Peak Oil (was "petroleum geologist explains US war policy")

[bigfish]

Texas is indeed an excellent case history, more or less the original 'home' of the oil industry and with probably the most business-friendly leasing arrangements found anywhere. Oil production peaked in Texas in 1973 and a massive drilling program was then conducted over a number of years in an attempt to replace output from their declining wells. Here's how an independent geologist summarises the situation:

Oil was first discovered in Texas in the 1860's. Can you furnish the forum with any reputable facts? For example, can you show the forum how many oil wells were drilled in the state of Texas prior to 1973 and how many were drilled after that date? The impression you leave us with is that most of the wells in Texas were drilled after 1973.

Let's also look at some stats quoted here by Jean Laherrere:

Jean Laherrere, like his partner in crime, Colin Campbell, is a discalculate Malthusian nutjob whose stats simply cannot be relied on by any sensible person. If you want all the evidence on Campbell and Laherrere's piss-poor track record, see CRYING WOLF: Warnings about oil supply, by Michael Lynch: http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/worldoil.html

[....] Even another 50 Gbbls found today would only postpone the peak by a few months and thus I agree with many of the speakers at this week's ASPO 5 depletion workshop in Pisa - 'all liquids' production is likely to peak globally around 2010. For those still denying the possibility of such a global peak it should be noted that two completely separate methodologies i.e. oilfield megaprojects review and Hubbert linearization plots are pointing to this same conclusion. To quote Chris Skrebowski in his speech at ASPO 5 on July 18 'there are just 1500 days to peak and by tomorrow there will be 1499'. (On this basis CS would be assuming there are now 1495 days left)...

According to Chris Skrebowski <gulp!> only 1495 days left before world peak <double gulp!> So we now have yet another date, 2010, to add to all of the earlier predicted dates that have now passed without incident. All of these failed predictions remind me of the Jehovah's Witness' track record on biblical prophecy:

64 FAILED END-OF-THE-WORLD PREDICTIONS BEFORE 1990
http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm

 

[zceb90]

Here's a chart of well completions in Texas since 1970:

The supporting data only goes back 35 years but it's reasonable to assume that the number of wells drilled pa in the years leading up to 1970 were relatively small given that Texas was then acting as the 'swing producer' and oil production was being controlled by the Texas Railroad Commission. Production quotas were raised to '100% allowable' around 1971 marking the US lower 48 production peak.

Working on the basis that the number of oil wells = All Completions minus Gas Completions the chart shows oil completions rising from around 5,000 pa in 1970 to around 21,000 pa by 1981. Oil production in Texas, however, continued to decline despite all this additional drilling activity - as clv101 states above 'the big reserves are easy to find and get found first'. Texas was among the first oil provinces to be heavily explored and most of its large oilfields had already been discovered by 1930.

 

[bigfish]

The supporting data only goes back 35 years but it's reasonable to assume that the number of wells drilled pa in the years leading up to 1970 were relatively small given that Texas was then acting as the 'swing producer' and oil production was being controlled by the Texas Railroad Commission. Production quotas were raised to '100% allowable' around 1971 marking the US lower 48 production peak.

Working on the basis that the number of oil wells = All Completions minus Gas Completions the chart shows oil completions rising from around 5,000 pa in 1970 to around 21,000 pa by 1981...

So we can state quite clearly, then, that in its entire modern history only 2,300 oil wells have ever been drilled in Iraq, compared with Texas, for example, where well completions were running at more than 5,000 p.a. in the year 1970 alone. Thanks for helping to clear that up.

