Slashdot Mirror
Report Blasts "Peak Oil" Theory
Rei writes "Today, the Cambridge Energy Research Associates released a report dismissing the Peak Oil theory, suggesting that world oil production will continue to increase for the next 24 years, and then only level into a plateau. The report, which suggests that world reserves are enough to last 122 years at our current rate of consumption, also blasts Peak Oil theorists for repeatedly making unscientific predictions and then shifting them whenever their predictions fail to materialize."
What is this doing in hardware?
Does anyone know who they really speak for? Do they have an agenda?
You mean like global warming theorists?
an ill wind that blows no good
But then how confident can we be in their assertion that Peak Oil is 24 years off? It's hard to predict where oil production technology will lead...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
>>Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Inc. (CERA), an IHS company, is a leading advisor to international energy companies
What are the odds that said international energy companies occasionally write a check or two to this so-called leading advisor?
And I don't know why anyone else should either since I'd like to think that we as a species are smart enough to come up with an alternative fast enough to avert this. And even if we don't, we'll come up with something really really fast. We run out of oil, we'll use the shale in Colorado. We run out of that, something else will pop up. Fusion should be viable long before then, we'll have better solar energy, etc.
And, if our demand for oil increases?
Oh, I see. They assume our demand for oil will never increase. The developing world's demand for oil will never increase. China's demand for oil will never increase.
I'm usually not this blunt, but this seems like a good time: are the authors of this report FUCKING IDIOTS?
Peak Oil theory is a big reason why a lot of folks don't take environmental issues like global warming or ozone layer depletion seriously. I still remember our science book in high school saying the world would run out of oil by 1982. (It was already 1994.) When people see that sort of crap side by side with other environmental issues, I can see why they don't always take the other issues seriously.
... That oil will remain a long-lasting, stable and commercially exploitable resource after 24 years of increased production?
I think someone's been sniffing too much gas.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
well, i see in some 100 years we will stop using oils and goto somthing else, because by 2100, the world will be a smog zone, so i wouldnt worry about it
Oil is still a terrible way to supply the world's energy though. I hope reports like this do not deter people from moving to alternative energy. I also seriously doubt it will have any impact on long term fuel prices.
Bury all the oil executives deep underground until they turn into oil (like the dinosaurs). Problem solved!
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
It has to run out some time.
Adventures in Shaanxi
So from what I understand, the people who say the Peak Oil concept is fake do so because they believe that we will always be able to discover more oil. As technology progresses, we'll have deeper drills, better understanding of where to look, better scanning ability to actually see what's down there, and so on, for the rest of time.
I completely understand their point of view. After all, I have millions of dollars in pirate gold buried in my front yard somewhere, I'm just waiting for technology to advance to the point where I can get a metal detector to find it.
Arr!
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Its kinda funny, it shouldnt matter if oil will run out or not.
there are better alternatives, and biodiesel from corn is not one of them!
http://energybulletin.net/22442.html
Alternate energy sources and fuel conservation are a good idea under any conditions.
You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
The report, which suggests that world reserves are enough to last 122 years at our current rate of consumption
Who in their right mind thinks the current rate of consumption is going to remain at a plateau for the next 122 years?
Do you even know what OPEC is? Do you even know what countries it is comprised of?
TFHT's need to read more and post less.
You Peak Oil conspiracy theorist! How dare you suggest the world is running out of oil? We'll have enough for the next 120 years! How dare you suggest we change our ways or find alternative sources of energy?!?
(Oh, well, nevermind that we really are going to run out sometime, and that all this means is our children or grandchildren will be stuck with the problem instead of us, or that this now gives us more time to think up solutions that we should take advantage of immediately. You're still a conspiracy nut and you're wrong. So there.)
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
My thoughts exactly, but you beat me to it.
I'm not saying they're wrong. I hope they're right. But my immediate reaction was, "Are they shills?"
How long it will take for people to blast this as Industry fallacy.
I say there's been so much doom-and-gloom about oil, every prediction I can remember about oil running out has been proven wrong time and time again. As our technology increases, we will find ways to get more oil out of existing locations and find new ones. Hmm. Go figure.
Hell, in 1879 Edison invented the light bulb. Who would have thought after 100+ years, the only thing a house from 1890 and 2006 would have in common is a lightbulb? And now the idustry is changing with LED bulbs for just about everything these days. I bet the next advancement doesn't take 100 years.
In oil, there's money. And a ton of it. So, advancement will happen much faster. We will use it more efficiently and get it from places we never thought possible.
Have they looked at how quickly our 'current rate of consumption' is growing? Rather quickly, thanks in large part to China's economic boom. And 122 years, in the big scheme of things, is just around the corner - and it's not as though rising oil prices won't affect economies sooner. They already are, to some extent. Gas doesn't need to be $25/gallon to be painful - some people are already feeling the effects at $3/gallon right now.
The bottom line is that it's a matter of when, not if. Oil is a finite resource - that's a physics equation, not a geology one.
According to TFA, the "resource base" is 3.74 trillion barrels. That equates to about 600 barrels of oil per person on this planet. That's about 1500 car tankfuls per person, if we don't use oil for anything else.
Paid Q&A/Research
The world doesn't have to run out of oil before we have to feel it's effects dramatically.
The fact is that if the United States were cut off from foreign oil we would last 2.87 years at our current consumption.
But we wouldn't remain at our current consumption. Rationing and hording would be quick, which we got a taste of in the 70's IIRC.
Very little new oil is being found, but consumption is going up very quickly in countries like China and India. The rest of the world wants to live like Americans, and as they do there simply won't be enough. Period.
That may not happen today, and it may not happen in the next few years, but it will happen in the next few decades. And in my opinion that will be the cause of WW3 if it hasn't already taken place and no alternative energies fill the vacuum.
Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
...so now we have 122 years to procrastinate finding a solution our limited fueld supply rather than 24 years...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I hope they are wrong. I simply don't believe that unprompted, the world population will change their oil consumption behaviour sufficiently to avert catastrophic climate change. Running out of oil is the only way that we will be able to avoid a very nasty fate by forcing the pace of innovation in alternative energy sources.
Sorry to be depressing, but I find the prospects very depressing.
H.E. Mohamed Bin Dhaen Al Hamli, Minister of Energy, UAE and President of the OPEC Conference (2007), David Crane, President & CEO, NRG Energy, Incorporated, David J. O'Reilly, Chairman & CEO, Chevron Corporation
John G. Rice, Vice Chairman of GE, President & CEO, GE Infrastructure, John W. Rowe, Chairman, President & CEO, Exelon Corporation, Charles W. Shivery, Chairman, President & CEO, Northeast Utilities
Neil H. Smith, CEO, InterGen, Jeff Sterba, Chairman, President & CEO, PNM Resources, Rex W. Tillerson, Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil Corporation
Jake S. Ulrich, Executive Director, Centrica plc, Don Voelte, Managing Director & CEO, Woodside Energy Ltd, Theo H. Walthie, Business Group President, Dow Chemical Company
Daniel Yergin, CERA Chairman
H.E. Mohamed Bin Dhaen Al Hamli, Minister of Energy, UAE and President of the OPEC Conference (2007), David Crane, President & CEO, NRG Energy, Incorporated
David J. O'Reilly, Chairman & CEO, Chevron Corporation, John G. Rice, Vice Chairman of GE, President & CEO, GE Infrastructure
John W. Rowe, Chairman, President & CEO, Exelon Corporation, Charles W. Shivery, Chairman, President & CEO, Northeast Utilities
Neil H. Smith, CEO, InterGen, Jeff Sterba, Chairman, President & CEO, PNM Resources, Rex W. Tillerson, Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil Corporation, Jake S. Ulrich, Executive Director, Centrica plc, Don Voelte, Managing Director & CEO, Woodside Energy Ltd, Theo H. Walthie, Business Group President, Dow Chemical Company, Daniel Yergin, CERA ChairmanH.E. Mohamed Bin Dhaen Al Hamli, Minister of Energy, UAE and President of the OPEC Conference (2007)
David Crane, President & CEO, NRG Energy, Incorporated David J. O'Reilly, Chairman & CEO, Chevron Corporation John G. Rice, Vice Chairman of GE, President & CEO, GE Infrastructur John W. Rowe, Chairman, President & CEO, Exelon Corporation
Charles W. Shivery, Chairman, President & CEO, Northeast Utilities Neil H. Smith, CEO, InterGen Jeff Sterba, Chairman, President & CEO, PNM Resources Rex W. Tillerson, Chairman and CEO, ExxonMobil Corporation
Jake S. Ulrich, Executive Director, Centrica plc Don Voelte, Managing Director & CEO, Woodside Energy Ltd. Theo H. Walthie, Business Group President, Dow Chemical Company
Daniel Yergin, CERA Chairman
I'm detecting an air of possible bias there. Not just is there no-one on the speaker list with an environmentalist bent, but most of the speakers apart from those employed by CERA are heads/employees of major oil/chemical companies.
So what if we run out of oil? I dont see the big deal. The paranoia is doing more damage than the event itself could possibly do. We have alternative means of generating energy already developed. Are people dumb? Why is running out of oil a cause for panic? This paranoia is causing a rise in energy prices and leaving third world/developing countries in a permanent state of underdevelopment. Because of high energy prices they are unable to build the most basic infrastructure let alone educational institutions, factories, and efficient food production. Only problem is that once global economies are fully developed we may start to see population declines such as in Japan and parts of Europe (actually i heard but have not confirmed that even in the US the population growth rate of the prosperous is less).
Looks pretty unscientific to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
I smell an agenda. Of course much of the Peak Oil writing can be exaggerated, but my feeling is that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The statistics have also been reasonably accurate, and with so many oil companies over estimating reserves, how exactly are we to know what is cost effectively extractable?Hubbert estimated using the tried and true "what gets taken out of the ground" numbers. Saudi Arabia has not been able or willing to prove that they can draw more.
Like global warming it's an argument taking away from the real issues. With a bit of attention and care with most resources we can do just fine. We are simply not respecting our general environment.
