Oil Quiz - Test Your Knowledge
Posted by Gail the Actuary on June 11, 2007 - 11:30am
I wrote this quiz back in March, but this is the first time it has appeared on TOD. The answers to the quiz tell the peak oil story. You may want to share it with your friends and loved ones.
Quiz:
1. United States oil production has been increasing at about 2% per year since 1960.
a. True
b. False
2. Saudi Arabia is currently the largest producer of oil in the world.
a. True
b. False
3. Each country publishes information about its reserves. This gives us pretty good information about future oil production.
a. True
b. False
4. The following were the largest oil producing countries in 2005: Saudi Arabia, Russia, United States, Iran, China, Mexico, Norway, and Venezuela. Of these, which showed declining production in 2006?
a. None of them. Oil production is growing almost everywhere.
b. Only Norway and Venezuela
c. Six of the eight: Saudi Arabia, United States, Iran, Mexico, Norway, and Venezuela.
d. All of them
5. Increases in Canadian oil production as a result of developing the Canadian Oil Sands can be expected to offset declines in oil production elsewhere.
a. True
b. False
6. If oil production in an oil-exporting country declines by, say, 5% per year, oil exports are expected to decline by a similar amount.
a. True
b. False
7. Geologists are in agreement that worldwide oil production can be expected to continue to rise, at least until 2030.
a. True
b. False
8. If worldwide oil production were to decline at 2% per year for several years, this could easily be accommodated with little disruption.
a. True
b. False
9. If there is a worldwide shortage of oil, the richest countries can be expected to get the majority of the oil, and within those richest countries, the wealthiest people can be expected to get the largest share.
a. True
b. False
10. If we know that a major oil shortage is on the horizon, we can make necessary changes (develop alternative fuels and plug in electric vehicles, for example) in a five year period.
a. True
b. False
11. Even after oil production in an area declines, there is still a substantial amount of oil remaining in the ground.
a. True
b. False
12. Technological solutions will overcome the likely oil shortfall.
a. True
b. False
c. We can't know yet.
Answers:
1. United States oil production has been increasing at about 2% per year since 1960.
Answer: False
Above is a graph (Figure 1) of US oil production. The blue line shows US 48 states total production; the red line shows the US total, including Alaska.
A person can see from this graph that oil production for the United States reached a peak in 1970, then began declining. The addition of oil from Alaska allowed production to reach a second lower peak in 1985, after which it began to decline again. The current rate of decline is about 2% per year.
In most areas, oil production initially rises, then declines after about 50% of the available oil in the area has been recovered. For example, Figure 2 shows a graph of production from the North Sea (that is, near Norway and Great Britain). Production grew for several years, then reached a peak and began declining in 1999.
If the United States does additional drilling in new locations, such as Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, or Jack 2, or along the outer continental shelf near Florida, geologists expect that US oil production (Figure 1) will show a modest increase for a few years, but will not approach the level of production seen in 1970 or 1985.
2. Saudi Arabia is currently the largest producer of oil in the world.
Answer: False.
Saudi Arabia was the largest producer of oil up until 2005, but its production recently has been declining. Russia is now the largest producer of oil. In 2006, Saudi Arabia produced 9,152,000 barrels per day while Russia produced 9,246,000 barrels per day, based on March 2007 US Energy Information Agency data.
Saudi Arabia is the still the largest oil exporter. While Russia produces more, its population is greater, so it has less to export.
3. Each country publishes information about its reserves. This gives us pretty good information about future oil production.
Answer: False
There are three reasons the published reserve numbers give very poor information about expected future production:
1. Reserve numbers appear to be seriously overstated for some countries, based on geological information from other sources. This is particularly an issue for Mideastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran. Questions have also been raised with respect to Russia's reserves. Since reserve data is unaudited, there is no direct way of checking the accuracy of the reported amounts.
2. Even if oil is theoretically available, the amount of production in any one year may be very low because of technical issues. If oil is very thick, as in the Oil Sands of Canada and in Venezuela, it may be impractical to recover more than a very small percentage in any one year, because of the large inputs of heat (usually from natural gas) and fresh water required. Oil that is in very deep water, or that is in an area near icebergs, may also be difficult to recover very quickly, because of the need for special equipment.
3. Even if the oil is in the ground, a country can choose to delay production until later. We are used to countries producing as much oil as they can sell. If it becomes clear that there will be an oil shortage in future years, countries may decided to husband their resources (keep part of their oil in the ground, in case they need it later).
4. The following were the largest oil producing countries in 2005: Saudi Arabia, Russia, United States, Iran, China, Mexico, Norway, and Venezuela. Of these, which showed declining production in 2006?
Answer: c. Six of the eight: Saudi Arabia, United States, Iran, Mexico, Norway, and Venezuela, as shown in Figure 3 below.
The fact that six of the eight largest oil producers have declining oil production in the first 10 months of 2006 is of concern because oil production in an area tends to rise for several years, and then decline year after year, once geological limits are reached. The fact that these six countries are showing declining production could mean than many (or all) of them have reached the point of geological decline, and thus can be expected to show declining production in the future. It is also possible that some of the declines in production are due to temporary situations, such as intentional reduction of production or equipment breakdowns.
On the exhibit, we note that the United States, Mexico, and Norway have all indicated that their production declines are for geological reasons, and thus can be expected to continue. The situation is less clear for Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela, all of which are members of OPEC.