 

[bigfish]

.... The supporting data only goes back 35 years but it's reasonable to assume that the number of wells drilled pa in the years leading up to 1970 were relatively small...

in 1930, two promoters sank the Daisy Bradford No. 3 well and brought oil in from the Woodbine sand formation in Rusk County on October 6 of that year. The approximate size of the field, about forty-three miles long and 12½ miles wide, was largely established during the next four months. In December of that year, Ed Bateman and Associates extended the field a further nine miles, from the Joiner well to the vicinity of Kilgore. During January 1931, Moncrief-Faring-Arkansas Gas and Fuel Company found oil twelve miles from Bateman's well. Thus the giant East Texas oil field ultimately extended into parts of Upshur, Gregg, Rusk, Smith, and Cherokee counties. By May 1931, average daily production from the field had reached 303,750 barrels. The field developed rapidly because wells were relatively inexpensive to drill and complete. By the end of 1931 more than 3,000 wells had been sunk. And at the end of 1935 the field was producing oil from 19,313 wells. Reported production for that year was 158,599,275 barrels.

As we can see, it is not reasonable to assume anything, as a total of 19,313 wells were drilled between 1930 and 1935 in this one field alone.

Information source: http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/OO/doogz.html

 

[zceb90]

It was probably my bad wording - I should have said 'in the few years leading up to 1970...'. It would have been nice to have found drilling stats for Texas going back to c1860 but I didn't really have time to conduct a thorough search when search engines initially failed to come up with such comprehensive data. I suspect, however, that their record keeping during the early days of drilling was not that good - industries were more or less unregulated back then.

I'm glad to see you've found details of the East Texas field - the timing of this discovery nicely fits with the lower 48 discovery peak and is a good example of oilfield kings and queens being discovered relatively early during the life of the oil province. I'm not sure what overall depletion of Texan oilfields was at that time (1930) but given that depletion was at 54% in 1973 it may well have only been around 10%.

 

[bigfish]

It was probably my bad wording - I should have said 'in the few years leading up to 1970...'. It would have been nice to have found drilling stats for Texas going back to c1860 but I didn't really have time to conduct a thorough search when search engines initially failed to come up with such comprehensive data. I suspect, however, that their record keeping during the early days of drilling was not that good - industries were more or less unregulated back then.

Yes, but the point still stands. Iraq remains virtually unexplored in terms of the actual number of wells sunk compared to Texas, no matter what point you pick on the calendar — be it 1900, 1929, or 1970.

I'm glad to see you've found details of the East Texas field - the timing of this discovery ... is a good example of oilfield kings and queens being discovered relatively early during the life of the oil province...

Hang on a minute! In my previous post I provided you with a very detailed and informative history of oil and gas exploration in the western US province of Texas — wherein you will see that oil was first discovered and produced in the 1860's. Discoveries were few and relatively small in the beginning, but the tempo and scale of the discoveries quickly grew. The first economically significant find came in 1894 in Navarro County near Corsicana and was soon followed by the discovery of the Powell oilfield in 1900. The Spindletop oilfield, discovered south of Beaumont in eastern Jefferson County in 1901, was responsible for the first oil boom in Texas and reached a peak production of 17,500,000 barrels in 1902.

The success of Spindletop then prompted additional exploration in the Gulf Coast region where a series of economically significant oilfield discoveries followed — Sour Lake (1902), Batson-Old (1903), Humble (1905), and Goose Creek (1908). Oil production in the upper Gulf Coast region was further boosted by numerous other discoveries, the most prolific fields being Orange (1913), Damon Mound (1915), Barbers Hill (1916), West Columbia (1918), Hull (1918), and Blue Ridge (1919). Thereafter, exploration was spread over more of Texas, large discoveries followed in the Pierce Junction (1921), Thompson (1921), High Island (1922), and Sugarland (1928) fields during the 1920s. By 1925, 1,725 wells were producing oil in the Corsicana area alone.

Next came the turn of the Panhandle and by 1926 it too had become a major producing region. Between 1923 and 1930 other important discoveries were also made at the Howard-Glasscock (1925), McCamey (1925), East Howard-Iatan (1926), Yates (1926), Hendrick (1926), Kermit (1928), North Ward-Estes (1929), and Fuhrman-Mascho (1930) fields.

By 1929, oil exploration and production extended beyond the Coastal Plain up into central and North Texas and across into the Panhandle and Permian Basin of West Texas. In North Texas, from Wichita Falls to Stephens County, wildcatters found numerous fields, including five that rank in the group of four dozen that comprise the major oil plays in Texas.

