Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Countdown to $200 oil (2) - Not quite peaking yet

by Jerome a Paris Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 10:14:12 AM EST

Received via email:

The Record Falls. January 2008 is the New Record
The EIA's latest International Petroleum Monthly report is out. World C+C production for January was 74,466,000 million barrels per day. That is 178,000 barrels per day above the old record set in May of 2005.

This is the traditional definition of oil, not including a number of new categories of unconventional oil (which now amount to roughly 12mb/d), and it has been stagnant over the past 3 years. But the absolute top is no longer the May 2005 figure (which, coincidentally, was the last figure available when I started my "Countdown to $100 oil" series) - a fact that will certainly make the cornucopians happy.

Of course, that has not prevented prices from doubling in the meantime, and from being at record highs above $110 right now, despite the now widely accepted - and to some extent discounted - prospect of a recession in the US.


Display:
Perhaps there is a fundamental flaw in the original analysis by Hubbert. I'm not an economist, but I don't see why the peak oil curve should be symmetrical in time. Why shouldn't it be a sawtooth, with an increasing price ramping upwards as it gets harder to recovery the remaining oil, then a final sudden drop when it's all gone?

Perhaps there is an invalid extrapolation here, in which the production of a single oil field amidst a bunch of other slightly less expensive fields rises and then falls as the cost at that particular field becomes uncompetitively high. But the aggregate of all fields, with no easy suitable alternative fuel supply, might not follow that same pattern.

In that case, the price would continue to rise for some time yet, and the production would rise to meet the demand at that price point. If so, one would expect to see increasing production for at least another few decades given current demand trends.

Is there something in economics that studies the behavior of prices of goods for which there is a relatively fixed demand, a finite supply, and no obvious alternative?

by asdf on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 10:27:06 AM EST
Hubbert was not an economist either. He chose the logistic growth model for the exploitation of the finite resource for no good reason other than it is the simplest limited growth model.

A logistic model is also probably not a bad first approximation to the oil field exploitation distribution.

Interestingly, the only framework I know for studying the consumption patterns of different products is Leontieff's, but there are no prices involved. In fact, I am not convinced there is a "production possibility frontier" implicit in the model that one could use to derive marginal prices. Conversely, the simple-minded  marginal relative pricing model takes a production curve as a given. I suspect the two ideas can be combined but I haven't been able to write the equations for it. OTOH, I'd be shocked if these textbook models were the Best Economics has to offer. Then again, these models have the advantage of being very simple to formulate and visualize.

When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 11:34:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As I understand it, Hubbert's work didn't consider economics or pricing.  His (in)famous curve referred strictly to the mechanics of finding and extracting petroleum.

Hubbert peak theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Based on his theory, in a paper[3] he presented to the American Petroleum Institute in 1956, Hubbert predicted that production of oil from conventional sources would peak in the continental United States around 1965-1970 (actual peak was 1970). Hubbert further predicted a worldwide peak at "about half a century" from publication and approximately 12 gigabarrels (GB) a year in magnitude. In a 1976 TV interview[4] Hubbert added that the actions of OPEC might flatten the global production curve but this would only delay the peak for perhaps 10 years.

Kenneth Deffeyes, Hubbert's understudy, wrote at least two books about Hubbert and his work.  He goes into fascinating detail about the sequence of geological events that are required to turn fossils into oil and/or natural gas and why we find them today where we do.  From there he develops Hubbert's theory for those of us who are not petroleum geologists.  I recommend both books if you haven't read them.

Hubbert predicted the peak in US domestic production almost a quarter century before it happened.  He called the peak within five years and, according to Deffeyes, the actual production numbers match his curve uncomfortably well, both before and after the peak.  Later researchers including Deffeyes extended his work to look at global production and so far the numbers match again uncomfortably well.  Deffeyes actually called the peak a couple of years ago in past tense.  He pronounced himself no longer a prophet but an historian.  I'm at work now and don't have that link handy, but if I can find it later I'll add another comment.  I took his point to be that so-called conventional oil production would follow an inexorable, roughly symmetrical curve no matter what demand or price did.


We all bleed the same color.

by budr on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 03:20:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hubbert's Peak, Current Events
February 11, 2006

In the January 2004 Current Events on this web site, I predicted that world oil production would peak on Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 2005. In hindsight, that prediction was in error by three weeks. An update using the 2005 data shows that we passed the peak on December 16, 2005.

. . .

That's it. I can now refer to the world oil peak in the past tense. My career as a prophet is over. I'm now an historian.




We all bleed the same color.
by budr on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 03:24:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
asdf (funny name, why not zxcv?),

These are natural questions for someone in the early stages of addressing the issue.

