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."

18 of 640 comments (clear)

  1. Who pays their bills? by John+Jamieson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Does anyone know who they really speak for? Do they have an agenda?

    1. Re:Who pays their bills? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please stop. Now. This entire crap about who is paying who is completely useless and counter-productive. If you play this game, nothing will happen, as everyone is paid by someone, and it is impossible to prove that someone is completely disinterested and unbiased. Not only that, but it is utterly impossible, and irrelevant to boot.

      The only thing that really matters is whether what people say holds up under scrutiny. Is the data they use accurate? Are their conclusions valid? Do their theories agree with their data? Can their theories be falsified? Did they use proper methodologies when testing their theories and collecting their data? Did they cherry-pick?

      What's that you say? That's hard? Tough shit. If you can't handle a rigorous discussion, shut the fuck up. You're not contributing. No matter what your mom or your school teacher told you.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:Who pays their bills? by thrillseeker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Make of that what you will..

      I can't imagine why an energy research organization would actually seek out and listen to national energy secretaries in developing energy analysis - can't they just publish some near-term doom-and-gloom conclusions with only selective data like everyone else?

    3. Re:Who pays their bills? by cnelzie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's most definatly usefull.

          The past has proven time and time again that reports provided by people backed by certain corporations, such as Cigarrette Manufacturers, Oil Firms and both the RIAA and MPAA are filled with half-truths, straight lies, clear misrepresentations of data (once the data is brought out into the public space), as well as a number of other "Dirty Pool" tactics.

          Simply because of who is backing this report, the publishers of the report have a tremendous amount of work that they must perform in order to be taken as anything other than what any "corporate shill" will say.

          If they are not 100% open with the methods they used, the data they collected as well as with the stastical analysis they performed, their work is going to be suspect. Perhaps their first line would be to see if they can get their report published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.

          Personally, I would be far less skeptical of a piece that could make it into a peer-reviewed medical journal.

      --
      If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
    4. Re:Who pays their bills? by SEMW · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >I can't imagine why an energy research organization would actually seek out and listen to national energy secretaries in developing
      >energy analysis - can't they just publish some near-term doom-and-gloom conclusions with only selective data like everyone else?

      So when a single company with stated links to oil-producing countries comes up with the conclusion that we should continue to rely on oil, that's "seeking out and listening... in developing energy analysis", but when "everyone else" (and that does include pretty much everyone) comes to opposite conclusion, that's "doom-and-gloom... with only selective data"? That's some good, objective critical thinking skills you got there...

      --
      What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
    5. Re:Who pays their bills? by syphax · · Score: 4, Insightful


      These guys are legitimate. I'm quite sure their client list includes big oil, coal, etc, but their business is selling information to these companies, not shilling for them. The energy companies have plenty of alternatives for that.

      That's not to say that CERA is right, but they certainly are worth paying attention to.

      --
      Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
  2. No increase in oil demand? by greg_barton · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    And, if our demand for oil increases?

    The report, which suggests that world reserves are enough to last 122 years at our current rate of consumption...

    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?
    1. Re:No increase in oil demand? by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I like how they accuse Peak Oil theorists of delusion, and then they pretend that demand for oil isn't increasing in order to make their unlikely target realistic.

      "world oil production will continue to increase for the next 24 years, and then only level into a plateau."

      Yeah, a plateau is NOTHING like a "peak". Oh, they expect it to ever again INCREASE after 24 years? It sounds like the wonks that pegged the peak as far off as 24 years, [which seems unlikely due to their constant demand criteria which we know is wrong] can't even twist the numbers into something that means my kids will live to the age I am now before their world is shattered by transportation and energy crisis.

    2. Re:No increase in oil demand? by hamburger+lady · · Score: 4, Insightful

      actually, it's more like some dude in 1880 saying "if i just save $41 a year, i'll have $5000 in 122 years! $5000 will buy me a huge house!"

