Peak Oil

[VicDaring]

Got a link to this on another board.

Life after the oil crash

On the face of it, it comes off as kind of conspiracy theorist nutty, and any research seems sketchy.

But I'm the very defintion of inexpert on this (and many other things).

Thoughts from those who know something about this field?\


EDIT: On a second, closer read, it come off as VERY conspiracy theory nutty. Still, I'd be interested in thoughts about the basic theory.

 

[Quasi]

Just a few thoughts-

One: Shale oil is now almost as cheap to gather and refine as conventional oil wells, and shale oil is far greater in quantity than all previous and existing conventional crude sources.
Two: Solar and wind etc. are becoming cheaper day by day, and based on current projections will outcompete fossil fuels by 2035.
Three: Even with current, non shale oil sources, and even at current growing rates of consumption we still have enough oil to last for several centuries.

Source: Bjorn Lomborg, "The Environmental Skeptic"

In short, there is not, nor will be an energy crisis.

 

[pupdog]

I disagree that there will never be an energy "crisis"--despite Lomborg's Panglossian view.

One reason involves the definition of "crisis". We had a crisis about 30 years ago, during the OPEC embargo. Sure, there was still plenty of the petroleum resource, but the price quadrupled and there were long lines and limits on purchases.

There are (political) problems with other resources, such as wind energy--people don't want windmill farms (or other energy-production infrastructure) in their back yards. This doesn't create a crisis, but makes solving the problem more difficult.

Non-petroleum fossil fuels share one of the same problems of oil--emissions of carbon dioxide, NOx and SOx, and other pollutants. Reducing significant amounts of these adds to the costs of energy and introduces additional problems (where to put that sludge?).

We don't face imminent doom and destruction, but the sooner we accelerate research into conservation and alternative energy sources, and put into place policies to encourage the same, the less traumatic will be the changeover from petroleum-based energy.

 

[ktesibios]

Boy, a Google on "peak oil" produces a swamp of paranoia deep enough to ruin a perfectly good pair of shoes.

Wading through the muck, though, there are real indications that the concept of a global oil production peak is being taken seriously- as a "when", not "if" question, by both industry and government.

A few of the soberer sources I could find:

This one: http://www.wri.org/climate/jm_oil_000.html , while undoubtedly subject to a political bias, is free of hysteria and provided an overview that even I could grasp.

These two: http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/archives/2000/august2_00.html

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/presentations/2000/long_term_supply/index.htm

from government sources, give a rather wide range of projections of the approximate date of the global production peak. It seems that estimating this is so dependent on projections of ultimately recoverable supplies and of demand that noone in their right mind will stick firmly to a date- only to the truism that a finite, non-renewable resource cannot be drawn on indefinitely, nor can production rates be expanded without limit.

It might also be worth noting that the price of petroleum products is probably of more importance in affecting our economies than the arrival of an "OMFG! We're totally out of oil!" doomsday. Since the supply and demand mechanism in the oil products marketplace is balancing the rate at which finished products can be brought to market (not the amount of oil in the ground)against the demand for these products (I recall back in early 2001, when gas prices here in California temporarily skyrocketed due to problems with refinery scheduling, not oil supply per se), we have another good argument in favor of working at reducing the growth of demand- it saves us all dough.

 

[Quasi]

I disagree that there will never be an energy "crisis"--despite Lomborg's Panglossian view.

One reason involves the definition of "crisis". We had a crisis about 30 years ago, during the OPEC embargo. Sure, there was still plenty of the petroleum resource, but the price quadrupled and there were long lines and limits on purchases.

There are (political) problems with other resources, such as wind energy--people don't want windmill farms (or other energy-production infrastructure) in their back yards. This doesn't create a crisis, but makes solving the problem more difficult.

Non-petroleum fossil fuels share one of the same problems of oil--emissions of carbon dioxide, NOx and SOx, and other pollutants. Reducing significant amounts of these adds to the costs of energy and introduces additional problems (where to put that sludge?).

We don't face imminent doom and destruction, but the sooner we accelerate research into conservation and alternative energy sources, and put into place policies to encourage the same, the less traumatic will be the changeover from petroleum-based energy.

