Replies

Hubbert developed a mathematical theory predicting US peak oil production quite well. Fourteen years before US production peaked, he predicted it to happen in the early 1970's, it did in 1970, and has diminished from 10 mbpd (million barrels per day) to less than 6 mbpd in 2000 on the downside of the peak. The math is convincing, the proof is compelling. The sense of it is overwhelming. The only thing lacking is good accurate information on production and discovery from the secretive major oil producers in the ME.

If it hadn't been for the extreme growth in Saudi oil production in the 70's, the industrialized countries would have faced the crisis of diminishing supply with increasing demand in the 70's.

According to Matt Simmons "Twilight in the Desert", the overproduction of the giant Saudi fields in the 70's may have damaged these fields and could result in early exhaustion. His research into available sources from oil geologists working in the Saudi fields tells him that things are not too rosy in Saudi Arabia. And that Saudi production may have peaked, curiously at about 10 mbpd in 1981. OPEC stopped reporting production figures in 1982, but Saudi already had declined to less than 8 mbpd.

If you want to see an eye-popping graph, take a look at a 10 year chart of the Vanguard Energy Fund, VGENX for you home gamers. Something happened in 2002 that changed the nature of the market. Energy companies share values exploded in an exponential fashion. They still trade like cyclic companies, with low PE multiples (8-15), but their earnings have dramatically increased. Bid up by the consumers of their product: means only one thing - demand is outpacing supply at an ever increasing rate. This does not necessarily mean that we have reached peak production, as demand can grow at a higher rate than production for periods of time, while both are still increasing. It is another clue to me, however, that there is exponential growth, more easily explained by steadily increasing demand, and an accelerating decline in supply

"The math is convincing, the proof is compelling. The sense of it is overwhelming. The only thing lacking is good accurate information on production and discovery from the secretive major oil producers in the ME."

Yeah, right---given the fact that we haven't explored or drilled along most of the most productive coastal zones of the US--FOR POLITICAL REASONS---any "match" of the theory with reality is bogus.

See post #20:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1511695/posts?page=20#20

Excerpt: "...Ausubel sees that trend continuing until carbon-based fuels are eliminated by the end of the century.

He expects that carbon dioxide concentrations, now about 360 parts per million (ppm), will peak at 450 ppm. That is 100 ppm less than the U.N.’s sometimes stated goal of "stabilizing" carbon dioxide at 550 ppm, and it would happen without draconian increases in energy prices or the creation of global bureaucracies aimed at regulating the atmosphere. ..." [snip]

Yeah, I put about 25K in VGENX about 4 years ago thinking the supply of oil is finite. I thought I was taking a bit of a risk. Boy did I undervalue my thinking. I should have put 250K in said fund.

Hubbert developed a mathematical theory predicting US peak oil production quite well. Fourteen years before US production peaked, he predicted it to happen in the early 1970's, it did in 1970, and has diminished from 10 mbpd (million barrels per day) to less than 6 mbpd in 2000 on the downside of the peak. The math is convincing, the proof is compelling.

Check me if I'm wrong, Sandy, but the reason that US production peaked was an artificial roadblock to oil production created by the Greenies.

Hubbert's prediction is worthless when framed in those terms.