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/12/114231/2 818 12
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/17/11737/1
"CERA was acquired by IHS Energy in 2004. . . . Some of the company's largest clients include international energy companies, governments, utilities, and financial institutions."
http://www.answers.com/topic/cambridge-energy-rese arch-associates
"IHS is one of the leading global providers of critical technical information, decision-support tools, and related services to customers in the energy, defense, aerospace, construction, electronics, and automotive industries. We have developed a comprehensive collection of technical information that is highly relevant to the industries we serve ."
http://www.ihs.com/About-IHS/
Make love, not reality television.
What's the problem with unscientific predictions? Evolutionists and proponents of intelligent design make unscientific claims all the time.
> world reserves are enough to last 122 years at our current rate of consumption
Too bad consumption increases 10% every year. The Prius owers of Silicon Valley have one problem: it takes oil to make new cars.
" Who would have thought after 100+ years, the only thing a house from 1890 and 2006 would have in common is a lightbulb?"
Yes, indeed. We used to have wooden houses on concrete or stone foundations, and there were actually primitive devices that burned substances or gas for heat. Sure is nice now we have houses made from General Products spaceship hull material anchored to the ground with varying-phase quantum force fields. That is, if you are one of the few without a house floating in the air. And to imagine that they used to have to bring water in and out in pipes????
Where were you when the voynix came?
OPEC is a puppet of the NeoCon lizard men and the NWO.
Um, the article doesn't seem to debunk peak oil to me. It seems to not like current models and the politics of the peak oil theory. I had the impression that the article held the basic prinicple of peak oil, but didn't like how the current political folks keep moving the date of the peak oil around. It sounds like they really wanted to actually know rather than be wrong and move the date around a few more times. They wanted a planning tool for actual government use rather than scare tactics.
In other words:
"I don't like what they're saying. Is there a way we can slur them with a phony conflict-of-interest implication or some other kind of ad hominem? Dealing with arguments on their merits is too hard."
Maybe this link would help:
E nergy_Research_Associates
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cambridge_
In fact, the scarcer oil seems, the higher the price goes, and the more money the oil companies make.
30% profit on $80/barrel is much more then 30% profit on $50/barrel.
*NM*
Fair enough.
Unfullfilled climate predictions:
Can you think of any prediction that has come true?
an ill wind that blows no good
I just bought an SUV with an 8 cylinder, high peformance engine. I am so into alternateve energy sources. I feel real energized!
Global warming is the creation of the anti-capitalists. They just have sour grapes.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
There are not enough of them.
Now, if we add lawyers to the mix, well...
emt 377 emt 4
The Peak Oil conspiracy nuts are just latching onto something that has a catchy name and may or may not be true, but they are desperately trying to prove it's true. It's like religious nuts that want the World to end to prove they are right and everyone else is wrong.
...cut the flappy chin off of former ExxonMobil CEO Lee R. Raymond - we could've powered America for a long time!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
People start looking for alternatives sharpish. Business as usual is a much better proposition for the oil suppliers. If that happens to fuck over the customers as the price soars 5-10 years down the line, that's just tough for them.
Deleted
Big Oil only has 124 more years to have quarterly record profits!
Your post reminds me of my favorite SpinalTap song.
an ill wind that blows no good
The timeframe in which oil supplies begin dwindling doesn't matter. The fact is that we are consuming oil faster that Nature can produce it, thus, at some point it will no longer be viable to extract it.
50 years or 122 years, the sooner we remove dependencies on oil products, the better. Energy is a major concern for global peace and security. If every country could produce their own energy, many conflicts could be avoided.
The sad fact is that energy and energy conflicts are extremely profitable and extremely easy to exploit politically (regardless of which government or party does it). Governments with a lot of power have very little incentive to change quickly.
If the big powerhouse countries don't adjust quickly, smaller, more agile nations will be the first to become independent. They will then sell their technology to other countries and the big countries will lose both power and money in the global scene. Unfortunately, politics are typically extremely shortsighted.
The really issue is supply AND demand, not just supply. Production could be 1bl/day, and it wouldn't matter if demand was 0.5bl/day. What is really the variable of interest is the derived variable, production/demand----something that is on its way to 0. Conspiracy theories aside, that's why oil is so costly now.
Yergin is well-spoken, but frankly I've heard him have his ass kicked so many ways already, I don't really bother with him anymore. His standard tactic is to basically question his opponent's data in a debate. He doesn't question the idea of an oil peak, but puts that date in the very distant future, "when it won't matter anymore".
Do a search for Yergin on EnergyBulletin.net and you'll see what I mean.
Its also worth noting that CERA is now owned by IHS Energy.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Their axe to grind is quite obvious. It is not in the interests of the oil industry that we spend lots of money on alternative energy which then becomes cheaper than oil just as it becomes apparent that the world oil supply is in good shape. They want to persuade us not to support the investment in alternatives.
But not everything the oil industry wants is necessarily bad. A decision to base transport on progressively smaller and more efficient vehicles could be quite rational. Many options like fuel cells or solar power are basically most suited to city dwellers in developed countries. A Chinese peasant is more likely to be lifted out of poverty by a 50cc Honda than a Prius with a rechargeable battery. Developing a version of that Honda with an iron rather than an aluminum engine, perhaps on a direct injection or Diesel cycle, could have a huge impact on manufacturing and operating fuel consumption. What is more, its manufacture will be more environmentally friendly than anything currently involving batteries.
If the oil industry is doing some special pleading, I suspect it is aligned to things like tax breaks for exploration, extraction research and additional refining capability. The perception to be attacked is that as we have reached peak oil, there is no need to invest in these things because there will be no return.
Personally, I believe that the threat of global warming is real and needs to be addressed. But rational thinking is called for. We are not all going to be driving solar powered cars in five, or even fifty, years time. We need to invest in things that will make a difference in the 10-30 year timescale. These people are suggesting that, with good management, we can sustain much of the present economy for that long, allow the rise of China and India, and so we should not panic.
Pining for the fjords
It's an economic issue. How expensive is energy going to be. And the peak oil people aren't saying oil is going to run out, it simply gets more and more expensive to extract as the conventional supplies go into decline.
It doesn't matter what anyone reports anyway, that's just market manipulation from one side or the other. What matters is the actual amount pumped. If it declines or remains static then prices are going up.
Deleted
(This is from something I wrote up earlier this year, regarding a question I asked Professor Kenneth Deffeyes (a proponent of peak oil ideas) during a Q&A session after a talk he gave at my university. If anybody has a better answer, I'd honestly be interested in hearing it.)
Today there was a talk in Beckman Auditorium by Kenneth Deffeyes, Princeton professor emeritus and author of one of the more popular books on that ever-popular meme, peak oil. He discussed his belief that we had hit peak oil sometime around this past Thanksgiving, and that oil prices are going to fluctuate wildly and rise in the next 5 years of so.
During the Q&A period I went up to the microphone and asked the following: During your talk you briefly mentioned the futures market. Currently on the oil futures market, you can purchase a contract for a barrel of oil to be delivered in, say, the year 2010 or 2011 which is actually cheaper than a barrel of oil today [edit: nowadays it's actually slightly higher, 62 vs. 58]. What are your thoughts on why this is the case?
In his response, he had mentioned that he had been asked a similar question after he gave his talk at Merrill Lynch, basically: "If you really think oil prices are going to rise, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and buy up futures contracts?" He said to them that he wasn't too knowledgeable about futures contracts, and afterwards read up on them a little and found some of their intricacies bewildering. He said that he would want to purchase futures options for the coming few years, due to the extreme price fluctuations he expects, followed by regular futures in the longer term.
I'm not sure I bought his answer. Although I'm not sure about how far ahead one can purchase futures options, regular futures can definitely be purchased for 2012, which should be well into the period of soaring prices he predicts.
You say "So what if we run out of oil..." (moron)
Lets see, most all our chemical production for industry and home, our FERTILIZERS for farming, our medications our plastics are all Petrolium based.
Nuclear reactors don't produce these things,
Solar Cells and wind farms don't either.
So production will increase for 24 years then plateau for 98 years, then we run out of oil. Tell me, how does one maintain a stable rate of production for a increasingly scarce commodity without increased expense or effort?
It would appear that the future of cheap oil is questionable.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Their point is valid. There recently was a huge find of oil in Utah. It was previously overlooked because our understanding of where to find oil was wrong. We have better tools now. We can drill deeper.
Also, remember when the price of oil is sufficiently high that other types of oil that are not as pure are viable for processing.
Even if we run out of the liquid stuff, we could turn to coal liquification. North America has huge reserves of coal. We could become the Middle East of coal liquification. We have enough to last quite a while. By this time I could hope that technology would advance enough to make alternative way to propel a car compelling and cheep.
We also need to understand where oil comes from. We have never been able to reproduce oil in a lab under the circumstances that we understand to be natural. Maybe our whole assumption on oil is wrong (see Abiogenic petroleum origin.
Reading through the comments, I've seen outrageous statements on both sides of the issue. As someone who works in the oil industry, let's clear this up. Most of the people who say that we're running out of oil also tend to be geologists. The reason: yes, it's true, all the "easy" places are already being drilled in. Most of the people who say that oil won't run out for a long time are engineers. The reason? Most oil reserves still have a lot of oil left. Most people think of an oil reserve as a big cup that you just drain. This is not at all true. Most of the time, a large portion of oil is stuck to rocks. About 40-50% of oil is currently not recoverable. Why don't we recover it? Because it is too expensive. Or at least was expensive, when oil was $20 a barrel. Now that oil prices have gone up, companies are starting to spend more to recover more oil. (see: oil sands in Canada). People have made quite a mint going back to West Texas and using present-day technology to recover the remaining bits of oil. Does this sound familiar? Yes, it's called 'supply and demand'. Smaller discoveries are also happening all the time. The middle East may be tapped out, but there have been major discoveries in untapped areas, like India and Africa. Heck, even Chevron had a major discover wayyy deep in the Gulf of New Mexico. I think the "peak oil theorists" opinion could be summarized as follows: "If technology doesn't evolve and costs don't rise, we will run out of oil." Think about how silly this is just in the context of the computer industry.
