Twitter headlines« Nanosensor Company Growing Cryosorptive Hydrogen Storage Portfolio | Main | Volvo Trucks North America Introduces New Engines for 2007 Compliance »
The Deffeyes Date: Peak Oil Was 16 December 2005
13 February 2006
 |
| The Deffeyes Date: 16 December 2005 for peak oil. |
Ken Deffeyes, Princeton geology professor emeritus, former Shell geologist and author of two books on peak oil, has calculated that the world passed the peak of oil production (production of half of available oil) on 16 December, 2005.
Two years ago, Deffeyes, who had worked early in his career with M. King Hubbert at Shell, had forecast crossing the peak threshold on Thanksgiving Day, November 24, 2005. Deffeyes revised his calculations based on 2005 data.
In 1956, Hubbert calculated—and then publicly predicted—that US oil production would peak in the early 1970s. Although Hubbert was widely criticized by some oil experts and economists, in 1971 US oil production did indeed peak and has since been in decline.
On his website, Deffeyes outlines his data sources, methodology and the interpretation.
There are some interesting additional bits in the end-of-year statistics. Compared to 2004, world oil production was up 0.8 percent in 2005, nowhere near enough to compensate for a demand rise of roughly 3 percent. The high prices did not bring much additional oil out of the ground. Most oil-producing countries are in decline. The rise in production was largely from Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Angola. The Saudi production for 2005 was 9.155 million barrels per day. On March 6, 2003 Saudi Aramco and the government of Saudi Arabia announced by way of the Dow Jones newswire that they were maxed out at 9.2 barrels per day. In retrospect, that statement seems to be accurate.
Since we have passed the peak without initiating major corrective measures, we now have to rely primarily on methods that we have already engineered. Long-term research and development projects, no matter how noble their objectives, have to take a back seat while we deal with the short-term problems. Long-term examples in the proposed 2007 US budget include a 65 percent increase in the programs to produce ethanol from corn, a 25.8 percent increase for developing hydrogen fuel cell cars, and a 78.5 percent increase in spending on solar energy research. The Times reports that solar energy today supplies one percent of US electricity; the hope is to double that to 2 percent by the year 2025. By 2025, we’re going to be back in the Stone Age.
Ethanol, fuel cells, and solar cells are not the only shimmering dreams. Methane hydrates, oil shale, and the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste depository would be better off forgotten. There are plenty of solid opportunities. Energy conservation is by far the most important. Initiatives that are already engineered and ready to go are biodiesel from palm oil, coal gasification (for both gaseous and liquid fuels), high-efficiency diesel automobiles, and revamping our food supply. Every little bit helps, but even if wind energy continues its success it will still be a little bit.
Deffeyes is the author of Beyond Oil: The View from Hubbert’s Peak and Hubbert’s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage.
Resources:
Discussion of the Deffeyes Date on The Oil Drum
ASPO February 2006 newsletter
February 13, 2006 in Oil | Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBack (1)
Comments
Posted by: dc | February 14, 2006 at 08:47 PM
Mark:...I fully agree with you. North America could make better/more use of clean electric energy. Switching from an OIL based econonmy to an Electric + Alternate fuels based economy is not impossible. There's enough wind power in North America to run 200 + million PHEVs and/or EVs. Existing power grids and power distribution networks will have to be improved but that's a very well known technology. It could be done quicky. Building a few thousand large windmills alone existing Hydro Lines can also be done quickly enough. Using the large Hydro water reservoirs as back up energy, when the wind is down,is an ideal situation. Power grids over a larger geographic area (like all of North America) would also ensure a higher wind energy stability and potential.
Posted by: Harvey D | February 15, 2006 at 11:06 AM
Wind power can be stored (somewhat) by pumping water back up into hydro reservoirs when the demand is low and production is high. It gets done now using excess nuclear power at night, but could be expanded with wind for better load management.
Posted by: Schwa | February 17, 2006 at 05:15 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d83425030853ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Deffeyes Date: Peak Oil Was 16 December 2005:
» Peak Oil Was 16 December 2005 from Daffodil Lane
This is amusing because we all knew it was coming, but like a lightning bolt it's finally here! Now I know you ignorant brain-dead Neo-con America haters will say that this prediction has already been made and failed. This has... [Read More]
Tracked on Feb 14, 2006 4:46:47 AM
"To the extent that commerce may benefit from the existance of commercial trucks, for example, the benefits are reflected in the GDP of the society. They are already accounted for in the GDP and the individual is already receiving the benefit from transporting the goods.
"
It doesn't matter if gasoline is factored into the GDP, the question is whether or not all benefits are factored into the price. For example productivity is not reflected in the price. Not having gasoline would cost you far more than the mere price of gasoline you pay each week. Because this economic benefit is not factored into the price of gasoline, it is silly to claim that the price of gas is artificially low. In fact it is just as silly to claim that it is artifically high. Who is to decide the real price of gas? Where does it end? Should we claim that the price of hamburgers is artificially low because obesity costs are not factored into them? Perhaps exercise equipment is then artificially high? The whole argument is entirely subjective; price is either set by the market or it is not. You can claim that gas is artifically low because of environmental costs, I can claim it is artificially high because the true economic benefits are not factored into the price. It makes much more sense to simply propose a gasoline tax to encourage alternatives, rather than to declare yourself as the true knower of prices.