 | Estimating the World Production Decline Rates from the Megaproject Forecasts | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: November 20, 2007 |  |
WSJ Article - Oil Officials See Limit Looming on Production
Posted by Gail the Actuary on November 19, 2007 - 8:00pm
Today, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) had a Page 1 article about limits to world oil production. The article begins:
A growing number of oil-industry chieftains are endorsing an idea long deemed fringe: The world is approaching a practical limit to the number of barrels of crude oil that can be pumped every day.
Some predict that, despite the world's fast-growing thirst for oil, producers could hit that ceiling as soon as 2012. This rough limit -- which two senior industry officials recently pegged at about 100 million barrels a day -- is well short of global demand projections over the next few decades. Current production is about 85 million barrels a day.
The WSJ sees a number of above-ground issues as being the reason for this looming plateau (below the fold...)
1. Lack of investment during the time was oil priced low, leading to less exploration and less production now.
2. Resource nationalism curbing investment too.
3. Untapped resources in all the wrong places (conflict zone, inhospitable climate, environmental concerns)
4. Talented workers are retiring; not enough trained workers to replace them.
All of these issues are important, but they do not address the underlying issue -- we start with a finite amount of oil, and this is gradually being depleted. As it gets depleted, it becomes more and more difficult to extract economically, so production tends to decline. For example, this is a graph of US oil production.
US oil production reached its high point in 1970, and has fallen since then, despite the discovery of additional oil in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico, and many technological advances. This decline was forecast in 1956 by M. King Hubbert.
We are also seeing declines in other fields that have been produced for extended periods, such as the North Sea.
The Wall Street Journal article says:
Traditional peak-oil theorists, many of whom are industry outsiders or retired geologists, have argued that global oil production will soon peak and enter an irreversible decline because nearly half the available oil in the world has been pumped. They've been proved wrong so often that their theory has become debased.
This is non-sense. One by one, each field that has been pumped extensively has gone into irreversible decline. The production of the majority of countries of the world is now in irreversible decline. It is becoming increasingly clear that in the not-too-distant future, world production will begin to decline. The coming decline of oil production has been predicted by many. The estimated date has varied, but the general time frame has been around 2000 to 2020.
One aspect of peak oil theory that is being refined is the method of prediction. One of the earliest techniques predicted that oil production would begin to decline when half of the available oil had been extracted. Methodology has been expanded, so other forecasting techniques are now also used. (It is doubtful that this was ever the only technique used.) Some reasons for not relying on this technique:
• There are many types of oil resources, including free flowing traditional oil and the very difficult to develop oil sands and oil shale. If a 50% factor is applied, it must be applied to each type separately. Thus, adding oil sands reserves which are very slow to be developed does virtually nothing to push forward the peak oil date.
• New technology can change the pattern of production. Sometimes, new extraction techniques can "hold up" production until perhaps 60% of the ultimate resource extracted has been removed, so that the decline begins later, and is steeper.
• Many of the frequently quoted reserve amounts appear to be seriously overstated. OPEC numbers appear to be too high, as indicated by this analysis. Even US Geological Study reserves have been questioned as being too high, in analyses such as this one. Reserve estimates are not audited, and different organizations have different standards for setting their reserves.
Because of the these issues, those involved with the study of the peak oil use a variety of techniques to project the peak in future production, rather than simply applying a 50% factor to estimated ultimate production. For example, many analysts are now looking at planned new production, together with expected decline rates on existing fields, to make their forecasts. For an example, see this recent presentation by Chris Skrebowski.
All of the techniques seem to be converging to show a likely decline in production in the next few years, or even starting about 2005. Oil production data suggests that world oil production has been flat to slightly declining for the last two years, so it is possible the decline has already begun.
The oil production forecasts that have been truly erroneous are those of the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), the International Energy Agency (IEA), and Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA). All of these organizations prepare estimates that are consistently biased high, as indicated by the analysis EIA forecasts by researchers at Penn State University, and by this analysis of CERA forecasts by Dr. Euan Mearns. One starts to wonder whether the forecasts of these organizations are based primarily on forecasts of future demand, together with a large measure of wishful thinking.
The WSJ article quotes Randy Udall:
Randy Udall, co-founder of the U.S. chapter of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas, has written that these unconventional oil supplies are like having $100 million in the bank, but "being forbidden to withdraw more than $100,000 per year. You are rich, sort of."
This is a good way of understanding our current problem. There is a lot of oil in the ground, but it is complex oil to get out. It is expensive, and requires a lot of trained workers. We are rapidly reaching the point where we cannot pull as much oil out of the ground, because the "easy oil" is gone, and the remaining oil is in difficult locations and is hard to extract.
One of the issues with respect to extraction of oil is that we must use scarce resources in the extraction process - oil and other energy resources, water, and trained workers. Once we reach the limits on these, we cannot extract more oil. If we start spending more than one barrel of oil to obtain a barrel of oil, we have a clear problem. If we expect to use huge amounts of fresh water in areas that are subject to drought, water may also be a limiting factor. Additional manpower can be trained, but this takes time, and resources of other types. We are rapidly reaching the point where obtaining adequate resources for oil production is a limiting factor, so production must fall.
The impact of declining oil production in future years is likely to be very significant. Rear Admiral Hyman Rickover predicted many of the issues we are facing today in his speech from over 50 years ago. Mr. Rickover talks about the close tie of fossil fuel use with our standard of living. This is likely to be one of the big challenges in the years ahead.
For those who wish to learn more about energy and our future, The Oil Drum has many articles of interest. Some links to individual articles are shown at the top of the TOD page. Euan Mearns put together a compilation of worthwhile articles by various Oil Drum authors. This is a link to a PDF compilation of some introductory articles I have written. In the comments, some may want to share links to their favorite articles.
Edit 11/21/2007 This is a link to a graph someone posted in the comments below, showing CERA oil price estimates alongside the actual prices.
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.
They've been proved wrong so often that their theory has become debased......
When one finger points to you, three point back at yourself.
Unfortunately, the early Peakers have been debased.
A few of us in the PO movement have repeatedly said that premature predictions of irreversible decline will lead to exactly this accusation. At the same time, Peakers take great delight in pointing out all the missed predictions of the cornucopians. So what goes around come around.
Additionaly Peak Oilers make a big argument about "geological decline", when this is not the fundamental issue. The perception that it is a question of access and expense was never made part of PO theory, yet this was clearly the line that Lynch et al were taking.
While Peak oilers were still trying the explain abstruse mechanics of oil reservoirs, CERA have taken the ball and run with it, and now have the ears of the people who matter. This outcome was all too predictable.
To be honest, I don't care if CERA have stolen the PO message, as long as the message is getting on the front page of the WSJ.
I'm an 'early' peaker - essentially saying that 2005/2006 was the high water mark, though acknowledging that a month or two in the future may be higher in production (say, that 3 or 4 major projects all come online in a short period), the essential peak was then.
And unfortunately, my position is based on facts that have yet to be contradicted, even as the statistics grow ever murkier - all liquids is a fine measure of oil production, except it isn't, of course.
Don't be silly.
The non-oil components of "all liquids" compete directly with oil in a number of markets - NGL in gasoline blending components and ethylene feedstocks (plastics), for example - so looking at all liquids is absolutely the correct measure.
It might make sense to normalize the volumes for energy content, but then again it might not - it's not clear that different energy levels make a difference for feedstocks.
What absolute nonsense. Even if they do compete directly, which is only true to a degree, they don't all have the same energy density, so volumemetric comparisons are meaningless. Just assuming that a barrel of oil is equivalent to an barrel of ethanol is plain wrong.
Does that matter for ethylene feedstocks?
I have no idea, but I suspect neither do you, so there's no indication energy density is the key factor you suggest. Hence my qualification that normalizing by energy density may or may not be wholly appropriate.
At any rate, the point is simply that non-crude liquids in the oil supply directly substitute for crude in some very substantial uses. Accordingly, an increase in those other liquids displaces crude use in those areas and makes more available for other uses, effectively increasing the supply of crude. We can quibble about the relative worth of different liquids (I suspect NGLs and ethanol should be discounted by 20-30%), but that's a secondary issue to the fact that the EIA includes all liquids in "total oil supply" for a very good reason.
They've been proved wrong so often that their theory has become debased......
When one finger points to you, three point back at yourself.
Another key argument used by CERA to "prove" we have plenty of oil (in addition to "people have said were were 'running out' before") is to talk about how no one could have imagined cell phones. It then follows that technology will figure out how to get oil out of capped wells.
For numbers they like to include oil sands as if they were oil. Not sure if they include oil shale as if it is oil.
And probably the thing most key to a CERA or IEA argument against peak oil is faith. Faith that there is an incomprehensibly large amount of oil underneath Saudi Arabia and their neighbors. And faith that even though discoveries have been in decline for 40 years, that that is just a "short-term market correction".
How many times in the last five years were the oil shales going to be profitable, switch grass bio diesel, algae, solar, hydrogen?
Why are the Tar Sands of Canada producing such limited quantities of oil compared to their vast "reserves". (flow rates)
How many times was the oil price "not supported by the fundamentals"? (that is it should have been lower)
Lets not forget predictions have been going both ways. I have heard many predictions on MSM about current oil being overpriced and blaming Chavez, Putin, OPEC, Iraq war and anything else except for reduced supply.
Then we get the classic a few weeks ago that we don't have a supply problem it's a demand problem. *scratches head* I always thought they called it supply and demand. The keyword linking the two being AND but I guess when you can't stick a pipe into oil shales that have more oil than the middle east then yeah it's a demand problem *rolls eyes*
Right now today 19 November 2007, you would have to be quite satisfied if you were a believer in Peak Oil being sooner pre 2012 rather than later post 2020.
WSJ *yawn* still playing catch up from way way way behind.
May we live in interesting times :)
Of course they do - it is currently the source of large amounts of oil, after all.
It already has, to a certain extent - enhanced oil recovery technologies have allowed substantially more of the oil originally in place to be extracted than used to be the case.
If you're trying to make an argument that the peak oil theory is not debased, you need to carefully consider what you're going to say and what the real argument is.
Both of your arguments here are off the mark - peak oil is not about reserves. Peak oil is about flow rates, and it's clear to everyone that flow rates are restricted in tar sands (physically) and the Middle East (politically).
In many ways, the peaker obsession with the amount of recoverable oil remaining is a red herring - it really doesn't matter if there's enormous amounts of oil remaining if we can't access it. Many people are clearly resistant to the idea that not much oil is remaining - and for good reason, since you have poor evidence of that - but most people will agree with you that there are above-ground issues limiting the flow rate of oil right now, from political (OPEC quotas, unrest in Iraq/Nigeria, hostile climates in Venezuela/Iran) to physical (manpower and infrastructure capacity limits in the tar sands).
You may really, really believe that the world's used half its oil, but that's simply not the best way to talk about the subject.
Of course they do - it is currently the source of large amounts of oil, after all.
They have reserves greater than Saudi Arabia per CERA. They are pumping astonishingly low amounts of oil if that is the case? Do you think they would benefit from increasing their rig count? Seems puzzling, such a large oil reserve and such a relatively low flow rate???
It already has, to a certain extent - enhanced oil recovery technologies have allowed substantially more of the oil originally in place to be extracted than used to be the case.
Has enhanced oil recovery stopped Mexico from peaking? Has it stopped the US from peaking? Has it stopped the North Sea from peaking?
Both of your arguments here are off the mark - peak oil is not about reserves. Peak oil is about flow rates, and it's clear to everyone that flow rates are restricted in tar sands (physically) and the Middle East (politically).
