Shell exec says world not running out of oil

topic posted Fri, March 21, 2008 - 7:43 AM by  Unsubscribed
Last time it was Exxon, now it is shell. Listen carefully, peak oil is a myth! Hubbert was wrong, Simmons is wrong.

By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Shell U.S. President John Hofmeister
John Hofmeister, the Houston-based president of Shell Oil's U.S. operations, expressed doubt about the validity of peak oil theory in an appearance on CNBC's Squawk Box show.

"The peak oil theory has really swamped the world. God bless Matt Simmons," Hofmeister told CNBC anchor Carl Quintanilla, according to a transcript provided to WND by CNBC. "His assumptions are correct based on his hypotheses, but his hypotheses are too narrow."

Matt Simmons, a Houston-based investment banker who specializes in the energy industry, is widely known for his 2005 book, "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy," in which he analyzed oil depletion data from Saudi Arabian wells.

The peak oil theory argues the world's oil resources are finite and will be completely exhausted at a future date.
Simmons, one of the most vocal and visible of the peak oil advocates in the industry today, has also been a frequent television guest arguing that the world is running out of oil.

In a recent YouTube.com-archived appearance on Bloomberg TV, Simmons argued the world has hit peak oil now, predicting prices as high as $300 a barrel

The peak oil theory, first espoused by Shell Oil geoscientist M. King Hubbert in 1956, has come under increasing criticism in recent years, as repeated predictions of world oil depletion have failed to match empirical data documenting increasing reserves.

For instance, data produced by the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration currently shows 1.3 trillion barrels of proven oil reserves worldwide, more than ever in recorded history, despite a doubling in world oil consumption since the 1970s.

In what has become a contentious worldwide debate over whether peak oil is fact or fiction, Simmons dismisses statistics that are not consistent with his depletion models.

The Energy Information Administration "has been as inept at forecasting oil outlook in both production and prices as anyone," Simmons told WND in an e-mail, "yet so few ever remember their awful forecasts."

Hofmeister explained to the CNBC audience why he believed Simmons' hypotheses were too narrow.

"In other words, Simmons is looking at conventional oil only," Hofmeister said. "In the industry, we look at unconventional oil as well."

Unconventional oil is a reference to oil that is not found as crude oil in reservoirs contained in sedimentary rock layers just below the surface of the earth.

An example of unconventional oil is the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, from which oil is produced.

When President Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001, the price of oil was approximately $24 a barrel, too low for the oil sands to be converted to oil economically.

But now, with the price of oil hovering near $100 a barrel, conversion of the oil sands has become economically feasible. Canada has become the largest supplier of foreign oil to the U.S., supplying the U.S. with more than 70 million barrels of oil a month, according to current EIA statistics.

Hofmeister also questioned whether Simmons' models accurately estimated the probability of new discoveries of previously unknown oil reserves.

"Simmons is also basing his conclusions on a particular study of one country, Saudi Arabia, while there are a whole lot of other reservoirs around the world we're still discovering," Hofmeister continued. "Some day we will peak, but not because we don't have enough oil."

For instance, WND recently reported Brazil's announcement of the discovery of a new ultra-deep offshore oil field in the Atlantic Ocean, containing an estimated 5 to 8 billion barrels of oil, enough to expand the country's proven reserves by 40 to 50 percent.

Again, Simmons is dismissive.

"The great Brazil find, as best laid out in the February issue of World Oil, is a great example of a handful of extremely expensive, rank wildcat wells finding at least traces of hydrocarbons," he said.

"But until scores of other wells are both flow-tested and also cored, there is no solid idea of how much oil might ever be recovered," he continued. "Given the severe deepwater rig shortage, it might take a decade or more to genuinely test the Santos Basin."

"I would be delighted to be wrong on all this," Simmons wrote, "but too much hard data is too specific, and the optimist case is all faith-based theories."

Brazil disagrees with Simmons' pessimistic outlook.

Sergio Gabrielli, the chief executive officer of the state-run oil firm Petroleo Brasileiro SA claims the new find off the coast of Brazil may contain as much as 80 billions barrels in oil reserves which Brazil is moving to commercially exploit and further explore right now.