Here's a nifty little link. This asset management company has been playing the peak oil tune for some time now and have been making a lot of people a lot of money (if you don't count their energy fund THIS year, and sorry, you can only invest in them if you're Canadian or have 250K to start with). They keep their eye on the news and are able to refute just about every point suggesting we are NOT facing an energy crisis with fossel fuels on the whole. Some interesting stuff in their monthly "markets at a glance" letters. I'm considering leveraging a decent investment with them, especially considering oil prices at the moment. Interestingly enough, even when gasoline was 1.50/L at the pumps (is now 0.75ish), people complained like crazy. Did they stop buying gas? stop traveling? NO! The last hurricane season demonstrated that we WILL pay more for fuel to quite an extent before we scale back our usage.
I'd personally like to get on the other side of that money before it goes up for good.
Note: This sig contains nine S's, nine I's and five O's which... means absolutely nothing.
Let's hope these guys manage to grab a large part of the car market by 2020.
Join the anonymous, help develop the network: http://www.i2p2.de
Peak oil does not mean that oil production plateaus or even declines. It means that oil production is now growing slower than the growth of oil consumption. That's fine and dandy that oil production will plateau in 24 years, but production will grow non-linearly to the plateau point. Meanwhile the consumption curve will continue to grow faster than the production curve. Well, I suppose as the cost of oil increases, the consumption rate of change will decrease over time as well. Either way, the point is that we cannot continue like this.
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
If oil companies wanted people to believe that oil would be more expensive in say 5 years, people and businesses would look for other sources of energy.
Oil companies obviously don't want harder competition from alternative energysources.
Its the best rebuttal to Yergin and CERA.
The Hirsch report, written by Robert Hirsch of SAIC, was commissioned by the Department of Energy in 2005. To try and avoid some of the controversy around the exact date of 'peak', he sidestepped it, and rather tried to perform an objective analysis of what effort would be required to mitigate such a peak, in three scenarios.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Also the part about is actually nowhere to be seen in the CERA News Press Release and seems to have been introduced by either MSNBC, the slashdot editors or the article posters (all of which are not exactly known by the high quality of their journalistic work).
The report itself (as seen in the CERA News Press Release) concerns itself only with the prediction off how much oil will be produced in the next decades and neither addresses the need for oil in the coming decades nor the price of oil in the coming decades.
Given the continued growth and thirst for oil of both China and India expect prices to go up.
The report actually accepts the possibilities of both that demand will continue to increase faster than supply and that prices will go up: non-conventional sources of oil are included in the forecasts of the repport and these will only be exploited when prices are high enough for it to be economically viable.
In other words:
- No, oil production has not and will not just suddenly peak and start to go down.
- Expect prices to go up even so.
- Realistically plan and begin phasing out use of oil for satisfying our energy needs.
a little something the Russians seem to have figured out in the 1950's.
Perhaps their theory of deep-earth oil generation is more valid, less bogus, than the rather ancient (19th Century!) "oil came from rotting dinosaurs" theory the West subscribes to.
Sounds to me that what we consider "reservoirs" are actually behaving like capacitors: Supplied with oil from below, these reservoirs hold oil closer to the surface, where we tap into 'em... but the motherlode is deeper, far deeper than what we consider 'normal'.
I suggest y'all pick up "Black Gold Stranglehold" by Corsi & Smith, and "Deep Hot Biosphere" by Thomas Gold. Both present a case, supported by what seems to me fairly solid evidence and logic, that the Earth indeed makes the black gooey stuff on her own, without having to depend on rotting Barneys to do so.
Also, in Louisiana's coast, a well went dry.. well, that well spouted again.. it had somehow automagically re-filled itself. (cited in "Stranglehold"), some info out on the web on this.
So folks.. read a little, and start challenging the fossil fuel theory. I think the idea at least deserves exploration, yes?
Or is this country still going to cling to a 19th century (never proven) theory, and then force-feed the flawed decisions born from using that quaint antique of a theory to the rest of the world? 'Cause that's exactly what we're doing.. preaching based on unproven, untested theory from two centuries ago.
The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
Who would you get to tell you about the climate than a climatologist? But there aren't many jobs for that outside academia or Metrological departments.
Apparently, though, this means their report is biased.
Somehow.
For a more balanced and skeptical look at them (as well as the
8 452 819 53o ughts-on-cera-report.html6 97
fact that a number of years ago they predicted no more than $40 oil for decades),
see these from a good blog on oil (unlike Slashdot):
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/9/6/214757/6
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/12/114231/
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/9/13/162534/
http://www.theoildrum.com/classic/2005/08/more-th
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2005/9/21/01620/6
The essential problem behind Peak Oil is that the existing
oil fields, which are large and supplied a major amount of oil,
have natural decline rates.
In order to increase production overall you have to find all this new exotic oil (which is very expensive to extract) and make enough not only to make up for the natural decline rate but also add some more.
That is very unrealistic by many people's estimation.
Also, even if it were possible, it also means that the new oil will continue to be very expensive---because if it weren't expensive, then all those technologies for oil extraction from difficult locations (deep sea ocean, arctic, oil sands) wouldn't be worth it. So, even if there is more oil in a molecular sense, it will get ever more expensive and difficult to get. That is the core take-away message of Peak Oil, and it is essentially irrefutable.
Think about it this way. If you go looking for oil, the first things you will find are the really big oil fields that are easy to get at. It is an obvious fact.
Don't confuse the addition of "reserves" in the past---those were very conservatively defined if they were part of western oil companies---as the proven reserves in the able-to-report-it-on-the-balance-sheet is a regulatory issue, not a geophysically oriented good estimation of what's out there.
The geophysics has changed in the last 5-10 years, and the fundamental rate of major new oil discovery in feasible locations has globally declined.
Sites like Energy Blog and Green Car Congress are replete with stories of small startups making copious amounts of E100, biodiesel, solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
The more people that step up and get a foothold in alternative energy, the bleaker the economic future is for traditional oil companies.
You don't understand the argument. The argument is this:
Oil companies are evil. Their objective is to hurt people no matter how much it costs them.
Some of them are motivated by money. They are still evil. They are also extremely stupid and less informed about the oil business than your average Internet message board poster. The Internet message-board guys and the bloggers know more about how much oil is available than the oil company executives.
The oil price is going to skyrocket in the very near future because of Peak Oil (tm). The oil companies have oil in the ground. They could just stop pumping it for a year or two and sell it for $300 a barrel at that time. But they don't, because they're stupid and evil, unlike us message board posters and bloggers.
Now do you understand?
Thanks to Slashdot, I've learned that Global Warming and Peak Oil are both myths. Now, hurry up and get that Slashdot Financial section up - and when I learn that massive debt doesn't matter, my brand new Hummer will be a done deal!
-G
www.pixelstatic.com
Does it matter how many years are left until we run out of oil? We know fossil fuels aren't good for the environment. We know we will one day run out. If we can come up with a solution tomorrow, why pass this problem down to a future generation?
When the source is open, the possibilities are endless.
Just a minor nitpick about the tone used by the parent. I don't know twifosp's actual position (twifosp, correct me if what I'm saying is unfair to you), but the portion I've quoted implies disdain towards the oil industry for not seeking to deplete the resource as fast as possible.
Here's a made-up analogy. Let's say that you discovered that your blood is worth $8/pint, and you decided to sell a pint every 64 days, because we know it's safe to give a pint every 7 weeks (source: http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/health/blood-do nor/bloddonr.htm). But for the sake of argument, let's suppose someone offered you $1/ounce if you sell one ounce per day. Would you take them up on that offer? It sounds good: twice the money per ounce and 8x the money per day. However, the the blood donation guidelines imply that a typical human has the ability to make less than 0.3 ounces of blood per day, and you'll die if you lose somewhere around about 3-4 pints of blood. You do the math.
The point of my analogy is to illustrate the fallacy of increased production on a system that is beyond its recharge capacity. Yes, you could sell an ounce of blood per day for a few weeks, but doing so means a definite end of production date, so there is nothing artificial about the scarcity of the commodity. What if they offered you $2/ounce for 2 ounces/day? etc. The oil industry knows there is a limit. It doesn't really make sense to increase production just to satisfy current demand if it means depleting your resource to fast and killing off your livelihood, especially if there are no other investments that would pay off as well over the long term.
We know that our current rate of consumption exceeds the world's recharge rate (by a factor that's arguably in the neighborhood of thousands to millions); therefore, it is a mathematical certainty that there exists some definite limit at current consumption rates. How close we are to that limit is up for debate, but it does not change the fact that the date is "near" on a geologic scale.
So Oil production plateaus for all time after that? Where is all of that oil coming from? It has to come from somewhere.
Either way, I've pushed off on worries about Peak Oil, it appears that our need to reduce carbon emissions will shoehorn nicely into reducing the world use of oil in the next 25 years or so. Basically, we'll ruin the environment before we run out of oil unless people get big on Carbon sequestering, but I don't see that happening.
I read the internet for the articles.
Peak Oil is a simple FACT. It's not a question of IF, it's merely a matter of WHEN and HOW.
Also, putting off the oil peak a few decades only dumps the problem on someone else's shoulders. go tell some three year old -
"Hey kid - your life is going to SUCK because I'm too fucking fat, stupid, and lazy to get off my ass and deal with the inconvenience of living without petroleum. So rather than tighten my belt and clean up the mess, I'd rather let you and your kids die of starvation in some transit camp in eastern Oregon in 2070. don't like it? Tough shit. I'm fat and lazy and I don't car. Now, get the fuck out of the way of my SUV so I can drive three blocks for some soda pop and a pack of smokes and get home in time for American Idol on my 50 inch plasma screen in my McMansion. And if I have to murder half of the thrid world for the sake of my convenience, I'll do it, just like I'm going to flood your grand kid's cities in 2150 from all the CO2 my SUV is shitting into the atmosphere."