The reason the comparison in Figure 3 is made for the first 10 months of 2006, rather than the whole year, is because OPEC announced a reduction in production as of November 1, and cutting off the data at October 31 eliminates this potential distortion. Thus, this exhibit shows that even before the announced cutbacks, the three large OPEC producers (Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela) were all showing declining production.
5. Increases in Canadian oil production as a result of developing the Canadian Oil Sands can be expected to offset declines in oil production elsewhere.
Answer: b. False
If we look at production from the Canadian Oil Sands, we find that it is only a tiny percentage of world production -- 0.8% of world production in 1998, rising to 1.2% of world production in 2005, after billions of dollars of investment.
Oil from the Oil Sands is extremely difficult to produce. Production requires large inputs of fresh water and natural gas, both of which are in short supply. There is also a shortage of workers and housing for workers. There is discussion about eventually replacing part of the natural gas with nuclear energy, but this will not overcome all of the difficulties. Given how low production is today, and how slow it has been to scale up, it seems unlikely that production will ever be large enough to offset a significant oil production shortfall elsewhere.
Production of Oil Shale in the Western United States is expected to be even more challenging than Oil Sands production. The concentration of potential fossil fuel is much lower in Oil Shale than in Oil Sands, so even more production problems of the type encountered with Oil Sands can be expected. Given the slow progress with Oil Sands, Oil Shale seems even less likely to offset a major oil shortage.
6. If oil production in an oil-exporting country declines by, say, 5% per year, oil exports are expected to decline by a similar amount.
Answer: b. False
When a country increases its oil production, its internal usage tends to rise even faster than exports, as the population grows and some of the wealth filters down to the citizens of the country. When the oil production starts to decline, residents expect to continue their standard of living. As a result, countries tend to keep their own consumption at close to the same level, and reduce exports. This pattern was true for the United States when its production began to fall, and it seems to be happening in a number of other countries.
Given these considerations, if a country's oil production decreases by 5%, we should expect that country's exports will decrease by more than 5%.
7. Geologists are in agreement that worldwide oil production can be expected to continue to rise, at least until 2030.
Answer: b. False
We have already seen evidence that in a given area, oil production tends to rise for a number of years, then decline. Most geologists believe that on a worldwide basis, production will also eventually begin to decline. Opinions vary as to when the decline will begin. Typical dates are between 2007 and 2012, although some believe the decline will not begin until 2020 or later.
One reason why geologists are predicting a decline in production is the fact that oil discoveries (excluding Oil Sands, Oil Shale, and other "unconventional" sources) began declining over 40 years ago. The fields that have been found recently, including the much publicized Jack 2 field, tend to be fewer and smaller than the fields found years ago.
While geologists generally believe that oil production will begin to decline in only a few years, governmental agencies, like the US Energy Information Agency, are projecting that oil production growth will continue until at least 2030. Some of the independent oil companies are also projecting long-term growth in production.
Economists have had a surprisingly large say in this discussion. Their view is that it doesn't matter whether oil production begins to decline or not. They believe that oil is like any other commodity, and that substitutes will be found. They also believe that scarcity will lead to higher prices which will lead to greater production and/or demand destruction, so that declining oil production will never be a significant issue.
8. If worldwide oil production were to decline at 2% per year for several years, this could easily be accommodated with little disruption.
Answer: b. False
One might think that a 2% decline in world oil production could easily be accommodated, but several issues arise:
1. In recent years, worldwide oil usage has been increasing by about 2% a year. Much of this increase in demand is from China and from other oil-producing countries that have previously had a low standard of living. Because we are used to a 2% annual increase in oil worldwide oil usage, the 2% a year expected decrease needs to be compared to the prior increase of +2% per year. This amounts to a change of -4%, relative to what we are accustomed to -- quite a big decline.
2. If worldwide production oil decreases by 2% per year, the amount of oil available to importers is likely to decrease by more than 2% a year, for reasons discussed in the answers to Question 6. Because the United States' own production is dropping at 2% a year, in recent years our imports have been increasing at 5% a year, to keep up with demand. If imports suddenly become less available, US supplies are likely to drop by much more than 2% a year.
3. The US economy and the world economy use very large amounts of debt. When the economy is growing by several percentage points per year, there are enough funds available that most debtors can repay their debts with interest. If, because of oil shortages, the economy ceases to grow, or if it begins shrinking by a few percentage points a year, it is not clear this system can continue. There are likely to be many defaults on loans, and long-term loans, including mortgages, may become very difficult to obtain.
4. Once it becomes clear there are likely to be oil shortages in the future, the behavior of countries is likely to change. We are already seeing oil producing nations, like Russia and Venezuela, unilaterally adjusting oil contracts to terms that are more favorable to themselves, because of their new, greater power. If it is clear that prices will be higher in the future, oil producers have an incentive to hoard their supplies for the future. Some countries with inadequate supplies may choose military approaches for obtaining oil, if the alternative is economic decline.
9. If there is a worldwide shortage of oil, the richest countries can be expected to get the majority of the oil, and within those richest countries, the wealthiest people can be expected to get the largest share.