Simmons' pessimistic focus on oil depletion statistics are today being contested, even by traditional oil industry experts such as Daniel Yergin and his Cambridge Energy Research Associates, or CERA, in Cambridge, Mass.

"This is the fifth time that the world is said to be running out of oil," Yergin says in industry speeches. "Each time, 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."

Yergin came to world fame in the oil industry with the publication in 1991 of his now-classic book, "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power."

A Jan 18 press release on the CERA website presents additional data questioning one of Simmons' key assumptions.

In a study that examined oil depletion data from 811 separate oil fields accounting for about two-thirds of current global production and half of the total proved and probable conventional oil reserve base, CERA concluded the aggregate global decline rate is 4.5 percent, not the 8 percent cited in many studies.

The study, drawing from a source CERA described as "the most extensive field production database in the world," demonstrated lower decline rates in recent years due to better reservoir management practices and the impact of new technology.

CERA concluded the new data means "no near-term peak oil" is likely, directly countering the predictions of peak oil advocates such as Simmons.

Finally, as WND recently reported, new scientific discoveries have produced important evidence supporting the abiotic theory of the origin of oil.

Scientists have recently reported abiotic liquid hydrocarbons exuding from the mantle of the earth in fissures such as the Lost City Hydrothermal Field on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean and abundant abiotic liquid methane found on Titan, the giant moon of Saturn, as found by the Cassini-Huygens mission jointly launched by NASA, the European Space Agency and the Italian Space Agency.

Traditional petro-geologists have maintained that oil is biological in origin, arising from organic material deposited in sedimentary soil.

The organic theory of the origin of oil has served as a logical underpinning of the tautology at the heart of the peak oil theory.

Only a finite amount of biological material was deposited in sedimentary soil capable of forming oil, so there has to be a finite amount of oil.

The abiotic theory suggests oil is formed naturally in the mantle of the earth by chemical reactions such as are described in the Fisher-Tropsch equations the Nazis developed to make synthetic oil from coal prior to World War II.

The abiotic theory would suggest more deep-earth discoveries of oil should be forthcoming, especially with new technology to find and recover cost-effectively offshore oil.

With more than 70 percent of the earth covered by water, much previously unexplored territory remains to be explored for oil, as ultra-deep drilling technology continues to progress.

wnd.com/index.php
posted by:
Unsubscribed
  • Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

    Sat, March 22, 2008 - 12:02 AM
    Whats your point? It's a corporation. They want to sell as much in a short time so they don't want us to change our vehicles and traveling habits.

    Dan, They don't care about you any more than the rest of us. Oil will continue to be more expensive, your house will be harder to sell and your food will become more expensive. You may find that your children will be working out in the fields because labour demand will increase at the farm. Your World Net Daily is just like the World Daily, which is a Leninist rag and corporations are just another word for the western version of that. It's not my loss if you don't believe me. But you will be in a bad shape because few people will be rescued.
    • B
      B
      offline 113

      Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

      Sat, March 22, 2008 - 7:05 AM
      It is interesting that he had to resort to oil shale to boost the reserves of the planet. The Canadian oil shale is a environmental disaster. There is serious doubt that they will ever be fully processed because of the damage that it is doing. There is a very serious efforr to close the entire operation.

      But that still leaves a lot of oil in the ground to pump. The point is not that the spigots will run bone dry. The point is that a gallon of gass will cost $8 or $10 and someday $20 a gallon. While the income for the average wage earner i.e. the 90% of people living in this country will have increased by 15% or so.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

        Mon, March 24, 2008 - 6:05 AM
        What is interesting to me is that you use the word "someday". It is irrelevant to say that the price of a gallon will be $20/gallon "someday". Inflation alone will drive fuel to this cost. My first job was at a gas station in the early 70's. When gas edged toward 50cents/gallon I heard people say "if it ever rises to 50cents I will park my car!". It has now risen 7 times that amount and if this guy is still living I guarantee you that his car is not parked. The price of gas will continue to climb. The issue is the rate of increase. If fuel climbs to those figures over the next year or so we will have to transition away from oil to other sources of energy. This will never happen though because OPEC and other producers would never allow this to happen.
        • Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

          Mon, March 24, 2008 - 8:34 PM
          >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If fuel climbs to those figures over the next year or so we will have to transition away from oil to other sources of energy.