Individual region profiles tend to have non symmetrical profiles more close to the first derivative of a Gompertz curve. But the Logistic is very simple to use and can in fact identify fairly the peak of a Gompertz like curve.

If so, one would expect to see increasing production for at least another few decades given current demand trends.

This is the crux of the matter. Every year, beyond the extra demand coming t the market, production has also to address the declining production for mature fields. CERA estimates this decline in 4.5% per year. That's almost 4 Mb/d every year (or a new Nigeria) to stay in the same place. If production goes up much higher it won't be soon before we a need a new Saudi Arabia every year to cope with depletion and extra demand. Where is that Oil?

Is there something in economics that studies the behavior of prices of goods for which there is a relatively fixed demand, a finite supply, and no obvious alternative?

When I studied Economics these were called Giffen goods. Geffen found that some goods would go up in price during times of Economic hardship, like bread. He thought these were indispensable goods that would rise in price because demand for them would increase from poorer families.

Today I understand this a completely different way. Geffen goods are those that get expensive first during times of resource driven resource constrains. Just like rice these days.

luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]protonmail[dot]ch) on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 04:03:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
asdf (funny name, why not zxcv?),

Take a look at your keyboard.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 04:25:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
He did :-)  (QWERTY keyboards have asdf one line down, zxcv one more line down. Maybe you have a QWERTZ keyboard like me?)

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Thu Apr 17th, 2008 at 02:30:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Why shouldn't it be a sawtooth, with an increasing price ramping upwards as it gets harder to recovery the remaining oil, then a final sudden drop when it's all gone?"

Oil will never be all gone, it will just be found in smaller pockets, greater depths, grosser forms (thicker,  more sulphur,"oil sands", née tar sands...) and -- especially -- in fields that have given up a lot of oil already. Oil occupies pores in the rock (never a pool!), and it's hard to get all the grease out of something like that. First they let gas pressure push it out, then they pump stuff in to raise the pressure, or pump oil out as it drains into a hole, then they start heating the ground to make the stuff less viscous, or pump in detergent, or...

So the price rises, and people are forced to use something else, or just use less energy -- even though there's still a zillion tons of crud left in the ground.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 08:09:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I like your "crud" as a synonym for "crude." Both words conjure up something that nasty.
by Ralph on Sat Apr 12th, 2008 at 12:19:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Fantabulous.  So, on a per-gallon basis, it'll be more like $7 here in the states?  Yessuh, da Metro be lookin' good deez dayz.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 10:31:46 AM EST
74,466,000 million barrels per day

This is a typo, right?

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 12:05:01 PM EST
indeed.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 03:20:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nobody knows where to low frequency signal is heading to...

It is remarkable that World Oil production took almost 3 years and 70$/barrel to increase 160 Kb/d. We could well be in the Bumpy Plateau or at slope of a new increase in production to a final peak some years from now.

In any event what we have to realise is that we won't feel much difference from now to a possible peak in the future. Oil will never be cheap again.

At least until an alternative takes its place.

luis_de_sousa@mastodon.social

by Luis de Sousa (luis[dot]de[dot]sousa[at]protonmail[dot]ch) on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 03:40:03 PM EST
A quick excursion to Peak Oil's faith-based community at TOD this morning reveals the obligatory carping about 'measurement errors', 'bumpy plateaus' and, of course, 'This doesn't mean anything!'.

Many people there are still insisting that the previous 'peak' stands - for the very convincing reasons just paraphrased. Heh.

by wing26 on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 06:33:54 PM EST
It was noted in the recent George Friedman/Stratfor article (can't find the link, but have it in an email letter).
The first thing that drew our attention was a minor, routine matter. Back in February, the United States started purchasing oil for its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The SPR is a reserve of crude oil stored in underground salt domes. Back in February, it stood at 96.2 percent of capacity, which is pretty full as far as we are concerned. But the U.S. Department of Energy decided to increase its capacity. This move came in spite of record-high oil prices and the fact that the purchase would not help matters. It also came despite potential political fallout, since during times like these there is generally pressure to release reserves. Part of the step could have been the bureaucracy cranking away, and part of it could have been the feeling that the step didn't make much difference. But part of it could have been based on real fears of a disruption in oil supplies.  

It would seem that the putzes in Washington are skewing any predictions by their own greed. They are squeezing every dollar of ill-gained profit while they have a chance.

Never underestimate their intelligence, always underestimate their knowledge.

Frank Delaney ~ Ireland

by siegestate (siegestate or beyondwarispeace.com) on Fri Apr 11th, 2008 at 09:03:49 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]