As we clearly can see, the total Norwegian production is very similar to a bell curve (until now, that is), but individual fields have other characteristics, most notably the Ekofisk, which has had two distinct peaks this far. We can also note that the "tails" of other fields stretch surprisingly far from the peak, which could distort the "bell" form of the curve.
This is explained by ERoEI. As the resource becomes more costly or remote, it is more difficult to extract and this is reflected by a prolongued decline.
Oddly enough, this bell curve is demonstrating exactly what you're claiming isn't happening.
The "two peaks" in Eko might simply reflect the desirability of this well in comparison to other wells. Linking abstract, foreign charts isn't a great form of evidence... oh, and Wikipedia.
Not supporting your claims very well so far.
As to my pointing at lack of evidence, this is, of course, not supporting any particular theory about oil production, or anything else for that matter. I just find it hard to believe Chris' peak oil theory as long as the indications are not stronger.
So it's okay for you to have no evidence, draw a conclusion based on no evidence and believe in it lock, stock and barrel, yet Chris' real data and verifiable evidence isn't strong enough?!?!?!?
Aha - I get it now. You are postulating a new form of unified String Theory/Dark Matter Evidence? The old "I don't know what or where it is, but when I find it it will be stronger than yours."
Oh heck. I was going to respond to to our friend here, but I decided it would be a waste of my time.
That chart is pretty clear. Production has been declining precipitously since about 2000, and in most fields 5 years earlier. What you refer to as two distinct peaks looks very much like what most peak oil theorists refer to as a "bumpy plateau." Nothing inconsistent with peak oil theory, in fact quite the contrary.
I;m not going to follow my own advice. Here is a research paper on Peak Oil Chris reffered to in an article. Please read it.
I am not drawing any conclusion at all. I am just saying that there is not enough indications to draw the peak oil conclusion that Chris does draw.
If anyone was ever in doubt about information on Wikipedia, it is mostly verifiable by links or references to the original sources.
As for "abstract, foreign charts" I hope everyone realizes that we are talking about a global situation that deserves attention from outside the US. I found the link from Ernest quite interesting, even if it's Swedish.
Anyhow, I don't think I will be further convinced in any direction on this topic for now. I'll bet on technological advances for the next decade or so, and leave you all to bet on whatever might work without it.
As we clearly can see, the total Norwegian production is very similar to a bell curve (until now, that is), but individual fields have other characteristics, most notably the Ekofisk, which has had two distinct peaks this far.
Here's what I think happened with Ekofisk..... it's the oldest field, started in 1971. Using then current technology, production quickly rose, peaked, and tapered off. Then in 1987, new technology, quite likely horizontal drilling, was introduced allowing another production rise. You'll notice it's nowhere as steep as the first, and production when it repeaked around 2003 never even reached the first peak.
ALL the other fields peaked within just a few years of each other when horizontal drilling had become mainstream... and their decline now is precipitous, in fact looking like it might not make it to to 2020.
Picking on just one field to demonstrate that double peaking is possible really is data cherry picking....... it still doesn't change the fact that to avoid the run down the backside of Hubbert's curve would require so much oil, that the likelihood of this happening is nigh on zero.
Have you read that research paper I provided above? It is highly thought of in the Peak Field. I suggest you learn something before you doubt all the people on this site, and the research done by many experts before you continue your ways. Enough is enough. You seem to rather cause trouble than learn from all these educated people.
There is no way to prove the Big Bang Theory and yet the majority of scientists believe it to be true.
The fact that Big Bang, natural selection and other scientific theories cannot be proven does not exactly help. I have not seen a "majority of scientists" agree to Chris' version of peak oil.
As for the Swedish paper, I found it interesting, although I didn't read it fully through. Again, my first objection is that they do not consider future technology advances. Giant fields could be found deep sea. Horisontal drilling has been mentioned in this thread. It has become so cheap that it beats traditional wells on great distances, hence we would, at least in some cases, get cheaper oil. Or ERoEI.
Again, I find myself wondering what your special knowledge of Peak Oil is that allows you to wave it on dismissively.
You do understand that a Majority of Scientist don't have to agree with a theory - they can think whatever they want.What they DO have to provide is an element of the theory that cannot withstand scruitiny.
This leaves me wondering - Do you know about the scientific consensus at all? http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-warming/despite-sceptics-noise-scientific-consensus-is-growing/2008/08/01/1217097533889.html
http://solarclarity.blogspot.com/2006/06/chester-peak-oil-plan-of-response.html(review the cited text)
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA505436Here, the USMC acknowledges the ERoEI aspects of Peak Oil, and even references the "Scientific Consensus" you requested.
problematic; despite “scientific” consensus in predicting peak oil they too have been proven
wrong before. The problem in predictions lies in the incredible complexities involved when
trying to determine the world’s total oil supply or when Global Warming theorists attempt to
predict the impact of pollutants and CO2 on global weather. The naysayers to both theories are in
good company with historical realities, therefore many have taken the attitude that the Peak Oil
advocates are simply “crying wolf.” However, one underlying factor does not change in almost
every prediction and that is that the price of oil will continue to increase. Whether or not you
subscribe to Peak Oil Theory in ten years or fifty years or not at all, demand for oil is very
unlikely to decrease. New oil fields may continue to be found, but they will likely be in far more
inhospitable and thus more costly locations like the deep ocean. Thus, the Department of
Defense, the Marine Corps, and our sister services will all be paying more tomorrow to conduct
the same level of training and operations that we do today.
http://www.businessinsider.com/aleklett-peak-oil-drawn-2011-5?op=1 Your friends the Swedes talking about Peak Oil
I agree with healthy skepticism. I've fought on both sides of Global Warming, and am the first to point out ambiguity, but with regards to finite resources, there is very little to debate about their extraction profiles. The only real question is "when", and you may be right not to worry. It may not be in our lifetimes.
