NationStates Jolt Archive

Oil production to date:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3185/2285/400/EIA%20GLOBAL%20MAY%2006.0.jpg

The most oil ever produced was in December of last year. Have we passed peak oil?


From Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=anv9Ujulc2o0&refer=news
Aug. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Petroleos Mexicanos, Mexico's state- owned oil monopoly, said production at its Cantarell oil field, the world's second-largest by volume, will decline 8 percent in 2006, dropping faster than its December estimate of a 6 percent.

Cantarell will produce 1.86 million barrels of crude a day in 2006, Vinicio Suro, deputy director of planning and evaluation for Pemex's production and exploration unit, said in a conference call with analysts. Pemex in December said the field, which accounted for 57 percent of Mexican crude output in the first half of this year, would produce 1.9 million barrels per day in 2006 compared with 2.03 million barrels a day in 2005.

From Energy Bulletin: http://www.energybulletin.net/18904.html

..At the ASPO conference a well-connected industry insider who wishes not to be directly quoted told me that his own sources inside Saudi Arabia insist that production from Ghawar is now down to less than 3 million barrels per day, and that the Saudis are maintaining total production at only slowly dwindling levels by producing other fields at maximum rates. This, if true, would be a bombshell: most estimates give production from Ghawar at 5.5 Mb/d.
Gwahar is the world's largest oil field. Itself responsible for 1 out of every 20 barrels produced every day. To give you an idea of what this means, there are currently about 25,000 producing oil fields in the world.


Too bad our president and his cabinet are all morons. We're in for a rough ride coming up here real quick and we have the worst president in history to guide us through it.

When everything goes Mad Max on us, it won't matter who is President.

I'm the one with the stockpiles of supplies, food, water, firearms, and ammunition.

When everything goes Mad Max on us, it won't matter who is President.

I'm the one with the stockpiles of supplies, food, water, firearms, and ammunition.
That's not going to help, either. The people who survive will be those who live in communities that are able to rebuild local and regional economies where neighborhoods produce products and rertail them on a local and regional level. Think 1920s American suburbs where the shop owner lived in the apartment on top of the shop and people got all their food from the neighborhood store on the corner which, of course, they walked to. A place where mass transit carries people from their neighborhoods to the city where they work. Where people lived near their friends and relatives and there was a sense of civic pride and duty that bound you socially, economically and politically to an actual place. Those are the kinds of communities we need to build again.

Your picture does not work for me.

That's not going to help, either. The people who survive will be those who live in communities that are able to rebuild local and regional economies where neighborhoods produce products and rertail them on a local and regional level. Think 1920s American suburbs where the shop owner lived in the apartment on top of the shop and people got all their food from the neighborhood store on the corner which, of course, they walked to. A place where mass transit carries people from their neighborhoods to the city where they work. Where people lived near their friends and relatives and there was a sense of civic pride and duty that bound you socially, economically and politically to an actual place. Those are the kinds of communities we need to build again.


Sounds like Herndon, Virginia.

I walk to work (about 2 miles). Deliberately picked this place (as most do) because it's almost a self-contained small town on the outskirts of the DC area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herndon%2C_Virginia

Lots of long term residents, a fair number of Salvadoran immigrants, a town bypassed by suburban growth (too tightly managed within the town for developer's tastes).

Your picture does not work for me.
It's just a graph that shows that world oil production has been flat for the last 8 or so months and that the most ever produced was in December of last year. It's from the IEA.

Your picture does not work for me.
You can see it here: http://energikrise.blogspot.com/2006/08/utsikten-fra-et-unikt-plat.html

...but the article is not in English...

It's just a graph that shows that world oil production has been flat for the last 8 or so months and that the most ever produced was in December of last year. It's from the IEA.

I wanna see the pretty graph, dammit! :(

I wanna see the pretty graph, dammit! :(
Click teh link in the post above yours.

Does anyone happen to know what these other "Liquid Energy sources" they are referring to in the graph?

Click teh link in the post above yours.
I saw this coming a long time ago.

Does anyone happen to know what these other "Liquid Energy sources" they are referring to in the graph?
Natural gas liquids, petroleum condensates, other liquids that show up in the wells. They use them to make many of the same fuels and materials as crude oil, but they are usually not as good as crude because they are either to light and explosive which makes them hard to deal with safely, or the opposite - too gooey and polluted - which makes them harder and more expensive to refine.

It's been coming for years. The US passed the peak in the 70's, I think.