Well I hope CERA is reading that comment because they are the ones who talk about oil sands reserves being larger than Saudi Arabia without considering flow rate. You appeared to realize that and be defending them a few sentences ago.
Many people are clearly resistant to the idea that not much oil is remaining - and for good reason, since you have poor evidence of that
A peaking of oil production in the majority of oil producing nations is considered good evidence that "not much oil is remaining". A peaking of discoveries and gradual decline over a fourty year period is great evidence that "not much oil is remaining". Only a strong faith-based approach to oil discovery can counteract that. The faith is strong at CERA and the IEA and the mainstream media. Their faith is going to be severely tested as oil prices soar and oil production stagnates or declines. If it weren't such a looming disaster I would say that it is gonna be fascinating to see how long CERA, the mainstream media, the politicians, the average joes, etc., can keep the faith.
Many people are clearly resistant to the idea that not much oil is remaining - and for good reason, since you have poor evidence of that - but most people will agree with you that there are above-ground issues limiting the flow rate of oil right now, from political (OPEC quotas, unrest in Iraq/Nigeria, hostile climates in Venezuela/Iran) to physical (manpower and infrastructure capacity limits in the tar sands).
I don't believe that "above-ground issues" are limiting the flow rate. That's CERA and the mainstream media and the other faith-based oil prognosticators and pundits.
You may really, really believe that the world's used half its oil, but that's simply not the best way to talk about the subject.
I didn't say a word about what percentage of the oil has been used.
Only if you're being purposefully obtuse. Tar sands produce oil, but require more work than conventional wells to get the same amount of oil. Those two facts are not in conflict.
Bait-and-switch fallacy.
You talked about technology getting oil out of capped wells, so I talked about enhanced oil recovery, so now you're pretending we're talking about technology preventing a peak. Different topics.
Re-read what I wrote, then.
The listener gets to decide what constitutes "good evidence", not the speaker. You can insist you're providing "darn good intelligence" until you're blue in the face, but that won't make your points one iota more convincing.
For example:
This backdating trick undercuts your point. Technological advances have allowed more oil to become recoverable than was originally possible, effectively adding "technological discoveries" of oil to the regular geological discoveries.
If we discovered no new oil but recovery rates increased over time to 100%, your method of plotting oil discoveries would show years and years of zeros even while remaining recoverable reserves were rising year after year. It should hardly be a surprise that that kind of evidence is less than fully convincing to everyone.
How long has Campbell "kept the faith"? He's been predicting imminent decline for, what, almost 20 years now?
It's a grave error to assume that someone who disagrees with you is irrational and mistaken.
You're simply wrong. As the most obvious example, insurgents have been repeatedly targetting oil infrastructure in Iraq and Nigeria, keeping hundreds of thousands of barrels a day of existing production from being used.
You may believe that the key is below-ground issues - and you may be right - but don't let that blind you to reality. That you disagree with something an opponent says doesn't mean you must disagree with everything they say.
Reserves are significant because they put a definite limit on flow rates. When there's only 10% of a field left, the flow rate's going to be slow no matter what you do.
And when you're describing these things to people, if you never mention reserves, then they won't understand why flow rates can't be increased. There's a tendency for people to reply to knowledge of peak oil with, "well, perhaps we're short today, but tomorrow the price will go up and more will be produced, so nothing to worry about." Knowledge of reserves, and the interplay between reserves levels and flow rates, that changes that.
Just FYI, spouting trite, childish sayings is not an effective way to defend against claims that your theory has become debased. Indeed, in case you're planning on pulling out the big guns, "neener neener neener" will prove similarly ineffective.
Of course, as BobCousins has noted, the theory has become debased, thanks in large part to people who insist on crying "wolf!"
Don't want to look like crackpots? Muzzle the boys who cry wolf.
Even if we wanted to do it, it's not possible. The guy who cried wolf, in the view of the WSJ and rest of the MSM is Colin Campbell. How are we supposed to muzzle him?
See, the whole 'boy who cried wolf' analogy actually has no part to play in this debate about peak dates.
That boy cried wolf because he was bored.
Lets replay the story, only this time the boy cried wolf because he thought maybe he saw a wolf, or smelt a wolf, or saw the sheep come running as though there was a wolf.
If it weren't for Colin Campbell, would TOD and general Peak Oil awareness be anywhere like where they are now.
Those who advocate avoiding predictions, just incase they come to early, are like some sheep-herder who hangs on until he's quite sure whether its a wolf or just a wild dog killing the herd before running to get the townsfolk.
I'd FAR rather be seen as a crackpot by the ignorant-to-date, and find myself prepared when the inevitable arrives, than worry that the ignorant might choose to see me as a crackpot because they're not broadminded enough to realise that someone yelling wolf isn't necessarily just relieving boredom just 'cos the wolf isn't immediately visible when they go to look.
Pitt, to my mind the argument you make is just totally irrational - and dangerous. Thank whatever we thank for the likes of Colin Campbell for getting us here, today.
[rant over - that ones been building for a while]
[]edit - I retract 'dangerous' - because I don't think those who are saying 'stop making predictions' are actually going to have any effect on those who do]]
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
Hey, thanks, Jaymax. We needed this. A lot.
Don't forget that the boy who cried wolf was eventually right, and the entire town suffered for it. I have never been sure of the moral of that story-- did the townspeople mess up by not responding because they thought that the effort of running to the field twenty times outwieghed the damage to the flock? Of course not. The townspeople fell prey to the same base human flaws that the shepard did. The mature townspeople should have appointed at least a committee to run out each time, or hired a better shepard.
Those who do not read fairy tales are condemned to relive them, said the princess late one sleepless night, while searching for the pea.
It's all very reinterpreting the analogy to your own ends, but:
IOW, do not raise false alarms, as you will lose credibility. Therefore this analogy applies exactly.
This is exactly what some PO adherents have done, and now the WSJ says they have lost credibility. Some surprise, huh?
Anyway, the horse has already bolted. Now that the WSJ are on board with the idea of a plateau, work with them. Get them to ask where future supplies will come from and how much they will cost. Point out that developing alternative energy sources may be a business opportunity.
Probably.
Peak oil didn't become even remotely mainstream until prices shot up and oil supplies were obviously tight. Rapidly rising prices - especially to the psychologically-important $100/inflation-adjusted high level - would get people talking about the difficulties involved with producing oil and possible future problems with or without any particular person pushing the issue.
Has his work in bringing attention to the issue outweighed the reputation for making false predictions he's associated with it? Hard to say.
What use do predictions of a particular peak date serve?
The issue is how producing oil is becoming harder and harder, and satisfying rapidly-growing demand (especially from BRIC nations) will become increasingly difficult. Predicting a particular year for when "slow increase" becomes "slow decrease" is largely irrelevant to that central issue.
If all you care about is yourself being prepared, why bother discussing it at all?
If you care about society being prepared, then how your message is being received is of central importance.
Then your mind is mistaken.
My argument is explicitly rational - I'm saying that the costs (credibility) and benefits (attention?) of making predictions of a particular peak date need to be taken into account to determine whether it's something we should be doing or supporting, and that evidence suggests it's more harmful than helpful. I could certainly be mistaken, of course, and I'm more than open to the possibility that such predictions are more valuable than being repeatedly wrong is harmful.
Mostly, I'd just like to see some more people doing that kind of evaluation of what is useful behaviour. If you believe certain behaviour - such as predicting peak dates - is useful, you should be able to explain why it's useful and why its drawbacks are worth it, just as you should be able to explain the strengths and weaknesses of any argument you support.
Your argument is only rational if you manage to twist historical reality to an absurd degree in order to make it so... You're 'probably' comment re Colin Campbell seems ludicrously false beyond my comprehension.
We are unlikely to come to any agreement on this.
To answer your challenge: Peak oil going mainstream has a solid pre-prepared resource, including the likes of TOD, which only exists BECAUSE of individuals who wern't afraid to make predictions which turned out to be wrong in detail, but who's basis for those predictions was shown to be mostly robust under analysis.
The downside to society from those predictions is virtually non-existent, the benefits have given us several years advance preparation for society. But you will refuse to see that historical reality; why I'm not sure.
You should be able to explain what would be different had those predictions NOT been made - perhaps you think that society would give 'us' more credit, would be 'buying into' peak-oil theory more readily; but 'us' would not even exist, and the Saudi pronouncements on 'peak-oil' would be going unchallenged.
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
Disavowal.
If someone is doing something that reflects badly on a group, and that group does not take pains to distance itself from that person, it's assumed he or she is representative of the group, fair or unfair as that may be.
In this particular case, it might be helpful to see peak oil folk explain why predictions of a specific peak date miss the point, especially in response to media throwing attention at those predictions. Additionally important, though, is to not actively engage in that kind of obsessing over peak dates and predictions - and, unfortunately, doing so is pretty common. People need to not harp on about peak dates, and to stop lionizing those who do so - even though that group includes most of the big names of peak oil.
Fundamentally, a particular peak date only really matters if you expect production to fall off a cliff right afterwards, and - honestly - that's a pretty silly expectation given the broad range of world production. Absent that, the difference between "up 0.3%" and "down 0.3%" is fairly negligible: both are going to result in higher prices, demand destruction, substitution, and increased interest in alternatives.
Crying wolf and predicting or calling a peak may be great for getting attention, but at the cost of diverting attention - and credibility - away from the basic problem of demand outstripping supply. It's not easy to argue against both those who underplay the problem and those who overplay it, but it's important to do so in order for the problem to be seen as it truly is, and to be dealt with maximally efficiently and minimally painfully.
I think that's silly. ASPO, Simmons, Deffeyes, etc., are the ones getting the press, not us. They can disavow us. We can't disavow them. It sure won't "muzzle" them.
We've done that. I don't think it's really useful. People don't care, and it just comes across like 20-20 hindsight.
I could not disagree more. Like Tom Whipple said - nobody cares unless you can give them a date. The first thing they ask him on Capitol Hill when he talks about peak oil is "When?"
Just FYI, spouting trite, childish sayings is not an effective way to defend against claims that your theory has become debased. Indeed, in case you're planning on pulling out the big guns, "neener neener neener" will prove similarly ineffective.
Just FYI, when oil prices are rising rapidly, and production is stagnant and discoveries continue to be dismal, calling a theory that oil production is peaking is as childish as anything a child would say.
Of course, as BobCousins has noted, the theory has become debased, thanks in large part to people who insist on crying "wolf!"
Somebody making a too-early prediction of oil production peaking doesn't debase a theory that oil-production is about to peak. Only a faith-based or childish reasoner would think that. What debases the theory is oil discoveries exceeding oil usage. So in actuality, since the early 1980's, the faith-based cornucopian view of oil production has been debased.
Don't want to look like crackpots? Muzzle the boys who cry wolf.
Oil discoveries peaked in 1965. Oil usage has exceeded oil discoveries for over 20 years. There are some crackpots out there. But they aren't crying wolf, they are crying "all's clear, everyone can come out and play".
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. The verb in the sentence is "calling":
"Just FYI, when X, and Y, calling a theory that Z is W."
Did you mean to say "calling a theory...debased is as..."?
Of course, that'd be wrong anyway. WSJ may be wrong to call the theory debased, but they're not childish to do so.
Of course it does.
Suppose I have a theory, complete with equations and stuff, that says you'll win the lottery tomorrow. And I keep telling you this, and, day after day, you keep not winning the lottery.
After the 10th time I tell you "my theory says you're going to win the lottery tomorrow!!" and you don't, you're not going to pay much attention when I tell you that yet again. The theory has been shown to have extremely poor predictive power - "debased", in the WSJ's terminology - and hence cannot be taken as viable evidence.
