The Worlds #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Sunday, May 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • All Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Toward Energy Literacy: Our "Peak Oil" Reality

Tam Hunt, Contributor
March 12, 2012  |  29 Comments

"Energy literacy" and "peak oil literacy" should be requirements for pundits – and for citizens more generally. I've followed these issues for many years now, and the poor energy knowledge among even the chattering classes and punditry still amazes me.

WTI crude prices are currently at about $110 a barrel, still well short of the record of $147 reached in summer of 2008 or the inflation-adjusted high of about $200 a barrel reached in 1981 in the wake of the Iranian revolution. This summer may, however, test new highs as the global economy recovers. 

Much of Europe and Asia relies on the Brent crude oil price, which is produced in the North Sea and acts as a price benchmark for Europe and other parts of the world, just like WTI does for North America. Brent crude reached an all-time high, at $126 a barrel, in late February of 2012. Reaching a record high in February all but guarantees that Europe will see far higher prices by summer and will face significant economic woes as a result. This is not good news as Europe attempts to fix other economic problems. 

Many politicians and pundits are calling for allowing more offshore drilling in the U.S. as a way to bring down prices. This is also a pipe dream, according to the EIA itself. It simply won’t result in very much new oil, compared to global totals, and thus won’t have much of an impact on U.S. or global prices. In fact, the EIA projected that allowing drilling in all U.S. offshore locations would, literally, result in a price decline of only three cents per gallon of gas by 2030.

We seem to be at a global peak in oil production and we’re running faster and faster to stay in the same place — let alone to meet new demand as the global economy heats up. 

Some good news

There is some good news from the point of view of energy dependency. The U.S. has seen a marked decrease in fossil fuel imports due to the recession and an increasingly efficient economy, as well as the recent increase in production of oil and natural gas discussed above. Our net energy imports are lower, on a net basis, than they have been for about ten years. We now import about 46 percent of our petroleum needs, down from about 60 percent a decade ago. EIA projects that this figure will fall to 36 percent by 2035. This seems very optimistic to me given our knowledge about decline rates from existing oil fields, but, as always, time will tell. 

Historical and projected U.S. oil supply and demand, millions of barrels per day, including, natural gas liquids, biofuels and other non-petroleum liquids (Source: EIA 2012 Annual Energy Outlook).

The picture is still better when we look at all US energy imports. We import, on a net basis, about 22 percent of our energy and this is projected to decline to 13 percent by 2035. 

U.S. energy imports total, quadrillion BTUs (Source: EIA 2012 Annual Energy Outlook).

Half of all U.S. oil imports come from the western hemisphere (Canada and Mexico, primarily). One quarter comes from Africa and the remaining quarter from the Persian Gulf and other regions. 

The bottom line, however, is that the U.S. will still be a substantial importer of energy even in 2035, and particularly of oil, under our current energy policies. I’ve written before about the geopolitics associated with net fossil fuel exports. The U.S. is looking at a future in which not only is the world beholden to backwards nations like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, but also to nations like Russia, which is now the world’s biggest oil producer. Russia is also by far the world’s biggest net hydrocarbon exporter and its power will grow as the world’s remaining fossil fuels continue to decline. 

Net hydrocarbon exports of selected countries in 2010 (million tons of oil equivalent) (source: EIA). 

What to do?

It is indeed surprising and encouraging (from the point of view of energy supplies, if not with respect to climate change or the environment more generally) that the U.S. has increased its oil production at this time, while we’re in the declining tail of the bell curve. But this reversal in the long-term trend is very likely to be temporary and not replicable in other places around the world. Moreover, as mentioned above, this increase is largely due to a dramatic increase in the number of drilling rigs, which is simply pulling more oil out of the ground, earlier, and not adding to long-term supplies. 

So what happened to peak oil? The short answer: we’re in the global peak now, as evidenced by record-high Brent crude prices, WTI prices well over $100 a barrel even while global consumption is still shy of its peak in 2008, and the fact that total global production has barely budged for almost ten years even as demand has increased. 

