systemicpo 加入本网站时间 Member Since 24 April 2012 Systemicpo's 评论 comments 调查研究不够充分 1.“关于未来石油供应的以信仰为基础的理论很容易站不住脚”－－石油峰值论不以信仰为基础，它其实并不是一个理论，而是一个观测结果。它表明石油产出在到达一个高峰后会上扬，这一高峰先持续随后下跌。 2.石油峰值论（PO）的本意是指传统石油达到顶峰。如果勤于查看英国石油，国际能源署，美国能源信息局，你会看到这个词在2005年后就被束之高阁。 3.丹尼尔•尤金是唯一的信息来源，他对于石油的预测并不被看好，Jean Laherrère曾对他的预测作出分析。 4.哈伯特对美国石油产出的预测基于较低的48个州。诚然，石油产量比预计要高。目前美国的石油产出构成不仅局限于传统石油，也远远超出较低的48个州。从这个角度来说，哈伯特对于多领域峰值的下降的预测仍然是准确的。 5. 多数对石油峰值论有深度理解的人并没有忽视价格的影响。如果有经济学家准确地制作出价格模型，那么请你举例说明。全球油价呈现出衰退，每桶在140美元左右。而油价由保证金而定。我读到的多数石油峰值论都预计油价上扬。 Poorly Researched Oil 1 ‘Faith-based theories about future oil supplies are easily knocked down’ –Peak oil is not faith based and it not a theory. It is an observation that oil fields when produced reach a peak production and peak flow and then go into decline. 2. The original definition for Peak Oil (PO) was the peaking of conventional oil. If you bother to look up either BP, IEA or EIA you would see that the world has been on a plateau since 2005. 3. Daniel Yergin is only one source as is not highly regarded for his forecasting in relation to oil, see Jean Laherrere for an analysis of his predictions. 4. Hubbert’s prediction for the US was based on the lower 48 states. These did peak, admittedly the volume recovered has been higher. Production for the US is now made up of a lot more than conventional oil and far wider area than the lower 48. So his observation about multiple fields peaking and going into decline is still accurate. 5. Most people with any depth of understanding do NOT PO ignore price effects. How can one accurately model effects. Show me the economist that did. The world appeared to go into recession at $140+. Oil is priced on the margin. Most PO I’ve read expect a masking of peak 第二部分 6.石油峰值理论家们并没有忽视技术进步对石油生产的影响。这一领域关注的是科技对于流速的影响。例如，油砂资源丰富但因规模有限而流速不高。 7.你提到非传统石油资源却忽视能源利用率和能源密度。而所谓的桶装油并非千篇一律。 8.无论中国的储量怎样，可持续发展最终将依赖于能源利用率，技术和投资回归。 9.中国已大幅提高石油战略储备，你并没有意识到这一点。 10.金砖国家的中产阶级正在崛起，这将产生额外的需求。高居不下的石油枯竭率有悖于你经济发展将驱动石油产出的断言。国际能源署特别警惕谨防投资不足，其首席经济家已经发出多次警告。 11.对于生物燃料可以发展到替代原油这一说法的坚持，表明你对这一问题缺乏深度理解。只要看看生物能源的利用率或者限制粮食来源的影响就可想而知。你似乎认为所有种类的能源都可以替代原油。我建议你读赫希美国能源部的报告，因为我们在石油峰值论中面临的是液态燃料限制。 这篇文章的内容让人无法信服，文章信息幼稚且不准确，受制于传统经济学。我建议你去读一读油桶网上的文章或者其它相关文章。 Part 2 6. Peak oil theorists do NOT neglect the role of technological advances in oil production. What most with knowledge of the subject look at is how does this affect flow rates. For example the Tar Sand is an abundant resource but relative to size will have low flow rates. 7. You talk about unconventional oil but don’t discuss the EROI or energy density. Not all so called barrels of oil are the same. 8. You can talk all you want about Chinas reserves but ultimate recoverable will depend on EROI, technology and return on investment. 9. China has dramatically increased its Strategic Petroleum Reserves, so you see to be behind on this one. 10. The increasing middle classes in all the BRIC countries will create extra demand that has to come from somewhere. Depletion rates appear to be running very high and contrary to your assertion that economic drivers will deliver more oil, the IEA has specifically warned about the lack of investment. Its Chief Economist has given several warnings. 11. Do seriously believe that bio-fuels can scale up to substitute for crude oil. This really shows a lack of depth in understanding the issue. Just look up EROI for biofuels or the impact on constrained food resources. And you seem to treat all energies are to substitutes for Crude Oil. I suggest you read the Hirsch report done for the American DoE, because what we’re coming up against in PO is a liquid fuel constraint. This was a deeply unimpressive article that was naïve and ill informed, rooted in classical economics. I suggest you read The Oil Drum or read anything.