If Chevron - FUCKING CHEVRON is clued into it, I humbly suggest people get on the stick and ignore the FUD from these cornucopian retards.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The grand irony of this report is that the CERA is complaining that Peak Oil theorists are using closed sources for their data (which they are not), while the CERA's 16 page report is sold at $1000 a copy.
So if you want to fact check them, you have to pony up. Meanwhile, you can get the other side of the story, with full citations of data from the EIA & IEA here at The Oil Drum, free of charge. Other ironies are also there. The report gives an estimate to how much oil remains undiscovered. Needless to say, if it is undiscovered, how would they know how much is down there?
So, let's see if they want to answer the big question: Are we going to run out of oil first, or will burning it all cause runaway global warming and kill us all before we get there?
:v)
Seriously. They seem to be missing out the results of pumping all this carbon out of the ground and into the air, and those could make the whole peak oil thing completely irrelevant.
Vik
no I didn't RTFA but, doesn't this sound like the same criticisms that often get leveled against the global warming advocates?
(I'm not making an opinion on either one, but maybe it just goes with the territory of making predictions.)
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind. - Dr. Seus
every prediction I can remember about oil running out has been proven wrong time and time again
This says more about you than it does about Peak oil. Peak oil is not about running out of oil, it's about oil production peaking and what happens after supply peaks and starts to decline.
In 1956, Marion King Hubbert predicted that domestic US oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. As you so clearly he remember, he was wrong - it peaked in 1971.
PS - The house I live in was built before 1890. It's been changed a few times to have different wiring and heating systems, and indoor plumbing was a big change, but there's a heck of a lot that's still original.
While details about when vary between different predictions, the theory of peak oil (and it applies to peak X where X is any extracted, non-renewable resource) is simply that at some point a maximum rate of production will be reached and after that never exceeded. (And, as a common corollary, providing there are no adequate substitutes, that increases in demand after that point will lead to extreme increases in price in the long term rather than increases in quantity consumed, as the rate of production is a long-term limit on the rate of consumption.)
This report claims that after 24 years, an extraction plateau will be reached which will never be exceeded.
This reports idea is slightly different from that suggested by peak oil in that the "peak" in peak oil refers to the idea that production will actually fall at some rate, while this report suggests a plateau, but that doesn't really change the fundamental dynamic is that increasing demand for energy and other products of the oil industry (plastics, etc.) cannot, whether with a peak or a plateau (which is merely the "best-case" limit of a peak) be met with increased production, but instead higher prices.
While it certainly diverges sharply from the timeframe predictions of many peak oil theorists, it fundamentally confirms that principal problem envisioned by peak oil: a production limit that will be reached in a fairly short time.
(Of course, since the supply of oil is finite, unless the rate of extraction is lower than the rate at which geological processes create oil, it is clearly impossible for a plateau to hold in the longest term, so it seems unlikely that any "plateau" will be a long-term state rather than merely a transitional period before a decline.)
I would be happy with *any* observable effects. The rhetoric would suggest that the process in imminent. But no, they are perpetually 5 years off, which was the point of my original post.
In the past 10 years I have lived in Kansas and Minnesota, where we have enjoyed excellent harvests without exception.
I assume you live on the eastern slopes of the Rockies (a desert) with a rapidly growing population (like Denver). The mountain interior is very wet but there are no large lakes. North and east you have some of the largest fresh water bodies in the world. Your problem is one of lagging civil engineering not climate.
Wait long enough and you might be right, for one year at least.
But if warming were such a major factor, wouldn't the forcing mechanism operate year to year. I am only using the 'Al Gore' argument in reverse. Maybe the hurricane cycle is more complex?
one wonders if it isn't due to overuse by divers.
Riiight.
No. It has always been there. Chlorine compounds are activated at low temperatures in the stratisphere. When satellites looked, there it was! There has never not been an ozone hole!
an ill wind that blows no good
I have a general disdain for the oil industry for greed and profiteering not for raping natural resources. But it's not really their fault, this is a free market. The world needs energy. They supply an energy form that is cheap and convienent. It is up to others to develop alternatives.
Two or three years (oil peak: 2010) is not that far away. It is *now* that we need to stop "not caring".
I don't buy it. I have my own life and the lives of my loved ones to worry about, and you're preying on the most powerful motivator that humans have ever exploited: fear. Go sell your fear somewhere else.
(See also: "global AIDS pandemic", "overpopulation", "global cooling", et al other bullshit fearmongering. I'm simply not worried, and there's absolutely nothing you can do to change that!)
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Working link to Cambridge Energy Associates.
--
make install -not war
it's not going to last 22 years, let alone 122.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
How can we run out of oil overnight? That makes no sense. Oil wont suddenly dry up worldwide overnight. Did you think aliens will comes and zap it away?
.. which is abundant on the earth and in the soil. The point is that we will only have problems if we havent a means of generating energy. Its a matter of oil being a cheaper and not requiring a massive investment that is blocking these energy production methods. The point is that oil may run out, but a) it wont happen overnight (production may start to slow down) .. which will cause an oil price hike .. which in turn would make us build alternate energy plants. There is no big deal in this ..sure a moderate economic hit but no sudden 60% unemployment rate. That's ridiculous. Actually we may see a rise in employment as these new clean energy (nuclear?) plants get built. Once we have cheap energy maybe we will have highly efficient automatted farming that provides food virtually free. People may only have to work a few hours in a week to be able to afford the same lifestyle as today.
We can manufacture plastics or even oil for that matter (although manufacturing oil would make no sense). But the point is, if we have the energy (think solar, wind, geothermal (the earth is a sphere of hot molten lava thousands of miles thick), nuke etc.) We can make plastics from carbon
Peak Oil would be a welcome thing, if it would force us to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe Peak Oil is the only hope we have that we'll stop before completely killing this planet?
It is pitch dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Because the planet is going to be tropical after pumping that much CO2 into the atmosphere. That's good if you own property in central Georgia because it's going to be ocean front one of these days. And Florida...well, you sort of support the people backing the oil companies. Knowing how big you all are on making people take responsibility for their choices, the rest of us will honor your commitment to that ideal by standing back and watching the flooding. We'll have George fly over in Air Force One and look suitably concerned.
Whether there's oil in the ground or not is not material. What is material that Saudi Arabia, one of our top oil suppliers, is a corrupt, decadent country that also happens to be one of the top exporters and financiers of militant Islam. Suddenly cutting our use of oil would send them down the economic toilet and into political chaos. That unfortunate event would cut off one of the biggest foreign sources of lobbying dollars in the history of corrupt politics. It's a horrible, wickedly dysfunctional relationship between the royal family, Washington and US weapons manufacturers, which sell a lot of our top shelf military hardware to the Saudis. Why do you think that getting off foreign oil isn't a national security priority?
Our energy policy today is to the US what Pearl Harbor was to the Navy before WWII: A disaster waiting to happen.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Wouldn't it be more efficient (and fun) to simply design a car that runs on a tank of burning lawyers?
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Simple, portable, highly repeatable, unambiguous, and permanent physical evidence of nuclear events using detectors that have a long track record of reliability and acceptance among nuclear physicists.
Forget your preconceptions, says scientist at Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR). "We've done the experiments, and we have the data."
Using a unique experimental method called co-deposition, combined with the application of external electric and magnetic fields, and recording the results with standard nuclear-industry CR-39 polimer detectors, SPAWAR scientists: Pamela Mosier-Boss and Stan Szpak have produced what may be the most convincing evidence yet in the pursuit of proof of low energy nuclear reactions.
Read more here:SPAWAR: Extraordinary Evidence
What independed experts say?
"Gary W. Phillips, a nuclear physicist and expert in CR-39 detectors is similarly surprised by what he saw in SPAWAR's detectors. Phillips has used the detectors to record nuclear events for two decades.
Seems that Fleischmann and Pons should got they Nobel prize soon...He said that the tracks recorded in SPAWAR's CR-39 experiments are "at least one order of magnitude greater" in number than those in any other conventional nuclear experiments he's seen.
The evidence recorded in SPAWAR Systems Center's CR-39 detectors are "at least one order of magnitude greater" in number than those in any other conventional nuclear experiments he's seen in his 20 years of related experience.
"I've never seen such a high density of tracks before," Phillips noted.
"It would have to be from a very intense source - a nuclear source.
You cannot get this from any kind of chemical reaction.
Is that end of The Fossil Fuels Era?
For more information about "Cold Fusion" (Lenr-Canr) please refer here:
Happy reading!
Best regards,
They have an entire website [willyoujoinus.com] dedicated to the problem of peak oil.
Peak Oil is a simple FACT. It's not a question of IF, it's merely a matter of WHEN and HOW.
Spoken like a true cultist! "willyoujoinus.com"? Sounds a bit like the Movementarians, doesn't it?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Jeezus, instead of arguing the merits of TFA, can we instead discuss TFA instead?
Like, for example, the report pretty much dovetailing nicely with Peak Oil theorywith the only majot difference being when the peak happens?
Or how about that he report talks about ALL know oil sources, when in fact Peak Oil theory is based around EASILY recoverable sources, basically making this report an apple and oranges thing.
This is what Peak Oil sceptics don't get: Yes, we have a shitload of oil, but when you eliminate the stuff that's a PITA to recover, it doesn't leave a whole lot. It will probably take us a few decades at least to run out, but that downward slide is going to be a bitch.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Is it just me or is there anyone else out there that sees this as more than one problem. Oil has been an easy energy alternative, with a nasty side effect. The Enviroment. Many of the energy alternatives to oil that are available are bad because they solve one problem and create two more. - Coal. Wow, that's not a pollutive energy source att all! - Ethanol. Food vs energy. How do you work that one out? - Biodiesel. Same as above... - Cellulose-derived ethanol. Cost of producing energy vs amount of energy made available == ? ... ... ...
- Thermal depolymerization. Eh?
- The rest of them: PLAIN ENGLISH PLEASE?
