Oil 1 Peak Oil 21
Download 9.54 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Bell Curve/Hubbert Wrong
- Campbell Wrong/Oil Reserves High
- Peak Theorists Wrong – No Transparency
Bell Curve/Hubbert WrongHubbert’s model didn’t take into account new oil discoveries or tech. Peter M. Jackson, Director of the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, “Why the ‘Peak Oil’ Theory Falls Down,” Nov. 2006 Hubbert’s method also requires an accurate knowledge of the ultimate recoverable reserves of any area. However, numerous studies point to the fact that, during the life of oil fields, resource estimates often increase as understanding of the field improves and new technology is applied. The United States Geological Survey (USGS), notably, points out that reserves growth accounted for 86 percent of total additions to reserves in the United States since 1950 and 86 percent of the additions to reserves in the North Sea since 1985.** On a different note, Hubbert could never have incorporated the impact of giant discoveries in Alaska nor the deepwater Gulf of Mexico in his 1956 analysis. Therefore he could never have predicted the actual outcome for the US production profile. This resource growth may explain why numerous estimates of the peak of global production have tended to drift into the future. In addition, the method does not incorporate economic or technical factors that influence productive capacity; and, most importantly, it ignores the impact of both price and demand, which are major drivers of production. Although Hubbert made an important contribution and raised very important questions about future reserves and productive capacity, his methodology simply does not replicate the aggregate production of some 25,000 fields currently producing globally or the impact of new exploration and ongoing field upgrades. The fact that the method works selectively in some areas and not others suggests that it is of limited use and even fundamentally flawed. It is unfortunate that carefully selected elements of his valuable research have been hijacked to help support the peak theory. The debate now needs to shift a gear to closely examine future production using more granular data and a reliable methodology. Bell Curve/Hubbert WrongHubbert didn’t account for political and technological changes - oil production isn’t a bell-curve, it’s a plateau. Bob Williams, executive director, Oil & Gas Journal, “Debate over peak-oil issue boiling over, with major implications for industry, society,” 7/14/03, pg. 18 A number of prominent energy consultants, economists, and petroleum scientist have taken issue with the notion that the world awaits an imminent peak in oil production. Thomas Ahlbrandt, world energy project chief with the US Geological Survey in Denver, objects to the concept underlying the Hubbert curve. "Is there an imminent oil peak? The short answer is no," he said. "I believe in the plateau concept, which reconciles the need for additional resources within the constraints of infrastructure and capital investment. "The symmetric rise and fall of oil production is not technically supportable, as Hubbert, Laherrere, and others have published, although generally not recognized by (Colin) Campbell, (Kenneth) Deffeyes, and others who have been making draconian end-of-civilization claims since 1989 and every year since , , , Why is there no accountability for these failed forecasts either by Hubbert or disciples such as Campbell, Laherrere, etc.?" Instead, Ahlbrandt and others point to even mature areas such as the UK North Sea, which in the past 20 years has repeatedly defied forecasts of a bell-curve-style decline (Figs. 6-7). And peak-oil critics also noted the surge in discoveries in areas deemed critical for future supply, such as the deepwater Gulf of Mexico (Fig. 8). Sarah Emerson, managing director, Energy Security Analysis Inc., Wakefield, Mass., is one of many energy economists who contend that the Hubbert modelers disregard the roles of oil supply, demand, and prices as well political and regulatory impacts. "I do not believe the peak in global oil production is imminent," she told OGJ. ", , , The geologists who present the resource scarcity argument tend to ignore changes in the economic context. For example, foreign investment laws can change in countries with large reserves and limited access to capital or technology. This means places where we never expected development (or expected slow development) suddenly open up. A list of the countries who have opened up to foreign investment is an impressive who's who of producers: Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, now Iraq, and maybe even someday Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. New-found access to capital and technology requires a total reappraisal of resource development." She contends that the global oil industry and market is "incredibly dynamic, constantly changing as it responds to regulation and innovation. "The Hubbert curve analysis is far too static to stand as a guiding assessment of the future of global oil supply. As with any 'model' results, it should be one input into a broader, more comprehensive market analysis." Campbell Wrong Campbell is a hack – his forecasting record is terrible. Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine, Reason, “Peak Oil Panic,” 5/06, http://www.reason.com/news/show/36645.html The prophets of oily doom are opposed by preachers of energy abundance. Chief among the latter is the energy economist Michael Lynch, president of the Massachusetts-based Global Petroleum Service consultancy. “Colin Campbell has the worst forecasting record on oil supply,” says Lynch, “and that’s saying a lot.” He points out that in a 1989 article for the journal Noroil, Campbell claimed the peak of world oil production had already passed and incorrectly predicted that oil would soon cost $30 to $50 a barrel. As for Matthew Simmons, Lynch dismisses him with a sneer: “Petroleum engineers know a lot more about petroleum engineering than a Harvard MBA.” One petroleum engineer— Michael Economides of the University of Houston—calls peak oil predictions “the figments of the imaginations of born-again pessimist geologists.” Like Lynch, Economides, who worked in Russia to boost that country’s oil production in the last decade, rejects Simmons’ analysis. Saudi Arabia, which currently produces about 10 million barrels of oil a day, “is underproducing every one of their wells,” he claims. “I can produce 20 million barrels of oil in Saudi Arabia.” Campbell Wrong/Oil Reserves HighCampbell and other peak oil theorists ignore scientific consensus in favor of the most conservative estimates of oil supplies. Vaclav Smil, Distinguished Professor at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, Peak Oil Forum, “Peak Oil: A Catastrophist Cult and Complex Realities,” Jan-Feb 06, http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~vsmil/pdf_pubs/WorldWatch.pdf They are convinced that exploratory drilling has already discovered some 95 percent of the oil originally present in the Earth’s crust and that nothing we do, be it SUV replacements or new offshore drilling, can help us to avoid a bidding war for the remaining oil. And,so we are repeatedly told,“the oil era is over.” But in chanting this patently false mantra the devotees continue to ignore several fundamental facts. True, there is an unfortunate absence of rigorous international standards in reporting oil reserves and many official totals have been politically motivated, with national figures that either do not change at all from year to year or take sudden suspicious jumps. But this uncertainty leaves room for both under- and overestimates, and until the sedimentary basins of the entire world (including deep offshore regions) are explored with an intensity matching that of North America and the U.S. sector of the Gulf of Mexico, I see no persuasive reason to prefer the most conservative estimate of the ultimately recoverable conventional oil offered by Campbell & Company (no more than 1.8 trillion barrels) rather than substantially higher totals favored by other geologists, including those at the U.S. Geological Survey (their latest estimate is just over 3 trillion barrels).Campbell’s total means that the world has already reached its peak annual production in 2005,while the estimates that are 50–70 percent higher imply the peak sometime after 2020. Peak Theorists Wrong – No TransparencyPeak theorists can’t be trusted – their reports are riddled with inaccuracies and don’t cite empirical evidence. Michael C. Lynch, Strategic Energy & Economic Research, Inc., Center for International Studies at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MINERALS & ENERGY VOL 18 NO 1, “The New Pessimism about Petroleum Resources,” 2003, http://www.precaution.org/lib/05/lynch_debunking_hubbert.20030615.pdf. The lack of rigor in many of the Hubbert modelers' arguments makes them hard to refute. The huge amount of writing, along with undocumented quotes and vague remarks, necessitates exhaustive review and response. A later paper will provide more complete coverage of the debate, but the focus here will be on the primary substantive shortcomings. Perhaps because they are not academics, the primary authors have a tendency to publish results but not research. In fact, by relying heavily on a proprietary database, Campbell and Laherrere have generated a strong shield against criticism of their work, making it nearly impossible to reproduce or check. Similarly, there is little or no research published, merely the assertion that the results are good (See below). There are a number of points that are taken by the Hubbert modelers that are crucial to their work which have no evident empirical or theoretical support. For example, Campbell and Laherrere (1998) state that ªin any large region, unrestrained extraction of a finite resource rises along a bell- shaped curve that peaks when about half the resource is gone.º The first shortcoming of this argument is that no countries have `unrestrained extraction' – everywhere, a host of regulations and taxes, among other policies, affect the level of exploration and production. And in fact, few countries exhibit production in a classic bell curve, which is sometimes admitted by Hubbert modelers (Laherrere 2000). Similarly, the so-called ªoptimistsº' claim that technology increases the recoverability of oil resources is said to be incorrect without evidence. Rather, historical production curves are presented and said to reject pre-determined production patterns – determined by ªthe immutable physics of the reservoirs.º (Campbell 2002) For example, a graph of production versus cumulative production in the Forties field is said to prove that technology added no reserves since the graph follows a fairly straight line in later years, and even the use of gas lift did not change the apparent ultimate recovery (Laherrere (1999)). This assertion, however, is not supported with any further evidence – initial field development plans, etc. While the authors appear to have direct knowledge of some field developments, most of the results apparently come from visually comparing the curves produced on their graphs and assuming the behavior is pre-determined. The curve, viewed in hindsight, is presumed to follow the path expected from initial development, with no evidence presented of that. In fact, many of the curves might vary substantially from what was initially projected as a result of changes in investment, taxes, or technology. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 9.54 Mb. Share with your friends:
|