Exactly the same is true about the theory "oil is peaking now!" - it's been trotted out multiple times before, and has always been wrong. Your argument is simply "this time is different!!", and maybe you're right, but the simple fact of the matter is that that's not enough to rehabilitate a debased theory. You need evidence that it really is different this time, and that the factors which made all the previous predictions wrong don't apply anymore.
Simply denying that repeated failure discredits a theory is nothing more than willful self-delusion.
Straw man - nobody's saying that. OPEC isn't, IEA isn't, and even the EIA is talking about "the substantial range of uncertainty in the world’s future oil markets".
If you want to convince an opponent to change his beliefs, you need to understand what his current beliefs are first. Dismissing most of the world as silly cornucopians isn't a very effective strategy.
Theories don't become debased. They are proved or disproved.
And an alternative way of looking at it is that the people who are crying "wolf" are getting others to at least pay attention. Many hands make light work.
And, bad metaphor, Pitt. The boy who cried wolf was right, there was a wolf, and the boy got eaten in the end. Cassandra warned of impending doom and was right, too, and died anyway.
Want to have a rational discussion about these earth-changing issues? Stop being so combative, Pitt.
OK - flow rates are going to under perform our expectations over the short term due to political considerations and over the long term due to geologic constraints and that will cause issues with the American consumer because we are unable to secure a reliable source of affordable petroleum derived products. This underproduction will not be offset with new technological advances due to the capital expense and personal constraints and by the simple fact that some of the recovery technology is in a "pre-innovation" stage. It is unknown how much of this new technology can reliably scale and how energy efficient it is without "real world" data.
Can I now get a cookie?
You're quite wrong. Theories become more or less plausible; they never become "proved".
Newton's Laws, for example, were very well-supported and very plausible...but turned out to be wrong. Similarly, the theory that black holes exist is very well-supported and very plausible, and hence we believe that it's likely to be right, and use it as the basis for further theories.
By contrast, the theory that neutrinos have no mass has become "debased" - strong evidence says it's not correct, although there's no proof per se.
More importantly, though, "oil is peaking" isn't a theory, it's a prediction. The difference is that a theory is general - meaning the theory itself can be discredited - whereas a prediction is a statement about a future event, and hence the credit or discredit when it's shown to be right or wrong is accrued to those who made the prediction and to their methods.
Accordingly, the repeated failures of the "oil is peaking" predictions have discredited ("debased") the entire peak oil crowd, and all of their methods. That's not to say they won't be right eventually - a stopped clock is right twice a day, after all - but it does mean they'll have to work extra-hard to overcome the memory of those failed predictions.
No, you just failed to understand it.
There was a wolf - i.e., the problem was real. By making false claims about the immediacy of the problem, however, the boy desensitized his community to the problem, and ultimately that led directly to disaster.
Of course, it's even worse in this case, since instead of crying "wolf!", the boy should simply be saying "wolves will come along eventually, so why don't we keep them out by building fences?"
Making predictions of a peak date serves very little purpose other than garnering attention, much of it negative. It's possible that attention is worthwhile, but it doesn't seem like it.
Disagreeing is not being combative. But neither, frankly, do I see any need to baby people along. Anyone whose arguments are sound should be able to defend them easily enough.
By using the word "never," you've "debased" yourself.
and
The real problem says the WSJ, here and elsewhere, is "restricted access" and a lack of will and various other political/military problems to which the U.S. military and the companies that support it have a ready solution.
Interesting to see that "peak oil" or whatever they want to call it is basically just an opportunity for U.S. global intervention, and not, say, an opportunity to change the global or national energy economy itself, or to work on energy together with climate change. Nope... just try to get "access." and solve the "security" problems. When all you've got is a hammer the whole world looks like a nail, and when you are the propaganda mouthpiece for an empire... the whole world and all the problems in it look like one big "security" problem.
Really, this article is exactly what you'd expect from the WSJ.
Copy of my post on the WSJ energy blog:
Link to the WSJ energy blog ? (I forgot to bookmark it earlier this year).
Thanks,
Alan
http://blogs.wsj.com/energy
Yes that is it :
http://blogs.wsj.com/energy
Did anyone notice the Landrover ad touting TaxBenefits of 35K for buying a 77K LR3 based on GVW.
The very definition of Irony. That Audi sportscar buying neighbor(on a different thread) needs to look at this ad quick.
At least some of the restricted access is in this country. Oil companies would like to drill in the Gulf of Mexico near Florida, other places on the US outer continental shelf, in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, and on other Federal land.
If oil companies have oil platforms and other equipment available for reuse, and pipeline infrastructure at least partly in place, an argument can be made to drill sooner rather than later.
It takes a very long time to get the new fields into production, so if we plant to use infrastructure currently in place, it may make sense to start reasonably soon. If new drilling is delayed too long, the infrastructure may be deteriorated, so it may be difficult to use the oil that is produced. There may also be a problem with geologists and engineers leaving the industry, for lack of work.
That might be the meaning in the second quote, but not in the first, and not in other places in the article, eg.
Throughout the article there is a constant theme that the real problem ("especially") is a political and security one, not a geographic or geological one, and in most of the world that is code talk for a reason to impose the kind of order that the U.S. military sees as its prime mission.
I really don't think it is particularly radical to point out that the WSJ is a mouthpiece for the U.S. "military industrial complex"... although there are those who may find those words, first spoken by and warned against by a Republican, the former General, President Eisenhower, to be somehow ideological.
This article is doing what many future articles in the WSJ and the mainstream media will do. They will argue that while there may or may not be a geophysical issue, we can't do anything about that, but we can do something about the geopolitical dimension and they will use the oil production leveling and decline argument to build the case for military spending, intervention and empire.
Just you watch.
Here is Eisenhower's farewell warning to America
We are well past the point of a "rise" in such power. I judge the silent coup d'etat to be all but complete.
If oil companies have oil platforms and other equipment available for reuse, and pipeline infrastructure at least partly in place, an argument can be made to drill sooner rather than later.
To Gail's comment.
I agree from an infrastructure stand point but argue that we should not drill those areas until we have a comprehensive Energy Policy in place. If we were to drill those areas now in a few short years the energy produced would simply wind up in the fuel tanks of SUV's (and my little pickup truck). If we have an energy policy in place prior to drilling those areas we may have a chance of mitigating the most extreme effects of a post peak environment for some time to come.
Thanks, rude crude,
re: "...we should not drill those areas until we have a comprehensive Energy Policy in place."
I would say, definitely - energy policy as *minimum* requirement. And, even then, perhaps it is not the best thing to do.
We could have a comprehensive energy policy today. To take effect immediately and devote our "energy savings" to mitigation.
How can you possibly say the world sees "Iraq's oil production is stalled because it's a security mess" as "the US military should go stomp around in even more places!"
Iraq's oil production is lower than it was before the US invasion, and much lower than it was before the first war with the US and the following sanctions. It seems pretty obvious at this point that invading another country is a very poor way to increase the rate at which it pumps oil.
You are assuming that the military serves the government in order to serve the people. You are only half right.
indeed, it appears the US military, the world's foremost
consumer of oil, is just occupying oil fields.
They were NOT trying to do anything but secure the
oil fields, possibly for their own military use.
That's how bad this situation is.
The US military plans to be the LAST user of petroleum.
This is an interesting possibility, and I don't disagree, but I offer an alternative perspective in my post below. I don't believe that the military is driving policy, but rather that the profits available from military spending are leading to the hyping of the security dimension of the supply problem. See my post below.
No.
I'm assuming that the goal is to raise oil production.
Recent history shows us that invasion and occupation are unlikely to raise oil production.
Ergo, my conclusion is that a group intending to raise oil production is unlikely to invade an oil-producing nation.
You're supposing entirely rational actors in the US government and military. When a country's facing defeat, rationality ends and rationalisations begin. "Well, we're not really losing, we could still win... and if we do lose, it's not my fault, the generals stuffed it up, the government made us fight with one hand tied behind our back, the people didn't support us, we were stabbed in the back," etc.
"Next time we'll do it right. Really. We'd never make the same mistakes in two wars in a row!"
Better leave that oil in the ground, at least for now. We have no idea how global warming will develop as the Arctic summer sea ice is disappearing fast and maybe gone altogether already in 2013 as predicted here:
Causes of Changes in Arctic Sea Ice; by Wieslaw Maslowski (Naval Postgraduate School)
http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/May032006_Dr.WieslawMaslows...
If we get some kind of nasty climate change event as a result of the decline of this global airconditioner, we may be forced to go for large scale projects very quickly to reduce CO2 emissions and that will require oil as an energy input for these projects. It would be a drama of the 1st order if these projects got bogged down in diesel shortages.
Matt,
That paper does not coincide with the latest from NASA on why the sea ice is disappearing. The paper you link to says wind cannot be responsible for more than 50% and that ocean warming must be the cause of the rest according to the model.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/nh-sea-ice-loss-its-the-...
This quietly released NASA report says that GW is not the cause of the ice melt, it is a natural cycle, and ocean currents and salinity are a major player along with wind currents.
If one looks at the posture of the US military one can clearly see that it is developing strategies and tactics specifically designed to protect and gain access to the energy it and the United States consumes so readily.
The other day I read somewhere that the US military is the single biggest consumer of oil on the planet. Using around 350,000 barrels of oil a day. Without this oil the army simply stops moving like fossilized dinosaurs. Clearly the military is making plans to safeguard its access to this vital raw material, anything else is unthinkable and absurd. So the game ahead is, follow the soldiers following the oil.
oregon7, I don't agree with your interpretation. The WSJ is doing far better than the vast majority of major U.S. newspapers. Case in point: their ongoing coverage of the Cantarell decline. Their energ roundup is also peak-oil aware and doesn't shy away from the topic.
I think the authors did attempt to thread the needle between the peak oil positions and the CERA positions. I didn't view this as an attempt to debunk geologic peak oil. Rather, I viewed it as a clever way to introduce the topic into the mainstream media dialog. By leading with the production plateau/ceiling concept, they establish it as the thesis to be disproven instead of EIA's 140 mbd by 2030 as shown in the graph accompanying the article. From this point forward, the onus will be on the no-imminent-peak-or-plateau crowd to show how and why production can be increased until 2030.
Nor do I. I view it as an attempt to frame peak oil as a 2 part problem, 1 part being geophysical the other geopolitical (unrest, lack of access, strife, unwillingness to increase production.) That framing supports a certain relationship of energy consumers to producers and that relationship is a military/imperial one.
There is a third framing which is completely absent. It might present the interests of potential oil producers in delaying development, the interests and rights of potential producers to extract oil at their own pace and when they are ready to do so. Don't expect to hear that framing from the WSJ.
There is a fourth framing which is also absent. It might point out that because military intervention (dealing with all that "strife" on top of "our" oil) makes the U.S. hated around the world, and costs an enormous amount, burdens our children with debt, and so on we should pursue energy conservation, oil energy taxation and alternative energy development Don't expect to hear much of that framing from the WSJ either.
A fifth framing might emphasize the alternative energy investment opportunities created by these problems. You might hear a little of that... but not much.
Instead there are 3 or 4 mentions that half of the problem, the larger half perhaps, is political and security related.... because when you've got a hammer the world looks like a nail... and when you've got the biggest fattest military on the planet, the world's problems look like security problems.
Is it too cynical to say that the value of even discussing this subject at all for the WSJ editors is primarily that it helps make the case for military spending and military intervention? I don't think it is cynical to say it. I think it is a fair and reasonable explanation of the fact pattern.