Answer: b. False
For reasons discussed previously, oil exporting countries are likely to get a disproportionate share of the remaining oil, since they are likely to meet their own needs first. With oil shortages, oil producing countries find themselves with more power, and are able to rewrite contracts on terms more favorable to themselves. Thus, it seems likely that the amount of oil available to oil-importing countries will decline disproportionately to the overall decline.
Within countries, governments are likely to allocate oil to what they consider their country's most basic needs first - most likely agriculture, the military, and perhaps emergency services. If there is a shortage to begin with, once these allocations are taken off the top, the remaining amount of oil available to consumers is likely to be considerably lower than the total demand. It is possible the remaining oil will be sold to the wealthiest individuals, but if elected officials are involved, rationing may be more likely.
10. If we know that a major oil shortage is on the horizon, we can make necessary changes (develop alternative fuels and plug in electric vehicles, for example) in a five year period.
b. False
The US Department of Energy commissioned a study titled Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management, by Robert Hirsch, Roger Bezdek, and Robert Wendling, published in early 2005. This study indicated that if existing technology is used, it would take at least 10 years to begin to mitigate a decline in oil production. Twenty years would produce a much better level of mitigation.
The reason mitigation is expected to take so long is that there is so much infrastructure in place that uses the current technology. If a decision is made to increase fuel efficiency standards for cars, for example, it takes many years before this decision has a significant impact. First, it takes several years for manufacturers to begin making new models, then many more years before enough autos are sold to comprise a significant share of the US total. If liquid fuel is made from coal (a technology that has been around since World War II), it takes several years for factories to be built and new coal facilities to be developed.
Because of these considerations, it is difficult to make any major change very quickly. If we are talking about developing new technologies, like plug-in electric vehicles or cellulistic ethanol, we should expect even longer lead times, since new technologies need to be developed and tested, before they can be implemented on a large scale.
11. Even after oil production in an area declines, there is still a substantial amount of oil remaining in the ground.
Answer: a. True
Even after production ceases, a substantial amount (typically 50% to 75% of the oil originally in place) remains in the ground. New production techniques have been developed over the years, but these have generally had only a minor impact on the percentage of oil in place that can be produced. If one looks at the graph of the production for the US-48 states shown in Figure 1 above, or the production for the North Sea shown in Figure 2, one can discern little impact of new techniques in the last few years. Some believe that the primary impact of new techniques has been to remove oil more quickly, rather than to significantly raise the percentage of oil that can be recovered.
Given that there is still a substantial amount of oil is the ground, there is a possibility that new techniques will be developed that will be able to remove a much larger portion of the oil in place in an economical fashion. If this can be done, an oil shortage can perhaps be avoided for quite a few more years.
12. Technological solutions will overcome the likely oil shortfall.
Answer: c. We can't know yet.
Since there are many people working on the problem, and since there is still a lot of oil in place, there is a possibility that solutions will be found to the likely shortfall in oil production. There are many issues that make the problem particularly difficult, however:
- There is a very long lead time for any new technology to be implemented.
- It appears likely that there will be a shortage of natural gas in North America, in roughly the same time frame as the expected decline in worldwide oil production.
- Global warming is becoming a serious enough issue that it is questionable whether we should burn the additional fossil fuels that are in the ground, if we can get them out.
- We have a large world population and limited fresh water and top soil, limiting the amount of biofuels that can be produced.
The above issues all relate to the fact that we live in a finite world and are approaching its limits. Researchers will need to understand all these various issues, in addition to the problem of oil shortages, to avoid trading one problem for another.
UPDATE: A link to this quiz in .pdf form can be found here:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/OilQuiz.pdf
To Learn More
Dr. Colin Campbell - Peak Oil Presentation - The End of the First Half of the Age of Oil (33 minute video for Windows/Mac or IPOD/mp3)
Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management (US Department of Energy report mentioned above)
"Energy Sources and Our Future" - Remarks by Rear Admiral Hyman Rickover in 1957
Labor and Skills Crisis in Oil and Gas Industry Booklet by Booz, Allen, and Hamilton
Questions for Discussion (for use in a classroom setting):
1. If your family were permitted to purchase only five gallons of gasoline per week, how would this change your lifestyle?
2. Geologists and economists seem to have very different ideas regarding the importance of the decline of oil. Who would you agree with? Why?
3. Oil production in Mexico began to decline in the past year, and is expected to continue to decline in the future. In the past, revenue from oil income has been one of the country’s primary sources of tax revenue. What kinds of changes would you expect in Mexico, as production declines in the next few years?
4. If you were the President of the United States and knew about the likelihood of oil shortages, what policies would you recommend? If you knew that it was likely that worldwide oil production was about to decline, would you tell the American people?
5. Some people have suggested that there may be a link between expected future oil shortages and the war in Iraq. How likely do you consider such a connection to be?
6. Given the likelihood of oil shortages in the future, what might be good careers for young people making choices today?
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Nice work, Gail! This should be a great outreach tool. What kind of audiences have you been using it on so far, and what are their responses?
I have posted a link to this on TOD previously, and I have had quite a few readers on my site - I would guess about 4,000. It has also been copied on at least two other sites.
I am not sure of the extent to which it has been used as curriculum. I know one professor specifically told me he was using it in his creative writing course.
That sounds like me, but it's actually College Writing, not Creative Writing.
This is an essay-writing course. Students have to learn to use and cite sources. The final project concerns peak oil. I use Gail's quiz to underline how little students really know about energy.
it might be my first day's reading in my energy policy course in the fall. that's how much I think of it.