Recent increases in U.S. production show that massively increasing the number of rigs, as well as new technologies like fracking, can help extend the tail, and perhaps keep us on an “undulating plateau” of production for a little longer. But the inexorable decline of the existing large fields, which produce the lion’s share of global oil, is the more important underlying factor.

Even the leading energy agencies are finally coming clean on peak oil. The IEA’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, stated bluntly in 2009 that “we have to leave oil before oil leaves us, and we have to prepare ourselves for that day.” 

Birol stated in the same 2009 interview, presciently, as we can see now: “[Tightness in oil supply] will be especially important because the global economy will still be very fragile, very vulnerable. Many people think there will be a recovery in a few years’ time but it will be a slow recovery and a fragile recovery and we will have the risk that the recovery will be strangled with higher oil prices.”

We are now faced with dramatically high prices yet again and if they remain high or go even higher it seems all but certain that the U.S. and the world will soon dip back into recession.

This is the discussion we should be having in the U.S. presidential election, instead of the inanity we are witnessing instead. We need to rely on facts that aren’t cherry-picked to support a narrow point of view or a political point. 

How do we get off oil and other fossil fuels? By working vigorously now to become more energy efficient, conserve more, build massive amounts of renewable energy (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, etc.) and over the next few decades shift to using electricity to transport people and goods. Energy efficiency and conservation alone can do far more than increased oil production — as recent history has amply demonstrated.

For this transformation away from fossil fuels to happen, we need to educate ourselves on energy. It’s time to learn a new vocabulary and to pay attention to what may seem like arcane facts. These arcane facts are going to become extremely important in the coming years. 

Viewing Page 2 of 2

  • Previous Page

29 Comments

Register To Comment
John Bronson
John Bronson
March 15, 2012
Hi Shawn,

The Bakken formation is in North Dakota, Montana, and Canada. This is conventional oil that is being extracted from shale rock formations. This production is on PRIVATE land, that does not require a federal lease. The EPA (Obama) actually is "trying" to block it. And without the Keystone XL, production will have to be limited, because they will have no way of transporting it. Obama has blocked the Keystone XL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakken_Formation



The Green River formation shale oil is not actually conventional oil, but kerogen that needs further processing. This formation is located in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, and is mostly on FEDERAL lands. The current admin is not providing leases for any of the 1.5 to 2.6 trillion barrel reserves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation

National Oil Shale Association Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz148W0Gxe4
Shawn Aune
Shawn Aune
March 15, 2012
John-Bronson wrote:

"'The Oil Drum' is the same blog that put forth the failed predictions that I had already posted"

Yes the prediction that was accurate until Obama allowed a whole bunch of oil shale production that you don't believe exists.

"Why pay attention to those already proved wrong so many times before? Sounds like Einstein's definition of insanity."

That is exactly why anybody who's been reading these comments is no longer paying attention to what you write.

Now that they're no longer paying attention I think I'll quit responding to your irrationality.

Has been fun.

Shawn
Shawn Aune
Shawn Aune
March 15, 2012
John-Bronson wrote:

"Yes they are blocking all 1.5 - 2.6 trillion barrles of oil shale production. If you know of some oil shale production from the Green River formation (production, not demonstration)post a link."

No they are not blocking all of it. You have forgotten about the Bakken.

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-12-26/bakken-shale-and-us-oil-production

The the size of the Green River resource is an estimated 1.44 trillion barrels. Note, that is not reserves, just the size of the field. This says nothing about how much can actually be recovered from it.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3063/pdf/FS11-3063.pdf
John Bronson
John Bronson
March 15, 2012
SelfGov wrote:

'And if you want Peak Oil predictions try these...'

'The Oil Drum' is the same blog that put forth the failed predictions that I had already posted:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2716

Why pay attention to those already proved wrong so many times before? Sounds like Einstein's definition of insanity.
John Bronson
John Bronson
March 15, 2012
SelfGov wrote:

'Your link mentions only a specific location (Mountain West, don't you read this stuff?) and you use it to claim that the politicians are blocking the ENTIRE 'technically recoverable' resource.'

Yes they are blocking all 1.5 - 2.6 trillion barrels of oil shale production. If you know of some oil shale production from the Green River formation (production, not demonstration)post a link.