Yes, they are reporting the facts better than some... but that's because they have an agenda and a policy prescription related to those facts.
In contrast, frankly, I suspect that most of the other MSM don't know yet whether they want to double down on imperialism or not, and thus haven't figured out what agenda the facts about peak oil should be used to advance.
Just my two cents. Reasonable people may differ!
Yes, I think your analysis is correct.
That brand of reporting "both sides must have some equal truth" is clearly based on the irrefutable fact that the Earth is halfway between being flat and being a sphere. ^_^
This line of argument as presented in the WSJ is, of course, precisely how Dick Cheney thinks, ans is the primary reason the American army is in the Middle East, to open up the region and its untapped and vast reserves by using military force.
I entirely agree with your comments.
Hello orgeon,
I would just encourage you to write this up, and expand upon it - especially your sentence:
"The real problem says the WSJ, here and elsewhere, is "restricted access" and a lack of will and various other political/military problems to which the U.S. military and the companies that support it have a ready solution."
Example: To WSJ:
"The position of "new adherents", as you describe it, appears to be one that avoids the hard fact of finite oil resources. Thus,it leaves the impression that our energy crises can be solved by invading countries who have oil. Or, that "resource nationalism" is a one-way street.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Given a finite global supply, access to oil outside the US is only a temporary measure, until that, too, is gone."
Oh well...never mind ( so much for me). I guess what I was thinking is: perhaps you can point out more specifically the problem with reducing "peak oil" to an issue that appears to invite a military solution.
Aniya, Thanks for your support. I blogged a response over on the WSJ energy blog in which I tried to express this more clearly.
http://blogs.wsj.com/energy/2007/11/19/to-peak-or-not-to-peak/
Search for comments by "Miles". Oh, I'll just reprint it here:
I would add to this, because perhaps folks here are used to thinking of oil as the driver of politics, that this analysis argues that it is actually the military industries of the U.S. and their profit interest that I'm arguing leads to the acknowledgement of the peakoil issue as a policy problem worthy of discussing on the front page of the WSJ. I would (in a friendly way) disagree with those that say the US military machine needs the oil... and that's why we'll launch the next war. No, it's more like "the corporate industrial/military/media complex" needs the military spending and profits, and declines in oil production set the stage for wars which lead to spending on military hardware and services. Consistent with Naomi Klein's (http://www.naomiklein.org/main) thesis about disaster capitalism, the shock of high prices and oil price related economic problems makes people willing to look for strong leaders and military solutions. So there is no real interest in solving the supply problem. The supply problem rather is useful because it creates a sellable need for military spending and intervention that the public can be persuaded will help to solve the problem.
Yet of course that geopolitical solution is only marginal... it cannot address what appears to be the underlying geophysical problem.
I also found it interesting how few people responded to my comment. Not that I have any right to people's attention here. Everybody has his or her own interests, and perhaps some people prefer that "politics" not be discussed on The Oil Drum. But the politics of how we will respond as an empire to the realities of oil production declines are spot on target in my view. The WSJ has fixed on a military solution to the problem (and/or is parroting people who have fixed on that) and that is WHY they are able to report the issue. If fits an agenda. I don't think the larger mainstream media knows what its agenda is yet around peak oil which is why it can't decide how to report the issue or to report it very deeply at all.
Hi Miles,
Thanks, also, for the acknowledgment.
This is a crucial point, one that also applies to the history of the nuclear arms race, (and no doubt to much else):
re: "it is actually the military industries of the U.S. and their profit interest..."
The point being "What drives what?"
re: "it's more like "the corporate industrial/military/media complex" needs the military spending and profits,..."
Yes, this is a cycle that appears difficult for the participants to break out of:
1) The scientists design - and perceive themselves to have no responsibility
2) Manufacturers manufacture - and perceive themselves to have no responsibility
3) Manufacturers (and designers - in separate compartments) - lobby the political entities - copy above WRT responsibility.
4) People w. political power respond to both those acting in step 3 and those who might have other agendas (different political agendas, say) - copy above WRT responsibilty.
5) Taxpayers pay taxes - law-abiding citizens that they are - Same as above WRT responsibilty.
6) etc. - i.e., same goes for other segments of the population, in their various roles, and with their varying degrees of the following: education, opportunities for taking action, and/or thinking about what it means to exercise responsibility.
re: "...the US military machine needs the oil... and that's why we'll launch the next war."
So, could you talk about this in terms of something like "proximate cause" and "underlying cause" or chain of causes?
I'd also like to add something, and perhaps I can think about this further (I just wanted to respond while I have the time before this is too old a thread)...
One thing: My experience tells me that people acting in any capacity in this kind of compartmentalized system, (or what we might call "specialization"), rarely - if ever - perceive themselves to be in any position that implies a personal responsibility, with the possible exception of what is in their immediate purview. Each sees him/herself as "having to" act because of his/her position.
Sometimes because it's too hard to think about - one's livelihood may be on the line.
Which is all to say...I'd like to see yet another version. (My 2 cents, and I'll even give it a try) - to include a less judgmental view of the persons (separate from their actions) and with many more questions, perhaps some of them directed toward the reporters directly.
It could be that the implied military agenda is not one they subscribed to by actively thinking about it - perhaps it is/was just the easiest one to pick up.
Because the real problem is harder to come to grips with emotionally, (as well as perhaps "intellectually").
re: "I think that’s the real reason the WSJ has come round to peak oil."
As an aside: I'm not so sure they have, really. To me, "peak oil" is comprised of pieces, and putting them into a whole can be difficult, in different ways, depending, in part, on one's position in the above description, for eg.
Just responding to part of what you say here...
I am comfortable asserting that at the editorial or business level of the Journal there are people who make conscious decisions about how to present the news.
Their bias is toward a strong imperial United States. That bias is consistent with their belief in capitalism and their personal and philosophical connections with American corporations. In that context they probably cannot help but see the commercial potential in a lack of security and so it is natural and unsurprising that they should emphasize certain facts which suggest a business opportunity for military industries in their reporting about peak oil.
I agree that most people are just focussed on their small part of the system... but at the upper echelons of the WSJ, and of corporations and government, there are people who are thinking things through and making decisions about how they believe the world ought to solve various problems. I don't think you can relieve the editors of the WSJ of the moral responsibility for the implications of their choice about how to report peak oil. They may believe it, but at a certain point they are making a choice about the world they want to live in and how they want to define and solve the problems they see.
So, I agree, they haven't come around to peak oil as a moment of change in the history of the planet in which we reverse our direction as a civilization. They have come around to it as a potential business opportunity for military industries. And why not? The Cheney Energy Task Force history has already established that an analysis of energy futures can lead to enormous amounts of profitable military expenditures.
Thanks for your reply!
Miles
My impression of the WSJ article:
It was very carefully worded to dance around the facts. Like some timid underling trying to tell his boss some really bad news.
The mainstream can't handle the full on peak oil message, which at its core is one of limits to growth, and major change, while they juggle mortgage crisis, global warming, and the onset of college bowl season.
This is how it starts. A watered down, but reasonably respectful article on front page of WSJ. More will follow, I assure you.
You mean like long lines at the painfully priced pumps?
You mean like blaming big bad oil for the fact that our planet is finite and not created in six days for the benefit of a broodish breed of irrational baboons who prefer to go by the appellation of homo sapiens?
Yes. More will follow. Very funny. Not so funny.
_____________________
We're not what we think we are.
Copy of my e-mail to the authors, in which I invited them to join the debate, follows. Russell Gold replied to my e-mail this morning, thanking me for the information about Yergin. As I noted below, if they show up, let's try to play nice.
If I were the authors, I would be here all night reading this site. Where else would they get such objective discussion of their piece?
So I say to them: Welcome and make yourself at home. Pick a nice pseudonym (if you dont have one already) and participate!
Francois
This thread may not be very useful to the WSJ reporters though.
They gave their readership a "peek under the kimono" of Peak Oil Theory and analysis. And we can discuss their daring/timidity here, but the two most recent articles of The Oil Drum (just underneath) have substantially more "meat".
Article #2 should discuss the rate of decline in available oil IMHO.
Lengthy debate here has come to a rough consensus that the rate of decline post-Peak Oil is substantially more important than "when" (2005 to 2012 seem to be the bounds for that among responsible analysts IMHO).
Article #3 should be on mitigation strategies. I would recommend my own retrospective on the Year 2034 as a good starting point.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3140#comments
Best Hopes for Step by Step Analysis & Disclosure,
Alan
PS: Another story is the VERY high caliber of people attracted to the Peak Oil issue, and the tremendous pro bono publico effort they/we put out.
Yes...I was wondering how many folks after reading their article today...no matter what they believe about it...went to Google and typed in those two little words that will change their lives forever.
Why bother with two words?
Google results for "oil." First hit is Wikipedia, second is LATOC, third is PO.com.
TOD gets a respectable showing, after CNN and howstuffworks and the like. I find it pretty astonishing that everyone who wants to know a bit more about that black stuff is hit right off the bat with Savinar's monstrous wallop of bleak outcomes.
Heh, the day I first saw end of suburbia I came home distraught, googled peak oil. I'd thought to myself "those people are awfully pessimistic." I ended up at Matt's site and realized, "those were the optimists."
:)
Hey! No peeking under the kimono!
This is a family-oriented kinda' site! The kids are in the room!
End of attempt at levity. :)
Our kiddos need this kind of analysis and discussion so very much! It would kindle a fire in so many who feel adrift in a world that manipulates them into mindless, passionless consumerism as a substitute for real true-life challenges and real decisions.
Jeffrey Brown:
Amen, Brother Brown!
In terms of communicating the peak oil message, courtesy is much more effective than being "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore."
There will always be disagreements, and it's much better to be able to turn opponents into friends. I've had this happen to me time and time again with peak oil. If you listen to people and act with respect, 90% of the time they will respond in kind.
A couple of years from now, we will forget the intellectual reasons why we disagreed with someone, but we will remember clearly if they acted like a jerk towards us.
Besides, I have to say that the WSJ article was good journalism - given the worldview that the reporters were coming from.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Dante e-mailed them and asked what they meant by "debased." He got this reply:
It may be pointless to pursue this, but it is really irking me. Does anyone know about this 1991 book, or this 1995 peak call? I couldn't find any such book on Amazon, wikipedia could provide no citation, yet PO theory has become 'debased' by this in the eyes of MSM. I'm just not aware of there being a conspicuous record of failure by prominent peak-oil theorists or any fundamental flaw exposed in PO premises, methodologies, or conclusions..."debased"...Rrrrrrrgh
Those dates surprise me - although there may be an element of crude vs c+c or something going on there...
at oilcrisis are Campbell predictions for peak made most years 1989 thru 1999.
According to those, in both 1990 and 1992 he was predicting 1998, with th caveat: "It has been stressed that all numbers, which are quoted as computed, are to be generously rounded. No one should imagine that this is an exact science.
(ahhh oilcrisis.org - the first PO site I stumbled upon, no idea how or why....)
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
This one?
His book The Golden Century of Oil was published by Kluwer in 1991
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Colin_J._Campbell
Amazon page
http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Century-Oil-1950-2050-GeoJournal/dp/0792314425
There is someone who was banned that I'm sure could tell you all you would want to know about Campbell's early forecasts.
As for the WSJ the authors probably talked to Michael Lynch when preparing the article, he mentions Campbell's early forcasts here:
http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/world-oil.dir/lynch/worldoil.html
As far as I remember, even King Hubert predicted global peak around 1996. General understanding is that he 'failed' because of the political production restriction during the 80' and the effect of that on the 'natural' depletion curve.
sidulin,
My behavior in any exchange is what matters to me. Being rude is abusive is a sign that I am closed minded when I do it, and shows that my arguements are vulnerable.