Sure, I agree with much of what you say. The OPEC crisis in the 70´s was a bid for the Saudis etc to make a few billion american dollars, nothing more, no oil shortage at all. The US government keeps millions of barrels on reserve just in case of another crisis. Further, we have secured Iraq, and are trying to stabilize Argentina, the number three source of oil for the USA.

I agree, even "green" politicians in Massachusetts strongly opposed wind farms off of Nantucket because they all have million dollar mansions overlooking the water.

I also agree biofuels are silly, especially biodiesel because it is a worse pollutant than unleaded gas. No argument there.

I also agree Bush is spending our money in terrible ways. We spent nearly a thousand years of the alternative energy research budget (100 million annually,) on this Iraq debacle. And what is the predicted outcome of this war?
I am certainly not going to vote for Bush, Im going Kerry. Besides, I will get all that pork because he is from my home state

 

[kookbreaker]

I thought this discussion had some interesting potential and I am annoyed to find it all the way back on page 3.

Bump

Xouper is a poopy-head

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If you think this is a conspiracy theory, then perhaps you should ask yourselves whether it is actually easier to believe that than to face the possibility that it is not a conspiracy theory.

This is hard science. Scientists have been trying to pin down an estimate for when "peak oil" will occur for several decades now, and according to an article in New Scientist not long ago "peak oil" will happen before 2010. There is a very real possibility that it will happen even sooner than that, and it is not impossible that it has already happened.

There are no more large oil deposits waiting to be discovered. Recent discoveries have got smaller and harder to extract because geologists are being forced to look in less and less appealing or likely places. Only two major untapped oilfields exist, one in Iraq and the other in Siberia.

Given the industrialisation of China and the total failure of the US to take global warming seriously it is absolutely inevitable that as supplies dwindle demand will continue to rise. Now you do not have to have a PhD in mathematics to work out what happens next, and in fact anybody who has understood the political backdrop to the Iraq war should already know that the US is desperate to get its hands on Iraqi oil. That war was not about "WMD" or even US political hegemony. It was about attempting to preserve the oil-dependent American way of life for as long as possible. But at best it will buy the US a few more years before it hits the wall.

This is very real, my friends. It is not a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy has been to prevent you from finding out until now (did you actually believe the Iraq war wasn't about oil?).

If you think this is a conspiracy theory then I want to know WHY. This stuff is not easy to accept. Truly coming to terms with it involves a completely re-assessment of what is happening in the world, what is going to happen in the world and how it is going to affect YOUR life. Nobody finds that easy, but at a site like this you CANNOT just dismiss things as 'conspiracy theory'. You have to explain precisely WHY you think it is a conspiracy theory.

FACT 1) There are no more large virgin oilfields waiting to be found.
FACT 2) Current oilfields are already approaching peak production.
FACT 3) The whole of the modern world is COMPLETELEY dependent on oil.
FACT 4) No action is being taken to prevent this catastrophe.
FACT 5) This is happening NOW, not at some vague future date. It is not just your children who will witness the oil crash. YOU WILL.

This is easier for me than it is for most people, because I pretty much accepted that the modern world was heading for a fairly serious disaster a very long time ago, even though accepting it nearly drove me over the edge. Now I am just glad that the lies we have been expected to believe are being brought into the open and the truth exposed.

As the article says, you can always stick your head in the sand but you must remember that your butt remains exposed for reality to kick it.

Geoff.

BTW This debate is currently also going on at www.philosophyforums.com.

 

[Tricky]

The Peak Oil site is more than a little bit extremist, but it makes some good point. We are going to run out of fossil fuels. That is going to pretty much devastate our economy as it is structured now. Certainly there are other energy sources, but they all have a high price too. Oil and gas are far and away the best sources of abundant, reliable energy that we have at present. I don't see anything coming close to replacing them.

I work for an oil company, and they certainly are not planning for a major down-sizing in the time frame that the Peak Oil site is talking about, but they are all aware that we will eventually hit the wall. To that end, we are diversifying quite a bit, especially in solar and wind energy, but there is no way it can replace oil.