          But of course all current sustitutes are going to be inadequate.

          >>>>>>>>>>>This will never happen though because OPEC and other producers would never allow this to happen.

          They would like to believe that also, but they won't have the oil to stop it.

          >>>>>>>>>>>What is interesting to me is that you use the word "someday".

          That's nice.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

      Mon, March 24, 2008 - 5:59 AM
      "Whats your point? It's a corporation. They want to sell as much in a short time so they don't want us to change our vehicles and traveling habits."

      Actually, the opposite is true, they want to justify high prices. Now that consumers opinion views prices as very high, they want to reassure us that oil is not in short supply (the true) again.

      "Dan, They don't care about you any more than the rest of us. Oil will continue to be more expensive, your house will be harder to sell and your food will become more expensive."

      there is no relationship between these issues. Houses are high because we have overbuilt and sold to unqualified (sub prime) buyers. Our food is too high in part because of the diversion of crops to poor quality fuel (ethanol). Inflation is very high in this country as well, and will likely get higher. However, there is no relationship between the true supply of oil and the cost of it. Should they wish to, they could easily produce enough to drive down fuel costs. But why should they? If they can get more with less expense there is no motive to cut their own throat.

      " It's not my loss if you don't believe me. But you will be in a bad shape because few people will be rescued."

      There are many serious issues facing out country and the planet, but lack of oil is not one of them.
  • Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

    Mon, March 24, 2008 - 8:07 AM
    Again, Dan you are not looking critically at the whole picture.

    This is from your quote about what Shell's president had to say:

    >>"Hofmeister explained to the CNBC audience why he believed Simmons' hypotheses were too narrow. "In other words, Simmons is looking at conventional oil only," Hofmeister said. "In the industry, we look at unconventional oil as well." Unconventional oil is a reference to oil that is not found as crude oil in reservoirs contained in sedimentary rock layers just below the surface of the earth. An example of unconventional oil is the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, from which oil is produced."<<

    If you understood what Simmons was saying, you would understand why he ignored unconventional oil; in the near term it can't help deter any price rises resulting from the supply of cheap oil, unable to meet the demand for cheap oil. It would be far more costly to develop and take much time to bring into the energy mix.

    In other words Simmons hypotheses were not too narrow, but instead focused on the factors that are likely to effect the price of oil in the five to ten year period in front of us.

    What Simmons said about the reported big oil find in deepwater off Brazil is also right on target:

    "But until scores of other wells are both flow-tested and also cored, there is no solid idea of how much oil might ever be recovered," he continued. "Given the severe deepwater rig shortage, it might take a decade or more to genuinely test the Santos Basin."

    The size of the field is really a guess at this point and developing this field in such deep water will take a lot of time and a lot of money; it will not have any impact at all in the near term.

    >>"The abiotic theory would suggest more deep-earth discoveries of oil should be forthcoming, especially with new technology to find and recover cost-effectively offshore oil."<<

    There is no merit to this idea at all. It shows a complete misunderstanding of petroleum geology. It ultimately does not matter where the oil comes from. Commercial oil fields require reservoirs with porosity to store the oil and high enough permeability to allow the oil to flow quickly enough to make a commercial well. Deep in the earth heat and pressure would destroy both porosity and permeability. Also, of course, only gas and not oil can be present at elevated temperatures because the oil breaks down to methane. Large gas fields are not nearly as profitable as large oil fields and need to be near pipelines and other infrastructure to be commercially produced. There are many giant gas fields found in Siberia that have never been developed for this reason.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

      Mon, March 24, 2008 - 9:05 AM
      "If you understood what Simmons was saying, you would understand why he ignored unconventional oil; in the near term it can't help deter any price rises resulting from the supply of cheap oil, unable to meet the demand for cheap oil. It would be far more costly to develop and take much time to bring into the energy mix."

      I understand this Rene. I agree that as oil prices rise (not necessarily due to scarcity), other more expensive oil will become more attractive. Oil has gone from $60/b to $108/b in a very short period of time. This rise has nothing to do with scarcity, but it is due to many factors described earlier, including the owners of the oil refusing to loosen the spigot. If the price of oil remains artificially high, this rise in oil cost will increase exploration of more "easy oil" as it is now more rewarding to do so. We can therefore expect more large oil fields to be discovered under the ocean floor.