I'm almost always happier when I have been polite and respectful, and am much more likely to get a mannerly response. Good manners are something that i respect, and try to practice.Like kindness, honesty and other virtues, the more we add to the world, the more there is available in the world for all of us to enjoy.
Bob Ebersole
This is shockingly bad reporting about perhaps the single most important underlying financial and economic story of our time.
It's like only now that Oil Company CEOs are talking openly about the idea of constraints to production can they report on this - excuse me, but how in the world did we get from $30 to $50 to $95 oil? How did the world's leading financial newspaper allow the EIA to continuously miss their production projections without calling them out?
If this is bad reporting, think of all of the newspapers and magazines that have ignored the issue entirely. At least the WSJ has the courage to say something - however carefully worded to try to avoid saying more than they have to.
I agree.
Who knows what was edited from the original article to get it on page 1, or even published for that matter. Sure great for the authors but the appearence in the WSJ and on pg 1 gives the story credibility that other news organizations can't deny. It leaves plenty of room for the MSM to start asking rigorous questions about stated reserves, depletion of fields, etc. (Okay, maybe I'm dreaming)
And may begin MSM discussions of the consequences of peak oil (or at least $100+ oil), and where the pain is being borne (After the Oil Crisis, a Food Crisis?)
I agree with Nate and Gail; IMHO this is as much truth as they dare dispense in one dose. Consider my response when I finally "got it" about PO:
Depressed and obsessed for months, and
Started ELP right quick, which does NOT support the current economic model of growth, growth, growth
PLAN, PLANt, PLANet
Errol in Miami
You can still have growth without oil...
We agree there.
A key, IMO, is investment in long lived infrastructure (including nukes) and adaptation.
Best Hopes,
Alan
IMHO... Not going to happen. Vastly undervalued and under priced energy has been the invisible lubricant for our economic growth. When low cost petroleum peaks, kiss economic growth good bye.
There will be growth in certain areas of the economy, but I believe we are poised for a long decline as all the goofy financial instruments unwind and serious energy cost inflation takes hold.
It has been discussed here on TOD many times, continued compounded growth is unsustainable and most like cancer in it's behavior.
There is a large difference between "can" and "will" or "is likely".
I could see the French growing economically post-Peak Oil, and using that growth for another half week of vacation :-)
Perhaps not "likely" but reasonably probable.
The USA, if it does the right things (<<50% probability) could reduce oil use by 62% in 30 years, and GDP would grow by 50% (Colin Campbell oil #s & Millennium Institute T21 model).
Policy Choices matter,
Alan
Hi Alan,
Yes there's a big difference between "can" and "will" or "is likely". I guess I went off half-cocked and jumped into the probability of this mad growth continuing.
I agree the probability of the US doing the right things is much less than 50%, and I agree France is sitting in a good position right now due to energy and transportation policy.
Policy choices do matter and I pray the optimists (like you!) keep involved in the political and government planning processes.
As an engineer, when I pour over data trends and MSM reporting I get convinced that we are in for a Chimp-style LATOC dystopia, but I know we need to keep fighting the good fight of creating a sustainable future for my children. My small attempts at ELP are a start but we need some serious changes in Govt. policies NOW for this not to be a hard crash. Unfortunately my faith in positive changes occurring is pretty low. I'll continue to vote and speak up for doing the "right things" though....
I could see the French growing economically post-Peak Oil, and using that growth for another half week of vacation :-)
Perhaps not "likely" but reasonably probable.
The idea that a French a economy which is deeply embedded in the global economy could remain healthy (i.e. growing) while much of the rest of the world is mired in an oil price shock induced recession is nonsense. However, a more import question to be addressed is: Why is it desirable that the French economy should grow any more? Their current income is sufficient to support their entire population at a reasonable standard of living if it were equitably distributed. The ‘need’ for more growth is an artificial creation of private finance capitalism. If the French have excess productivity they should be leveraging it to produce systems of sustainable local production of energy, food, building materials, etc. rather than increasing the volume of their sales of luxuries in the global market place. Has anyone ever heard of top soil erosion? Creating systems of food production which preserve top soil and recycle nutrients should be a top priority of any human being with an IQ greater than that of peat moss. Leaving soil preservation to future generations while we concentrate on selling more HDTVs and jet airplane vacations is completely insane.
Suppose that tomorrow we found huge new oil deposits with recoverable reserves four times greater than all the oil pumped out of the ground since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And further suppose that by a one time act of God all the green house gases emitted since the beginning of industrial revolution were removed from the atmosphere. Even under these highly favorable circumstances if we had the intelligence that God gave to a gerbil we would leverage our new found energy wealth and our ecological reprieve to move toward sustainable systems of economic production with all reasonable speed, rather than using it to increase the size of our pile of toys. How long are we going to go on being mesmerized by the infinite growth paradigm of private finance capitalism? Do we have functioning brains or don’t we?
A couple of points.
If the French continue to see increased economic activity (say exporting trams, TGVs, nuclear power plants, engineering services, fine wine, eyeglass frames, etc. as well as domestic demand) and become more efficient to doing so, they can take another half week/year off. Even if world GDP decreases, there will be increased demand for some goods & services and the French have a decent portfolio of things where world demand will likely increase. (Sell trams to Kuwait, Venezuela & Dubai, a TGV network around Saudi Arabia, nuclear power plants to half the world and so forth).
I do not see increased vacation time as a critical threat to the earth. IMHO, it is a type of consumption that we can afford to increase post-Peak Oil. Just as we can afford more music, software, art and increased quality/reduced quantity goods.
The French have been tilling the same soil for over 4,000 years, and have not (AFAIK) radically altered their practices (yes tractors & fertilizers are used) so that what was sustainable before is now soil mining.
Best Hopes for the French,
Alan
Alan
Keep in mind that technological improvements are continually increasing the efficiency with which things are being produced, meaning that a healthy zero-growth economy would be one in which resource use was continually decreasing.
This is likely to be one way of producing a sustainable economy, but is certainly not the only way, and is likely to not be the way that will lead to the highest standard of living.
That didn't happen before - world GDP growth continued at about 2-3% per year even while world oil consumption was falling quickly in 1979-1981 - so the onus is on people claiming that to provide evidence.
No - it's been claimed many times. I've asked for evidence several of those times, and nothing other than handwaving has ever been provided.
(Unless you're talking about super-long-term, of course, which is (a) largely irrelevant, and (b) not even true if efficiency improves enough faster than growth.)
Please remember I started off my comment with "IMHO". I arrived at my opinion after reading and researching PO for about 10 years. I have not seen any direct evidence to support this, but letting my biological neural nets stare at the larger economic system has led me to strongly believe that cheap, undervalued oil has been driving most economic growth.
To say it has been claimed here many times that there is a linkage between economic growth and growth in oil consumption is really to say: "I have a hypothesis that increasing oil consumption is a primary causal factor for economic growth, and that a decreasing use of oil will stall or reverse economic growth." (accurate science-speak can be tedious and long-winded)
Where are the data to support or disprove this hypothesis? I think that is what debate and discussion with some of the experts (and non-experts) here at TOD is for. There have been anecdotal information shared that implies, but does not prove this linkage: see Gail's article on growth. Per capita consumption of cheap energy in the US seems correlated with economic growth. That doesn't prove anything about oil being the cause of it though.
OK, so my personal perspective as an engineer, is that I try to develop models that I can use to explain how things work. I have been very successful at this since childhood, and professionally. I try to see the system being analyzed from the biggest perspective possible, then draw a system boundary around this system and focus upon inputs and outputs that cross this boundary.
IMO, many of the cornucopians and "growth is good" crowd are focusing upon improved efficiencies and productivity inside this large system boundary of the "US Economy". Yes there has been some of that, science has progressed, communication is faster and we are much quicker at moving money around inside this boundary. But when I back up and look at this large beast, I see a hell of a lot of inputs and consumption, and not as much "real" output. We in the US, have been creating a lot of money and I see it sloshing around inside the system. As a system I believe we have learned millions of small ways to get short-term value out of cheap petroleum and energy.
To me, the most important stuff is what has been crossing the system boundary: tons of oil and imported goods (which represent more oil use). For example, take a simple plastic consumer item. I see undervalued petroleum transformed into a cheap building material, then all the energy dependant processed that were used to make it. Energy to make the resin, energy to transport it, energy to melt it, mold it, to make the production equipment... energy for the technicians and engineers to drive to work, then to ship it form China to the US, and to a local Walmart.... it is viral in how energy use permeates ALL the processes to make a simple plastic item. Again, IMHO after analyzing this for years, I believe the underlying driver for all of this has been undervalued/too-cheap/practically-free energy and ultra-low cost petroleum. We have become better and better at finding ways to cash in on this short term boon. I don't think this is appreciated or understood, and might lead to systematic contraction/crash once we try to reduce energy and petroleum consumption.
Well-written. Thank you.
Dezakin,
There is significant evidence that declining oil supplies are likely to lead to declining growth.
See Question 5 of Part 1 of my Economic Impact of Peak Oil series. The models I show related to all energy, not oil, but if oil declines, it will be difficult to keep the total energy supplied up for long.
There is also evidence from historical correlations of oil supply changes with economic changes. See Robert Hirsch's ASPO presentation.
No there isn't. There's a bunch of assertions. At most you have an inflationary economy for a couple of decades as people do massive infrastructure development. With so many energy alternatives, the notion of peak oil equalling peak energy or peak economy is just absurd.
Hi Dezakin,
Such a crucial topic.
re: "...as people do massive infrastructure development."
The question is: *how* do people do massive infrastructure development?
By "how" I mean: -
1) privately as individuals? But as average individuals, they will be personally dealing with the affects of decreasing supply on the economy, evidence for which we already have seen in the form of (perhaps?) collapsing housing market, slower GDP, some countries hard-hit by more direct impacts...? (Feel free to disagree, these are just my impressions).
Where does the capital come from to put in place the new infrastructure?
2) Collectively in some sort of self-organized group or groups? How do they get together? How do they function? Where does the funding come from?
3) by some other means - the federal government? In which case, what is the ideal policy, in your view - seriously. And how to get it put in place?
In other words: by "how" I mean: Who does the doing? And what do they use for capital- (and/or how to get the raw materials, do the build-out, and etc.?)
And, also, *which* people?
Ayres's work relates to the work achieved with that energy, not the raw energy itself. As oil is remarkably inefficient when compared to electricity, and as the most promising technologies for increasing our energy supply directly produce electricity, it will be less difficult than it seems to maintain our supplies of end-use energy.
Declining growth, yes, but not necessarily actual shrinking of the economy. The 1979 oil shock, for example, led to a large decrease in world oil and energy consumption (~10%), but was still not enough to drive world GDP growth below zero.
Indeed, the Hirsh presentation you link to suggests a roughly 1:1 correspondence between oil supply and GDP. With current consumption growth at 1-2%/yr and GDP growth at 4-5%/yr, that would suggest it would take a worldwide decline of more than 3%/yr to actually shrink the world economy.
Hi Pitt,
Interesting point.
re: "it would take a worldwide decline of more than 3%/yr to actually shrink the world economy."
Questions, though:
1) When you speak about "worldwide decline", is it not the case that the decline is/may be experienced unevenly?
2) If so, how does this unevenness show up and can it be anticipated? (ELM?)
3) Does the fact - (or, I should say, accepting this statement as a premise for purposes of discussion)- that the decline is experienced unevenly have implications for how the "world economy" is affected?