We are doomed.

It's been coming for years. The US passed the peak in the 70's, I think.

We are doomed.
1971 at a blip over 10 million barrels/day. Now we're at just over 5 million.

Natural gas liquids, petroleum condensates, other liquids that show up in the wells. They use them to make many of the same fuels and materials as crude oil, but they are usually not as good as crude because they are either to light and explosive which makes them hard to deal with safely, or the opposite - too gooey and polluted - which makes them harder and more expensive to refine.

They were included in the graph.

Brunton makes some rather nice solar cells...

They were included in the graph.
NGL's were, but there are many different liquids that come up a gas or oil well. If the liquid does not fall within a specific viscosity or purety range it is illegal to try to market it as crude oil so they call it something else. How would you like it if you popped open your barel of saudi crude and found 42 gallons of asphalt?

NGL's were, but there are many different liquids that come up a gas or oil well. If the liquid does not fall within a specific viscosity or purety range it is illegal to try to market it as crude oil so they call it something else. How would you like it if you popped open your barely of saudi crude and found 42 gallons of asphalt?

I would be like, "Lol, those clever A-rabs."

I would be like, "Lol, those clever A-rabs."
Yeah! :p What'll they think of next! :rolleyes:

I'm 23 will I ever live to be 24, the way things are goin I dunno....keep spendin most our lives livin in a gangstas paradise....

Shits gonna hit the fan one way or another relativley soon. ROAD WARRIOR!!!

We almost certainly have. Political and maintenance problems are shutting down a lot of capacity, and there is no longer any spare capacity to replace it. Any short-term growth potential the world had, through re/development of the last few giant fields, will now most likely be offset by ongoing crises. Natural depletion will continue its march in the meantime.

It will probably be the end of the decade before we can say with certainty precisely which month was the global peak, but there is no denying that the middle part of this decade is the plateau, as Deffeyes predicted. The flow of oil into the economy right now, is as high as it gets, ever.

*shrug* guess I'll just take one of those new buses that run on whatever they happen to run on

And laugh at my friends land rovers!

We almost certainly have. Political and maintenance problems are shutting down a lot of capacity, and there is no longer any spare capacity to replace it. Any short-term growth potential the world had, through re/development of the last few giant fields, will now most likely be offset by ongoing crises. Natural depletion will continue its march in the meantime.

It will probably be the end of the decade before we can say with certainty precisely which month was the global peak, but there is no denying that the middle part of this decade is the plateau, as Deffeyes predicted. The flow of oil into the economy right now, is as high as it gets, ever.That's my feeling....

More from Bloomberg on what was the second largest oil field in the world, now the third:
Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Kuwaiti oil production from the world's second-largest field is ``exhausted'' and falling after almost six decades of pumping, forcing the government to increase spending on new deposits, the chairman of the state oil company said.

The plateau in output from the Burgan field will be about 1.7 million barrels a day, rather than as much as the 2 million a day that engineers had forecast could be maintained for the rest of the field's 30 to 40 years of life, said Farouk al-Zanki, the chairman of state-owned Kuwait Oil Co. Kuwait will spend about $3 billion a year for the next three years to expand output and exports, three times the recent average.

So, three of the three largest oill fields in the world, together responsible for about one in every ten barrels of oil produced every day, are in irreversible, steep decline with no fields approaching their size discovered in the last forty years.

Should I be laughing my arse off if I have solar panels?

Should I be laughing my arse off if I have solar panels?
Only if they'll drive you to work or fertilize the crops you'll need to grow in your backyard or can produce the plastics, medicines and industrial chemicals you've grown accustomed to living with.

When everything goes Mad Max on us, it won't matter who is President.

I'm the one with the stockpiles of supplies, food, water, firearms, and ammunition.

And then someone turns into the Road Warrior and stars in Beyond Thunderdome.

*shudders*

I don't want to think about it...

It will be tough.

But when going gets tough, the tough gets going. We will adapt and live even better.