East Texas was the final section of the state to obtain high-volume oil production. Apart from the Van field (1929) this region had long been an area of relatively unsuccessful exploration. Further testing of the Woodbine sand indicated that it was unlikely that oil would be produced profitably from it. That prognosis was proved grandly erroneous in 1930 by two promoters, Columbus M. "Dad" Joiner and A. D. "Doc" Lloyd (Joseph I. Durham). Their discovery well, the Daisy Bradford No. 3, brought oil from the Woodbine sand formation in Rusk County on October 6, 1930.

========

From the chronology provided, I hope you can now see that the timing of the East Texas field discovery by no means provides us with "a good example of oilfield kings and queens being discovered relatively early during the life of the oil province." On the contrary, it provides us with an excellent example of one of them being discovered last.

 

[bigfish]

Bigfish, it's quite a simple concept, the big reserves are easy to find and get found first. The chance of new significant discoveries being made now is slight.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Crispy]

Are you sure about that?

I would clarify and say that the chance worldwide of discovering large new fields is slight. In areas where political or social reasons have prevented free exploration, then you might expect to have a higher chance of finding a big one. I'll leave it up to those with knowledge to provide some actual probabilities on that.

 

[bigfish]

I would clarify and say that the chance worldwide of discovering large new fields is slight. In areas where political or social reasons have prevented free exploration, then you might expect to have a higher chance of finding a big one. I'll leave it up to those with knowledge to provide some actual probabilities on that.

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2004/horn/images/06.htm

As you can see from this frequency graph (click to view), nearly 150 giant oil and gas fields have been discovered in the last 15 years alone. Given this fact, only people predisposed to extreme forms of pessimism are able to talk themselves into believing that no more giant fields will ever be found in the future.

Institute For Geophysics:

Trends in the discovery of giants in the period from 1990 to 2000 that we consider likely to continue into the 21st century include: 1) the discovery of fields in deepwater basinal settings along passive margins such as Brazil, West Africa, and the Gulf of Mexico associated with nodes of high quality source rocks areas and stratigraphic traps located using 3D seismic reflection data; 2) continued discoveries of giants in known areas including: expansion of the Persian Gulf hydrocarbon province to [the] south into Yemen and the Arabian Peninsula and north into Iraq; expansion of the West Siberian basin in the Arctic offshore area; and radial expansion of the Illizi basin of Algeria; 3) continued discoveries in southeast Asia where Cenozoic rift, passive margin and strike-slip environments all coexist around the South China Sea or within the largely submerged Sunda continent; 4) along-strike expansion of elongate foreland trends in the Rocky Mountains, northern South America, southern Andes, Ural-Timan-Pechora and Barents Sea, and North Slope; and 5) expansion of discoveries in the Black Sea-Caspian region associated with closure and burial of northern Tethyal passive margin or arc-related basins.

Despite the association of giant fields with Cenozoic or Mesozoic plate edges (especially failed rifts trending at high angles to continental margins), the possibility always exists for further discovery of "lockbox-type" giants associated with now cratonic interior - but previous Paleozoic or Precambrian plate edges - as exemplified by known Paleozoic and Precambrian hydrocarbon giant clusters in the Permian basin in the USA, the Illizi basin of Algeria, and the Siberian Platform.

http://www.ig.utexas.edu/research/projects/plates/giant_fields.htm?PHPSESSID=def1b9

 

[Crispy]

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2004/horn/images/06.htm

As you can see from this frequency graph (click to view), nearly 150 giant oil and gas fields have been discovered in the last 15 years alone.

Um, call me silly, but doesn't that graph show a nice neat trend of declining discovery rates since 45 years ago? So, yes, new giants are being found, but not at anywhere near the rate reuired to meet demand, and getting slower.

 

[clv101]

http://www.searchanddiscovery.com/documents/2004/horn/images/06.htm

As you can see from this frequency graph (click to view), nearly 150 giant oil and gas fields have been discovered in the last 15 years alone. Given this fact, only people predisposed to extreme forms of pessimism are able to talk themselves into believing that no more giant fields will ever be found in the future.