      "In other words Simmons hypotheses were not too narrow, but instead focused on the factors that are likely to effect the price of oil in the five to ten year period in front of us."

      This issue before is not oil price, but peak oil. Clearly oil cost has gone up and likely will remain so unless cartels are broken up and competition is brought into the oil industry to a greater degree than exists today. Education is important also. People need to know that no facts support peak oil theories and plenty of oil exists under the earths crust.

      "What Simmons said about the reported big oil find in deepwater off Brazil is also right on target:

      "But until scores of other wells are both flow-tested and also cored, there is no solid idea of how much oil might ever be recovered," he continued. "Given the severe deepwater rig shortage, it might take a decade or more to genuinely test the Santos Basin." "

      Of course it takes time to bring on these new oil discoveries and determine their true value Rene. The point is we have been at "peak oil" many times, and come out of it into oil abundance and even "glut".

      "The size of the field is really a guess at this point and developing this field in such deep water will take a lot of time and a lot of money; it will not have any impact at all in the near term."

      We don't need any near term oil, we have plenty. We need to demonstate that oil will be running our economy for many decades into the future as an ever increasing supply is brought online.

      >>"The abiotic theory would suggest more deep-earth discoveries of oil should be forthcoming, especially with new technology to find and recover cost-effectively offshore oil."<<

      "There is no merit to this idea at all. It shows a complete misunderstanding of petroleum geology. It ultimately does not matter where the oil comes from."

      yes it does Rene. Hubbert was a confirmed gradualistic evolutionist just as you are. This belief is a hindrance to science as it didn't take 500 my for oil to form in the first place and we are making oil from plants now. Much of peak oil theory rests upon unproven evolutionary assumptions like this. If sufficient abiotic hydrocarbons exist, the possible supplies of oil now boggle the imagination. Forward thinking sciencists not bound by myth and superstition will move forward in their search, while others cower and hide in fear.

      "Commercial oil fields require reservoirs with porosity to store the oil and high enough permeability to allow the oil to flow quickly enough to make a commercial well. Deep in the earth heat and pressure would destroy both porosity and permeability. Also, of course, only gas and not oil can be present at elevated temperatures because the oil breaks down to methane. Large gas fields are not nearly as profitable as large oil fields and need to be near pipelines and other infrastructure to be commercially produced. There are many giant gas fields found in Siberia that have never been developed for this reason"

      Digging 5 to 10 miles into the earths crust may not be feasible. But Gold and others do not suggest this anyway. They theorize that hydrocarbons abiotically produced are coming to the survace through cracks and fissures and refuling our wells.

      abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/Story

      Golds theory is that ALL hydrocarbons are formed deep (100 miles) under the earth and seep to the surface supplying our gas and oil. If he was right and this process is rapid enough, we may "never" run out of sufficient energy in the form of oil and gas.
      • Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

        Mon, March 24, 2008 - 12:17 PM
        >>"People need to know that no facts support peak oil theories and plenty of oil exists under the earths crust."<<

        There can be no oil under the earth's crust, only methane gas. Oil would break down under the heat and pressure. There is no evidence at all of methane there. Why do you continually claim to have "facts" when all you have are totally unsupported speculations?

        >>"They theorize that hydrocarbons abiotically produced are coming to the survace through cracks and fissures and refuling our wells. "<<

        We have thousands of oil fields and millions of oil wells, none of them have every shown any evidence of "refueling" after they are depleted. Do actual facts have any place in your world view?

        >>"Golds theory is that ALL hydrocarbons are formed deep (100 miles) under the earth and seep to the surface supplying our gas and oil. If he was right and this process is rapid enough, we may "never" run out of sufficient energy in the form of oil and gas."<<

        What Gold proposed is not a scientific theory, which would requires some supporting evidence; rather it is an interesting hypothesis that some took seriously enough to drill a well to test. The results of this well did not supply any supporting evidence, so it remains an interesting hypothesis. As a hypothesis it is a rather poor one, conflicting with a rather extraordinary number of valid oberservations. Additionally, even if the hypothesis were correct, there is no reason to suppose that deep abiotic gas would be in reservoirs capable of producing at commercial rates. You would be better off pinning your hopes of abundant energy on a perpetual motion machine, Dan, or maybe the big sky guy you beleive in can supply us wilth lightning from the sky- this would be far more realistic.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

          Tue, March 25, 2008 - 2:18 PM
          "You would be better off pinning your hopes of abundant energy on a perpetual motion machine, Dan, or maybe the big sky guy you beleive in can supply us wilth lightning from the sky- this would be far more realistic."

