free html hit counter Peak Oil Debunked: 164. NEW KOPPELAAR REPORT

Monday, November 14, 2005

164. NEW KOPPELAAR REPORT

Rembrandt Koppelaar and the Peak Oil Netherlands Foundation have their new report out:

The central conclusion made from our research is that the production of world liquids (all oil and oil equivalent resources) will approximately peak around 2012. Liquids production is expected to form a "plateau" for approximately 6 years starting around 2010. This peak could arrive earlier if our estimate for world decline rates proves to be too low. It also could arrive later, around 2017, if oil companies succeed in improving the recovery rate of oil due to technological improvements.
-- by JD

17 Comments:

At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 12:14:00 AM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good report from the public data..

I like PFC Energy's report, they had more data to work with and came to a 2013 to 2020+ peak based on demand ( and how demand would pull the peak up not back)..

I also take all this with a grain of salt. I have read all I can about oil and peak and think nobody knows for sure because we cannot tell what will happen to tech in 5 years let alone in 10 or more. I do think we need to change our habbits ( just look at all the driving todays kids do just to 'have fun'.. too much idle trafic just moving around for no reason..

 
At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 4:31:00 AM PST, Blogger Roland said...

Koppelaar's estimate is the one I like the most, because he actually estimates all known reserves and the rate of depletion based on demand. As opposed to pessimists like Campbell who use Hubbert mathematical voodoo, or the USGS assumption that supply will always keep up with demand.

To see him predicting a later peak and then a plateau is quite reassuring. If it's really true then we have little to worry about. We should be focus on making society more sustainable in a general sense, and alleviating poverty, rather than Peak Oil which is just one corner of the tapestry.

Whatever happens it's still important to practice conservation anyway, and there is really no excuse not to. You can help the environment, stop funding terrorism and save money.

 
At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 6:37:00 AM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I really don't see Koppelaar's report as that optimistic. On his model (not that I've read the whole paper yet--just got a copy this morning) it appears that the plateau will extend to 2015-17 at the latest, and then there will be a fairly stiff decline. Ten or Twelve years isn't enough time to really become prepared, but (as a proponent of die-off theories) if we handle things correctly, we may be able to avoid a massive die-off. The things that need to happen immediately, though, are:

1) Step up natural urea collection and production to replace synthetic nitrogen fertilizers.

2) Institute immediate agricultural reforms that put us on a sustainable footing as quickly as possible.

3) Provide major incentives for people who go to work in the food production industry, especially when they do so on farms meant to produce for the local population.

4) Figure out what to do about transportation.

If we don't do these things, a die off will happen. I'll be agitating for them in my community and state shortly.

 
At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 6:54:00 AM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

6 years is more than long enough to modernize the mass transit system in the united states given the proper incentive.

Think to yourself honestly how much of the following: Alternate fuels, Conservation, Mass Transit, Coal Liquefaction could be improved with the money spent in Iraq over 6 years.

Now I doubt we'll still be in Iraq in 2013 (Bush has to go before then...) so it's possible we'll have the budget.


I think a 2017 peak will have serious economic problems but with a plateu giving us 5+ years of warning I don't see total pandemonium happening - people WILL conserve if they need to (and are given enough time to adjust their lifestyles)

 
At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 8:11:00 AM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, if I understand correctly, it's a 2012 peak with a very slow decline until 2017, when the decline becomes drastic. Decline rates per field will not accelerate, but this is the consequence of the older fields, especially in the middle east, either shutting down altogether or slowing to the point that their output is meaningless. Also the consequence of smaller, more recent fields being sucked entirely dry around that time as well.

Again, though, I'm still reading.

 
At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 8:13:00 AM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's with this "We need more time to change the economy" line of thinking? No one is even remotely saying that we can suddenly change from oil to something else. The idea is to do it gradually. If we could do just a little bit at a time (which I figure is feasible) then this 20 year buffer zone argument=Dieoff idea is a crock.

 
At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 8:45:00 AM PST, Anonymous Fernando said...

if this, if that....

Lenin once said:

I don't care what men say.

I don't care what men do.

What I do care is where their actions are leading them.

Concerning PO, if we play our cards rigth there will be a solution, ok?

But, are we able to play our cards right?

 
At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 9:47:00 AM PST, Anonymous Rembrandt said...

I think we can all agree whether whatever world view we have that action regarding this issue is quite necessary and should start as soon as possible.

Because there is not enough data available (especially regarding decline rates and technological influences on production) it is quite impossible to predict the exact timing and steepness of the peak.

It is only quite clear that we are going to peak before 2020. And probably between 2012-2017.

But it could also be earlier then 2012 depending on current decline rates. If the IEA is correct and decline is running at an amazing 10% currently then we will probably peak in the coming years.

Thanks for the attention and I hope my report is adequate enough.

 
At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 5:33:00 PM PST, Blogger JD said...

Great work Rembrandt. You've done a invaluable service for everyone involved in this issue. Your work is the gold standard because it is scientific: it is open, free and verifiable. That's a great advance over the data secrecy of organizations like ASPO and IHS. You're an Internet hero, my friend! Thanks from all of us. :-)
JD

 
At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 6:49:00 PM PST, Blogger dub_scratch said...