That's not going to help, either. The people who survive will be those who live in communities that are able to rebuild local and regional economies where neighborhoods produce products and rertail them on a local and regional level. Think 1920s American suburbs where the shop owner lived in the apartment on top of the shop and people got all their food from the neighborhood store on the corner which, of course, they walked to. A place where mass transit carries people from their neighborhoods to the city where they work. Where people lived near their friends and relatives and there was a sense of civic pride and duty that bound you socially, economically and politically to an actual place. Those are the kinds of communities we need to build again.
That's what my hometown, Nevada City, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_City%2C_California) is like. Small town, two hours from the nearest city, people are community-driven and prideful in their town, businesses are self sufficient and local. We only have one chain store, and it's a gas station. In Eugene, Oregon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene%2C_Oregon), where I currently live, it's at least possible to walk everywhere I'd really need to go (School, Supermarket, Pharmacy, my frat's across the street from the hospital). I feel that you'd do all right post-peak oil if you lived in either a small town like my hometown, or a city as big as or bigger than the one I live in now. If you live in the suburbs, you're not going to do so well.

Only if they'll drive you to work or fertilize the crops you'll need to grow in your backyard or can produce the plastics, medicines and industrial chemicals you've grown accustomed to living with.

Bugger.

That's what my hometown, Nevada City, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_City%2C_California) is like. Small town, two hours from the nearest city, people are community-driven and prideful in their town, businesses are self sufficient and local. We only have one chain store, and it's a gas station. In Eugene, Oregon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene%2C_Oregon), where I currently live, it's at least possible to walk everywhere I'd really need to go (School, Supermarket, Pharmacy, my frat's across the street from the hospital). I feel that you'd do all right post-peak oil if you lived in either a small town like my hometown, or a city as big as or bigger than the one I live in now. If you live in the suburbs, you're not going to do so well.
And that's the problem. Over the last 70 years more than half our population has moved to the suburbs and the suburbs now stretch sometimes 50 to 100 miles out from our center cities. There are places in the U.S., the Pacific Northwest is one of them, that still have the civic culture and urban infrastructure to do well, the problem is whether or not they'll be swamped with refugees from places like Las Vegas and Pheonix. I guess we'll find out soon enough. Los Angeles becomes a pretty challenging place, where I live, but at least it's ringed with agriculture and is on the ocean. My plan is to get out in the next two or three years after I get my MS degree. Many of the larger, desert cities in states like Nevada, Arizona and Texas have pretty desolate futures, IMHO.

But when going gets tough, the tough gets going. We will adapt and live even better.
Successful adaptation is not inevitable.

How well prepared are Governments for the consequences?

It will be tough.

But when going gets tough, the tough gets going. We will adapt and live even better.
Yes. Do you hear that, guys? I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! Now go out there and win one for the Gipper! It's not the size of the man in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the man! Remember to ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country! I speak softly, but I carry a big stick!

Yes. Do you hear that, guys? I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore! Now go out there and win one for the Gipper! It's not the size of the man in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the man! Remember to ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country! I speak softly, but I carry a big stick!

*head explodes*

Successful adaptation is not inevitable.
Sure it is. When I look at the world today and at humanity throughout history I see man as triumphant over all circumstances.

http://peacecorpsonline.org/messages/jpeg/starvingchildaa.jpg
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/07/04/soweto_wideweb__470x307,0.jpg
http://www.richthofen.com/france_at_war/artois_afterattack.jpg
http://www.vietnamwar.com/mylaimassacre.jpg
Mankind always seems to find the right way to react to adversarial conditions. :)

How well prepared are Governments for the consequences?

I don't think they are.

Of course, a real energy crisis would alter society so drastically that all the bullshit planning wouldn't mean anything anyway. It'd be like the eighteenth century or some type of bullshit. (Maybe worse, because we've extracted a lot of the easy to get at minerals).

One things for certain, it won't be some little fairyland utopia with us all living it little genteel town communties "pulling together" for the collective good.

edit: Though I intend to become a pirate, in my ship of sail, so it's not all bad.

And that's the problem. Over the last 70 years more than half our population has moved to the suburbs and the suburbs now stretch sometimes 50 to 100 miles out from our center cities. There are places in the U.S., the Pacific Northwest is one of them, that still have the civic culture and urban infrastructure to do well, the problem is whether or not they'll be swamped with refugees from places like Las Vegas and Pheonix. I guess we'll find out soon enough. Los Angeles becomes a pretty challenging place, where I live, but at least it's ringed with agriculture and is on the ocean. My plan is to get out in the next two or three years after I get my MS degree. Many of the larger, desert cities in states like Nevada, Arizona and Texas have pretty desolate futures, IMHO.
Oh yeah. Totally, man. I was born and raised in Cali. From an outsider's perspective, Oregon has done pretty well to fight sprawl, and that's going to be VERY good for them post-peak oil. I mean, fifty miles from San Francisco, you have Lodi which has the position of suburb for both SF and Sac. Fifty miles from Portland, you have farms. It's a smaller state, but still. The edge of town in Eugene is genuinely farmland. There's not sprawl.

