“For several years now, the conventional wisdom has subscribed to a theory called "peak oil," which stands for the proposition that at some point the availability of petroleum reserves reached a peak in the United States and began irreversibly dwindling.
The theory was first advanced by a book entitled Hubbert's Peak, whose central premise holds that U.S. domestic petroleum supplies peaked in 1970. But it's deeply flawed by a major factual error.
The author failed to take into account the fact that how much producible oil remains within domestic oil provinces depends entirely upon the going market price for oil. For example, at $100 per barrel, much more oil is producible than at $50. Pick your figures.
On Alaska's North Slope, both onshore and offshore, more than 14 billion barrels of oil have been produced since its inception in 1977, flowing at rates ranging between about 1 million and 2 million barrels per day. Nearby is a deposit of what is known as 'heavy oil,' not unlike the Athabasca tar sands in northwestern Canada, which exploratory drilling has shown contains an estimated 20 billion barrels of oil.
However, because of reservoir dynamics, these reserves are not economically producible at today's market prices for oil, but will eventually be producible at some higher figure depending upon demand.
There are scores of unexplored areas throughout the U.S. both onshore and offshore in state oceanic waters up to the three-mile limit and between three and 12 miles in federal waters overlying the outer continental shelf. Billions of barrels of oil may underlie the tundra in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), as well as the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska.
Neither Mr. Hubbert, nor anyone, can know when or where more oil may be found until all these prospective areas are identified. In short, Mr. Hubbert has presumed to identify and quantify a natural resource, which is unidentifiable and unquantifiable without further exploration activities.
Thus, his central premise is nonsensical. Mr. Hubbert's research is formidable, but his mind set has led him to the wrong conclusions. This same rationale applies to his similarly erroneous thesis regarding global 'peak oil.'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I usually don't take the time to answer nonsense like this, but when the facts are so obviously wrong I can't resist. Dr. Hubbert's prediction on the peak of lower- 48 oil production came at a 1956 speech to the Society of Petroleum Engineers in San Antonio, Texas.
He predicted that lower-48 production would peak between 1965 and 1970. It peaked in 1971 and the US lower-48 has never produced more oil than in 1971. You are typical of those in denial who apparently never really study the geology or science behind peak oil.
You state: “The theory was first advanced by a book entitled Hubbert's Peak, whose central premise holds that U.S. domestic petroleum supplies peaked in 1970. But it's deeply flawed by a major factual error.” So you start you assertions with a factual error. Where is the factual error in Dr. Hubbert’s work?
You are also wrong about price bringing more supply after peaking. Texas has been the most prolific oil-producing region in the world. From 1962 to 1972, the price of oil increased slightly for about $3.00 per barrel to about $3.15 and production increased over 40%.
Between 1972 and 1982, after peaking and the Arab oil embargo, prices increased 1000% and drilling exploded, but production declined over 40%. So in spite of higher prices, more drilling and better technology, production declined. The same thing is happening in Saudi Arabia now.
What is the basis for your assertion that there are many unexplored areas? In fact, most potential oil producing areas have long been explored. Your whole argument is actually proof of the Peak oil hypothesis i.e. that as the easy to find oil is pumped the remaining oil is in difficult high cost areas. Peak oil doesn’t mean we are running out of oil. At peak there is still half the oil in the ground. Peaking means that on the down slope, oil gets harder to find and pump.
In conclusion, Dr. Hubbert was a respected geologist and scientist and I take great umbrage to you flippant disregard of his work. You, on the other hand, are just a guy with an opinion not backed by facts or data. Sir, your work, on this matter at least, is nonsensical.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
However, the flaw in your and Hubbert's reasoning is that he limited his peak oil theory to the lower 48 states, thus conveniently omitting the biggest discovery ever in North America by a factor of three, on Alaska's North Slope in 1969, and thereby disproving his own theory. Multiply that by x,where x represents still undiscovered fields in Alaska,offshore and elsewhere, and his theory flees even further from reality.
As I said, Hubbert's research and geology are formidable, but his mis-directed mind-set undermined it.
As "just a guy with an opinion," I refer you to my 2004 book: Alaska Agonistes: The Age of Petroleum - How Big Oil Bought Alaska," backed up up by more than 40 years of investigative journalism.You might even learn something.
Best regards - Joe
There is still loads of oil in the ground, enough for at least 100 years at current rates of consumption. The problem is the the rate of extraction and the the amount of energy required to extract it. We need around 86 million barrels per day to maintain business and life as usual. As soon as we drop below that amount, life gets more expensive and its harder to maintain the status quo. I think the writing is on the wall, many will argue against it. We have voted with our feet and have been weening ourselves off oil for the last 5 years. We heat our house with wood and no longer own a car. This year we grew some vegetables for the first time and now I am working on producing an Energy Descent plan for our town. Life beyond the oil age has already begun, whether you agree with it or not.
You're in the forefront of the transition needed to leap from hydrocarbon-based energy to other forms which will be no less expensive, only less polluting.
It will take another ten to fifteen yers to complete the leap. In the meantime, fossil fuels must of necessity remain a major part of the mix, despite pioneers like you.
If all those who now burn fossil fuels burned wood like you, air pollution would escalate unmanageably, tree replanting would be outstripped and wood fiber sources would soon be depleted. That's not the answer. Wind, solar, nuclear, hydropower and others are.
The lowest and worst use for the world's remaining hydrocarbon resources is burning them to produce power. They're too expensive to go up in smoke. They should be used instead for the production of petrochemicals, plastics, etc.their highest and best use.
Good point about burning wood. It is important to realise that current solutions will change, we must cling to oil and gas, nor must we assume that renewables will be a universal panacea. We need flexibility and a willingness to change in the light of new experience. The problem is that many people and businesses get trapped by their choices and find it hard to let go and move on.
Peak Oil has two assumptions
1. no new discoveries of hydrocarbons and
2. Production will remain constant with uniform reserves to production ratio.
Hubbert, though was a great person in explaining the concept of Peak, has certain limitations
Post a Comment