Care to tell me what percentage of total oil discoveries (in volume not number of fields) have occurred since 1990?

No one is saying no more giant fields will be found - I fully expect over 100Gb (that's around 3x the UK part of the North Sea) to be found over the coming decades. However I also don't think it'll make a jot of difference to global daily flow rates peaking below 90mbpd this decade then decline, never to increase again.

 

[zceb90]

Um, call me silly, but doesn't that graph show a nice neat trend of declining discovery rates since 45 years ago? So, yes, new giants are being found, but not at anywhere near the rate reuired to meet demand, and getting slower.

Based on this article it will get harder to offset declines in ageing giant oilfields: Cantarell

 

[bigfish]

No one is saying no more giant fields will be found - I fully expect over 100Gb (that's around 3x the UK part of the North Sea) to be found over the coming decades...

But that's not the impression one gets from reading your earlier post:

Bigfish, it's quite a simple concept, the big reserves are easy to find and get found first. The chance of new significant discoveries being made now is slight.

In actual fact, the chances of finding significant discoveries are very good - assuming, of course, the power elites in the United States and Britain put an end their murderous practice of destabilizing regions, like the Middle East, where petroleum is traditionally found in substantial volumes.

 

[Crispy]

Compare the last fifteen years to the period 45 years ago. That's already a serious fraction of previous discoveries. Continue the trend and you can easily swap "fraction" to "slight" in comparison to the peak discovery rates.

 

[bigfish]

Um, call me silly, but doesn't that graph show a nice neat trend of declining discovery rates since 45 years ago? So, yes, new giants are being found, but not at anywhere near the rate reuired to meet demand, and getting slower.

The downward trend in the number of giant discoveries is mainly due to lack of access to the most prospective areas (Iraq and Iran) in OPEC. Reduced drilling in the Middle East following the nationalization's in the 1970's = lower giant field discoveries since then. But anyway, not withstanding these obstacles, proven world wide hydrocarbon reserves have continued to increase and currently stand at an all time record high of around 1.28 trillion barrels.

 

[bigfish]

Compare the last fifteen years to the period 45 years ago. That's already a serious fraction of previous discoveries. Continue the trend and you can easily swap "fraction" to "slight" in comparison to the peak discovery rates.

Civ's lucky to have such a diligent attorney.

By the way, 45 years ago the hydrocarbon industries of the Middle East had not yet been nationalized.

 

[Crispy]

Optimistic signs then. Do you think future discovery rates will exceed those of the 60's? They will have to if demand is to be met.
Oh, and I'm afraid I couldn't find a number for total barrels of oil pumped to date (too hot to google), but I would like to see it next to that 1.28 trillion number.

 

[clv101]

Why do I get the impression I'm banging my head against a brick wall when ever I talk to you Bigfish? You may think the odd billion barrels here or there is significant, I don't, as I say I fully expect some 100Gb to be discovered over the next few decades. In my book a significant discovery would be one that shifts the peak back a decade or so to 2020. The chance of that is pretty much zero in my opinion so we're stuck with a <90mbpd peak before the end of the decade.

To be honest though it's all academic, even if a new 50Gb field was discovered in Iraq tomorrow it wouldn't make a jot of difference to the peak, it might just mean we are declining at 4% pa in 2020 rather than 5%.

On the subject of decline, did you see that Mexico now looks to be going over the top as expected:

Production at Cantarell, the world's second-largest oil complex, in the shallow gulf waters off the shore of Mexico's southern Campeche state, averaged just over 1.8 million barrels a day in May, according to the most recent government figures. That's a 7% drop from the first of the year and the lowest monthly output since July 2005, when Hurricane Emily forced the evacuation of thousands of oil workers from the region.

Though analysts have long forecast the withering of this mature field, a rapid demise would pose serious challenges for the world's No. 5 oil producer. The oil field has supplied the bulk of Mexico's oil riches for the last quarter of a century, and petroleum revenue funds more than a third of federal spending.