SelfGov wrote:

'Oh here's a few quotes from the that link too since it is obvious you didn't read it yourself...'

The point of the link is to prove that the current admin is blocking oil shale production, (all 1.5 - 2.6 trillion barrels of it). I usually ignore the left wing looney L.A. Times editorial content. No doubt the majority of L.A. Times subscribers were happy to read about oil shale production being blocked. Now they can enjoy their $5/gallon gas.
Shawn Aune
Shawn Aune
March 15, 2012
And if you want Peak Oil predictions try these...

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3382
Shawn Aune
Shawn Aune
March 15, 2012
John-Bronson...

Please read what you write and what you are responding to. You're sounding more and more like a creationist. Seriously.

Your link mentions only a specific location (Mountain West, don't you read this stuff?) and you use it to claim that the politicians are blocking the ENTIRE "technically recoverable" resource.

Technically recoverable, by the way, is not the same as economically recoverable.

The prediction you use as an example would have been right on the nuts if the US hadn't increased domestic oil drilling dramatically shortly after that prediction was made.

Oh here's a few quotes from the that link too since it is obvious you didn't read it yourself...

"Those who have fantasized that oil shale is a panacea for America's energy needs have been living in a fantasy land."

"Despite the valuable progress being made in the development of new energy sources and technologies, there is still no viable substitute for oil."
John Bronson
John Bronson
March 15, 2012
SelfGov wrote:

"Yeah your link mentions a few leases."

How about 1.5 - 2.6 trillion barrels?

"worldwide technically recoverable reserves have recently been estimated at about 2.8–3.3 trillion barrels (450×10^9–520×10^9 m3) of shale oil, with the largest reserves in the United States, which is thought to have 1.5–2.6 trillion barrels (240×10^9–410×10^9 m3)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves
John Bronson
John Bronson
March 15, 2012
SelfGov wrote:

"Yes total "liquids" are still going up but the decline of conventional is going to overtake all of those increases."

This is what peak oil proponents have been saying for some time. Let's look at some predictions vs. actual production.

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p237/1ace11/WorldCC200704.jpg

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Screen%20shot%202012-02-13%20at%209.02.36%20AM.png

I tend not to side with pundits who are consistently proved wrong.

Also, try to look at this from another angle. All of the unconventional oil, biofuel, CNG vehicles, EVs, etc., only help to extend conventional oil production, and move the peak/decline further away into the future.
Shawn Aune
Shawn Aune
March 15, 2012
John-Bronson Wrote:

"With regards to unconventional oil production, it is being blocked by politicians."

Yeah your link mentions a few leases.

You fail to mention the 800% increase in US oil rigs since 2002.
Shawn Aune
Shawn Aune
March 14, 2012
John-Bronson Wrote:

"New discoveries in Alaska and the Gulf have extended US production beyond Hubbert's bell curve."

That didn't move the peak now did it?

It has changed the shape of the curve slightly but definitely hasn't reversed course.
John Bronson
John Bronson
March 14, 2012
SelfGov wrote:

"Why didn't they move the US peak by 50 years?"

New discoveries in Alaska and the Gulf have extended US production beyond Hubbert's bell curve. US production was 50% higher in 2005 than Hubbert had predicted.

With regards to unconventional oil production, it is being blocked by politicians.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/26/nation/na-oil-shale26

Whether or not the oil reserves exist, and blocking development, are 2 different things.
Shawn Aune
Shawn Aune
March 14, 2012
Heavy oil, extra heavy oil, tar sands and bitumen are included in the chart below. Even including these we're still on a downward slope in yearly production.

Why didn't they move the US peak by 50 years?

http://www.aspousa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/eia-us-oil-production-1860-2009-mcrfpus2a1.jpg
Shawn Aune
Shawn Aune
March 14, 2012
John-Bronson Wrote:

"You can't just ignore unconventional oil. Hubbert didn't include heavy oil because at the time it couldn't be produced. These resources push the peak forward 50 years at least. EROEI, flow rates, etc. are nothing more than doomer strawmen."

Claiming that conventional oil is peaking in no way "ignores" unconventional oil.