You know, I'm starting to wonder that myself. Although I still think we're probably going to peak for all liquids around 2020, the fact that crude oil production fell by nearly 300,000 bpd and has still not recovered to its December levels is concerning. Conventional oil production may be approaching its peak; I'd still wait a few more months to see for sure, but the data is not reassuring. We do have to take in to account the fact that winter was very mild and China's power problems were mostly addressed reducing demand for oil during the winter and spring, but it's an interesting trend.

The fact that Saudi Arabia is also looking for companies to invest in steam treatment of its older fields also suggests that they're having problems; they might not peak in all production but this marks an important shift in their oil composition. Their crude is getting heavier and heavier and that's going to cost more.

I think we'll know for sure in a few months' time.

(Maybe worse, because we've extracted a lot of the easy to get at minerals).True, but what Savinah ignores is that much of what has been extracted continues to survive. I can point to about 8,000 pounds of metal globbed together into what will be a useless pile of steel in a decade right in my driveway. Car might not be much good, but all the nickle, iron and copper will be.

One things for certain, it won't be some little fairyland utopia with us all living it little genteel town communties "pulling together" for the collective good.Probably not. It remains, though, that places with intact mass transit, civic structure with multiuse infrastructure (read - not miles and miles of houses but high density, multiuse buildings with homes, shops, factories, etc...) and with cohesive, cooperative cultural ties will fare much better than places which have none of those things - like Las Vegas, for example.

edit: Though I intend to become a pirate, in my ship of sail, so it's not all bad.Good look with that.

True, but what Savinah ignores is that much of what has been extracted continues to survive. I can point to about 8,000 pounds of metal globbed together into what will be a useless pile of steel in a decade right in my driveway. Car might not be much good, but all the nickle, iron and copper will be..

Even a small amount of the oil consumed is still around; many of the world's landfills and scrapyards are loaded with huge amounts of plastics and rare metals that could be recovered if we really needed them. Also, a decent amount of waste oil is still around; it's nowhere near enough to meet any of our fuel demand but it is a great source of the residual and heavy fuels necessary for large equipment. Those kinds of materials will be very helpful for the construction of alternative energy and maintenance of global trade in the post-peak era.

If oil production is peaking, the main areas that will do well are going to be the Pacific Northwest, Arizona, Texas, parts of New England and possibly California. New York City will likely do well as will most urban areas. I think the Midwest and much of the South will be in trouble, since they are the ones that really lack a lot of the infrastructure necessary to function effectively without oil. The north-central US will probably serve as little more that a source of wind generation and will be pretty much abandoned in favor of the Northwest or West Coast (that's already happening, so it won't be that much of a change for them). It's also the biggest consumer of gasoline per capita so its chances of adaptation are slim.

Japan is probably going to undergo a huge amount of growth (likely at the expense of the US) in a post-Peak era because it has the technology and mass-transit infrastructure necessary to function without oil; they learned valuable lessons from WWII and 1973/1979 and so are far better prepared to deal with any disruptions in supply. They also produce very efficient vehicles and machinery that can function on less oil.

If oil production is peaking, the main areas that will do well are going to be *snip* Arizona, Texas, *snip*Water? :confused:

Japan is probably going to undergo a huge amount of growth (likely at the expense of the US) in a post-Peak era because it has the technology and mass-transit infrastructure necessary to function without oil; they learned valuable lessons from WWII and 1973/1979 and so are far better prepared to deal with any disruptions in supply. They also produce very efficient vehicles and machinery that can function on less oil.Any sorts of natural resources at all whatsoever in any way? Coal? Oil? Natural gas? Iron? Copper? Valadium? Anything? :confused:

water?:confused:

Texas has sizable amounts of oil and gas, and they have some pretty fertile land in the eastern part of the state. They'll probably be a major site for wind energy and agriculture; also, the eastern part of the state was the one that was the most developed citywise in the pre-oil era and has a lot of rail lines+water routes that could function after oil. Also, they're close to the Mississipi river.

Arizona has a lot of land and resources for solar power; chances are, most of the big desert cities will be abandoned but the hydro/solar resources along the Colorado river will be vital to power generation for California. It'll be a thinly populated power-geeration state with solar power and silicon-processing being the main industries.