"Cantarell is going to fall a lot, and quickly," said independent consultant Guillermo Cruz Dominguez Vargas, a former executive with Mexico's state-owned oil monopoly, Petroleos Mexicanos, known as Pemex. "I can't imagine the strain on this society if there is nothing to replace it."
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pemex24jul24,1,6754747.story?coll=la-headlines-business

The Oil Drum discussion:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/24/124920/925

And from Dec on Mexico:
http://www.vitaltrivia.co.uk/2005/12/43
and
http://www.vitaltrivia.co.uk/2005/12/45
Which said:

2005 2.032 million barrels per day
2006 1.905 million barrels per day -6.3%
2007 1.683 million barrels per day -12%
2008 1.430 million barrels per day -15%

 

[bigfish]

The Oil Drum discussion:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/24/124920/925

And from Dec on Mexico:
http://www.vitaltrivia.co.uk/2005/12/43
and
http://www.vitaltrivia.co.uk/2005/12/45
Which said:

I don't suppose you've got any proper links, have you? I'm afraid theoildrum.com and vitaltrivia.co.uk don't cut the mustard with me. Show me some technical reports written by reputable professionals, not this junk. Thanks.

 

[zceb90]

As you can see from this frequency graph (click to view), nearly 150 giant oil and gas fields have been discovered in the last 15 years alone. Given this fact, only people predisposed to extreme forms of pessimism are able to talk themselves into believing that no more giant fields will ever be found in the future.

Those of us who believe an early peak is likely have not said that, we are simply saying that more oil will indeed be discovered but not as much as in the 'good years' for exploration either side of WWII. A recent study I saw indicated 'yet to find' of 134 Gb but as CLV101 says 50Gb either way doesn't alter the big picture by much.

UK North Sea had a large discovery when the province was quite mature - Buzzard at 550m bbls but still only around 20% of size of Forties discovered some 3 decades earlier. What should concern us is the rate at which they plan to pull this field - proposed peak rate would deplete the entire field in just over 7.5 years thus we must anticipate an early sharp peak followed by a very steep decline. Post (regional) peak discoveries in N Sea appear to be being treated the same as new discoveries in US (again post their regional peak) - rapid production followed by rapid decline with hardly a thought for the future.

There's a good article here with regard to rapid extraction: Extreme Production Measures. An increasing number of oilfields / provinces have seen such recovery techniques - Prudhoe Bay, Yibal (Yemen), N Sea, Cantarell etc. There is some commonality - increased recovery (some) but main feature is early peak followed by steeper decline. Now one of the concerns I have is that the longer the peak is delayed the greater the percentage of (then) contributing producing reservoirs which will have had such EPM's extensively applied. In other words if the discovery trend continues downward in line with trend since the mid 1960's and yet, somehow, we managed to achieve IEA forecast of a 121m bopd peak somewhere after 2020 then we literally would face an 'oil cliff' instead of more benign decline rates.

I'd be interested to hear your views as to when and how high the peak will be or whether, like Michael Lynch, you see no visible peak.

My own view is that there will be a big problem irrespective of an actual peak. There are approx 2.5bn potential oil consumers in India and China and I've seen recent reports that their consumption is a bit less than 2bbls per capita pa - this compares with around 13bbls pcpa in EU and 26bbls pcpa in US. Now we've all seen pictures of just how fast China etc is industrialising - major new multilane highways, at least 0.5m new autos per month etc. If oil consumption in India and China were to double (which btw would still be less than 1/3rd of EU consumption levels) an extra 5 Gbbls pa would be required. In oil province terms that's another 2.5 North Seas or 1.5 Saudis. Do you think we can find them and if so where? If not would you expect demand in India and China to stall at current levels or would their additional supplies be sourced by consumers in EU and US making corresponding demand reductions?

 

[bigfish]

Optimistic signs then. Do you think future discovery rates will exceed those of the 60's? They will have to if demand is to be met.