          No need for a perpetual motion machine Rene, nor your pessimism , my confidence rests upon the ingenuity of free men and free markets to resolve and forthcoming energy challenges. Those who have faith in God and the God given talents of mankind will always win out over faithless cup half empty skeptics such as yourself.
          • Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

            Tue, March 25, 2008 - 7:23 PM
            >>"my confidence rests upon the ingenuity of free men and free markets to resolve and forthcoming energy challenges."<<

            I have the same confidence, Dan, only the solutions do not lie in the search for more conventional hydrocarbons, and certainly not in any imagined deep abiotic methane. I think more resources need to be directed toward alternative energy sources. If we had spent the money we have wasted in Iraq on diligently pursuing this kind of ingenuity and new technology, don't you think we would be better off? If we had diligently pursued other energy options when Hubbert predicted US production would peak in 1970, would we not be better off than being more and more dependent on foreign oil since the US oil production peak?

            >>"Those who have faith in God and the God given talents of mankind will always win out over faithless cup half empty skeptics such as yourself."<<

            What does faith in God have to do with any of this? I fail to see the connection. It would seem if there were a God, it would prefer men to pursue clean energy technology, rather than have us continue to foul the skies with fossil fuels. Does God like air pollution in your worldview?
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

              Wed, March 26, 2008 - 6:37 AM
              "I think more resources need to be directed toward alternative energy sources."

              depends upon what you mean here. If you are suggesting that the government subsidize farmers to allow them to compete with oil by producing an inferior product (ethanol) which competes with the food on our table, no way. If you are talking about free markets competing with oil fairly I am fine with this.

              "If we had spent the money we have wasted in Iraq on diligently pursuing this kind of ingenuity and new technology, don't you think we would be better off?"

              You are looking to the government as the "savior" which is your big error. You know I do not support the war in Iraq, but the money saved by staying home could have been given back to the people where it belongs. Governments don't produce anything, people and businesses do.

              "If we had diligently pursued other energy options when Hubbert predicted US production would peak in 1970, would we not be better off than being more and more dependent on foreign oil since the US oil production peak?"

              Hubbert and his predictions were and are a farce. They were no more accurate than saying "we might run out of oil someday" and that is it. His own colleagues have admitted this, but you insist it is some kind of gospel truth.

              >>"Those who have faith in God and the God given talents of mankind will always win out over faithless cup half empty skeptics such as yourself."<<

              "What does faith in God have to do with any of this?"

              Faith in God has to do with everything Rene.

              "I fail to see the connection."

              no surprise there.

              "It would seem if there were a God, it would prefer men to pursue clean energy technology, rather than have us continue to foul the skies with fossil fuels. Does God like air pollution in your worldview?"

              God understands that pollution is a natural consequence of existance. Forest fires cause pollution, passing gas causes pollution, so does brushing your teeth. Our planet is resilient enough to handle pollution, but we have a responsibility to manage it within acceptable levels. Notice that in countries where the government maximizes power (ie. China) the pollution is so bad we may not be able to see the olympics, while in countries that maximize freedom (i.e. the U.S.), pollution is minimal.
              • Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

                Wed, March 26, 2008 - 7:15 AM
                >>"depends upon what you mean here. If you are suggesting that the government subsidize farmers to allow them to compete with oil by producing an inferior product (ethanol) which competes with the food on our table, no way. If you are talking about free markets competing with oil fairly I am fine with this. "<<

                I agree with your assessment of corn-based ethanol, as I have already stated. It is unrealistic to suppose free markets can address every problem. What I am talking about is strong government support in researach and development. R&D is expensive with no guarantee of success. The free market does encourage some R&D, but because the risks are so high, not nearly enough. Also, if we hit on some set of good alternatives, a large amount of upfront capital will be required to alter the current infrastructure. We need to be prepared to do this and I don't believe it is something the free market can bear.