9. Being slightly cynical. True.
However, Americans may be surprised by the list of newly-emerging truly rich countries, many of which cannot be found on a map by most Americans. Yet.
Some Americans may also be surprised by a list of newly-emerging countries whose currencies have tanked due to prolonged periods of large trade deficits.
I agree... i would argue there already is a shortage of oil and the richest countries already out bid the weak..
how come oil exporting countries such as Venezuela,Iran and iRaq consume less oil per capita than the USA?
the basis for my determination of shortage is there is not enough production for everyone to have a US lifestyle..
Boris
London
There are even more implications than that.
The Cold War ended, because the Soviet Union ran out of cash. The NATO countries were able to outspend the Warsaw Pact countries in terms of military spending.
However, Russia has now become the largest oil producer in the world. As the price of FF rises due to PO, Russia will (temporarily) become extremely rich, i.e., Russia won't have problems any longer to keep up with the U.S. or even beat the U.S. in terms of military spending.
Consequently, Russia is very likely going to get back its "superpower" status sooner rather than later, and this time around, they'll be able to outspend the U.S.
To expand on your excellent observation, Saudia Arabia increased production of oil, driving down prices of oil to below Russian oil extraction costs. Thus Saudia Arabia, not just Reagan, caused the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
Rib,
Nice Quiz.Would you have a PDF version or a link were I can Print it as a hand out.
Thanks
I use both a Mac OS X and a PC Windows XP computers.
Find someone with a Mac running OS X and open this page. Select Print, which normally would go to print a paper copy. An option on the bottom of the Mac OS X box is to "Print" to a disk file in .pdf format which is readable by all computers with Adobe Reader. By selecting the Pages to "print" to the .pdf file you can either get just the Quiz or include the comments too.
Other options include automatically attaching the .pdf file to a blank email, or FAX .pdf. and Adobe Reader can print paper copies of the .pdf file.
The latest version of Adobe Reader includes a link to Kinkos to upload the .pdf file to Kinkos and let them print as many copies as you want.
The resulting .pdf file are exact images of the TOD pages including all credits The Sidebars and ads are not included, only the Post and TOD header.
There should be a website up with a PDF version of the articles later this afternoon. I will post a link when that is available.
Here is a link to the .pdf:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/OilQuiz.pdf
Thanks for .pdf link
It is better quality than the Mac OS X workaround I posted above will produce.
"Economists have had a surprisingly large say in this discussion. Their view is that it doesn't matter whether oil production begins to decline or not. They believe that oil is like any other commodity, and that substitutes will be found. They also believe that scarcity will lead to higher prices which will lead to greater production and/or demand destruction, so that declining oil production will never be a significant issue."
This is an important comment. Years ago I told a senior professor at Stanford that petroleum depletion would irreversibly and radically alter the function of social economies worldwide. He shot back, without missing a beat, that before depletion occurred substitutes for petroleum would enter the market and a seamless segway would be obtained. He then made passing reference to the German production during the second world war of petroleum substitutes. My take on this professor was he was ignorant, arrogant and presumptuous (Brings to mind Rene Dubois statement that "Trend is not destiny.".)
Perhaps what will occur are failed attempts at substitutionthat will jolt our "leadership" to realize that future petroleum prospects are not what they used to be.
One thing I want to do is put together a piece on coal-to-liquid, talking about how much it would really cost, what it would require in terms of amount of coal per year, and how much gasoline this would actually replace. Also some of the many other issues - would we really have enough water in Wyoming to produce a huge amount of coal-to-liquid, or would we need to transport the coal to locations with sufficient water.
I talk more about the problem with economists in the article I wrote for actuaries Our Finite World: Implications for Actuaries"
One of the recommendations I make in that article is that actuaries begin to question economic models. Actuaries are not economists, but parts of their work are quite closely related to economics. Thus, actuaries should be in a better position to begin questioning what the economists are saying than most other professions.
I doubt that this is going to happen on any scale soon - economists must outnumber actuaries at least 100 to 1, and most actuaries are used to models that assume infinite growth.
<< My take on this professor was he was ignorant, arrogant and presumptuous (Brings to mind Rene Dubois statement that "Trend is not destiny.".)>>
Perhaps he has an MBA. I was told (at Stanford) that MBAs are "often wrong but never in doubt".
Interesting, but would be much more persuasive to people outside the peak oil community if it was less arrogant and presumptuous.
And, don't kid yourself, it's both.
The key problem is that answers to the questions are presented as fact when that's only true for some of them; some "answers" are pure opinion. For example:
That is one of the key points you're trying to make, and hence presenting it as if it were a "fact" that you're "testing" people's knowledge of looks dangerously like Begging the Question to an outsider who doesn't already agree with you. Presenting opinion as "fact" is a common facet of bogus theories with fanatical adherents, meaning you're sabotaging your own argument by doing so - the last thing you want is to set yourself up to look like a crackpot.
You would do much better to structure the "answers" to anything controversial as you have for question #12: "we don't know...but here are my arguments for what I think will happen."
Not only does that come across as being much more honest and much less patronizing, it has the added benefit of splitting the things that truly are facts away from your opinions, and hence opening the possibility of educating people who completely disagree with you.