In a nutshell, I don't think that the world will ever run out of hydrocarbon fuels, Crispy. On the contrary, I think that it is running into an increasing abundance of them. If the abyssal theory of oil generation is correct (and based on my reading of the science and on numerous discussions I've had on the subject, I think it is) and oil exists in great abundance, then the forces that have dominated this world since the end of the 19th century may be caught in a tricky situation. On the one hand, if they can tighten their control of the world, they may be able to ensure that oil supplies do not outstrip their monopoly, reducing it to ashes, with concomitant effects on their overall hegemony. On the other hand, if they are to preserve their monopoly, they will also have to stifle the development of alternative solutions to humanity’s energy needs. But today, not only are the oil companies sitting on a secret, too many of us are burying our heads in one or another belief or dogma that capitalism/humanity/the Earth itself is teetering on the brink of self-destruction through ecological and geo-political and/or economic and financial breakdown -resource depletion, pollution and over-population, combined with capital’s mad pursuit of quick profits and war.

 

[zceb90]

I don't suppose you've got any proper links, have you? I'm afraid theoildrum.com and vitaltrivia.co.uk don't cut the mustard with me. Show me some technical reports written by reputable professionals, not this junk. Thanks.

Whether one accepts papers submitted to the OilDrum etc or not is down to individual choice. It is the opinion however of many of us who have spent years in the oil industry that the quality of submissions at the OilDrum is among the best of any oil related web site we have yet found. A number of life long oil and gas industry professions post there regularly and those making questionable or unsubstantiated claims are quickly challenged.

From your post above it's clear that you don't believe there is any limit to the abundance of fossil fuels on the planet. Many, including myself, don't share these views and are making individual preparations to address an era when oil and gas become more expensive and less abundant (at least to those who cannot readily afford higher energy prices). In my case this includes more walking and cycling for local trips, using public transport for longer trips, buying locally produced food from farmers markets as opposed to large supermarkets wherever possible, reducing home heating and wearing extra clothes to compensate, installing energy saving lightbulbs etc. If I'm wrong I have taken more excercise, gained fitness and saved money in the process. If I'm right then I've taken some steps along a path to reduce energy dependency before circumstances force me to do so.

 

[Crispy]

If you don't believe in a biological (and therefore finite) source of oil, then we can't really have the argument can we? It's like a Christian and an Atheist debating the existence of angels.

 

[clv101]

I'm afraid theoildrum.com and vitaltrivia.co.uk don't cut the mustard with me. Show me some technical reports written by reputable professionals, not this junk. Thanks.

Don't focus on the articles themselves then, instead look at the data they reference (all from reputable sources I think you'll agree) and make up your own mind.

 

[bigfish]

Whether one accepts papers submitted to the OilDrum etc or not is down to individual choice. It is the opinion however of many of us who have spent years in the oil industry that the quality of submissions at the OilDrum is among the best of any oil related web site we have yet found. A number of life long oil and gas industry professions post there regularly and those making questionable or unsubstantiated claims are quickly challenged.

From your post above it's clear that you don't believe there is any limit to the abundance of fossil fuels on the planet. Many, including myself, don't share these views and are making individual preparations to address an era when oil and gas become more expensive and less abundant (at least to those who cannot readily afford higher energy prices). In my case this includes more walking and cycling for local trips, using public transport for longer trips, buying locally produced food from farmers markets as opposed to large supermarkets wherever possible, reducing home heating and wearing extra clothes to compensate, installing energy saving lightbulbs etc. If I'm wrong I have taken more excercise, gained fitness and saved money in the process. If I'm right then I've taken some steps along a path to reduce energy dependency before circumstances force me to do so.

So no acknowledgment from you of your earlier howler regarding the belated discovery of giant fields in Texas then?

 

[bigfish]

... There's a good article here with regard to rapid extraction: Extreme Production Measures.

From the very first post on the linked oildrum board:

Looking at the ASPO Blog...

But ASPO is the domain of the famous Malthusian nutjob Colin "Can't Count" Campbell, is it not?