So this crunch is coming. We need to do something, but what? The most obvious answer is conserving. It is also one of the hardest things to do. These days, office buildings aren't even built with windows that open, so if the AC goes off, they'll be pretty much uninhabitable in the summer. We also rely on petrochemicals in practically every facet of our life, from packaging to medicine. (It has been said that there are other sources of energy, but no other sources of petrochemicals.) These problems, along with looking for alternative energy sources, are going to be things we need to get a long head start on.

So why do I work for an oil company? The real reason is because as a geologist, that is the most common type of job available, but my rationalization is that I'm helping ease the blow. Yes, the crunch is coming, but if we can make it come gradually, then we won't have this armageddon that Peak Oil suggests. It will still be hard, but not the end of humanity. But we have to stop being so selfish.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

The Peak Oil site is more than a little bit extremist, but it makes some good point. We are going to run out of fossil fuels. That is going to pretty much devastate our economy as it is structured now. Certainly there are other energy sources, but they all have a high price too.

They are no use for aeroplanes, no use for making pharmaceuticals, no use for making plastic, no use for making fertiliser. It is not just fuel. Oil is the raw material upon which the whole of the modern world depends.

Oil and gas are far and away the best sources of abundant, reliable energy that we have at present. I don't see anything coming close to replacing them.

There is nothing else that can replace them.

I work for an oil company, and they certainly are not planning for a major down-sizing in the time frame that the Peak Oil site is talking about, but they are all aware that we will eventually hit the wall. To that end, we are diversifying quite a bit, especially in solar and wind energy, but there is no way it can replace oil.

Do you think they will admit it? The oil companies and politicians will be the last people to admit there is a crisis. You know how it works, Tricky.

So this crunch is coming.

It has already started. Iraq was the first oil war.

We need to do something, but what? The most obvious answer is conserving. It is also one of the hardest things to do. These days, office buildings aren't even built with windows that open, so if the AC goes off, they'll be pretty much uninhabitable in the summer. We also rely on petrochemicals in practically every facet of our life, from packaging to medicine. (It has been said that there are other sources of energy, but no other sources of petrochemicals.) These problems, along with looking for alternative energy sources, are going to be things we need to get a long head start on.

First, you have to admit there is a problem. I don't see any political will to do that.

You are dead right though. What we should be doing now is using the remaining oil supplies to establish alternative technologies so that when the oil runs out we actually have those alternatives in place. The problem is that when it reaches crisis point, the cheap oil will all be gone. As the article says - if you do not have solar panels and windmills when the lights go out, then they will stay out.

So why do I work for an oil company?

Why do I work for the defence industry?

Actually, I am quitting and going to University in September, and that will be a weight off my mind......

The real reason is because as a geologist, that is the most common type of job available, but my rationalization is that I'm helping ease the blow. Yes, the crunch is coming, but if we can make it come gradually, then we won't have this armageddon that Peak Oil suggests. It will still be hard, but not the end of humanity. But we have to stop being so selfish.

First we have to stop creating a fake reality for people to believe in because we don't think they can handle the truth.

First we admit there really is a problem, and stop telling lies that the oil wars are about non-existent weapons of mass-delusion.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Three: Even with current, non shale oil sources, and even at current growing rates of consumption we still have enough oil to last for several centuries.

Source: Bjorn Lomborg, "The Environmental Skeptic"

In short, there is not, nor will be an energy crisis.

This sort of detachment from reality is very dangerous indeed.

There will never be an energy crisis?

We still have enough oil to last for several centuries????!!

If you got that data from Lomborgs book, I suggest you do not place much faith in anything else he wrote.

I suppose you also believe the US invaded Iraq to rid the world of chemical weapons (the fact that Wolfowitz actually admitted it was really because "the entire country is swimming in oil" and "we had to agree on the WMD reason for bureaucratic reasons" obviously had nothing to do with it).

 

[xouper]

kookbreaker: I thought this discussion had some interesting potential and I am annoyed to find it all the way back on page 3.