I agree, Rei(parent poster) brings up a few interesting alternatives, but they are only interesting because they are headers with completely empty pages in my book. More info please.
What are the energy alternatives with the least amount of problems attached?
The Euclidean path integral over all topologically trivial metrics can be done by time slicing and so is unitary when an
GE claim they can bring the price of hydrogen to $3 per kilogram, and cars that running on hydrogen are reporting mileage from 30~50 miles per kilogram depending on the manufacturers. At this ratio, the hydrogen is almost at the same price of the gas. The problem is infrastructure.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
If the price of oil looks as if it will be sustained at above the $100/barrell price, then companies can make more money by investing more in the production of oil substitutes such as biodiesel and coal gassification than they can by investing in oil. Oil companies know this and work hard to keep the cost of oil below that threshhold. Once the price of oil is sustained above that threshhold, the only people that will keep buying oil are those market segments such as plastics and pharmaceuticals where there are presently no substitutes for good old fashioned crude oil
I will believe this when I hear that the oil companies have built enough new refinery capacity to process all this oil for the next 14 years. Let them put their money where their mouth is. If the oil companies actually believed that peak oil were not the case, they would be building capacity so they could sell all that they could pump. Instead, we hear about limited refinery capacity. Believe me, a refinery can make lots of money if there is lots of crude feeding it. I hope they reveal all the facts behind their assertions in a traceable form since available capacity in oil fields is always held pretty close by the companies that own them. It sounds to me like propaganda since the US finally has reacted to the price shocks that precede peak oil and if we give up SUVs etc. it could really rain on the oil company parade. There is a lot of money to be made by the current glut/shortage mentality. Let the glut make people insensitive to the cost of their actions and then collect lots of money with a shortage from the inflexible deamand that results. Also, read another view which challenges some of their assumptions.
an ill wind that blows no good
If you read the article, Peter M. Jackson's call for "rational and measured discourse" is especially telling, when compared to this discussion. As usual, we have frothing-at-the-mouth comments from "both" sides of the issue. Here are a couple points which I think may have been missed by some /.ers:
1) This article is about oil production, not oil consumption. We could very well be heading for the collapse of oil-based civilization, due to Hummers and China's booming thirst for oil. That doesn't mean this report is wrong, because it is about supply, not demand.
2) Contrary to the article's (somewhat) misleading title, the report isn't disputing that there will be a global peak in oil production. Instead, it disputes the (oft-rescheduled) temporal location of that peak, and the shape of the resulting down-turn (predicting a plateau and gradual decline, rather than a rapid drop-off).
It seems to me the root questions debated by the report are whether or not hard-to-extract oil should be included in our oil reserve estimates, and how much new technology will delay and soften the inevitable oil decline. Agree or disagree, we could all use a little more "rational and measured discourse".
According to Figure 1 of the CERA report, a huge part of the "increse" in sales are from "Uncoventional Oil." The Peak Oil theory does address this classification of oil. It is hard to locate, expensive, and very damaging to the environment to extract (just look up tar sands in google or wikipedia). The peak oil theory states that most of the "Conventional" oil has been found, and production will decrease over time. CERA's report simply claims it will happen later, but even their data shows a peak in oil production. Ther key is that there is a limited supply of oil, but no one can agree to when we will reach peak production. That is because no one really knows how much oil is left in the ground, and oil consumption is only going up.
I'm glad that someone here is mindful enough to point out what you did: oil is the lifeblood of the industrialized world. Without oil, hundreds of millions of people will starve to death.
The scary part is: there are also quite a few people who see the deaths of hundreds of millions of people as a Good Thing. They regard humanity as a curse and a scourge on the face of Mother Earth. Perhaps this was the unspoken part of the parent posters's comment? Wishing for genocide isn't politically correct in all forums. But I don't doubt that there are some environmentalists who are quite excited by the idea.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
That is 70 miles per kilogram. read http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/10/hondas_mor e_pow.html and http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
I wonder why...
0 5cavallo
Exxon-Mobil announces that PEAK OIL is coming in 5 years:
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj
Mind you, this is a major oil corporation, not some environmentalist "whacko" group...
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Energy companies study oil and conclude... oil is awwwwwesome!
But seriously, if these guys really gave a crap about real research on peak oil they would work with a credible university and allow that university to conduct pear reviewed academic research.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
The real issue is if we should continue using oil instead of cleaner forms energy. As an American, I think we are long overdue at making a serious effort to move to alternative, cleaner fuels regardless of how much oil is left in the ground. And of equal importance is the question of whether we want to keep buying oil from people in the Middle East that fund the terrorists that fly planes into our buildings.
Those are two of the *many* reasons I quit my job and work from home now (most of the other reasons are quality of life related). I only fill up my car about once or twice a month now.
Yes, but I dont like the noise they make.
Well, I suppose you could kill them before burning them,
but then they smell even worse.
The lawsuits are not fun either.
emt 377 emt 4
Yes, the environment is in trouble. World energy supplies are not. These are not contradictory concepts.
Cellulose-produced ethanol is very likely to be energy positive (not like this is critical -- consider German use of coal liquifaction in WWII). Most of the energy used in ethanol manufacture is in production of the sugar source material. Cellulose-rich plants grow on almost nothing can can be harvested with little work. The difficulties are in coming up with an efficient process to turn the cellulose into sugar for fermentation.
Thermal depolymerization: Basically, producing petroleum from random organic waste. There's a pilot plant in Carthage that's producing $80/barrel oil (it'd be $15-20 cheaper, but they found that they unexpectedly had to pay for their waste stream, which initially was to be free).
"The Rest": Surely you can use google, and that will answer almost all of your questions. I'm not here to write a book for you on subjects that are readily googleable. If you have any specific questions, just ask.
Rock Us, Dukakis.
at the height of the Arab oil embargo, exclaimed that there was "no energy shortage" and said that "at the current rate of consumption we have 600 years of oil left."
/html/012306/012306.html we have the following facts:
Fifteen years later, during the 1987 oil crisis, they ran a similar ad but this one said "at the current rate of consumption we have 200 years of oil left".
Amazing. In 15 years we lost 400 years worth of oil!!!
Both statements were right, of course, but what the oil companies were COUNTING on was that most folks would NOT understand that "at the current rate" doesn't mean that the rate wouldn't INCREASE. It seems that most folks STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND.
Now, we have politicians running for office with the promise that they will "replace oil fields with corn fields". To make matters worse, the US government is subsidizing corporations who make and run Ethanol plants, which immediately begs the question "If Ethanol is capable self-sustaining energy production sufficient to replace oil, why does it need subsidies?"
Independent studies by academic agricultural and environmental experts report that Ethanol requires an input of 54,725 BTU more for each gallon produced than you'd get by burning it. On the other hand, Ethanol industry sponsored studies claim Ethanol has a net energy of 17,058 BTU per gallon. Whose right?
Let's look at the problem in another way. Assuming pro-Ethanol groups are correct, how much Corn will it take to replace gasoline as a source of energy?
From http://www.farmdoc.uiuc.edu/marketing/grainoutlook
1) The USDA's January estimate of the size of the 2005 U.S. Corn crop came in at 11.112 billion bushels.
2) Planted acreage of Corn in the U.S. in 2005 totaled 81.759 million acres, with a calculated yield of 135.9 bu/acre.
From Ethanol industry sources we find that the more efficient Ethanol plants can generate 2.68 gallons of Ethanol from each bushel of Corn. Therefore, 11.112 billion bushels of Corn can supply 30 billion gallons of Ethanol.
A fact of chemistry that economic theory cannot change is that Ethanol supplies 76,000 BTU/gallon and gasoline supplies 120,000 BTU/gallon. In other words, it takes 1.5789 gallons of Ethanol to replace the energy in 1 gallon of gasoline. That COULD mean that 30 billion gallons of Ethanol will replace 19 billions gallons of gasoline. But, in reality, Ethanol produced from Corn replaces even less. From a pro-Ethanol website, http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm#concl:
"We conclude that the NEV of corn ethanol is positive when fertilizers are produced by modern processing plants, corn is converted in modern ethanol facilities, farmers achieve normal corn yields, and energy credits are allocated to coproducts. Our NEV estimate of 16,193 Btu/gal can be considered conservative, since it was derived using the replacement method for valuing coproducts, and it does not include energy credits for plants that sell carbon dioxide. Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24, that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 24-percent energy gain. Moreover, producing ethanol from domestic corn stocks achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy. Ethanol production utilizes abundant domestic energy supplies of coal and natural gas to convert corn into a premium liquid fuel that can replace petroleum imports by a factor of 7 to 1."
That "7 to 1" is 7 gallons of Ethanol are needed to replace 1 gallons of gasoline! Here is how it is figured: about 58,942 BTUs must be supplied from external energy sources for each gallon of Ethanol produced. To be self-sufficient Ethanol must return that energy, leaving only 17,058 BTU/gal available as excess energy. Or, dividing 120,000 by 17,058 shows that it will take 7.0348 gallons of Ethanol to replace eac
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
The "current rate of consumption" part is the problem. I though global warming would probably devistate human economies such that oil use decreases dramatically in the near future and we would therefore never run out of oil.
I would really be interested in the release of Cheney's Energy Task Force report. It was funded in the months leading up to the Iraq war and the results have never been released (which is illegal because it was funded with taxpayer money).
You're nothing; like me.
Looking at that chart, the only difference I can see between their line and the one they are "debunking" is that their line wobbles for a while before the downtrend is clear.
Both theories look equally valid, as presented, and both have pretty much the same implications, with a 20 year time difference. Short term thinkers are the only ones that will be impressed by this.
Granted, everything you say is probably true. Certainly the oil company executives have all had their horns cut off at birth, just like Democrats and network executives.
But, since we've still got a capitalist economy (despite the best efforts of the damn liberals and northern carpetbaggers - what the hell did they think they were doing, freeing the slaves?) we can assume that oil prices will never go up, ever. Regardless of how dependent on oil we are.