Any sorts of natural resources at all whatsoever in any way? Coal? Oil? Natural gas? Iron? Copper? Valadium? Anything? :confused:

Japan has Russia and China in very close proximity; those two nations produce a lot of natural resources and Japan imports most of them from those two. Chances are, the three nations will grow very close in terms of trade due to the short distances between the three, abundant rail lines, and large amounts of coal for short-term production of liquid fuels and natural gas. Those nations all have the resources necessary to do fairly well; the only real issue is their supply of oil, which still has to come from the Middle East despite Russian reserves.

Also, Japan/China/Russia produce enough basic foodstuffs to meet most of their needs; all three have a lot of experience with intensive agriculture for large populations both pre and post oil. The main challenge of Russia and China is managing their huge countries without relying on oil-fueled transportation. China is somewhat better prepared than Russia due to its huge coastal population and public transportation; China seemed to do alright 20 years ago when the majority of the population walked, took a train, or rode bicycles so they can do it again. The car is not a well-established trend in China.

Pimp my post.

Well, at least there's some comfort in that nearly half of world oil consumption is gasoline; that means we can save a lot of oil if there's a serious improvement in fuel economy, replacement and conservation.

We need about 30-35% of current production for industry, agriculture, and shipping and the rest used by cars and trucks needs to be either replaced or conserved until alternatives can take over more roles than they currently do. We've got a while before oil production declines to a level where the core production is threatened, but that's still a hell of a lot of work to do.

I've noticed a lot more new small cars and a decent number of new hybrids on the roads compared to last year. It's a good sign, but far from what we'll need to reduce oil consumption significantly.

I don't think we've passed the peak, per se, but I think that we should put more stress on finding alternate means of attaining fuel, so that it is established and easily used when oil is no more.

I don't think we've passed the peak, per se, but I think that we should put more stress on finding alternate means of attaining fuel, so that it is established and easily used when oil is no more.

Oil production did level off from 1989-1994, so it might be a similar situation; the stagnation during that period coincided with the collapse of the USSR and its oil industry along with the Gulf War. Similarities might be drawn between those supply disruptions and the problems in Venezuela/Nigeria.

We also have to take in to account that there was a loss of nearly 625,000 bpd in Nigeria starting in March; if we add that on to the production numbers the situation is somewhat less problematic; production is still up 0.4% compared to May 2005 and up 1% when the averages are compared. I think a clearer picture will emerge if the trend keeps up; right now, there are some special factors that might be affecting oil production.

Oil production did level off from 1989-1994, so it might be a similar situation; the stagnation during that period coincided with the collapse of the USSR and its oil industry along with the Gulf War. Similarities might be drawn between those supply disruptions and the problems in Venezuela/Nigeria.

I think a clearer picture will emerge if the trend keeps up; right now, there are some special factors that might be affecting oil production.
The problems noted in the post, however, are not from minor producing fields. They are from teh three largest fields in the world which are collectively responsible for almost 10% of all world production.

Three fields out of the approximately 25,000 oil fields in the world. Three supergiant, mammoth fields the likes of which we have not discovered in over 40 years. Ghawar alone contains more oil, still - even after 60 years of production - than all the oil discovered last year combined - a year that saw record expenidtures on oil exploration. These fields are not declining because of politics. They are declining because they are running out of oil and there is nothing even close to replacing them on the horizon enywhere.

The problems noted in the post, however, are not from minor producing fields. They are from teh three largest fields in the world which are collectively responsible for almost 10% of all world production.

Three fields out of the approximately 25,000 oil fields in the world. Three supergiant, mammoth fields the likes of which we have not discovered in over 40 years. Ghawar alone contains more oil, still - even after 60 years of production - than all the oil discovered last year combined - a year that saw record expenidtures on oil exploration. These fields are not declining because of politics. They are declining because they are running out of oil and there is nothing even close to replacing them on the horizon enywhere.

Quite true. I'll still wait a few more months to see if it's a clear trend, but there's some pretty strong evidence that Saudi production in general is peaking.

I'm really starting to think that Saudi Arabia is approaching its limits, especially given the fact that they are not producing more oildespite rising prices; it seems rather disingenuous to state that they're cutting production because they can't find buyers for their crude when even their heaviest grade of oil is up nearly 26% since the start of 2006.

The truth really seems more likely to be a peak in production rather than a concerted price move. Maybe it's temporary, but I'm really starting to doubt that, especially given their huge spikes in demand for rigs and equipment combined with flat production.