This mixing of fact and opinion is, by the way, likely to be one of the reasons people often report they're frustrated with their attempts to "educate others about peak oil". I'm willing to bet that if any of those people tried educating others about the non-controversial facts of the matter - oil demand is huge, it's been growing exponentially, production is falling in most developed countries, production growth is largely in unstable regions, there's a finite amount of oil so eventually production must peak, etc. - they'd have no trouble getting agreement.
The problem comes when people try "educating" others about their beliefs and opinions. Two reasonable people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions, so trying to "educate" someone about a belief is a recipe for failure. You educate someone about facts - about things which they can measure for themselves if they disagree with you - and you change people's beliefs by discussion.
Framing that discussion as "I am educating you" is patronizing and arrogant, and puts people on the defensive - hardly a surprise it doesn't work.
Try carefully splitting out true facts from your interpretations and beliefs about those facts - I bet you'll get a whole lot further in talking to outsiders about peak oil.
I'd agree that the answers to #s 6, 8 and 12 are not clearly decided yet. As far as #9, the upper middle class might be hit with rationing, but I doubt that wealthy people will not get the cream of whatever is available.
Couldn't disagree more. I, for one, am tired of pussyfooting around the issues. Does anyone doubt that CERA and the rest of the cornucopians have not been effective with their arrogant misrepresentations? State the facts as you believe them and go from there. I have read as much as anyone on this issue, in the last fifteen years, and I can assure you that noone yet has convinced me there is a technological solution. The basic problem is replacing infrastructure without the energy to do so. Hirsch has it right. Nice job Gail. This is a good tool.
treeman asks,
"Does anyone doubt that CERA and the rest of the cornucopians have not been effective with their arrogant misrepresentations?"
Opinion here, but to me that is a fascinating question in a way...
The public now seems to be breaking into three major camps:
(a) Those who see the energy issue as it was in the 1970's, a temporary technical/political problem caused by underinvestment and geo political issues, but feel there is still more than enough oil/gas for the foreseeable future (the position that is pretty much put forth by the Department of Energy EIA, and the American Petroleum Council, OPEC, and spread by ExxonMobil advertising)
(b)Those who see the energy issue as much or more in terms of national and economic security as an issue of " peak soon" (which they feel cannot be known or proven), but do feel that conservation and major alternatives should be underway now because [1] of the importance to national security and balance of payments with or without peak soon and [2] Because it is a new technical and market opportunity that we do not want to lag behind other major market competitors in. (I view myself as in this camp)
(c) a much smaller group (as a percent of the total population, but but very present and vocal here on TOD in high concentration) who feel that there is virtually nothing that can be done, (a smaller subset of that group feel that peak is a blessing and nothing should be done) the "modern" world is essentially finished, and the only thing one can do is take an essentially "survivalist" position, divorcing perrsonal effort from the effort of the society at large.
For most average citizens, CERA is as unknown as TOD, and the involved arguements around this issues of "peak" are about as obscure as water polo or curling, a sport for the fanatics and nothing more.
For most people I have talked to, the reports in the media from the EIA, the commercials by ExxonMobil, and industry lobbying council commercials and releases (the API and the NPC) carry much more weight than CERA or TOD, both of whom are viewed as being heavily biased and without access to real "inside" information that the oil and gas industry would have. (Sorry, that's just the way people feel)
One last thing: Most educated people do not believe that the major industry groups would outright "lie" to the public, and assertions of "conspiracies" and "iron triangles" and such make the person making the accusation sound a little bit "wacky". And if the assertion that the banks, car companies, real estate agents the "mainsteam press", and oil companies are aligned in some kind of giant conspiracy....well....that really causes people to shake thier heads...(I once sent a friend here (the guy is in the investment industry, very well read) and he landed on a whole string of that stuff....now he thinks I am bit of a kook....an error that I cannot afford to make again.)
As far as Gail's quiz, I thought it was very well done, about as much as can be done with what we know, and her answer about technology "we don't know yet", I think is exactly the right answer.
Even those of us who hold out a rather positive view of possibilities do not for one second deny that it is going to be a hard tough effort to make major changes in a the near future. But, peak soon or not, it HAS to be done, for the sake of our nation and the world.
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Roger: I would love to see your evidence supporting your assertion that most "educated people" do not believe they are being lied to. In fact, you might be the only "educated" person I have ever encountered who is not aware that they are constantly being lied to. If one was going to be lied to, it certainly would not be coming from banks, car companies, or RE agents.The "investment" industry is renowned for its honesty.
Marketing omissions of an industry trying to sell you a better vacuum cleaner aren't what he's talking about. He's talking about nutball conspiracy theories that view the world divided into the conspirators and the dupes.
Hoover might not tell me that their vacuum breaks down twice as often as some competitor and is a fire danger during power surges, but they're not going to tell me that it has a magical leprechaun inside the sack that gives away gold after ten years of the purchase, nor am I likely to believe that Hoover plotted to continue the mess in the middle east to provide a market for their vacuums.
I'm inclined to agree with you. If there's one thing the right-wing spin machine has taught us, it's that being certain carries more weight than being accurate. :-/
I'm sure many here will find what you say unpalatable, but you make a very good point. Dressing opinion as fact is a very good way to turn people off. As soon as you appear to be "selling" an opinion, people develop resistance. They'll even prefer to believe the opposite, eg. PO is a conspiracy put about by greedy oil companies.