4) If so, is there a meaningful way to take a look at this? Analytically.
5) In other words, it seems plausible that the economy could shrink due to what I might (lacking vocabulary) call "dependency issues" and "issues of hierarchy" (don't know how else to say it) - i.e., what depends on what to keep what functioning - ?
So, what functions are contingent upon what other functions, say, for eg. in the energy supply chain - and in what way?
Absolutely - but it need not be so.
Like I keep saying, do people imagine that wind turbines spontaneously assemble themselves in landfill from burned-out toasters and broken washing machines? Isn't laying railway tracks "economic activity"? Why do we imagine that digging coal requires employees who are paid money, but sustainably maintaining plantation forests for wood pellets for biomass burners doesn't? Do we think that if a farmer doesn't use methane-derived nitrogen fertilisers, no-one will eat or pay for their food they grow?
It would be more true to say that there is significant evidence that declining oil supplies, if not in any way prepared for by conservation and substitution, are likely to lead to declining growth.
I'm with you, Glenn. WSJ has shown nothing more here than the courage to run out and shoot the wounded, with oil pushing $100 and OPEC worrying aloud about the dollar and IEA warning that supply might not keep up with demand. WSJ has known about peak oil for at least three years, when (to my recall) they first starting publishing little intimations of it on p. 24. So they can take this story and print it out and mail it to three years ago, when it might have done some good. I'm not impressed.
And how does characterizing the peak oil movement as "fringe," the theory as an "often-derided notion," which "has been proved wrong so often that their theory has become debased," and which is espoused by "industry outsiders or retired geologists" qualify as good, objective journalism in anybody's book? That's a straight-up opinion, and a none too flattering one.
Are we so desperate for attention that we're willing to settle for this back-handing? Even while they tout the trusted opinions of the same and only two "experts" that all the rest of the BAU apologists regularly trot out, Lynch and Yergin? Perhaps they'd like to spend one sentence acknowledging that those two have next to zero credibility in the peak oil movement? Naww. But they're happy to report how little Yergin and Lynch think of the peak oil hypothesis.
Come on, they didn't even have the guts to accurately represent the pessimistic end of the forecasts! Not "a ceiling as soon as 2010," but possibly now, in the past, or no later than 2010. Not a 100 million barrels a day limit, but possibly 86! And then to say "The world certainly won't run out of oil any time soon," when anybody who's spent half an hour studying peak oil knows that's not the issue. Perhaps they could have taken one moment to properly explain the importance of flow rates?
Anybody who wants to believe in BAU can read that story and blow off the whole issue, once again. WSJ hasn't done us any favors here. They may be slowly leaking the story out, but they're also clearly trying to defend the status quo and throw cold water on peak oil theory. This is hardly unbiased, balanced journalism. The History Channel's recent presentation was far better.
--C
"WSJ has shown nothing more here than the courage to run out and shoot the wounded."
Hehehe. Just cuz this is a serious issue doesn't mean there ain't no time to laugh at an apt turn of phrase.
One of thing missing in "our" support of Peak Oil and the theory of oil depletion in general is something as simple as a list.
Can someone give me a list of Countries that have been declining production for say, at least 3 years?
Then give me a list of who is increasing.
And then the leftovers.
Something this simple would go a long way towards simplifying the message.
Chris
PS: it doesn't even have to be a list... I just need 3 numbers. Uppers Downers and InBetweens.
It works on CNBC for the daily "52 week Highs" and "52 Week Lows". Why not oil as well?
Look at this post for lists of countries that are growing or in decline.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3052
The only countries that are consistently growing are the ones listed on Figure 7, plus China and Russia. The incremental additional production for the whole group is shown in Figure 9.
One could also make the argument that the countries in Figure 8 should also be growing (Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Nigeria). These countries as a practical matter have not been growing.
Figure 2 through 6 show production for trends for various groups of declining countries. One can get a whole list from this post, thanks to Matt Mushalik from Australia.
thank you for that.
I do think it would be very valuable to have a permanent link on The Oil Drum with 2 simple "rankings".
List #1: Oil Increasers vs. Decliners up to the month (with associated figures)
List #2: Oil Exporters vs. Importers up to the month (with associated value)
Graphs and form fitted lines are all well and good, but make a lot of people glaze over. We need to remember on TheOilDrum that our real goal here is information, and that means information everyone can digest. Give people a simple list that can be linked to and blogged about with the analysis there to back it up.
If I had the time to do it myself, I would... but I don't. Surely someone out there has access to the information more readily than this layman.
Hi chrisale,
My suggestion is to write TOD editors directly and see what they say.
(Perhaps you could also ask "us" here if someone would be willing to volunteer to do the actual work.)
There is something like this on David Strahan's site
Interactive Oil Depletion Atlas
Chris,
Peak Oil isn't going to be the problem for most people, peak 'Net Exports' is the problem.
According to EIA statistics ... http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/topworldtables1_2.htm
in 2006 ...
there were ...
42 'net exporters', with average total exports of 45.424 mpd
of these ...
35 have either peaked or are at a peak plateau, producing on average 37.240 mpd
that leaves ...
just 7 countries that are yet to peak, producing on average 8.184 mbd
The top 16 make up ~90% of total net exports and their exports peaked in 2005.
http://netoilexports.blogspot.com/
In the two years or so since peak their net exports have declined about 5%.
Between 2000 and 2006 the production of the 171 'net importer' countries fell 4.2% to 20.872 mpd
Any net growth in production (for BAU around 2% is required) will first have to counter the 'net importer' declines and the 'net exporter' declines.
The 7 'net export' countries yet to peak are:
United Arab Emirates(?), Libya, Angola, Kazakhstan, Canada, Azerbaijan and Cote d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast)
Xeroid.
They'll also have to compare apples to apples.
From 2000 to 2006, production by importers fell 0.74Mb/d (based on the most recent yearly estimates by EIA), but production by exporters increased 7.6Mb/d. In that time, net exports have grown by 5Mb/d.
Of course, you also need to look at oil supply, rather than just C+C. 2005-2006 saw net exports drop by 0.6Mb/d (-1.3%), but saw importers halt their production decline (+0.1%) and slow their consumption growth (+0.7%).
So it's not at all clear that the squeeze is as great as you suggest.
Hey Pitt, Price went up about 1000% in the last 9 yeears. Thats a pretty good squeeze in my book. Argue all you want about numbers, figures don't lie but liers figure, as the saying goes, but money out of pocket, just supply versus demand.
Xeroid: I'm fairly new to this site, and I have seen this sort of comment several times, and I guess I just don't get it. Peak Net Export to me is simply a subset of Peak Oil. How can Peak Oil not be a problem for most people? It is the same problem. Let me see if I can sum up my mental confusion with your statement above.
Peak Oil: Production of oil reaches a maximum and starts declining. Demand continues to increase until demand cannot be satified. Problems follow.
Peak Net Exports: Production of oil reaches a maximum and starts to decline. Prior to that, demand increase inside of oil exporting countries causes exporting countries to "use more" of what they would normally have exported. As a result, net exports begin terminal decline prior to actual peak production.
But that is only from the viewpoint of the importing countries. To me Peak Net Export is simply drawing a line in the sand (little play on words there) as to the Haves and the Havenots. It is the same problem; just looked at from an importing country view point. Isn't it?
So, I guess the real difference between the two is simply that the exporting countries are not the first ones to get denied the access to the oil they want? I'm sure there are folks with bombs that will have issues with that.
Oil wars ensue, I guess.
Let your views be known: www.cafepress.com/crashdummy/3720146
Gail...I just want to point out what a powerful communication tool you and Stuart are when you combine forces...his data analysis and interpretation and your gift of the written word. It is why Tom Whipple is so effective.
Gail understands the deep stats and technical verbage and serves as an excellent liaison to the rest of the world that needs it all "dumbed down" to some extent (not to say that what you write is dumb).
It would serve TOD well to use this combination more in the future. Most TOD veterns can understand Stuart et al.'s data, but the wider public...forgetaboutit.
Hat's off Gail and Stuart!!
Thank you, both. Also, for keeping on top of the news and responding so quickly.
On this matter of previous predicted dates, and debasement.
While I don't think it's the most critical point to take up with THIS article, it does keep coming up again and again.
Maybe what we need is a factual list or dated predictions, which would naturally show that, yeah, there's been a few early calls, but not really that far-out, and a lot of pretty much likely-to-be on-the-money estimates.
Actually - a nice simple, fact-based, short, digestible PDF info-pack for MSM journalists writing on peak oil might go a long way... The basis for it should already be here - but expecting overworked and underpaid MSM jornalists ('cos we know you're reading, right) to spend hours digging through TOD might be expecting too much.
Just a thought.
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
Who's debased now?
That choice of words was anything but innocent.
Your chart shows a minimum oil price in Jan07 of about $55, as compared to the correct world oil price of $48 reached in the week of Jan19/07.
It's certainly true that CERA has been consistently optimistic in terms of oil price forecasts; however, it's worth noting that their errors in price forecasting are pretty minor compared with some of the dire warnings of high prices. Simmons, for example, cautioned we could see $100 oil in winter 2005 and high-three-digit prices by winter 2006, as opposed to the $50 we actually saw.
So it's not like the peak oil people have been any better at predicting prices than those being derided as cornucopians. (And, make no mistake, despite the weasel words, those figures were given and taken as predictions.) Indeed, in general, their dire predictions have tended to be substantially worse than the rosy predictions.
those figures were given and taken as predictions
Hardly. Simmons (correctly IMHO) described a conditional.
"IF we have a very cold winter" then .....
A very mild winter, with reduced demand gives a diifertn result.
Now, I predict "If someone (USA or Israel) bombs Iran, oil will quickly exceed $150/barrel".
Now id no one does bomb Iran, my prediction si invalid.
Alan
I'm not sure what you're referring to, as neither article I linked says anything of the sort.
Moreover, it doesn't really matter - they were still taken as predictions: take a look at how the news articles I linked were phrased and headlined. And, since that's been going on for a while, it's hard to imagine he doesn't know that's how they're going to be taken.
When does the discussion turn to energy conservation, cut your consumption in half and the remaining supply goes twice as far. When the WSJ starts reporting on PO, the rest will soon follow. We in MN are supposed to cut CO2 levels by 15% by 2015 from 2005 levels, 30% by 2025 and 80% by 2050 and I can tell you there is not a clue on how to do this. I have some ideas and also working models for the residential demand-side, this is often met with what we call the "Hereford stare", that look of total incomprehension.
Its heard to know how to save enough with conservation. Unfortunately we have some very fixed limits.
Water will freeze at 32 degrees F ( 0 centigrade), so we have to keep our homes above that temperature, if we don't want the pipes to freeze, and we want to continue to have running water.
We need some minimum amount of transportation fuel, if only to make more bicycles, and to pave our roads. It is hard to see how we can conserve enough.
Hi Gail,
"We need some minimum amount of transportation fuel, if only to make more bicycles, and to pave our roads. It is hard to see how we can conserve enough."
One of the problems with bicycles (and I am a bicycle advocate) is that bicycling to work on a rainy winter day is no fun.
Here may be an answer from Minnesota: all weather bicycles or alleweders.
http://www.velomobiling.com/
The author of this site is from Minnesota and has links to many, mostly european alleweder companies. The nice advantage about an alleweder is once you are no longer exposed to wind and rain and snow, your body heat will keep you warm to a certain point.
At this point the designs are a little clunky, but imagine if a university were to have a design contest. It could bring the engineering department and the art department together and start producing nice looking & functional alleweders.