Obviously, if oil was a limited resource, or even an important one, we'd be paying more now than we did ten years ago. Since we aren't, clearly the oil supply is infinite. No need to worry, or even to implement any of the plethora of alternatives. People who buy hybrids are fools.
Similarly, if burning oil was bad for the environment, we'd have more cancer in our population than 50 years ago, and children would reach reproductive age faster, particularly in inner cities where pollution would be worse. Since none of that is happening, clearly oil does not produce any degradation of human quality of life. People who want to reduce tailpipe emissions are just alarmist know-nothings.
We bloggers and slashdot posters know all this; you can read any forum (um, except those lefty ones where they filter out all the knowledgeable people) and see that there's widespread agreement: Peak Oil and Global Warming are Bunkum.
And since no legitimate concern can possibly be too complex to be expressed in a two-word buzzphrase, therefore we should not worry and keep doing everything exactly the way we did before the damn liberals freed the slaves, only more so - and with more petroleum-based lubrication!
Also, did anyone notice the graph? Supply plateaus around 2030. Yet the demand curve goes straight up. Hello? Doesn't that mean oil will peak in 2030?! (And the graph even included alternative sources like liquid coal).
http://www.energybulletin.net/ and in particular: http://www.energybulletin.net/22442.html
6 47
5 16
http://www.theoildrum.com/ and in particular: http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/14/18285/
Whether we will ever exceed current production levels is an entirely open and empirical question. Even if we do, that doesn't prove that "Peak Oil" is "wrong"... just that we haven't hit it yet. The evidence I read suggests we're approaching the top.
Read this too:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/2/204936/
http://www.energybulletin.net/22213.html
Solar, wind and geothermal.
Electricity can be generated from solar, wind and geothermal power plant. Then the electricity can produce hydrogen from water. Then hydrogen can be transferred in trucks and "tubes", I love this word, and yes, there are hydrogen pipelines in America. And the hydrogen then can be filled in cars and trucks.
You may ask why don't we directly charge the battery in the cars and get rid of the hydrogen? But you need to ask three more questions.
Alcohol and bio-diesel have very large environment impact and oil dependent. When we grow corn or soy, we need fertilizer and the fertilizer is from oil. Also the energy out put and energy input ratio is low, I remember a number of 1.2 while the wind power has a number of 60.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
Could it be that cancer rates are increasing because people don't die of The Plague or Smallpox when they're 17 anymore? So they live a long time and eventually get the thing that we don't have a cure for yet: cancer.
I predict that when cancer is cured, the incidence of some other disease associated with age will start going up. It will be because oil companies are evil and want people to get the disease, of course.
Check out http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/ -- he has hundreds of articles that little by little debunk Peak Oil scare theorists. He makes an excellent case, and when I had a moment's concern about peak oil (for my daughter), I saw that and was greatly reassured.
There are perhaps a couple of things to consider about peak oil that may not have been considered. One is that at any given price point, there will be a peak in oil availability. As the price of oil goes up, the oil that is more expensive to obtain becomes more economical, such as oil from oil shale or heavy crude. However, that oil is much more difficult to produce and the production of that oil is probably not at the same rate as for the lighter crude that is easier to produce. Thus the peak for oil production is different than the peak for oil availability. One may peak while the other may not. The market factors may inhibit the production of the more expensive oil because fewer people may be willing to pay for it. In addition, other forms of energy will become more economical for R&D as the price of oil rises which may also inhibit the production of that oil. There are also other factors such as a producer wilfully withholding production to keep the price up. What is very interesting to me here is that with the high price point of oil, Venezuela's reserves of heavy crude is probably the largest in the world making them the de facto leaders of OPEC, something tp which the Saudi's and the US are rather resistant.
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
The first person fills up his glass, and passes it along. You start your graph.
The next person fills up her glass, and passes it along. Again, you update your graph.
Two more glasses filled! So you plot a straight line on your graph, and predict: when the pitcher gets to me, I too will have a full glass of beer.
Valid prediction?
You decide.
Thus reducing their carbon footprint to an absolute minimum.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Last I heard, there was no expert concensus on the origins of oil. Biofermentation? Byproduct of Geological activity? Pink fairies? We don't know even the most basic fact about oil.
Given this, How likely is it that *anyone* can predict actual supply into the future?
Is that the sort of "impossible" you mean? "It's not cheap enough for me to be guaranteed of making a 20% return on investment even if prices of oil drop in half" is not the same as "impossible."
hmm, current rate, you mean as in no growth of industry in the next hundred years... seems a little bit pesimistic, don't they?
DON'T PANIC
While making estimates based on the "current rate of consumption" may be easy, it's a fallacy. Consumption never stays constant, and will increase unless we do something.
One of the reasons the price of oil has shot up in the past few years has been the increased demand for oil in China and India. More demand for a finite supply. And the world's population grows exponentially. More consumers all the time.
The good news is we are still finding reservoirs, and we are developing better ways of getting hard-to-reach oil from existing reservoirs. But it's all just methadone for our addiction. We need to accellerate R&D of new sources storing and transporting energy. Let's not get complacent here just because we've gotten a reprieve.
Yes, bubonic plague and smallpox were rampant as recently as 50 years ago - why, we were dropping like flies, I remember it well!
Certainly, if there was anything to worry about the rates of cancer in children would go up, and that's certainly not happening. The car companies haven't needed to increase the candlepower of car headlights, either, and they'd certainly have to do that if pollution was actually increasing.
All this stuff about Peak Oil and Global Warming is just racism against oil company executives, who are at least as human as Iraqis (in fact, they only have to have horns removed and birth, and not tails like the Iraqis) and all attempts to reduce oil burning are just errant liberalism.
I am loathe to draw conclusions fom a blurb about a report, but three things strike me: 1. The blurb stipulates "at current levels of consumption." And i feel pretty good that global population will stabilize and that India and China will immediately cease industrializing. Because otherwise, "current consumption levels" become sort of irrelevant. 2. Even in this scenario, we're hearing that we have 24 years before production plateaus, and then 100-odd years before there's a problem. So really, we're really just quibbling about dates, not the phenomenon itself. 3. With regard to fossil fuel, good to remember that no one is making any new dinosaurs.
It's a trick question! They don't have jobs!
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
Personally, I'm hoping for it to come sooner, rather than later.
Humans can be intelligent, clever, and creative when they want to be. Given the current profits by oil companies, and how lucrative the market is, I don't personally feel that anything will ever be done until it has to be done. The sooner everyone begins to feel the pinch, the sooner people are forced to innovate to survive. It's either that, or we'll be back in the dark ages. If it has to happen sometime, I don't see any reason why the inevitable should be after my lifetime. Of course, if we acted now, it may not be inevitable... but I don't have enough faith in humanity for that.
Might even give the population something meaningful to think about for a change.
Yep. They did it! They're including unproven and unknown reserves in their estimates and then calling the other guys unreasonable.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
"Considering that 95% of our current infrastructure is dependent on cheap oil"
I haven't seen cheap oil in ages. The price for a long time has been inflated due to control by cartels and special taxes dumped on it. We're way above the actual cost right now, even considering reasonable profit margins. I'd like to enter an era of "cheap oil" first before we leave it.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Since when do consumption levels remain flat!? Each year our consumption increases geometrically--anywhere from 1 to 3 percentage points more than the year before. Given that yearly increase you can drop their the oil supply estimate by at least half.
Cambridge Energy Research Associates said in a report that the world has some 3.74 trillion barrels of oil left -- enough to last 122 years at current consumption rates and triple the amount estimated by "peak oil" theorists.
0 61.htm
Sounds like their analysis is rather simplistic. They looked at the *current* consumption rates, assumed that consumption rates would be static for the next 122 years, and then said we've got plenty of oil for 122 years. Nevermind the fact that places like China and India are quickly increasing their oil consumption.
China's petroleum imports are expected to grow fourfold from 2003 to 2030 Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html
World oil consumption rose by about 1.2 million barrels per day in 2005, after an increase of 2.6 million barrels per day in 2004. Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/oil.html
Overall, global oil consumption is expected to grow by about 1.4 percent each year over the next 25 years - roughly a 40% increase. If those rates hold steady, we'll be using twice the oil in 50 years. Based on increasing oil consumption, that 122 years shrinks down to something like 80 years.
Further, their report assumed a bunch of new oil discoveries, and that we'll be extracting known, but expensive-to-extract oil deposits in shale and other places. Nevermind that these alternatives routinely rank in the $70-$100 per barrel range. Here's a graphic of their sources of oil: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington//16012
It says:
1.08 trillion barrels already consumed
0.76 trillion barrels available from conventional sources
1.07 trillion barrels yet to be discovered
1.91 trillion barrels available from unconventional sources
In other words, of the 3.74 trillion barrels they're talking about, 30% is assumed to exist (we just haven't found it yet), and 50% is from unconventional sources (ranging from expensive to extremely expensive). Only 20% of their 3.74 trillion barrel estimate comes from known, economical sources! That means that known, conventional sources are expected to run out in 24 years - and that's according to current consumption rates, so 24 years is an overestimate. We'd better hope that lots of new oil is discovered and put into production before then (it takes about 10 years to get a new oil well up and running to full capacity), and we'll be switching to more and more expensive unconventional sources in the meantime.
Remember - peak oil doesn't say when the oil will run out, it talks about the interplay between cost, consumption, and economics.
I believe I'll listen to Ken Deffeyes
http://www.princeton.edu/hubbert/
http://www.amazon.com/Basin-Range-John-McPhee/dp/
Wait a minute. Didn't I say that on the other side of the record? I'd better check
The people who opt to conserve pay a price now, VS the people who continue to use the limited resource of oil.
It is sad that the downside effects of peak oil would only apply to the people who choose not to believe in the effects of peak oil.
Odds are the non-believers will be knocking on the door of my warm and PV powered home, asking for me to feed their sorry asses too.