If you want to engage people, ask them what they think, don't tell them what they should think.
On some level, people must worry that the party can't last forever, but they certainly don't want to talk about it out loud.
I dimly recall a story. At a concentration camp, people were being herded into the gas chambers, and one of them was trying to tell the rest that they were all going to be killed. They all told him to shut up, to stop scaring everyone, "Why do you want to say something like that? You'll scare the women!"
He was received about like the old Moken fisherman who warned of the tsunami. Even his daughter initially thought he was drunk or a liar.
The lesson seems to be that warning everyone is only welcome if there is an obvious problem (Fire!) and a straightforward solution (get out of the building). Warning everyone that recession and deprivation are looming unless we rethink our entire lifestyle just frustrates people who want more of the fossil-assisted lifestyle, not less.
I agree that any projection of the future is still somewhat uncertain.
Doing this write-up as a quiz means that to some extent a person has to make a clear determination one way or another. I chose to take only one of the three questions about future events, and make it fence-sitting. The one I did make fence sitting, I see that Darwinian, down below, is objecting to my stance. So you have some people on both sides.
When I decided to do some writing on the internet, my daughter, who is a graduate student in creative writing, said that it was hardly worth the bother to write, unless you could get people's attention. One way of doing that was with a quiz. I have gotten quite a bit of attention with it this way. It is hard to get attention by being wishy-washy.
I probably feel more strongly than most about the 2% decline being likely to lead to serious problems because of analyses I have written about what is likely to happen in the future. One of these is Our World Is Finite: Is This a Problem?. Another is Our Finite World: Implications for Actuaries.
Pitt the Elder, you make a lot of good points. However, I am not so arrogant as to think myself the equal of someone who has passed actuarial exams (Gail) or possesses a PhD in physics (Goodstein, Stuart Staniford) or a PhD in geology (Hubbert, Deffeyes) or who is a Nobel laureate in chemistry (don't know his name - the guy at Rice University in Texas). At this point, I'm resigned to just saying when it becomes painfully obvious to my friends and family, "I'm sorry you didn't listen." IMHO, there's no comparison between the above-named folks and the rest of us. I'm ready for the flaming responses now.
Skip,
I don't consider it arrogant to disbelieve those who TELL you 'this is the way it is' when your life or future is in the balance.
That to me is arrogance. Screw their degrees. Life experiences IMO count for far more. Science has lead us,knowingly or not to this brink or had a very large hand in it. I read them but only as 'opinions' and not factual. Its up to each of us to make our own choices.
I have sat in far far too many classrooms and been subjected to utter bullshit for me to ever take anything as 'factual' and told 'trust me'.
Not a flame,just my take. I also don't listen too much to preachers and distrust most physicians. Greed is the motivator for many in these areas.
Airdale-The truth is out there,its just been twisted and used to sell merchandise or screw you over
With all due respect to the people you mentioned, odds are that their position and education affords them a sheltered lifestyle.
Just like they can read scientific data, others can read the street, and what happens on the street can have a significant effect on the outcome if even just in the short term.
Look at Iraq, the failure is a failure to read the street.
I agree with Pitt on this issue.
When this quiz first surfaced I read the questions and found that I disagreed with quite a bit of it. Not on the baseline areas but upon how it was stated. Stated as though it was totally factual when it surely isn't.
I haven't taken this one but intend to yet but already I see some areas that I would term pretentious.
I think it can have real value for some but Joe SixPack is not going to buy it IMO. Not until its way too late. For a class setting? I think it far, far more valuable in that area and that as a 'lightening rod' to bring forth worthwhile discussion.
However I am naturally reticent to take ANYTHING on face value simply because it is stated as factual whether the factual part is stated or implied. I will absorb the information but withhold judgment for myself.
I am all for a variety of presentations of the peak oil story. I think people should be writing their version of the story in a way that will "sell" to the particular group that they belong to - farmers, airline pilots, business executives, homemakers, or whatever.
I have written one version of the story for insurance executives and another version for actuaries. This is a third version, aimed particularly where something provocative is needed for classroom discussion, but also useful for some others. I don't expect everyone will like it - but hopefully it will fill one needed role.
Now that there is a PDF version, perhaps it will get more circulation.
Gail,
It is a very useful document however you are playing to a crowd on TOD that is very tough. And thats as it should be since you get a very good audit.
As a one time teacher/instuctor we had plenty of critiques and classroom audits by our peers. To me this is the way to refine educational techniques.
In todays schools (public educ), where my daughter teaches and has a degree in Instructional Technology, I find that in room critiques are just not done. In fact I find my own daughter to not be that good with her profession of teaching,granted todays schools are not what I taught in. I taught in the area of aeronautics and rocket techology where flunking was not an option.
Airdale
I think Pitt the Elders criticisms are both justified and astute. This would make a great little handout for education of folks-look how the National Council on Alcoholisms little quiz on drinking problems has really helped alcohol awareness and treatment in the 35 years or so of its existance.
There needs to be more peak oil outreach. I could see this quiz being used in settings like Sunday Scools of mainstream Christian Denominations, or groups like the Sierra Club, Rotary Clubs,ect. There are lots of groups looking for programs that are interesting and relevant for their members.
The way that change will happen is (1.)we modify our own behavior first (2.) We spread the Peak Oil meme. To be most effective in propogating our ideas, we need to stay focused and neutral about other issues. One of the big things about the mechanism of denial is that the denier looks for any reason why the facts don't apply to him/her.
