finder, at our current consumption rates, if each of those finds were pumped completely in 1 year, they would all be completely depleated in 3. In reality, it may take a year or two to even get the oil out of the ground and if so, we'ld be lucky to replace the bbp output lost from exisisting sources. The only way out of this problem is a drastic reduction in demand or a sudden discovery of a miraculous new alternative energy.
Which brings me to my last point. Why haven't we discovered something already? Oil companies have been spending billions for many years on new technologies and nothing substantial. It would be very nice to have Oil being a renuable source, but why isn't a company in business with that very cause. If someone started a company that could do that, they would be the richest man in the world and their name would be on every history book in the world! And it would have been the same case 10-20-30 years ago. Peak Oil may be just a far out theory with plenty of facts, but why can't I find anything to support the contrary besides opinions.
- Oil-Finder
- 3 Comments
Sep 19 09:15 PM- Oil-Finder
- 3 Comments
Sep 19 09:18 PMHow can you say we've discovered nothing when I've just given a link to a listing of 62-84 billion barrels of discoveries in just the past three years?
- Brian Pursley
- 280 Comments
My Website
Sep 19 10:19 PMI say oil is renewable because it is. See Eugene Island and the other wells that are refilling.
As far as discoveries having peaked 40 years ago I presume you are a cult disciple of Deffeyes, Campbell, and Simmons. They are wrong. The third biggest oil field in world history, Sugarloaf/Carioca, was only discovered in December of 2007.
Why did the US peak more than 35 years ago? Because that's when the radical environmentalists started their political engineering. The US peaked by design not by geology. We've only been drilling offshore in 2 states.
How come this peaking pattern is seen in field after field and nation after nation around the world? What peaking pattern? Brazil and Russia certainly haven't peaked. I suspect it's because drilling isn't illegal there. Just a guess.
No such thing as so-called "fossil" fuel. In the history of the universe fossils have never miraculously or magically evolved into complex hydrocarbons: oilismastery.blogspot..../
- Fred Banks
- 117 Comments
Sep 20 08:09 AMWhen I taught in Thailand last year, one of my students informed me that his boss didn't believe in peak oil. 'Bring him in', was my answer to that, because the logic of the non-peakers is not logic but nonsense. Incidentally, the problem with Russia is not that its output is peaking, which is likely, but that they will join OPEC (formally or informally) to make life miserable for those of us on the buy side of the market.
About environmentalists and haters of technology, I've been studying the oil market for a long time, and their influence on the great world of oil is minimal for the simple reason that they know so little about it. Of course the same thing is true about nuclear, and as far as I can tell their influence is - unfortunately - enormous.
- The Fitzman
- 254 Comments
My Website
Sep 20 03:15 PMthefitzman.blogspot.co...
the clock is ticking, the US political "leadership" is a joke (and borders on criminality), and the US is even in a weaker economic position than we were before, yet NO progress on the energy front. we'll slowly decline into economic and social chaos unless something changes very very soon.
- kiwichick
- 1 Comment
Sep 21 01:31 AMexcellent resource with lots of info on oil and also on alternatives
have ordered 10 more copies for family and friends
also read Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer ; also very infomative but quiet scary
- Realsit
- 70 Comments
Sep 23 10:00 PM- Realsit
- 70 Comments
Sep 23 10:00 PM- Allen Fuller
- 28 Comments
Oct 08 11:40 AM> In response to Allen Fuller,
>
> I say oil is renewable because it is. See Eugene Island and the
> other wells that are refilling.
Oil is renewable if you are willing to wait millions of years.
The "refilling" of certain wells, most likely from reserves deeper in the crust, is an interesting phenomenon. Unfortunately, it is occurring at a rate approximately 100 times slower than our current consumption of oil. So, it's ludicrous to think we can just wait for a few wells to magically refill themselves and then suck it out again.
> Why did the US peak more than 35 years ago? Because that's when
> the radical environmentalists started their political engineering.
> The US peaked by design not by geology. We've only been drilling
> offshore in 2 states.
Your history is wrong. Oil peaked in the U.S. NOT because of radical environmentalists banning drilling etc. No, in fact, in the 1970s there was a DRILLING FRENZY as the oil industry tried to reverse the declines they were seeing. My sources show that drilling in this nation was at its highest around 1980. Yet this was unable to reverse the decline in the lower 48. Only new fields in Alaska allowed us to get a brief bump up in production, though we never achieved the rate of flow we had in 1970.
> How come this peaking pattern is seen in field after field and nation
> after nation around the world? What peaking pattern? Brazil and
> Russia certainly haven't peaked. I suspect it's because drilling
> isn't illegal there. Just a guess.
Russia is now peaking. Their production curve over the last few years shows a slowing in growth, and they are now on track for their first full year of actual declines.
Brazil's discoveries are tantalizing, but in the grand scale of things, only amount to a year or two of consumption. Besides, you have to drill through thousands of feet of rock and salt to get to it. Doesn't sound like the easy oil we have built our economy on. Some estimates indicate Brazil will peak, depending on how fast they produce, in the next decade or even sooner.
In many other nations that used to be great oil producers, we are seeing declines. The U.S., the North Sea (UK and Norway), now Mexico, Indonesia, Egypt, India, Syria, Venezuela (yes!), Yemen, and more. The full list of countries past their peak (by the way, they DON'T all have the environmental restrictions that supposedly, according to you, made the U.S. peak) now includes most of the oil-producing countries in the world. Only the true giant fields in a few nations, mostly in the Middle East, are keeping the world from hitting its peak. And even there, they are relying on old giants, not new discoveries.
> No such thing as so-called "fossil" fuel. In the history of the
> universe fossils have never miraculously or magically evolved into
> complex hydrocarbons: oilismastery.blogspot..../
The abiotic theory of oil production is pretty strongly discredited; look it up. Its proponents do NOT back their theory up with much in the way of verifiable statistics and facts. Even if it were true, again, the rate at which it supposedly gets produced in the crust, according to the theory's own proponents, is not enough to supply our current rate of consumption. So it's a red herring either way.
Peak oil is a historical fact, observable in the past at the level of oil fields, countries and regions; and it is pretty obvious to those who study the DATA and the FACTS that it is about to occur world-wide.