Bump

Xouper is a poopy-head

Hey don't blame me. I'm just following Hal's instructions to bump old threads we don't want him to prune.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Hey don't blame me. I'm just following Hal's instructions to bump old threads we don't want him to prune.

I hope the lack of responses to this thread have a lot to do with the fact that the subject matter is very serious indeed, and many people are actually thinking about how to respond before saying anything. It cannot be dismissed as "conspiracy" because it is supported both by hard science and by an understanding of the current state of world politics. But it cannot merely be accepted either :

A little about myself: A few months ago, I was a 25 year old law school graduate who found out he had just passed the California Bar Exam. I was excited about a potentially long and prosperous career in the legal profession, getting married, having kids, contributing to my community, and living the "American Dream."

Peak Oil has caused me to seriously question how realistic this vision of my life is.

Whether you're 25 or 75, an attorney or an auto mechanic, what you are about to read will shake the foundations of your life.

Unless you are a person who has already spent a great deal of time thinking hard about the fate of western civilisation and already concluded it looks rather unappetising, this is information that is not going to be easy to swallow. It's also not easy to reject if you care about critical thinking.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Geoff!!!

Where've you been my pill-popping friend?

Drop by more often, please.

Serioulsy.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Geoff!!!

Where've you been my pill-popping friend?

Drop by more often, please.

Serioulsy.

Ah, thanks.

I've been hanging out at www.philosophyforums.com, learning what I can.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

By the way, I have been searching the net for references to this article. It first appeared on 08/01/04 and seems to be causing quite a stir, not surprisingly. Most places you go you will find one or two people who try to instantly reject it but a large consensus that it cannot be rejected so easily. The internet is a curious thing. In previous ages this sort of information dissemination could not happen, but the internet has changed all that. Within the space of a few short weeks a 'meme' like this will spread like wildfire, especially if it is perceived to have value. I suspect that those vested interests who would prefer it had not been written are currently very worried (although given that we know what sort of person that is, it has been increasingly clear that those people have had more than their fair share to worry about in recent months.)

What I did not find, anywhere, was a decent rebuttal of the article. Not even close.

 

[kookbreaker]

If you got that data from Lomborgs book, I suggest you do not place much faith in anything else he wrote.

OK, can you explain why it is wrong? Lomborg wasn't pulling figures out of his tailbone.

There's a reason why I tend to take this kind of doomsaying with a grain of salt.
Here's one reason why.

When projected crises failed to occur, doomsayers moved their predictions forward by a few years and published again in more visible and prestigious journals:

In 1989, one expert forecast that world oil production would peak that very year and oil prices would reach $50 a barrel by 1994.10

In 1995, a respected geologist predicted in World Oil that petroleum production would peak in 1996, and after 1999 major increases in crude oil prices would have dire consequences. He warned that “[m]any of the world’s developed societies may look more like today’s Russia than the U.S.”11

These have not come to pass.

What I've seen is that our present supplies of convenient oil (Light crude from assorted nations) will likely run out low around 2030 to 2050. The question then is how fast we can get shale oil reserves into use. They will be more expensive at first, but that hardly means the doom of civilization as we know it.

 

[The idea]

As further evidence of the production peak, Deffeyes noted that since 2000, there has been a 30% drop in stock values, interest rate cuts have not helped, 2.5 million have become unemployed and the employed have been unable to retire, budget surpluses have vanished, the middle class has vanished, and the World Trade Center has vanished.

How is it relevant that the World Trade Center has vanished? What's the evidence that the middle class has vanished?

There are some very promising technologies currently under development, commonly referred to as "New Energy."

The potential of New Energy is enormous. The political, academic, industrial, and enviormental activist resistance to it is equally enormous.

If we as the public started demanding this technology, it could go along way in solving our problems. My optimism regarding New Energy is guarded, not because of its scientific limitations, but becauase I wonder if we will wake up in time to demand, develop, and implement it.

Some of these technologies were pioneered by Nikola Tesla and Dr. Wilhelm Reich. Guess what happened to them? Tesla died penniless. The government burned his books. Reich was sent to prison, where he died. The government burned his books burned as well. In fact, he is the only person to have his books burned by the Russian, German, and American governments.

