| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| Peak no evil |
| 2008-01-02 |
| As millenarian prophecies go, “the peak is nigh” does not pack the same doom-laden punch as a promised “end”. Except, that is, in oil circles. Oil resources are finite. “Peak oil” theorists posit that about half of all the world’s crude has been used and that output will soon peak prior to an irreversible decline. Such thinking has helped propel crude to the $100 per barrel level it touched yesterday. Conventional oil fields are like champagne bottles: once “opened”, pressure forces out some of the contents. Eventually field pressure drops and, barring using such techniques as re-injecting gas, output inevitably declines. Back in the 1950s, Marion King Hubbert, a US geoscientist, correctly forecast – to within a few years – when output in the US’s lower 48 states would peak (it was 1970). The “Hubbert curve” is a totem of peak oil theorists. Applying this globally, however, is fraught with problems. Mr Hubbert originally modelled global oil output peaking at 34m barrels per day in 2000 – less than half the actual figure. One difficulty is poor data. Modelling the mature US oil sector – with its huge sample size today of over 500,000 working wells and more inactive ones – is relatively easy. In contrast, Saudi Arabia has only 2,000 producing wells and large unexplored areas. Even if the world’s total amount of oil can be established – estimates vary wildly – better technology means the proportion that can be pumped out increases over time. Since 1980, this has risen, on average, from a fifth to more than a third, boosting recoverable reserves. In spite of rising consumption, the ratio of oil reserves to output has been pretty constant since the late 1980s. Today’s high oil prices also make complex sources, such as oil sands, viable and damp consumption. Oil output is not just a function of geology. “Surface” factors such as Opec have a huge impact. Indeed, geopolitics and environmental concerns provide enough reasons to curb dependence on oil for transportation. If the noise generated by the peak oil debate adds to the sense of urgency in addressing this, it will serve some useful purpose. |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #10 I once read a Science Fiction story about a time in the future when most of the oil had been pumped out, changed the balance of the earth, and sent it wobbling into a different orbit thereby destroying all life on the planet.. I heard the same thing about the moon rocks that the Apollo astronauts brought back to earth...that the the resulting change in the moon's weight and the earth's weight would throw our orbit out of whack. Hey, maybe that's howcome we got global warming and it isn't Bush's fault at all. |
| Posted by: Ebbang Uluque6305 2008-01-02 18:35 |
| #9 Abiogenic Oil - The Deep, Hot Biosphere |
| Posted by: KBK 2008-01-02 18:14 |
| #8 AS A COUNTRY, we've spent a lot of time, lead by the dhimmocrats, talking about how it's "the vicious oil companies" but not talking about the production restrictions ZF just mentioned above. Canadian companies paying the zakat to the Chinese Communist and Cuban Communist aristocracies can drill off of Florida, why can't Americans? |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-01-02 17:59 |
| #7 Oil output is not just a function of geology. “Surface” factors such as Opec have a huge impact. Indeed, geopolitics and environmental concerns provide enough reasons to curb dependence on oil for transportation. If the noise generated by the peak oil debate adds to the sense of urgency in addressing this, it will serve some useful purpose. Of course, we're not supposed to talk about surface factors, we're just supposed to run around saying we're NOT supposed to do anything because it's all futile and not bother drilling more here, or doing anything else. In fact not do anything _but_ enrich OPEC some more. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snowman 2008-01-02 17:54 |
| #6 Back in the 1950s, Marion King Hubbert, a US geoscientist, correctly forecast – to within a few years – when output in the US’s lower 48 states would peak (it was 1970). The real question is whether that peak was helped along by bans on oil exploration due to environmental concerns. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2008-01-02 17:44 |
| #5 I once read a Science Fiction story about a time in the future when most of the oil had been pumped out, changed the balance of the earth, and sent it wobbling into a different orbit thereby destroying all life on the planet.. Was it in Weekly Reader? |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2008-01-02 17:32 |
| #4 Hell, thisn piss poor. We can't have a good talk about peek oilz without 4 or 6 quality graphs. And since it's Rantburg the graphs should include wymens and turbin axis. Shipterian analysis reveals much, here and there, now and then. Please send money. |
| Posted by: Thomas Woof 2008-01-02 17:31 |
| #3 it could happen, DB. That's why there's laws stopping everyone from rushing to the left side of the planet at one time. You could look it up...I think it's on Ron Paul's website |
| Posted by: Frank G 2008-01-02 16:47 |
| #2 I once read a Science Fiction story about a time in the future when most of the oil had been pumped out, changed the balance of the earth, and sent it wobbling into a different orbit thereby destroying all life on the planet.. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2008-01-02 16:20 |
| #1 AlGor the savior! |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2008-01-02 16:04 |