When we single out conventional oil we do so because it can be produced so quickly.

Flow rates do matter. If they didn't, engines wouldn't need a choke.

Unconventional oil cannot be pulled out of the ground fast enough to make up for the declines in conventional oil.

Yes total "liquids" are still going up but the decline of conventional is going to overtake all of those increases.
John Bronson
John Bronson
March 14, 2012
SelfGov wrote:

"That most recent data now shows there are 2.4 trillion recoverable barrels of conventional crude which moves the peak about ten years to 2005."

You can't just ignore unconventional oil. Hubbert didn't include heavy oil because at the time it couldn't be produced. These resources push the peak forward 50 years at least. EROEI, flow rates, etc. are nothing more than doomer strawmen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_World_Oil_Reserves.PNG
Shawn Aune
Shawn Aune
March 14, 2012
"he bases his bell-shaped curve on estimated ultimate production of 2,000 billion barrels from the world's oil wells"

Hubbert predicted that the world would peak in oil production similar to the way the US peaked in oil production. That prediction doesn't have anything to do with the size of the resource.

He did calculate that the world would peak in 1995 based on data that told him there were 2 trillion barrels recoverable.

That most recent data now shows there are 2.4 trillion recoverable barrels of conventional crude which moves the peak about ten years to 2005.
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
March 14, 2012
John, as I note in my article, US production is in fact up quite a bit (about 600,000 barrels per day) in the last couple of years, primarily due to a dramatic increase in the number of rigs operating. But this doesn't enlarge the resoure, it just sucks it out quicker. Fracking for oil may enlarge the resource a bit, but it remains to be seen by how much and at what environmental cost. Ohio has recently put a partial moratorium on new fracking due to earthquakes being caused!

As for Russia, Mexico and Venezuela, Russian production is in fact up sharply in recent years, defying expectations. Mexico and Venezuela are, however, continuing their downward dive, and Mexico is clearly on a shard slope down the backside of their national peak. Venezuela has huge resources but it's mostly extra heavy oil that is of dubious value.

See IEA's recent warning about oil supplies, due to a number of problems around the world, even as OPEC production just reached a new 30 year high:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/14/iea-idUSL5E8EE25Y20120314
John Bronson
John Bronson
March 14, 2012
SelfGov wrote:

"His prediction has nothing to do with the size of the resource."

Not true - "he bases his bell-shaped curve on estimated ultimate production of 2,000 billion barrels from the world's oil wells"

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/natgeog.htm

SelfGov wrote:

"Why can't production be increased to meet demand like it has over the past 100 years? Why now are high prices necessary to quash demand?"

Several reasons.

Some countries like Russia, Mexico, Venezuela, etc. have elected to kick out the US oil majors and "do it themselves". Unfortunately, they don't have the expertise that the US oil majors have, and their production is down as a result.

China's growth has been very rapid. China is now scrambling to secure oil supplies around the world.

The US is the biggest cause of the supply/demand imbalance. Most of the oil in the US is off limits to production because of political decisions. That situation is likely to change as gasoline prices increase.

Some relevant videos:

M. King Hubbert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImV1voi41YY

Rex Tillerson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUjG3HRUYVo

Noe van Hulst: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myjtc_AUlYo
tim sevener
tim sevener
March 14, 2012
Tam Hunt presents an excellent case to show that the world is at Peak Oil right now. John Bronson wants to endlessly quibble about the particular timing of Peak Oil. But that does not matter per se - we know that the world's supplies of oil are finite and non-renewable, that their burning leads to CO2 promoting Climate Change, and that oil is an incredible cocktail providing the basis for plastics, and all sorts of very useful products.
So the true question is - why is the US using 3 times the oil per capita of Europe or Japan just to run its automobiles?
70% of US oil consumption goes to transportation, 90% of that cars and trucks as we have built an auto addicted transit system. The best and fastest way to reduce US oil consumption is to move to Green Transit via rail, light rail,buses, shuttles, biking and walking. During WW II as outlined by
"Transport Revolutions: Moving People and Freight without Oil" the US saved huge amounts of oil, rubber, metals and other resources by quadrupling intercity train, bus and transit in just 4 years from 1941-45. (See http://transportrevolutions.info )
Ironically just as Green transit ridership was increasing by double digits in 2008 150 cities CUT their public transit!
Making Americans more auto-addicted than ever.
When 79% of Americans live in Urban areas according to the Federal Highway Administration the US has a large potential for Green Transit to replace auto addicted Transit.
According to Brookings' 2 year study
already 70% of working age Americans in 100 US metro area only live 3/4ths mile from a Transit stop!
http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/0512_jobs_and_transit.aspx