Charles
Gail. First, many thanks for all your good work!
I made a little passive solar house for my mother-in-law in 1970, ever since, every winter, with no heat but the sun, it has never got even close to freezing, and sometimes the outside temp was -20F in a screaming wind.
Other people have done much better. You don't need fuel to keep houses warm.
Most (all?) cars in USA run around with empty seats, on errands better done otherwise,or better not done.
Most cities, and even little towns like the one near me, have storage boxes all full of stuff people don't use and that never should have been made in the first place and that should be used up and worn out before any new stuff is made.
When I was a kid, I played with sticks, rocks, mud and junk. My grandkids play with junk too, but it came from China, toted on the back of a barrel of oil. I don't think they are the least bit happier than I was.
We are killing our world for nothing. Why do we do this??????????
Television?
Remember, "I want my MTV"?
Or, "Video killed the radio star"?
Or, "The cloths make the man"?
When you are in a society where looks are more important than what you can produce, everything becomes an illusion. We've lived in Disney World for more than 50 years. We are stuck with a world economy where everything as a value and everybody has a price and the whole shebang is based on consumption of FF's, primarily oil.
I like to think our civilized world is like a very large hot air balloon, which must be continually built ever bigger, maintained and pumped up with more fossil fuel to keep the expanding population floating above the ground (or isolated from reality). When the oil production peaks, there won't be enough energy to continue adding to the balloon, let alone keep it flying higher, and everything based on FF's will then begin to fall back to Earth. Gravity sucks.
E. Swanson
Actually, around 5,000,000,000 people are already surviving each day without using much FF energy.
You are viewing the world from the current very, very, special and privaleged OECD point of view, this is neither normal now for most of the world nor normal for anybody 200 years ago.
Xeroid.
Gail:
Once again, I enjoy your gift for simplification of the issues into easily understood segments and your skill at expressing yourself. "Dumb down " sounds insulting when I know it wasn't the author's intention.
I've seen the figure here that in the United States we use an average of 25 barrels a person per year in the United States and 12.5 bbl in Europe. Just getting the US consumption down to the European level will likely end our imports of crude if we use Alan Drake' Electrification Of Transportation plan and ban 100% internal combustion engines in cars.
We can easily replace 20% to 30% of our electrical generation with wind,solar and geothermal. It can be funded with a Windfall Profits Tax with a tax credit for 2/3rds of the money invested in sustainable energy production and encourage the oil companies to actually move beyond petroleum replacing the billion dollars a day we spend on imports of crude with good American jobs manufacturing, building and installing renewable energy. And if we help the poor 5 billion people in the world leap-frog froom fossil fuel to renewable and sustainable electric generation we can cure the climate change problem.
Its a matter of mental attitude and hope. Lets all try to be as positive as Alan Drake!
The situation is far from hopelessBob Ebersole
If the UK consumed oil at the per capita rate of the US, it never would have been an oil exporter.
If the US consumed oil at the per capita rate of the UK, it would have become an oil importer only in 2003.
The UK isn't a particularly good example of low oil consumption; it's just that the US's consumption is so high that any comparison shows what an enormous amount it can save with very little pain or effort. Add in a functioning public transit system - and I encourage people to spend some time in Eastern Europe to see how efficient and convenient those can be - and there are no technical reasons why the US cannot be a net exporter within 10 years even while continuing to improve its living standard.
>there are no technical reasons why the US cannot be a net exporter within 10 years even while continuing to improve its living standard.<
I suppose one could get into word games about what constitute 'technical reasons': for you to make anykind of case, a very narrow definition is certainly required. But, frankly, it takes my breath away that someone who appears reasonably coherent can make a statement as dumb as this.
Your education, Pit, might start with Georgescu-Roegen's 'The Entropy Law and the Economic Process', Harvard University Press, 1971.
Assuming you need a few months to locate the book and get your head around the reasoning, I'll next scan your postings in the new year to see if there is any improvement in comprehension of the problem. I'm going out for air.
No games at all - this could be done with current technologies and available manufacturing resources. All that's lacking is political will.
First, ratchet oil demand down to UK levels, probably by increasing petrol prices to UK levels or a little higher - that'll require less driving and smaller cars, but it's not like any of that is mysterious technology, and most of the car fleet turns over in 10 years anyway (use incentives to get the oldest/least efficient cars off the road, as was very successfully done in Los Angeles during the last oil crisis). That alone'll get the US within about 20% of the target (assuming 2%/yr production declines).
Next, implement some of the plans the parent poster was talking about - electrified rail, aggressive use of hybrids, incentives for EVs/NEVs - and encourage industrial users to move away from oil derivatives for process heat (a surprisingly large use still), and - based on the UK's consumption distribution - we're there.
It wouldn't be easy - indeed, I don't see the gasoline taxes as having any chance of happening - but it's entirely possible.
Lose your attitude while you're out there - expressing disagreement by patronizing and insulting is not at all useful, especially when you provide no evidence for your own beliefs.
But conserve we will. We are 2x to 3x per capita vs. Europe and Japan
We could adopt house design concepts with a heated core - that region with water that should not freeze and heat-optional rooms which you would heat only as needed. Then dress a little warmer.
Electric cars are coming - 2 cents a mile operating-energy costs. Just not soon enough. Have heard that the pluggable-Prius is testing on the road in Japan and soon Europe. Can do an 8-mile commute in an all-electric mode. Recharge at home or at work. Maybe even get the late-night lower electricity rates from the utility companies - 11 PM to 6 AM. It will still have a gas engine for longer trips.
I could draw up a plan that would roughly match those goals.
Some elements would be like Germany, require super high levels of insulation for new construction (R-100 in MN with exhaust exchangers for make up air ?). Require rental housing energy efficiency to be upgraded as part of sale.
Encourage shared wall development (instead of stand alone SFR).
Push NG & Propane tankless hot water heaters (publicity + exempt from sales tax, along with insulation, Energy Star doors & windows, etc.) Special sales tax (even 1%) to make up lost revenue on non-Energy Star appliances.
Encourage ground loop heat pumps and wind power to help run them (add pumped storage in hills @ Duluth).
Any railroad that electrifies in MN will have that track free of property taxes. Adding tracks, etc. could get non-recourse industrial development bonds (lower cost of capital). If you want to talk to Montana on a combined deal ...
Raise license taxes on Hummers, et al. Have a special state sales tax on all vehicles below 3/4ths of CAFE.
Build Central Corridor Light Rail (down University) ASAP and add commuter rail "all over". Twin Cities saturate with Light Rail & streetcars. Buy more railcars for Hiawatha TODAY !
Start mild and add measures as time goes on.
Just off the top of my head.
Best Hopes for Warm & Energy Efficient Minnesotans,
Alan
Alan, thanks for following the Twin Cities, MN, from way down there in The Big Easy!
Do you think we've got time, energy, and money to do the light rail and commuter rail still?
I ask because I see the window of opportunity closing far more rapidly than I am comfortable with. Might be already closed.
By window of opportunity, I mean the real resources available to build out such infrastructure in time to be useful.
Of course, once in place, such infrastructure could become a very positive, adaptable tool for sustainable human settlement even in a very different economic and ecological contexts -- both of which we may see sooner rather than later .... ?
Any thoughts?
Alan:
I also follow the Twin Cities. Lived there for 30 years. I was up there last week visiting my mom, and my sister-in-law took me to the airport on the light rail system. Why the politicians and folks are not building more lines as fast as they can is beyond me. It was so painless and cheap to ride.
I agree with you on the window closing. MN folks have been hemming and hawing on the light rail since the mid-90's. Augh. Ten years to get one stinking line put in! sigh.
http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/2288/mnlrt.html
Let your views be known: http://www.cafepress.com/crashdummy/3720146
Ten years to get one stinking line put in! sigh
I knew George Isaacs who lived long enough to see Hiawatha open,
40 years is a better estimate for his campaign.
Thanks God for professional wrestlers,
Alan
Yes, I think that there is time.
Almost all of the steps outlined above are doable with state and local finances & resources.
Perhaps involve some professors, get a grant to get the Millennium Institute to develop a model for Minnesota, or just set out some concrete plans. Do some lobbying yourself (Create a group to back you).
I think that the steps above quite doable. And we have time. Things will get rougher (see my Terrible Tens) but that will be the motivation, in the early post-Peak Oil days, to get something done. Plants the ideas *NOW* that these goals are achievable with details on how.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Thanks all,
Subway and rail are cheap to ride, still $2 from downtown Chicago to O'Hare. The ways to conserve energy are as limitless as the ways to use it, Superinsulation in new buildings and retrofits of existing will cut heating bills to minuscule amounts. As the big U.S. production home builders pull back, this is a good time to promote real residential energy efficiency. The Passive House standard of 15 KWH per square meter is about 6 times more energy efficient than new homes built in MN, .6 btu per square foot per heating degree day vs 3.5 currently for new construction.
Hi Btu,
That's a pretty impressive standard, but with careful design and advanced construction techniques no doubt doable. After pulling out all the stops, I've reduced my home's heat demand to 45 kWh per square metre or roughly 2.1 BTU per sq. ft., per HDD (40-year old, 230 sq. metre Cape Cod, ~6,800 HDD).
Last year, my heat pump consumed 3,200 kWh and I used an additional 320 litres of heating oil for backup heat; taking into consideration my heat pump gains, my actual fuel consumption is closer to 26 kWh per sq. metre, and that's with virtually no passive solar gain due to almost complete shading.
In practical terms, I don't think I can reduce this number much further. Still, given my space heating costs are $600.00 per year, which is probably one-fifth that of my neighbours, I'm not complaining.
Cheers,
Paul
HIH,
I am right there at about 2 btu/sf/hdd, I can and will make some improvements but the low hanging fruit has been plucked. Just as an experiment I added window film (3M) to all but the south facing windows on the main floor, I think I can see the energy use reduction so far. I use natural gas for heat so I have the luxury of reading the gas meter daily if I like and compare this to the heating degree days for the period. I then translate this into a hdd per therm calculation which varies monthly depending on the amount of sunshine and hours of sunlight. I built some superinsulated homes in the 1980's that with today's high performance glass would meet the Passive House standard, lots of insulation and very airtight. A simple building configuration helps greatly with energy conservation, square is best followed by a rectangle to get the lowest surface to volume ratio.
Hi Btu,
The 3M window kits work great! I replaced all of my windows and doors with Pella Architectural series low-e/argon units, with the exception of six, large, fixed windows equipped with traditional wooden storms.
To improve their thermal efficiency, I added two 3M window films to each window — one on each side (the outside film is protected by the external storm). This is their fourth season and they're still holding up surprisingly well. Once a year I reshrink the inside film with a hair dryer to remove any wrinkles. Clarity is remarkably good.
See: http://img30868.pictiger.com/images/3618815/
I attached these films directly to the window frame itself and not the outer trim, which means they virtually disappear from view. These windows are true divided lights, so the plastic film rests on top of the mullion bars; these mullion bars provide a one inch air space between the window glass and the plastic films on either side.
See: http://img40758.pictiger.com/images/9316154/
I estimate my combined energy savings to be about 1,800-kWh per year.
Cheers,
Paul
HIH,
Great work! I have been thinking also about multiple film layers, in fact I made the statement to my brother Dave, with enough window films the windows would lose less heat than the walls on a per square ft. basis. I have filmed 168 sq. ft. of windows and I estimate I will go from an R-2.5 (.4 U value) to R 3.5 (.286 U value), at 7876 hdd I should save 36.2 therms or 1,061 kwh.