What are the promising "New Energy" technologies that are under development?

When did "the government" burn Tesla's books?

What did Dr. Wilhelm Reich do that makes him a pioneer of "New Energy" technologies?

 

[kookbreaker]

When did "the government" burn Tesla's books?

They did seize them after his death. They were overly concerned that Tesla was developing superweapons. Of course, this was mostly because of his late life inasnity and babblings. "The Government" found nothing because Tesla had gone crank.

What did Dr. Wilhelm Reich do that makes him a pioneer of "New Energy" technologies?

[/QUOTE]

More woowoo junk.

 

[ktesibios]

Regarding the claim that Tesla's books were burned by the government:

You can find, beginning here an account of the inventorying of Tesla's posessions after his death, their impounding by the Alien Property Custodian and their eventual release to Tesla's nephew, written by the nephew's secretary, who was an eyewitness. While there seems to be reason to believe that the papers were photographed for the US government, this account contains no mention of any books or papers being burned, nor any claim of documents being missing. In fact, the word "missing" is placed in sneer quotes in one place.

Some of Reich's publications were in fact destroyed by court order as fraudulent medical device labeling.

How this could be taken as evidence that he was something other than the quack he was prosecuted as escapes me, but "the government burned his books" seems to be a standard-issue part of the "misunderstood genius who discovered secret knowledge of incredible power" branch of woowooism.

It's a shame that such a creative engineer as Tesla, who did quite a bit of genuinely seminal work that survives in use to this day, should in death be saddled with the image of Patron Saint of Pseudoscience Crankery.

Just as it's a shame that scare-story articles like the one referenced in the OP, painting pictures of a Hollywood apocalypse on the basis of a misunderstanding of the concept of an oil production peak, should make paranoid conspiracy theory hash out of a phenomenon that, as Tricky's post and some of the research available on the 'net make clear, is being taken quite seriously by professionals in the affected field.

The fact that an idea has been latched onto by loons doesn't provide a convenient excuse for dismissing the original concept out of hand, nor a reason for believing that business as usual can go on indefinitely.

 

[Quasi]

This sort of detachment from reality is very dangerous indeed.

There will never be an energy crisis?

We still have enough oil to last for several centuries????!!

If you got that data from Lomborgs book, I suggest you do not place much faith in anything else he wrote.

I suppose you also believe the US invaded Iraq to rid the world of chemical weapons (the fact that Wolfowitz actually admitted it was really because "the entire country is swimming in oil" and "we had to agree on the WMD reason for bureaucratic reasons" obviously had nothing to do with it).

Here you have not refuted one fact that Lomborg posited in his book, (there are hundreds of references BTW, pick one.) Also, old oil wells are far from empty, they were abandoned in the early part of the 20th century because using technology of that time it was actually cheaper for oil companies to drill and import oil from abroad. The wells are still very full, and our technology to extract it has greatly improved. That being said, Lomborg calculated the current trend in cost of alternative energy and it is about 2035 to the crossover point, where alt. becomes cheaper. Please refute these facts- once alt. energy becomes cheaper, we will start to use it vigorously. Any problems with this statement? If no, then you should agree we are not going to have an energy crisis. Lets discuss.
Second, I was opposed to military action in Iraq, we can rehash the facts, but hey, no one has been able to find Bush´s WMD, not the UN, not France, not even his own troops, inspectors, and specialists, using all available means. Not one iota. And what does Iraq have to do with Peak Oil? We hardly get any of our oil from Iraq, nor are we predicted to in the future. Our biggest trading partners are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Argentina if I am not mistaken.
So far you have presented "Lomborg is wrong because I say so," and "You are a conservative twit who supported the Iraq war." Number one is an opinion not supported by fact (as well as your second point,) and clearly I did not support the war, nor am I conservative. Any other assumptions we can talk about? Have you even read Lomborgs book? How about the criticisms in American Scientific and his response to those criticisms? Well worth the read. I stand by these facts, and will wait for an actual criticism other than dismissal without discussion.