                >>"Hubbert and his predictions were and are a farce. They were no more accurate than saying "we might run out of oil someday""<<

                Hubbert predicted the US oil production peak in 1970. This is a fact. I am not sure why you continue to deny it. US oil production peaked in 1970. The volume of oil discovered per year peaked in the 50's in the US and in the mid-sixties worldwide. More facts you choose to ignore. It is always possible some unknown will alter the trend, but the trends are undeniable. They are the data you have to work with and to ignore this data is foolish.

                >>"God understands that pollution is a natural consequence of existance."<<

                This statement demonstrates that your mind is polluted. A clean and healthy environment is certainly within the realm of possibility. We have to try a lot harder which I think begins with reducing the human population.
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

                  Wed, March 26, 2008 - 7:56 AM
                  "Hubbert predicted the US oil production peak in 1970. This is a fact. I am not sure why you continue to deny it."

                  because he predicted nothing. There has been no peak. There have been "peaks" but this had nothing to do with the amount of oil in the ground. Hubbert could have predicted a glut and he would also have been right.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

                    Wed, March 26, 2008 - 11:46 AM
                    >>"There has been no peak."<<

                    I suggest you look again at the data for US production.

                    You can see it here:

                    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imag...S_high.svg

                    I have shown this to you before and also discussed it- you can view the discussion at this link:

                    peakoil.tribe.net/thread/dc...4a8cbf8190

                    Since apparently you are unable to understand a simple graph, I will try to help you. The blue curve is Hubbert's prediction for US oil production made in 1956. It shows peak production for the US in 1970. The dots are the actual figures for US production by year. The peak occurs in 1970. The actual data clearly fits a bell shaped curve, and we are clearly on the declining leg with current production now at about the level achieved in 1940.

                    If one looks at oil volume discovered per year in the US, there is a similar bell shaped curve. The peak for this curve was in the 50's. As would be expected, peak production lagged peak oil volume discovered by about 15 years. As I have also already shown you peak oil volume discovered per year worldwide reached its maximum in the mid-60's. Since that time there has been far less oil discovered per year and far fewer giant fields discovered. Given ths data, worldwide production must also peak. The only question is the exact timing of the peak.

                    .
                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

                      Thu, March 27, 2008 - 7:51 PM
                      Yes Rene, I can understand your simple graph. The problem with it is that it is too simplistic, and doesn't really tell us anything about real oil supplies. Oil supplies have not peaked. Only the cheapest oil has peaked.

                      Hubberts bell curve has been roughy correct in terms of the 48 contiguous states, but his conclusions were wrong nevertheless. We are not running out of oil in the U.S.. We simply have used up the easiest sources of oil, and subsequently have found it more profitable to purchase oil from cheaper sources for now overseas. With increasing technology and higher oil prices, more oil will be found and brought into production. Here is where Hubbert was dead wrong:

                      - His best estimate of the size of petroleum resources in the lower 48 states was 150 billion barrels. His high estimate, which he considered an exaggeration, was 200 billion barrels.

                      - In the 1970's oil production exceeded Hubberts prediction by 13%. By 2000, actual oil production was 2.5 times his best prediction! And 1.7 times higher than his 1980 revised estimate.

                      So while Hubbert was right about oil "production" declining, he was way off in terms of the rate of decline. Furthermore, the reason for declinning oil has little to do with exhaustion of oil supply's. It is simply a matter of fact that cheaper oil has been harvested and the large amount of oil remaining has been economically unfeasible. This willl change in years to come due to technology, especially if oil remains high.