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
  3. I got news for these people by jbrader · · Score: 4, Insightful
    122 years ain't shit. The way things are going with medical research we might all still be around and wanting to gas up our Hummers in 122 years won't these guys be pissed then.

    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.
  4. I wonder... by chipset · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I wonder... by johnbr · · Score: 4, Insightful
      a) That is only true if you use oil to run the pumps. Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Hydro, Nuclear power are all viable options. Or even, *gasp*, coal and natural gas!
      b) People are tricksy things - some of them will find ways to clear the oil of the wells more efficiently.

      I know that many of you out there are young, and you probably find the prospect of the mundane existence that we all share to be terrifyingly bland. Many of you are hoping, in your secret hearts, that *something* changes and the world becomes a much different place, where a 9 to 5 existence in a cube farm is no longer a possibility. So you latch on to disaster scenarios, like Catastrophic Global Warming and Peak Oil, because they offer the kind of dramatic "world-changing" catastrophe you hope to bear witness to - to be one of the survivors, one of the pioneers of the new, simpler Earth.

      (and for those of you who read this and say "That's not me", that's fine. I'm not talking to you)

      But Peak Oil is not the catastrophe you might hope it will be. It will result, at worst, in a gradual increase in oil prices, causing people and countries to shift slowly away from oil-consuming technologies. It might be messy, and there might be shortages (although virtually all shortages will be caused by government price caps), but the fundamentals of the market have not changed just because Peak Oil is capitalized.

      Many people criticize CERA, and claim they are industry shills. Fair enough, I make no claim as to their veracity and ethical fiber. However, don't forget that the Peak Oil advocates are also receiving money and attention for their claims, and the more catastrophic a picture they paint, the more money and attention they receive. For a professor or a scholar, notoriety is as valuable as cash in terms of book deals, speaking engagements, etc.

      Let's review:

      • Demand for a good causes the price to rise.
      • The rising price gives businesses the incentives to supply that good to the market.
      • As the supply increases to meet the demand, the price levels off, reducing the incentives for new entrants.
      • Changes in supply may cause existing suppliers to fall short.
      • This causes other businesses to enter the market, and provide supply, possibly in a variety of new ways. Many of the world's paradigm shifts happen because a businessman discovers a novel and unusual way to solve a problem.
      • This causes the supply to increase, or causes the demand to fall.
      There is nothing about the oil industry that does not fit this model. We know that we don't capture all the oil from the existing wells. We know there are lots of alternatives, both in terms of oil-like solutions and solutions that are completely unrelated to oil (solar, nuclear, telecommuting). We know that as the price rises, people will drive their cars less (we saw that after Katrina, for example) *You* know that if the price of gas was $10 a gallon, you would find ways to reduce the number of trips you took, take public transportation, carpool or walk, or find other ways to reduce your personal gas costs.

      Well, everyone else can take those options as well.

      There is no catastrophe here. It is not going to happen. If you want to fret about a catastrophe, contemplate supervolcanos and asteroid strikes, and how much the survival of every living thing on earth depends on humanity's ability to advance technologically as rapidly as possible.

  5. Re:From the first link by s20451 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not seeing the incentive for an energy company to pretend peak oil doesn't exist.

    In fact, the scarcer oil seems, the higher the price goes, and the more money the oil companies make.

    --
    Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
  6. In other words by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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."

  7. Re:Well, let's take a look at the speakers by Ferretman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In other words, people who would actually KNOW....are you implying that environmentalists wouldn't have a bias as well?

    Steve

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  8. I will believe this .... by Aging_Newbie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. They are supposed to be debunking peak oil theory? by AmazingRuss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:WTF by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The "Peak Oil" theory describes the effects of new technology as well - the only thing that new technology that does is put off the "Peak" a little longer (and uses up R&D resources that could've been directed toward a sustainable energy infrastructure).

    Unless we discover a source of oil that is infinitely-renewing (and renewed in a time period that is useful to our society), we _will_ eventually hit the "Peak Oil" doom-and-gloom scenario. It's inevitable no matter what kind of oil-recovery technology keeps on getting developed.