[Robert] Hirsch: "We have 1,500 days until peak and tomorrow we'll have one day less,"

1914 was one of the more important estimates of the start of the war of Armageddon by the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society). They computed 1914 from prophecy in the book of Daniel, Chapter 4. The writings referred to "seven times". The WTS interpreted each "time" as equal to 360 days, giving a total of 2520 days. This was further interpreted as representing 2520 years, measured from the starting date of 607 BCE. This gave 1914 as the target date. When 1914 passed, they changed their prediction; 1914 became the year that Jesus invisibly began his rule.

1914, 1915, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975 and 1994, etc. were other dates that the Watchtower Society (WTS) or its members predicted.

Since late in the 19th century, they had taught that the "battle of the Great Day of God Almighty" (Armageddon) would happen in 1914 CE. It didn't.

The next major estimate was 1925. Watchtower magazine predicted: "The year 1925 is a date definitely and clearly marked in the Scriptures, even more clearly than that of 1914; but it would be presumptuous on the part of any faithful follower of the Lord to assume just what the Lord is going to do during that year." 6

The Watchtower Society selected 1975 as its next main prediction. This was based on the estimate "according to reliable Bible chronology Adam was created in the year 4026 BCE, likely in the autumn of the year, at the end of the sixth day of creation." 8 They believed that the year 1975 a promising date for the end of the world, as it was the 6,000th anniversary of Adam's creation. Exactly 1,000 years was to pass for each day of the creation week. This prophecy also failed.

64 FAILED END-OF-THE-WORLD PREDICTIONS BEFORE 1990
http://www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm

 

[zceb90]

So no acknowledgment from you of your earlier howler regarding the belated discovery of giant fields in Texas then?

For the sake of clarity here's the section of my earlier post referred to:

I'm glad to see you've found details of the East Texas field - the timing of this discovery nicely fits with the lower 48 discovery peak and is a good example of oilfield kings and queens being discovered relatively early during the life of the oil province. I'm not sure what overall depletion of Texan oilfields was at that time (1930) but given that depletion was at 54% in 1973 it may well have only been around 10%.

Given that Texas is still seeing a sizeable 'tail of production' today (and will for some years into the future), 1930 is 76 years ago and overall depletion at the time was probably in the order of 10% the East Texas discovery still remains 'relatively early in the life of the oil province'.

From the historical accounts of the pioneering days of the oil industry I've read early drilling was very much a hit and miss affair and wells tended to be drilled based on where oily deposits had been found at or near the surface. Detailed seismic knowledge and surveys came later. Given lack of seismic technology during the early decades of the oil industry it's unsurprising to see some sizeable discoveries decades after the first wells were drilled.

Modern seismic techniques are very different and now much more clearly show where oil may be found and, just as importantly, where it will not. As the industry moves into increasingly remote and hence expensive prospective areas the ability to minimise dry holes becomes more important...and advanced seismic techniques provide an extremely useful tool in this regard.

It remains an industry fact however that in the majority of oil provinces, especially where modern oilfield technology has been applied from the outset that the large deposits are found early and discoveries trend downward over time. This fact has been well documented by petroleum geologists, scientists etc including Campbell, Deffeyes, Heinberg, Laherrere and Simmons but judging from your earlier posts you don't place much faith in their opinions. On this basis I'm going to consider the matter closed and we'll see whether the next few years of intensified drilling activity really do deliver sufficient new discoveries to reverse the downward trend in discoveries as plotted by ASPO's 'growing gap' graph, for example.

 

[zceb90]

From the very first post on the linked oildrum board:.....

[Robert] Hirsch: "We have 1,500 days until peak and tomorrow we'll have one day less,"

The above statement was made by Chris Skrebowski, not Robert Hirsch. I've not re-read the ASPO blog which I understand the info came from but if it does credit Robert Hirsch with this statement it's in error.

 

[bigfish]

Why do I get the impression I'm banging my head against a brick wall when ever I talk to you Bigfish?

I would say it's because you're trying to flog religion disguised as science.

 

[Crispy]

I would say it's because you're trying to flog religion disguised as science.

I would say the same about your love for abiotic oil.