However due to the infrequency of Green public transit, lack of coordination and connections and the last mile only 30% of those potential Transit riders can reach a job during peak hours in less than 90 minutes.
Green Transit is pivotal for our future!
Shawn Aune
Shawn Aune
March 14, 2012
John-Bronson Wrote:

'2 trillion barrels does not include deep water, or heavy oil, which is already being produced. These resources push the half way point forward another 50 years.'

You forgot to mention polar oil :)

And there is no way the 40 billion barrels of deepwater oil + the 40 billion barrels of arctic oil will keep this global economy running for the next 50 years. You realize that the world consumes more than 30,000,000,000 barrels of oil yearly right?

40 Billion + 40 Billion = 80 Billion. Enough to keep the world running for oh, say, about two and a half years?

Besides the fact that these fields are tiny compared to the size of the easy oil fields discovered years ago, they are also expensive in both time and energy.

Now if you think just in terms of quantity, there are vast RESOURCES of oil like substances under much of the US and Canada. These are NOT oil resources. They are tar or bitumen which require extreme amounts of energy just to turn it into something that can be fed to our refineries.

There is a LOT of it but we can't pull it out fast enough to keep up with demand.
Shawn Aune
Shawn Aune
March 14, 2012
John-Bronson wrote:

'Hubbert's bell curve shows a significant decline 5 years after the peak. Since 2005, there have been higher production peaks in 2008, and even higher in 2011. This proves peak oil was not reached in 2005.'

The production 'peaks' you refer to include all liquids, not just conventional crude oil.

If you look just at conventional oil the peak BEGAN in 2005. Since then we have plateaued despite massive price increases. Yes Saudi Arabia, though massive investment, was able to pull a bit more out of the ground in the last part of 2011 but that additional amount didn't even make up for the declines in Mexican production (and only served to drain the Saudi fields that much faster).

Heavy oils have fractionally increased global production while conventional is peaking but even those haven't been enough to keep up with demand. What is going to happen when conventional oil actually starts its 3% annual decline?

And you didn't answer my other questions...

Why can't production be increased to meet demand like it has over the past 100 years? Why now are high prices necessary to quash demand?

John-Bronson Also wrote:

'Also, Hubbert was basing his peak oil prediction at the half way point of 2 trillion barrels total production.'

His prediction has nothing to do with the size of the resource. He observed the same bell curve in all types of resources including some which are way more renewable than fossil fuels.

He observed that with conventional oil resources, no matter the size, the peak in production follows the peak in discovery by about 40 years.

Please make sure you both read and comprehend what I've written before replying.

Thanks :)
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
March 13, 2012
John, I fully recognize that we can't know with certainty if we're at the peak now. But the plateau of production amid record high prices is highly suggestive that we are. And the unconventional resources you mention are, it seems to me, exactly why Hubbert was off with respect to the global peak and why the US declining tail has been extended far further than the bell curve would suggest.
John Bronson
John Bronson
March 13, 2012
SelfGov wrote:

"The plateau is the "peak" and we've been on it for about 7 years."

Hubbert's bell curve shows a significant decline 5 years after the peak. Since 2005, there have been higher production peaks in 2008, and even higher in 2011. This proves peak oil was not reached in 2005.

Also, Hubbert was basing his peak oil prediction at the half way point of 2 trillion barrels total production. 2 trillion barrels does not include deep water, or heavy oil, which is already being produced. These resources push the half way point forward another 50 years.