Hi Pitt,
I like your points, though want to begin by saying...
re: "Interesting, but would be much more persuasive to people outside the peak oil community if it was less arrogant and presumptuous."
I had a strong defensive reaction to this; I think because the labels "arrogant" and "presumptuous" seem to apply to people. And here's Gail out there really trying to educate people. In other words, my bet is her intentions are so much the opposite.
Anyhow, to me, it would help if she re-wrote this question with active voice - that might take care of both of our concerns (see mine below).
This is such a crucial point, namely
--who will accommodate?
--who can accommodate?
--what are the least painful ways to accommodate?
I think she means (please correct me Gail) - to draw attention to the need for deliberate action. That the problem "won't solve itself."
My suggestion for Gail would be to work on this question a little more. Maybe something like
"If worldwide oil production begins to decline at the rate of 2%, countries, corporations and families could easily make small changes to deal with the decline."
It's such a crucial point.
What are the likely effects?
What can we do now to offset the likely effects?
Very important issues. I'd suggest perhaps spending a bit more time on this point, (though I personally don't seem to come up with any suggestions I really like...off the top of my head).
Totally agree. The clear split between facts and beliefs would be the correct scientific methodology to present issues, the best way to stimulate discussion, and to persue the comprehension of facts by whom is not deep into the matter (like myself).
Five gallons per week? (Does quick calculation... about 19 L/week, or 80 L per month) Well, that would change our lifestyle not at all, because we generally buy half that much. (Actually diesel; we fill up with about 45 L roughly once a month).
That's for about 10,000 km a year (6250 miles) in a VW Golf TDI, a car that easily seats 2 adults and 2 children (or 5 adults if they're not too big or don't mind being squished), plus a bike rack and more than adequate cargo space.
No doubt many people feel they must have two cars and must commute long distances but, well... perhaps suburbia is underpriced? d'ya think?
It depends how it is implemented.
While 5 gallons a week is much more then what I use, if you could only get 5 gallons a week without banking what you don't use then it would take away several of my annual trips.
In other words, approximately 250 gallons a year would be no problem at all, but 5 gallons a week would take away quite a bit.
Always depends on the fine print.
For example, what would be considered a exempt business? as obviously a business would be dead held to 5 gallons a week.
I have a serious problem with that answer. It is extremely unlikely that technological solutions will overcome oil shortfall. In fact, I think the likelihood is absolutely nil. As Kunstler continually points out, there is a fundamental difference between energy and technology. And the idea that technology fixes will prevent major alternations in our lifestyle is called Cargoism by Catton in “Overshoot”.
I think it is blatantly obvious that the decline in liquid fossil fuel will force major changes in our lifestyle and cause serious hardship to the human population.
Ron Patterson
I really think that your view has a 95%+ probability of being correct, but I had to leave a little room for hope in the article.
I received some criticism up above for answering some questions about the future as if they are fact, when in fact they are opinion. This was my compromise - trying to allow a little room for the possibility that things might turn out better than they look now.
Darwinian says,
"I think it is blatantly obvious that the decline in liquid fossil fuel will force major changes in our lifestyle and cause serious hardship to the human population."
Who knows, we could even end up driving something like this:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/psa_peugeot_cit.html#more
THE HORROR! "Oh the darkness, the darkness!"
:-)
RC
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Re " horror, darkness"
I would probably end up driving something like this :
http://www.automotorsport.se/bigpix/2007/fiat500sida_big.jpg
Introduced July 4th this year. The new retro Fiat 500.
Does 56 mpg / with a 75 hp 1.2 liter diesel or 46 mpg with a 69 hp gasoline engine. No fancy stuff, just low weight and size.
And1
Most of the technology is here allready; The unknown is what the cost will be.
Theres nothing obvious about it. Its possible you could just kill off discresionary driving and the suburbs. A serious recession for a number of years I suppose. It depends how you define 'serious hardship'
And if oil production just plateaus with slowly increasing prices, it could be a rather minor recession at that. We dont know what the production pattern of the future will be or how much infrastructure adjustment costs will be or how that will directly effect the average consumer.
I was just reading that S.A. is again going to cut shipments to Asian refiners. That was on Bloomberg.
Could you please give a link to your reference?
Saudi Arabia Cuts Oil for Asia
Darwinian, we are reading about these KSA cuts to Asia monthly and I am beginning to see a trend in wording. This does not appear to be an additional cut on top of prior cuts. Rather, KSA appears to announce each month how much below the contracted volume they will deliver. They do this monthly so the cuts do not add up individually but are only applied to the month in which announced. Is that your understanding of these cut announcements? Anyone else?
Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett
GreyZone, I found this with news.google:
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/world.aspx?ID=BD4A488819
So it seems that the cuts in March were 7 to 8 percent but since April they have been 9 to 10 percent. Looks like they announce the cuts when they find out how much they can produce.
Ron Patterson
2% of 3.5mb/d (1/2 the 7mbpd) is only 70k barrels/day - that is not much of a mismatch between what was contracted and what was delivered - it could simply be that they didn't want to present the full drop in one hit.
Brilliant work.
Post Peak oil curves are most often based on best case geology fails to recognized the more likely, much steeper political and economic curtailments.