One need only to look as far as who are the people behind CERA and what are they interests. Daniel Yergin, Robert Lockwood, etc. etc. No wonder their claims and counterclaims are in line with those of the oil industry. Despite CO2 and other problems I wish we enjoyed another 20 years of peak oil production but it is simply not the case. Let's be realistic and prepare for a safe and smooth downhill ride and explore regenerative energies now.
Much is being made of so-and-so's bias. It would seem that many people think that if someone is biased, that automatically makes them wrong. So just ignore them. Truth is, everyone is biased. That doesn't make them wrong, *or* right. So, while it might be helpful to understand their Bias, you should actually consider their argument, not their bias, and determine whether their argument is right or wrong, not their bias.
Yes, the environment is in trouble. World energy supplies are not. These are not contradictory concepts.
Here is the problem. There are alternatives to oil but none of them have the same cost/unit energy ratio. Biofuels take a lot of energy to produce, as does tarsands ect... Although we're not going to be left with nothing when the oil runs out, the energy returned per unit energy invested will be reduced increasing the price.
Take Canadian tarsands as an example, it take an immense amount of energy per barrel but due to fairly large deposits of natural gas nearby the canadian oil sands it's moot since they use the gas to make the synthetic crude. They are currently planning to switch to nuclear to split the oil sand since the gov is starting to grumble about the "free" gas provided to make the crude. Basically the Provincial gov subsidizes synthetic crude by allowing the oil comapanies to burn gas for free. Even with this subsidy it's $0.30 USD exstraction cost per unit as opposed to $0.049 USD for saudi crude. If you factored in the market price of the gas it's be 0.60 per unit.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Demand is growing because capitalism requires constant growth, and one of the essential inputs into economic activity is energy (in the form of oil). If production rate is flat while demand is growing, you get a supply crunch. Buyers bid up the price, and sellers make out like bandits. That's the whole point of Peak Oil theory, not that we run out of oil, but when demand outstrips supply we'll run out of cheap oil. Markets are cyclical, so we'll still get highs and lows in oil prices, and prices will spike high more often because producers are tapped out and can't crank up more production to take advantage of high prices. Because of the volatility of financial markets, we won't get much warning about it either.
I'll form my OWN solar system! With blackjack! And hookers!
Shit. That sounds like the premise of Firefly!!
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
"Smoking is not addictive"
.
Exactly! Its why the Saudis lowered prices again after the 1980's, and avoided several gouging opportunities: efficiency increases driven by the oil shocks in the 70's had resulted in lowered total demand while not affecting actual production capacity. So no matter what the supply is doing, keep demand up and you win in any case.
Comparing to Saudi reserves of light, sweet crude isn't really fair, since that's some of the world's cheapest oil to produce. ;)
The point is valid, though. Many of the alternatives are, indeed, expensive. With current oil prices, however, expensive options are economically viable. Look at Venezuela. 600k of its 3m bpd are now unconventional crude. The Orinoco belt puts them easily ahead of Saudi Arabia in terms of reserves. The profit margin is less, but there still is a profit margin. As long as there's a profit margin, it will be produced.
I'll agree that the era of cheap oil is likely over. That really was an anomaly. What I'm arguing against the notion of some kind of catastrophic, modern-society-ending price spike. It's just not going to happen. There are alternatives. Expensive, yes. But viable even today, with today's technology.
I'm actually glad, by the way, that the era of cheap oil seems to be past. Current prices are putting a tremendous amount of money into R&D in field after field, both in terms of producing new energy and in conserving it. I may be a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but I love to see R&D money coming from industry instead of having to be funded by the government, and there's no surer way to get industry R&D funding than to have a significant price increase on something critical to the world economy. When the price of something that's being bought for over a trillion dollars per year doubles in value . . .
Rock Us, Dukakis.
Do you mean "a source of energy" or specifically "a source of oil"? There are renewable sources of energy, based directly or indirectly on sunlight. Biodiesel (current eroei=3.2) is one. Photovoltaic arrays and solar water heaters are another.
Don't forget the energy wars. The Iraqi war is an energy war (massive oil reserves, and its position in the Middle East; OPEC-smashing?).
GrimRC
Oh wait... they've already been debunked.
Sorry slashdot mob, your belief in these kooky doomsday theories seem to boil down to emotional problem. Quack scientists from Europe are a dime a dozen. It doesn't matter that they all "agree".
I wonder what kind of info their "clients" can access on their site that they aren't publishing for everyone else.
It's one thing to have a "Client Login" when you're renewing your Domain Name, but it must be another when you're visiting a website that offers "Energy Solutions".
Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
Some points the CERA report overlooks:
CERA's business is to provide research papers for people making money extracting and refining petroleum. It's not in their interest for their papers to suggest or encourage massive shifts in the current energy economy. Research in alternatives aren't in their areas of expertise, and their existing customers would likely not purchase the data.
Luke, help me take this mask off
before these guys get refuted by somebody else in the modern game of Science by Insult.
A calm gathering of evidence by both sides would be more gentlemanly, and lead to more accurate conclusions by both sides. But, we know that's not gonna happen.
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
Ok, so they expect the oil should last MUCH longer than previous estimates have guessed.
A whopping 122 years into the future.
My question, what happens then? No more oil for gasoline, lubricants, PLASTICS....
think of how many things in our society is made of plastic, from our food containers,
and wrappers... computers, electronic components, almost EVERYTHING in hospitals.
I hope we can plan more long term than this.
And not continue with the attitude:
"Sure, we have plenty... but humans will have to just figure something else out on their own later on"
That would just be selfish.
Miles per kilogram? What an ugly combination of units!
Just a few questions on thermal depolymerization. First, do you have any idea how much more expensive the process will become once they try to scale up the process, and all the people who thought they were sitting on trash find out they're sitting on millions of cubic meters of cha-ching? Okay, that sounded like a rhetorical question, but it really wasn't. It seems to me that the success of the process depends entirely on how big our "organic waste reserves" really are.
:)
Next question: is this going to take away material that used to be composted? Given the global warming implications, and the difficulties we're already having maintaining soil fertility, is it possible that a heavy shift towards this technology might drive up food prices?
Every time I hear people saying, "Don't worry about running out of resource A. We can just use resource B," I imagine a star that has just run out of hydrogen. To stave off collapse, it starts fusing helium, then carbon, then oxygen, as the pressure keeps increasing. Finally, there's nothing left but iron, which has the lowest binding energy of any element, so there is nothing left to fuse, no energy left to extract. That's when the collapse into a black hole happens.
Maybe before our society collapses, we'll stumble onto something that is energy rich, environmentally sound and massively scalable. Maybe fusion. Maybe space-based solar panels. A star's fate is predestined by its weight. To strain the analogy even further, our society's "weight" is governed by a mix of factors: population, the amount of resources each person is using, our ability to generate new resources (rather than simply burning through the easily available ones).
Another day, another stupid tangent. I think I had a point back there someplace. But it's late and I'm tired, so good luck finding it.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
The peak oil proponents are making the same mistake that the Paris Club made in the 70's when the best and the brightest predicted that oil would run out in the 90's. They ignored the fact that the availability of a commodity depends on its price. If the price of oil is high enough, one can get oil out of oil shale, oils sands etc or even manufacture it from CO2 and H2O from the atmosphere. In fact that is what biodiesel and ethanol actually are: making oil from atmospheric carbon. The reason the oil in the US peaked is not because there is not any more oil but because of the existence of a massive supply primarily in the Mideast where the oil can be produced at about $2 a barrel. The US oil production peaked because the price to extract it in the US for many places has risen to be comparable to the $20-30 a barrel range that oil had been at for many years. If oil goes to $100/barrel, the oil production in the US will rise to another peak. Old wells will be uncapped, small uneconomic deposits will be pumped, and new technologies used to extract more of the existing oil. This phenomenon of multiple peaks in the US production has been observed in other commodities, most notably gold, the commodity that has been far more thoroughly depleted than oil. US gold production dropped significantly in the 60's and 70's as South African and other sources of gold were found. Then about 10-20 years ago, heap leaching of existing tailings was developed. US production rose so much that the US became one of the leading producers for a number of years. Now US gold production has dropped but there are multiple peaks in US gold production. It is quite clear that US oil production as well as the world can have multiple production peaks depending on the price and technology. BTW, if one real cares about the environment, one should engage in open discussion about theories, experiments and comparison of evidence, not ad hominem attacks about funding etc. The advance of science has shown that a proper scientific process leads to a better outcome than the prior thousands of years ad hominem bickering. An ad hominem attack is often strong evidence for having no good argument. After all, if one had the good argument, there would be no need of an ad hominem attack.
> some kind of catastrophic, modern-society-ending price spike
Peak Oil doesn't predict that. It predicts exactly what you said: "the era of cheap oil seems to be past". What you don't seem to appreciate is that the cost of oil impacts the cost of nearly *everything* else. When oil gets more expensive, so do all the other things you buy. This will be a huge drag on the world economy, and *that* is why everyone should be concerned.
Cheers, Tim -- Tim Janke Part mad scientist, part lion tamer: sr. software engineer, global team leader, project mana
"There are times when it is prudent to suspicious of a person's claims, such as when it is evident that the claims are being biased by the person's interests. For example, if a tobacco company representative claims that tobacco does not cause cancer, it would be prudent to not simply accept the claim."
There is absolutely nothing wrong with weighing a person's self-interest when considering their claims, particularly in the energy industry which is infamous for creating phony advocacy organizations that exist solely for the purpose of telling lies on behalf of their funders.
Asking the question of who funds this particular group is an absolutely relevant question and one that deserves an answer rather than immediately attacking the motives and fairness of anyone who asks it.
Supply vs. demand. Demand is increasing, and by the terms of "peak oil" regarding supply we have reached a plateau of oil production or the production is dropping. The math is simple, if "peak oil" was the case that means it would make sense if you could to buy future oil because as demand outstrips supply the price will increase.
Except that you *can* buy future oil, or more specifically oil futures. In fact there is an entire market for this, the prices for oil delivered in the future is available right here. It plainly shows that the people whose job it is to analyze and bet on the direction of oil prices do not see the dramatic imbalance of demand vs. supply which peak oil theory predicts.
