Discussion of Peak Oil Sticky

[ArmorPierce]

Thanks, this has consolidated threads that I've been searching on the search function in order to use the information provided in it in an attempt convince some people that there actually is a problem.

[ArmorPierce]

Oh and I think that this should be stickied.

[Surlethe]

Oh and I think that this should be stickied.

That's kind of the idea.

If anyone has information that points to a number on URR, I'm interested. I'd like to add a section in there on the total amount of oil in the ground, the difference between the different types of reserves, and how all that points to when peak will occur.

[metavac]

Nice. Throw in a discussion about the logistic curve, its derivative, and its application to the problem so people can perform their own calculations. That might kick the debate up a notch.

[Surlethe]

Nice. Throw in a discussion about the logistic curve, its derivative, and its application to the problem so people can perform their own calculations. That might kick the debate up a notch.

Done. Is that too extensive, or is it all right?

[metavac]

Nice. Throw in a discussion about the logistic curve, its derivative, and its application to the problem so people can perform their own calculations. That might kick the debate up a notch.

Done. Is that too extensive, or is it all right?

That's actually perfect. Now maybe people will start arguing about how to chose the scaling constants rather than trying to substitute eyeball arguments.

[metavac]

Ghetto edit: Maybe now there's cause to bring up a request for a LaTeX plugin in the Senate.

[Surlethe]

Nice. Throw in a discussion about the logistic curve, its derivative, and its application to the problem so people can perform their own calculations. That might kick the debate up a notch.

Done. Is that too extensive, or is it all right?

That's actually perfect. Now maybe people will start arguing about how to chose the scaling constants rather than trying to substitute eyeball arguments.

The other argument one can use is that the logistic curve doesn't actually describe oil production; I'm not sure how to combat that, though.

[metavac]

The other argument one can use is that the logistic curve doesn't actually describe oil production; I'm not sure how to combat that, though.

Oh, you just point out that the logistic curve describes any smooth exploitation of a finite resource. The only way you can deviate from it is to posit external influences that terminate the function and render it piecewise. Such influences involve unlikely or game-changing scenarios often too absurd to consider (i.e., asteroid impact [my personal favorite, if you haven't noticed] or some mass hysteria in the oil industry in which a sufficient portion of producers decide to cut off the flow of oil indefinitely for no reason whatsoever)

[Dennis Toy]

Here's a few more Peak Oil Websites and a discussion board


http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

A Peak Oil site run by a lawyer named Matt Savinar.

http://deconsumption.typepad.com/deconsumption/

A blog chronicling our consumption and our need to decomposition.

http://www.dieoff.org/

talk about die off and the effects it will have on this planet

http://www.peakoil.com/forums.html

discussion board on peak oil

[Surlethe]

Does anybody have any other criticisms or comments for the sticky? Anything I need to add? Reserve numbers, anything like that?

[Mr. T]

Maybe a discussion of the Land Export Model? It's brought up quite a bit in debate, although it's still "unproven" and not exactly test-able so I'd leave it up to more knowledgeable members to decide.

[J]

GOA report on Peak Oil (PDF)
Summary: The US needs to get its act together and make a plan for dealing with the decline. Otherwise, it's going to get ugly.


The URR get a little tricky, it's generally acknowledged at about two trillion barrels though it could go a few hundred billion either way thanks to suspicious reserves claims in OPEC countries. Colin Campbell calls it at around 1.8 trillion, Deffeyes says about 2.05 trillion, in any case that's the ballpark figures we're looking at.


With regards to the different types of reserves...

Proved, Probable, Possible (P10, P50, P90)

We can never be sure exactly how much oil is actually in the reserves but they can be estimated. Consequently the amount thought to be in the reserves is generally estimated as three figures:

* Proved or Proven (P or P90) The lowest figure, the amount that the geologists are 90% sure is there (sometimes 95% is used which would be P95).
* Probable or Proved+Probable (2P or P50) The average figure (median or mean), the figure that is expected to be closest to the true reserves.
* Possible or Proved+Probable+Possible (3P or P10) The highest figure, the amount that the geologists are 10% sure is there (sometimes 5% is used which would be P5).

For example, if geologists estimates that there is a 90% chance that a particular field contains 500 million barrels but only a 10% chance that it will yield 2,000 million more barrels, then the lower figure should be cited as the P90 estimate and the higher as the P10.
The best choice of estimate to use is P50. Since a 50% estimate is just as likely to be higher than lower, they would on average even out when added together. Using P90 only would leave too much oil to be found in the future so make estimates of oil depletion difficult. Using P10 would make your estimates over-optimistic, again confusing future trends.

I don't particularly agree with the use of P50 numbers as they've tended to be a bit too optimistic.

[Surlethe]

Added discussion on reserve types, URR, OPEC reserves, a link to the GAO report, and some comments on mitigation and oil substitutes. As far as the Land Export Model goes, I'm afraid that what's been laid out there is pretty much a synopsis of my understanding on the issue. I'll look into broadening my knowledge; in the meanwhile, does anyone else have any comments, questions, or suggestions?