                      Hubbert was completely wrong about natural gas also. Production is 2.5 times higher than his estimates. About the only area where Hubbert was right is on coal, but again, for the wrong reasons. People stopped using coal in the 1960's to heat their home, switching to cleaner and less messy fuel oil. There is plenty of coal left in the ground, but demand declined in favor of oil products. The same may happen in time with oil, but unless politics get in the way, this will not occur for some time, probably not until the next century and perhaps beyond. Neither Hubbert nor you, nor I know for sure how much oil is in the ground, but we do know that there is a lot, enough for the citizens of the world to keep buying and using the internal combustion engines for a good long time.

                      www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/index.html#e

                      the author I am quoting from here is: David Deming of the University of Oklahoma’s School of Geology and Geophysics is an Adjunct Scholar with the NCPA.
                      • Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

                        Thu, March 27, 2008 - 8:52 PM
                        >>"Oil supplies have not peaked. Only the cheapest oil has peaked."<<

                        You are almost getting it Dan; "the cheapest oil" that has been conventionally found and produced has peaked or will peak in the near future. This is what the production and discovery trends for these resources tell us. Everything else is "pie in the sky". It may or may not be exist or be feasible to obtain economically. There is only one thing certain about these potential resources; if the exist, they could not be mobilized quickly enough to deter the economic and cultural effects that will occur if the production of conventional oil cannot keep pace with the demand in the near future, as the data suggest might happen.

                        This link provides a good discussion of this problem, rebutting the claims of you have been heralding of Shell, Exxon etc.:

                        www.energybulletin.net/23977.html

                        Here are a few pertinent quotes from this article:

                        ..."This in essence is the entire debate – can all the unfound and unproven resources be exploited quickly enough to more than offset the peaking and decline of the known and proven reserves? If not, they simply guarantee that some sort of oil industry will be around for a long time but one that will be unable to meet the requirements currently placed on it."

                        ..."Although you regard the Peak Oil community as far too pessimistic I ask you to consider the following. If we take the simplest and most straightforward reserves-based approach and use the best figures for proven and probable (2P) reserves from IHS Energy, these show that by end 2005 some 1,077 Gb had been produced and 1,251 Gb remained, giving total discovered reserves of 2,328 Gb. Now if Peak Oil occurs when 50% of the reserves have been depleted – how long will it be until 1,164 Gb have been produced? Again using IHS Energy figures we are finding a little over 11 Gb/year and consumed 29 Gb in 2005 so our collective net consumption of reserves is 18 Gb/year. On that basis we peak in slightly under 5 years or in 2012 (1164-1077 divided by 18). Rising demand will foreshorten the time to Peak. If you believe we can delay Peak till 55% of know reserves are consumed then we peak in 2018. If you believe, as many do, that Middle East reserves have been overstated, the so-called ‘paper barrels’, then you need to bring the peak forward by around 5 years for every 100Gb of exaggeration (100 divided by 18).

                        However, there is an even more straightforward analysis, again making use of IHS Energy data. A slide shown in recent presentations indicates that 20% of global reserves had been consumed by 1985, 30% by 1995 but that by 2005 the number had risen to 46.3% (1,077 divided by 2,328). Extrapolating that forward to 50% gives a Peak Oil date of around 2010 while 55% depletion of known reserves would be around 2014.

                        As you know my personal belief is that an analysis based on new production flows is more accurate. Using all the latest data in my MegaProjects (actually all yielding peaks of over 40,000 b/d) I find that Peak Oil occurs in 2011 plus or minus one year.

                        However, whichever approach is used if the Peak occurs at any of the above dates it is very hard to see how any or all the additional resources you (CERA) identify on the right hand side of your table can, even potentially, be mobilised in time to move Peak Oil by more than a year or two.

                        I therefore conclude that far from dispelling concerns about Peak Oil you have effectively confirmed that they are real and imminent."
                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: Shell exec says world not running out of oil

                      Thu, March 27, 2008 - 7:56 PM
                      "Given ths data, worldwide production must also peak. The only question is the exact timing of the peak."

                      And this is the whole point. This peak, if it occurs, will be way down the road, likely into the next century. there may be no bell curve at all, some suggest a plateau for decades. More expensive oils will become cheaper with technological increases, new large discoveries will be made under the ocean, and we may be surprised to learn that abiotic theorists were right after all. When oil becomes less feasible it will be replaced as naturally as wood was replaced by coal, and coal by oil and natural gas.

Recent topics in "Peak Oil discussion group"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Dan is Dead, long live the paid spammer Moki 10 Yesterday, 6:46 AM
Stop Global Whining! Unsubscribed 10 July 3, 2008
Is peak oil irrelevant? B 8 June 26, 2008
Who is to blame for the price of oil? Tedster 2 June 23, 2008