The pundits (Campbell etc.) that are claiming peak oil is "now", have been saying it was "now" for the past 20 years.
Shawn Aune
Shawn Aune
March 13, 2012
John-Bronson Wrote:

"Once oil production peaks, it goes into decline. That hasn't happened. If it did happen, prices would be much higher than they are now, perhaps several hundred dollars/barrel."

Yes oil production declines after first forming a plateau.

The plateau is the "peak" and we've been on it for about 7 years.

Once we start coming off the plateau we will see prices in the $200/barrel range (and higher).

You know when you throw a ball in the air and it hangs at the peak for a second? That is us. Expect a rather rapid descent, at least as rapid (on average) as the ascent :)
John Bronson
John Bronson
March 13, 2012
SelfGov wrote:

"Peak oil. If we weren't at peak, the increased demand would have pulled production much higher than its current resting place."

Once oil production peaks, it goes into decline. That hasn't happened. If it did happen, prices would be much higher than they are now, perhaps several hundred dollars/barrel.
Shawn Aune
Shawn Aune
March 13, 2012
Hubbert may have only looked at "conventional" oil but the curve has been shown to fit production patterns of many different resources.

"Production is increasing, but not fast enough to meet demand. So high prices are needed to quash that extra demand."

And why can't production be increased to meet demand like it has over the past 100 years? Why now are high prices necessary to quash demand?

It is because supplies are at peak and we can't pull energy out of the ground faster than we used to.

Peak oil. If we weren't at peak, the increased demand would have pulled production much higher than its current resting place.

Peak oil!
John Bronson
John Bronson
March 13, 2012
I think oil prices are high because of increased demand from developing countries like China. Production is increasing, but not fast enough to meet demand. So high prices are needed to quash that extra demand.

Hubbert was only looking at conventional oil. We now have the technology (and the price) to produce heavy oil, deep water, shale oil, etc.

I don't think oil production will peak from a lack of supply, but rather when demand falls due to some other technology replacing oil. Widespread adoption of EVs, biofuel, hydrogen fuel cells, etc.
Tam Hunt
Tam Hunt
March 13, 2012
John, the Brent crude price reached a record in euros and in pounds in February of 2012 - exceeding 2008 prices. You're right, however, that in dollars the record was in 2008, due to currency fluctuations.

As for peaking oil, the trends in global expert opinion have veered sharply toward the view that we are going to peak before 2020 - even the IEA agrees with this now, with the caveat that increased investments might extend the peak. We also have various oil companies supporting the notion of a peak at well less than 100 mbpd.

If we're not at or near a peak now, why are prices so high? Mass hysteria? Or the threat of war with Iran?

Personally, I think it's a mix of all these factors, but the biggest factor weighing in favor of the view that we're at or near a peak now is the production plateau we've been on for many years now, despite record high prices.
John Bronson
John Bronson
March 12, 2012
Tam Hunt wrote:

"Brent crude reached an all-time high, at $126 a barrel, in late February of 2012."

That's acutally not correct. The all time high price for Brent in dollars was $147.50, in July of 2008

Also on Hubbert's predictions, he was wrong about world oil production peaking in 1995, and also wrong about his estimate of total recoverable reserves of 2 trillion barrels. Leonardo Maugeri estimates 5 trillion in recoverable reserves. We are not going to "peak" or "run out" of oil anytime soon.

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Tam Hunt

Tam Hunt

Tam Hunt is managing member of Community Renewable Solutions LLC, a renewable consulting and project development company focused on community-scale wind and solar. He is also a lecturer at UC Santa Barbara’s Bren School of Environmental...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Most Commented

  • 5
    Electricity Loss and Theft: Who Pays?
  • 2
    Efficiency New Brunswick Cuts Geothermal Energy Incentives
  • 1
    Moniz Unanimously Confirmed As New DOE Chief
  • 1
    U.K. Delays Smart Meter Rollout by a Year on 'Challenge'

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers
  • W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc.
  • Community Renewable Solutions, LLC
  • DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability
  • Texas Combined Heat & Power Initiative
  • AllEarth Renewables
  • ExxonMobil Lubricants & Specialties Europe
  • Enecsys
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
  • News
  • Conference & Expo
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information