Lots of comments here have focused on the bias of the people involved in this study. Well, the market is not biased -- if people thought that the price of oil is going to go way up in the next 10 years you can literally go out and buy some. Except they don't, they write books with half-baked statistics and scare people half to death talking about some fantasy "peak oil" scenario that is unlikely.
Keep your heads on, people. Having enough oil production does not mean that we are okay, it means that we are able to cook our planet death with readily available cheap carbon. If we don't accept that thinking we are going to run out soon, we continue down the path instead of addressing the very real problem of global climate change.
501 Not Implemented
Full disclosure: I don't work in the energy field (a pun!) and I know next to nothing about economics. If you're in the same boat and you have spare mod points, don't mod me up for this post. Chances are that we're both misinformed.
That said, I do understand the fundamental idea of "running out" of something. In which case, does it matter whether we're at peak production now or in 24 years? Waiting until the last minute to start working on something was a bad idea in college; I don't see how it could possibly be a good idea in the real world.
Before modding something funny, read the link. They're serious.
Nyhetsankaret.com -- det bÃsta av Sveriges Nyhetssido
Skip over the incessant advertising in the article.
Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
Peak Oil simply states that there is a point at which demand will outstrip supply resulting in drastic increases and rapid fluctuations in price. You can argue whether that point has been reached, but to deny that such a point in time exists is "nonsense". That is, unless the demand for energy from oil is replaced by some other source of energy.
"Well of course there is more, that's what more means."
Even if oil peaked at the next 200 years, it still does not make a difference. In cosmic terms, 200 years is the next second. So it does not really matter...peak oil will eventually happen.
"The company estimates it will consume 6 million tons of oil shale and 2 million tons of refinery waste each year, for an annual production of 3 million tons of product."
Thats 8 million tons of stuff in, to get 3 million tons of product out. I hope five million tons of waste ( carbon dioxide? ) isn't smokestacked to the atmosphere.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
"Special taxes? If you live in the U.S., the federal tax is 18.4 cents/gallon, and state taxes average about 22"
....both of which are special taxes, above any typical sales tax you would pay on a gallon of milk, for example. These increase the price by a significant percentage, and even exceed the oil company's profit for each gallon.
Where were you when the voynix came?
My brother-in-law is a petroleum engineer specializing in tertiary production; bringing old fields back to life. His opinion, and I believe him, is that there are vast quantities of oil yet to be exploited. It's just a matter of what price we are willing to pay to get it. When they talk of available oil they also talk of "proven reserves" this is an estimate of the oil left in fields already in production. If you add the fields known to exist but not in production then the available reserve grows manifold.
Please note - I'm not anti-green but I am against pop-science that is demonstrably wrong.
You can stop there. It is a leftist rag that has shilled for the British warming loonies for years.
an ill wind that blows no good
Discovery of oil fields peaked in 1964 (some say 1962) and has been declining since. The last new refinery was built 29 years ago in the US. If all this oil production is going to come online, the oil companies had better ramp up their refining capacity, right? Why aren't they building new refineries?
"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
Be what may, Peak Oil is what will ultimately save our environment =). If we were to pump infinite amounts of CO2 to the air, we'd be doomed. I'm glad there's a finite amount of it!
"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy."
"An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
"In philosophy, a logical fallacy or a formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning which is always or at least most commonly wrong. This is due to a flaw in the structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy
Peak oil doesn't predict current oil prices. It predicts oil prices so high that society that we know it cannot stand. Wikipedia summarizes it nicely: "Hubbert further predicted a worldwide peak at "about half a century" from publication. Many observers such as Kenneth S. Deffeyes, Matthew Simmons, and James Howard Kunstler believe that because of the high dependence of most modern industrial nations on inexpensive oil, the impending post-peak production decline and resulting severe price increases will herald grim implications for the future global economic outlook." They're actually nicer than some -- probably the most prominant peak oil theorist is Colin Campbell, who predicts catastrophic worldwide depression.
Current oil prices are, quite obviously, bearable. We're not going to get back down to $25-35/barrel. $50-80/barrel is a more reasonable baseline. This isn't bad, though. The world economy stands up just fine to it. With these oil prices, the outlook for transportation fuels quite rosy, for the reasons mentioned in my previous posts.
Rock Us, Dukakis.
Scaling up a process tends to make it cheaper, not more expensive.
;)
CWT was expecting to get their waste for free, but ended up having to pay good money for it when "feeding animals to animals" wasn't banned as expected. Future waste streams are likely to be *cheaper* than the current stream.
Compost contains many things, but the only nutrient that is taken out of the cycle by this is carbon, which is easy to replace by other sources. After TDP, ll of the other nutrients are still available for use in fertilizer -- only now, they're concentrated. Note that normally, organic waste streams have too much nutrients; waste tends to leech into streams, causing algal blooms that suffocate the fish.
Your star analogy is flawed for one reason: it's backwards. Stars have vast amounts of hydrogen, smaller amounts of helium, even smaller amounts of carbon, and so on. On Earth, we have small amounts of oil, more coal, more potential for biofuels, and even more fissionable materials. Each time we take a step up here on earth, we have more potential energy at our disposal, not less. Given fission energy, our resources (ignoring renewables) give us ample time to learn to master fusion -- literally thousands of years even with growing demand if you use a combination of breeders and seawater extraction.
If we can't learn to master fusion by then, I'm not sure we deserve to continue on as a species.
Rock Us, Dukakis.
Looks pretty unscientific to me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
OK, then try the actual numbers from the DOE.
The 2006 monthly average production is so far down 108 MBD from the 2005 monthly average. 1Q06 and 2Q06 were the lowest quarters in two years (they don't have 3Q06 data up yet). Oil production increased steadily up to 2004, then by a little in 2005, and is now falling.
If "here are the numbers -- peak oil was last year" doesn't convince them, nothing will. And since these people claim to be experts, you can bet they've seen this data. That suggests to me that the report is to inspire consumer confidence, not be a scientific rebuttal of Peak Oil.
Learn some geography, Dingleberry. I am referring to Great Slave Lake, Lake Athabasca (Alberta) , Reindeer Lake, Lake Winnepeg. As I said, an engineering problem, not a water shortage. The American Southwest went to a whole hell of a lot more trouble to secure water supplies than Canada ever will.
an ill wind that blows no good
> Scaling up a process tends to make it cheaper, not more expensive.
Generally true. If, however, we did the absurd and decided to scale this process to the point where it supplied our entire demand for oil, it seems like we'd quickly reach the limits of the "cheap" waste streams. At some point, we'd have to start manufacturing the organic waste (at which point it's not really waste).
Thanks for the response, especially the interesting response to my analogy. I'm still not sure about my feelings towards nuk-yoo-lar power. I could be swayed in either direction.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Considering that an entire continental ice sheet melted rapidly 12,000 years ago, the minute movements of a few mountain glaciers do not seem like much.
an ill wind that blows no good
You are misinterpreting the entire thing here to the point where we are not talking about the same things. Peak oil is about OIL - mineral oil - black gold - texas tea - other names that may eventually sink in - it is about getting the easy stuff cheaply out of the ground. Trying to redefine other peoples terms and then attacking them based upon your new definition is cheating in arguments and acheives nothing but winning arguments when others give up in disgust.
Of course there are plenty of alternatives that were even used successfully with WWII technology which are known about by everyone who talks about the idea - but that is an entirely different discussion. They require extra effort meaning the end of dirt cheap energy - which is why peak oil is still an important thing even if it is not the end of the world as people who misunderstand or have agendas want to imply. That big long list of things above is nice but is not what is being talked about as peak oil so the "nonsense theory" comment is misinformed.
Petroleum = Oil. Nonconventional petroleum is *still* petroleum. Bitumen-derived oil is sold as oil on the open market. It's not a redefinition of terms -- it *is* the term. Venezuela-Exports-Oil. It's a simple statement of fact. Never mind that 20% of it is derived from bitumen, a number rising every year -- it's oil, it's called oil, it's treated as oil, it's marketed as oil -- it *is* oil. In fact, there's not really a solid cutoff point between extra heavy crudes and bitumen -- it's a continuous progression.
Rock Us, Dukakis.
Yes that is back on topic - but that is not coal liquification, ethanol and all the other stuff talked about above. Remember it is not called the peak coal or peak soybeans theory.
A lot more oil has been discovered since the idea was first proposed so of course the first estimates were wrong - but the geophysicists are debating among themselves where the peak will be given current known reserves (and not whether the whole idea is invalid) so I can't see it as a nonsense theory.
In Oz, some gold mines are being re-opened for the 4th time, or the tailings from previous extraction processes are being remined for the third time. New extraction processes, and possibly the price of gold, makes this feasible.
Bear in mind that we think gold is expensive, yet I bet every Slashdotter here has thrown away quite a lot of pure gold. Printer cartridges, circuit boards etc.
Oil is just so cheap that we are still at the stage of burning it, fercrisake.
See this:
h -D-Corsi/dp/1581824890/sr=11-1/qid=1163962327/ref= sr_11_1/102-1148310-9867333
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_oil
and read this:
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Stranglehold-Jerome-P
Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil
by Jerome R., Ph.D. Corsi, Craig R. Smith
ISBN: 1581824890
Libertas in infinitum
Coal liquifaction produces petroleum -- oil -- as well. You heat coal in the presence of insufficient amounts of oxygen and/or water to produce town gas (CO + H2), which you then react in the Fischer-Tropsch process to produce nonconventional petroleum ( (2n+1)H2 + nCO -> C(n)H(2n+2) + n H2O ).
It's not an issue of bad estimates. It's an issue of bad science. Take a look at all of the peak oil predictions since Hubbert (and there've been a *lot*). Each passes unceremoniously, and the prediction gets shoved a bit further down the road. It's not justified. There is a huge amount of petroleum, either conventional or unconventional, left.
Rock Us, Dukakis.