Surely JD, Mr Koppelaar's forecasts conflicts with your other hero's, that of Mr Mike Lynch. Ol' Mikey places PO so far out that it is too far to predict. Lynch has based this far-out conclusion based on a whole host of assumptions producing a discovery rate that will skyrocket over the next few decades.

For you Mr Koppelaar, hopefully you have not made any adjustments that Lynch can bag on. And if you have any kind of history of predictions that were off the mark, then I'm sure Lynch will make a career reminding the public about those. You see, for Mike Lynch, the more his opponents are wrong, the more his assumptions look good. This hides the fact that he has no evidence for such a dreamy URR.

 
At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 7:05:00 PM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obviously Mike Lynch and Koppelaar can't both be right, however I think Mike is correct in that a geologically caused "fall off" is unlikely - it is infinitely more likely that as supply and demand further fight with each other a political, economic, or guerrila action will cause drastic supply shocks - perhaps many times over the coming decade.

Now that's not good, but if production more or less flattens off, any disruption and subsequent temporary demand destruction will "insulate" global economies more and more against the inevitible permanant changes in the supply of oil, and the amount available (and of alternatives, as even combined it seems unlikely they will be able to match our current oil usage - but they seem excellent stepping stones)

I hate the doom view because it lets the doomsayer off the hook for helping to fix the problem or come up with solutions. Conserve? ME? Nonsense the world is coming to an end, if I conserve that doesn't mean someone else will!!! I think I'd rather go convince a few thousand people to consume more because the end is nigh.

If everyone had this attitude about everything then nothing would ever get done.

 
At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 8:48:00 PM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Now that's not good, but if production more or less flattens off, any disruption and subsequent temporary demand destruction will "insulate" global economies more and more against the inevitible permanant changes in the supply of oil, and the amount available (and of alternatives, as even combined it seems unlikely they will be able to match our current oil usage - but they seem excellent stepping stones)"

Wouldn't this be a good thing? The argument most doomers have is that we won't have enough energy physically left to transfer to a non-fossil fuel energy system. If oil was made an unreliable source of energy due to political issues, prices would still rise and supply would still be unable to meet demand, so in reality we would be forced to start constructing an alternative/renewable infrastructure, but with physical fuel still trickling in to help us in the process.

 
At Tuesday, November 15, 2005 at 10:42:00 PM PST, Blogger Roland said...

If oil was made an unreliable source of energy due to political issues, prices would still rise and supply would still be unable to meet demand, so in reality we would be forced to start constructing an alternative/renewable infrastructure, but with physical fuel still trickling in to help us in the process.

That's what I said in the article I wrote for PO Debunked the other week. Of course, it's still important for individuals to put pressure on those in charge to fix the problem, so let's get to it!

 
At Wednesday, November 16, 2005 at 1:28:00 AM PST, Blogger JD said...

Surely JD, Mr Koppelaar's forecasts conflicts with your other hero's, that of Mr Mike Lynch. Ol' Mikey places PO so far out that it is too far to predict. Lynch has based this far-out conclusion based on a whole host of assumptions producing a discovery rate that will skyrocket over the next few decades.

Mike has a great track record, but I have this nagging feeling that he's setting himself up for a fall. He has tons of confidence and almost no data. That's a high-risk combination.

Koppelaar is definitely the gold standard. He's got the hard data you can check out yourself. His method's not very good at predicting the long-term, but it gives you a good view of the near-term. And if it turns out wrong due to error in depletion estimates or slippage, those estimates can be revised to improve the model. It doesn't do everything, but it's science, not voodoo.

 
At Wednesday, November 16, 2005 at 1:56:00 AM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

These bottoms up analysis efforts are good but always suffer from the 'horizon affect'. IMO the estimates for future discoveries are probably too low. Campbell with Petroconsultants did a bottom up analysis like this for non-OPEC back in 1989 which concluded that the peak was in a year or two. CGES did one in 1996, which they thought was optimistic, but turned out to be too pessimstic. More projects will be scheduled after 2010, discoveries might even increase if more wells are drilled in the Middle East and FSU. It is always hard to see over the horizon, but Rembrandt has done a good job.

 
At Friday, November 18, 2005 at 7:55:00 PM PST, Anonymous Anonymous said...

pessimistic predictions would almost be a good thing, but too many of them have caused oil giants and politicians to doubt the validity of projected supply problems.

It's a shame people didn't wait until they had real data showing a problem before crying wolf.

 
At Saturday, November 19, 2005 at 1:04:00 AM PST, Anonymous Chris Vernon said...

Rembrandt's report is excellent but we need to realise the limitation continuously highlighted by the author:
But it could also be earlier then 2012 depending on current decline rates. If the IEA is correct and decline is running at an amazing 10% currently then we will probably peak in the coming years.
The current decline rates are the big unknown with recent analysis indicating faster declines than previously though, this report doesn't exclude the possibility of the global peak oil occurring much sooner than 2012.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home