When Peak is critical, the fact that it will happen before we retool, may be fatal. What happens to organism when its circulatory system fails?
bill.james@jpods.com
It costs less to move less
Hi Gail,
Thank you! I like the format and the breadth of topics.
I'll list some impressions, and possibly a few suggestions, (just my very humble couple of cents), in case they're helpful.
re: #8."One might think that a 2% decline in world oil production could easily be accommodated, but several issues arise:"
It might be instructive to list sort of a "meta-answer" to begin with, like "What are ways we can answer this?"
The first would be to place in historical context. I'd say,eg.,
A) on the larger scale (humanity, on the whole, has gained access to ever-increasing supplies of high-grade energy).
B) Then, on the more date-bracketed (so to speak) historical side of things, with which I'm not really familiar - but the point is that any declines we have experienced in the past, either globally (in the past) or regionally, have been followed by inputs from other regions and/or increasing access.
Then, perhaps list the specifics. (And make the point this will no longer be the case.)
In other words, the idea being...well, what's happened in the past when we've had shortfalls?
Perhaps first, (though I'm out of order here) - could you make some statement about the degree of dependency? I don't see it explicitly stated. Talking about "debt" before talking about just the straight-up dependency might seem a bit confusing. I don't know.
Some very specific examples might be helpful, to illustrate the effect of decline. So, if oil extraction/production declines by 2%, (I'm just putting this out there, not that I can back it up!) - this means gasoline production/availability also declines by XXXX. This means, the total travel in each country has to decrease by the same amount one year, then the next year, etc.
In other words, perhaps give some specific examples, to paint a picture. I'm just thinking of this from the point of view of the novice. There's kind of a mix of levels of knowledge presumed here, it seems. Perhaps say something like, "to take just one sector of oil dependence, such as food transportation..."
I'm suggesting this, because (to me) the "easily accommodated" phrase, being a passive construction - (It doesn't say "who" would do the accommodating or "what" or "how") - kind of leaves me (the very literal reader) - in a rather vague place.
Perhaps just make it a bit more direct and with "agency", such as "If worldwide...production...declines, then manufacturers, farmers, and shippers could easily accommodate..." (Does this make sense?)
Just going for more of an active voice construction, with named agents.
#10. Perhaps you might want to list the - darn, I'll have to come back with ref. (I might lose what I've written, otherwise.)
#12. I'd suggest to change the wording somewhat. When you say "shortfall", it's not clear exactly which shortfall you're referring to - i.e., the phrase "the shortfall" seems to refer to what you say in the question that immediately precedes this one.
If it does, then the "shortfall" is between...what's left in the ground...? and...? (not as clear as it could be.)
In other words, I'd just add something to clarify "shortfall", i.e., between "what" and "what"?
"Supply and demand"? But talking about this can get tricky, as we've seen. Perhaps say something like "shortfall"..."between the infrastructure, industries and people who currently use oil (which is almost everyone on the planet, to some degree or other) and the availability of oil for purchase." (I'm sure you can say this better than I can.)
Sorry not in the right order here:
#11. Hmnn...I like that you address this point. I'm just wondering if it might not be good to put in another specific about the technology. Or something. I don't know. Quote Deffeyes? To me, the way you say it gives the impression that new extraction technologies are more on the likely side, whereas my impression from reading is that the probability of this is quite low.
"Even after production ceases, a substantial amount (typically 50% to 75% of the oil originally in place) remains in the ground."
Perhaps even say something like "The problem is - getting that oil out of the ground."
I've grown fond of the word "extraction", as opposed to "production"...which kind of sounds like more is being "made". (From somewhere.)
"one can discern little impact of new techniques in the last few years." Perhaps "the charts show we still have decline, despite new techniques."
Also, I'd say "some analysts" or some (whoever) when possible.
Re: Conclusion:
"Researchers will need to understand all these various issues, in addition to the problem of oil shortages, to avoid trading one problem for another."
I'd like to see this sentence perhaps changed...or one added for clarity. (or, even re-write?)
Let's see...perhaps to incorporate the idea that everyone needs to act, not just researchers. (Otherwise, we're left at the end of this entire thing thinking...it's all...up to researchers?)
"Researchers (who?)" - ones who are looking to...
Actually, back to #12. Are you meaning to refer to technologies in oil extraction only? Or in any energy production technologies? (Wind, solar, etc.)
Then, the researchers you refer to in your concluding sentence are ones...concerned with oil extraction? (solely?)...or...new technologies for energy production? or...?
And it might be nice to have a sentence about - people...learning...to live sustainably (or more sustainably?) Anyway, just trying to be helpful here. (If possible.)
Great topic...I am only certain of one thing. The uncertainty of the U.S.'s future. I found an article that really details the possible implications we may face if U.S. & Mexico cut ties, cutting our #2 oil supplier. Take a look and see what you think...
http://www.isecureonline.com/Reports/DRI/EDRIH668/
Enjoy...Cheers!
Question 5:
Oil from the Oil Sands is extremely difficult to produce.
It's true for now, but oil extraction from tar sands is a very active research area and some new processes seem very promising such as the THAI process presently under evaluation. Also, production from the Canadian tar sands is on track to double in 2007 and reach 2 mbpd. Remember that oil production from tar sands was judged almost as impossible back in the 90s by many.
It would be interesting to add a question on reserve growth.