However, understanding the dynamics between the "3E's", population and the the economic system we're entrenched in will certainly be enough for you to apply the critical thinking to the actual problem, rather than simply dismissing it.
Alright, the good people of this site have bent over backward to provide the info and studies needed to understand peak oil theory. IMHO we have done enough. Its time for you to do your own research. We've given you all the tools you need.
Chris' version? WHAT are you talking about...? It's exactly the same version as everybody else's, only more clearly explained than any I have ever seen. So if you can't understand it, after all the help we here have also given you..... good luck. You're gonna need it.
I have completed the crash course, and I have read other supports for "global peak oil", including this thread, but I find it totally unconvincing.
Then I guess you, your McMansion, and your Lincoln Navigator will live happily ever after.
Good luck -- Sager
When peak oil becomes undeniable, his Navigator will be his McMansion.
You wasted your money buddy.
Well, Mariusm did you read the article I suggested? NO! You only pick what you want to discuss. You...........
As long as I have been a member I have never been so disappointed in the level of a discussion.
<pulling on nomex shorts>
Let's say for one moment that, (here is what the person was trying to say I think) the issue is about the scale of the chart and not amounts. Chris himself says that we need to look at the proper scale to see the hockey stick in exponential formula.
I think what he was trying to say was, that in the proper scale, we are not in the the apex of the bell curve. Only that we are zoomed in to the leading edge so that we can only see what appears to be the apex when really we are just at a "bump" in the upward trajectory. This bump is caused by the issue that we simply have not achieved the proper level of technology to extract that next level of increase of production.
For all we know, there may be ten Saudi Arabia's worth of oil in the.... lets say, the Mariana Trench. We just have not developed the technology to reach the oil.
<cringing in anticipation for the coming flames>
What proof do I have you ask? Why just increase the scale of course. don't allow the scale to be 150 years or so, stretch it out further. Like put it on a 300 or 500 year scale. If we did, the curve would look something like the beginning of a mesa not a bell.
So, if all this is true, then what the flap about peak oil? Is it just a way for oil companies to make even more insane profits than they already have? Is it a way to control the masses?
All of it... perhaps... maybe... but...
There is evidence to the contrary.
Peak Oil, perhaps not in the way that we envision a typical curve with a peak and decline - it is more like we can no longer get enough oil out of the ground fast enough to meet global demand. So, that if, when and until there is some sort of technological answer, we are in for more pain than gain.
In 2007 I worked outside the U.S. for a few months and had an opportunity to look back at the U.S. with a different eye. And actually, I was able to look at our world in a way that unless you have had the experience, I cannot begin to describe the feeling. It made me ill. I stood in the Dublin Airport concourse and just thought about how oil touches everything on the planet - Everything. Every living human is addicted to oil and its effects. Some passively, others directly.
Oil production values in number or graph cannot begin to describe the thirst for oil that humans (specifically Americans) have. We need to not kick the can further down the road. We need to take steps now to develop energy utilization that will compliment oil use not try and replace it.
As was said elsewhere, Things will work, until they don't. As I stood there looking back at my homeland... I felt that something was, "just wrong."
P.S. To be a good community, we should help others realize what few already do. And, remember that once one sees the death of the "way things were" they need to go through the grieving process.
this is what a stretched timeline hubbert curve looks like
There is just that little EROEI problem. I am familiar with deepwater exploration and we are getting to the point that going further is enormously expensive due to high pressures, support logistics, material strengths, and many more issues. Putting an order of magnitude more energy into finding more energy is almost certainly a no-win proposition...the risks are tremendous.
Keep reading. Go into the archives here and you will find what you are looking for: http://www.peakprosperity.com/search/google?cx=partner-pub-6775698572554169%3Asfcg2ngobjz&cof=FORID%3A11&query=peak+oil&op=Search&safe=high&form_token=a495ccc7217fe4895a8
Or you could go to the Oil Drum; that is what they do---educate people on Peak Oil. archive: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7191#more
And of course its not just peak oil, we are divesting the planet of many non renewable resources. It's not happy upbeat reading, but it is more than just a theory. By the time it is "proven", then our resources will be gone and we will be kicking ourselves for not having seen it earlier.
Individual oil wells do not produce in a manner resembling a bell shaped curve. The empirical mathematics of oil well production was quantified more than half a century ago. Harmonic, exponential and hyperbolic declines being the favorite profiles.
Section on the left section well
Herbal facts With Muscle Building Supplement
Testerect says that its nine something doesn't work holy shit
Clarke said you have branched chain amino
Update Tamils do-nothing nothin as