"I attached these films directly to the window frame itself and not the outer trim, ..."
Nice tip. As a renter, I'm using the trim for a mount surface.
I had a couple years of framing experience long time ago. I have been frequently dismayed at air leaks due to framing issues in different rentals I've occupied.
Flaws in EM Theory
Hi Btu and RBM,
As you know, these 3M window films are relatively inexpensive and easy to install, and the payback in terms of increased comfort and fuel savings is unbeatable. In my case, the U-ratings of these windows were literally cut in half (0.56 to 0.28). I'm not certain, but I seem to recall my replacement Pella windows have a U-rating of 0.3, and if that's the case, these 3M window kits are providing similar savings, but at a *MUCH* lower cost.
In a 7,000 HDD climate, the thermal losses through one, 2.5 x 4 ft. single pane window would be 547 kWh/year.
(e.g., 1/R0.9 x 10 ft. sq. x 7,000 HDD x 24 hrs/day = 186,667 BTUs)
Adding a window kit would basically cut this number in half, potentially saving homeowners anywhere from 8 to 10 gallons of heating oil per year -- $25.00 to $30.00/year at current prices. And that's just one standard size window! I should also note these are conduction related losses only, and the actual savings, taking into consideration the corresponding reduction in air leakage, would be higher.
Cheers,
Paul
HIH,
Yes, my calculation is for conductive loss only, I am covering double hung windows and have sealed the film to the window trim inside so there will also be reduced air infiltration and additional energy savings. I had to double check my figures when I first considered the window film, did not seem possible to cut my heat loss by 8% with this simple measure, and you are right, the clarity through the film is very good.
If you have a router table (about $100) or a table saw with a dado-head cutter (not so cheap), you can make removable storm windows relatively cheaply. Materials required:
What you do:
For a one-panel window, take foam gasket and start attaching it to the edge of the frame in the middle of one side. Do not pull it tight around corners; instead, press it on to the end of a side and then let a bit of the backing stick to itself, so that the outer edge of the foam is not so rounded but roughly square-ish to fit the corner it's going to be pressing into. Work your way all the way around the frame and cut the end of the gasket flush where you started.
For a multi-panel window, make one panel with gasket around all 4 sides. Run gasket around only 3 sides of the other panel(s). The un-gasketed edge should be the one which has no seam in the plastic film. When the panels are fitted into the window opening, one of the two mating sides should have a gasket.
You now have double-pane storm windows with draft seals! When fitted into a window opening, the compression of the foam gasket material holds it in place with no other assistance. You may fit drawer pulls or other aids to remove the panels in an emergency, but otherwise strong fingers are all it takes. These panels can be removed intact in the spring and replaced in the fall. If the film gets torn or the gasket is damaged or wears out, everything is easily replaced at the hardware store.
Happy holidays and stay warm!
"I built some superinsulated homes in the 1980's "
Is there any online resource on how you built those
that you could share ?
Flaws in EM Theory
RBM,
I would be happy to give you the case study on these homes if we can work out the privacy issue.
Privacy Issues ? Well, that's not a hurdle I was prepared to jump through. Thanks anyways.
Here's where I'm coming from. I'm an HVAC/R student in a vocational school and wanted to compare the house they build in each program cycle. My program is responsible for the plumbing and HVAC install work. The programs overlap so the house for the preceding class is 80% done now. Other programs do the stick framing, electrical etc. Typically the houses built recently have 2X6 external walls with tyvek rap and aluminum siding. I'm told there will be fiberglass bats installed but am unaware at this time to what R value. Anderson windows were installed, spec's also unknown to me. There will be a forced air system, either Nat Gas or propane. All piping through all framing members is sealed.
By my uneducated estimation it is a tight house. Particularly compared to the couple years framing work I did in the late '70's. Indeed, my program chairperson/plumbing instructor called it tight construction compared to traditional residential products. But I think it is grossly under insulated. This is Nebraska, after all.
My interest in your experience was in hope of continue learning about residential markets so as to ascertain future employment opportunities. I am also keeping in mind commercial sectors. My grad is Dec. '08, so I have time to monitor things.
Flaws in EM Theory
What I meant by privacy is I would gladly send the study but do not want to disclose my name or e-mail on this site.
As for the 2x6 construction in NE, Lincoln has 6242 heating degree days, Minneapolis has 7876. This same 2x6 house in the Twin Cities uses 3.5 btu's per sq. ft per hdd, 2000 sf in Lincoln will use 43,694,000 btu's of energy at 100% efficiency.
This wall is fair but with any single wall without high-R exterior sheathing, thermal bridging is a problem. Superinsulation in Lincoln would be an R-35 wall, R-70 ceiling with a .05 natural air change for an infiltration target.
Hi Alan,
re: "I could draw up a plan that would roughly match those goals."
Whatever it takes to support your doing this - I hope it happens very, very soon.
And with that WSJ article, as a plateauist it seems I've joined the main stream! Rather a strange sensation.
The Wall Street Journal? Ha! Those maggots can kiss my behind. Of course it is in their best interest to deny peak oil, in order to trick exporters into selling it in copious quantities for soon to be worthless dollars and securities. Those friggin' fly larvae up there in south Manhattan are grifters and bankers, every last one of them. Society would be better off without them, a fact of which I am sure they are well aware.
OK Folks, I'd just like to throw a comment out there for discussion. Would anyone be interested in having an occasional article for possible solutions? There seems to be a lot of expertise from many different fields who visibly or invisibly check out the oil drum on a regular basis. I am wondering if we have enough intellectual diversity to try and start to harness this as a way to explore some possible mitigating solutions. As someone once famous said, (Thomas Edison, perhaps), the only way to get a good idea is to have a lot of ideas. I'm envisioning an occasional article where someone presents a possible idea for a solution to some aspect of the energy crisis. The idea is then analyzed by the expertise of reader who wants to chime in in the comment section. Perhaps, if after some discussion in the comment section it is deemed worth exploring, other members of the community may contribute their particular expertise in fabricating further experiments or design strategies. Of course, this only works if everyone pulls together. Two potential downsides include the high likelihood of having ideas come from complete kooks, while another downside is that someone may take an idea from this forum and patent it themselves. If its something that you want, I could try a test post just to give you all the flavor of what I'm thinking.
Or else, we could all just keep sitting around waiting for the inevitible to happen, documenting it at every step, but not really trying to solve it.
Many of us, myself included, have made similar pleas lothereu. There's not much point in all this expertise being limited to mere oil forensics is there?
I have noticed a definite uptick in useful information posted to TOD of late. There are a lot of good solutions to be offered, although they mostly show up in the comments. I picked up a couple of good clues last week regarding new residential-sized Stirling engines for example. Have a look back at the last month's articles, esp. the ones about carrying capacity and food. And by all means, if you have things to offer, have at it! I think you will find plenty of interest in workable solutions here.
--C
Nate Hagens has been talking about a possibility of a series of more practical articles. I will mention your comment to him.
We have had some posts like that.
The main problem, IME, is that no one can agree on what the future will be like, and what solutions will be needed. "Oil forensics," as you put it, is basically about what happened in the past and what's happening now. There's little argument about that, at least relatively speaking.
But when it comes to solutions, it's a free for all. The pro-nuke people vs. the anti-nuke people. The electric car folks vs. the "personal car must die" folks. The "free market will provide" camp vs. the "Mad Max" crowd. Those who think denser population and public transportation are the answer, vs. those who think a homestead in the country with heirloom seeds and lots of guns is the only solution. Those who think peak oil will mean their brother-in-law on the couch for three years, vs. those who think it will mean nuclear war, coming soon to a city near you.
It's gotten so difficult that one peak oil site is thinking of dividing the "solutions" discussions into Doomer vs. Corncupian sections.
We have discussed many, many, many possible solutions here at TOD...some as comments and some as articles. The big time solutions (like Alan's) are wonderful thought games, but unless the federal, state governments, or billionaires buy into it, it is not going to happen soon.
The most useful and practical solutions discussed here so far are the ones that affect individuals or local communities and government entities.
Well said Leanan (rueful laugh).
Well, I say, let's not let that divide put an end to the discussion. What's the fun of everyone agreeing anyway?
But seriously...I have to believe that a well-organized and thoughtful discussion of smart people can bubble up the right solutions, or at least become a useful resource. I love Nate's initiative to get that going.
(cue Bad Company) It's all part of my TOD fantasy: a peer reviewed, democratic, authoritative set of reports that would serve as great resources for newbies and the media (and those of us with poor memories). Among the TOD posts, ASPO materials, etc. there is such a wealth of solid information, but it's too hard for those not willing to devote an enormous number of hours to it just to get up to speed on the dimensions of the issues and the opinions thereon. If we could just bring it all together a little tighter...some of the recent retrospective posts y'all have put together have been a great step in that direction, as are the Tech Talk posts and Gail's primer. But I mean more: the debate on Ghawar, the debate on biofuels, Alan's train model, the ELM model, etc. Only very condensed, and linked to depth material.
And it doesn't all have to agree. If there are important disagreements then we can simply explain that x percent of us think thus-and-such is so, and y percent of us say nay, and help distill the arguments into something more useful to others. Anyway that's my TOD fantasy, cut the music.
More to the point, I feel that the solutions going forward, such as they may be, will come from people just like us. I can't put a lot of faith into top-down solutions to this problem. The institutions in control are too lumbering, and too invested in the status quo, too afraid to put so many businesses at risk to move quickly and decisively enough, especially if we're really talking about peak in the now-2012 timeframe. Hirsch et. al. have proved that to my satisfaction.
So...as the old saw goes, we are the ones we've been waiting for! We're the ones who will wind up on all fours scratching a living from the dirt somewhere, or wiring up an off-grid solar project, or figuring out how to make urban agriculture really do the job, or funding rail projects (were not the early ones privately funded?) or whatever our strategies are. We're the ones. Not the Congress, the DoE, the EIA, or the EIEIO. The revolution will not be televised. (Shameless plug to one of my older articles, featured in a Drumbeat: "The Renewables Revolution Will Not Be Televised".) And as the big money comes looking for solutions, we can hopefully help to direct it in the directions that are most likely to succeed. Think of all the money they could have saved on the corn ethanol boondoggle this year, if only some of the great analysis like that of Robert Rapier's and Tad Patzek's could have come to their attention?
Well, I think their "teachable moment" is here. We've got their attention. There is a new wave of newbies coming, looking for education. I think we can serve that need, and maybe improve the quality of our dialogue at the same time.
And if there's anybody out there interested in evaluating The Composting Methods of Jean Pain in the original French, and telling me whether it's worth retranslating into English, please get in touch.
--C
Energy consultant, writer, blogger www.getreallist.com
Chris
Thanks for your comments and efforts here. We have discussed a weekly slot for "TOD Campfire" where practical solutions are discussed and vetted. As you know, all of us (well almost all) have full time jobs and volunteer our time here, which means some projects take awhile to get off the ground.
Part of the problem is that all readers and constituents are probably seeking answers to the problem at different scales. Some want global macro solutions (of which there are few) and others want to focus on local/permaculture solutions. Peak Oil and general resource depletion are massive problems as Im sure you are aware.
My personal view is that these 'practical' ideas are essential, as long as people understand the following analogy: Inagine someone just had an accident and lost a limb - the majority of the 'practical solutions' are how to engineer a new limb, with new technology, bionic or some such. Very little effort is spent on how to live a fulfilling life with one less limb. In other words, the real special sauce is how to change how we live our lives, the demand side of the Peak Oil equation, as opposed to the enormous efforts spent on increasing supply. In the end, we need bandaids and gauze, efforts towards a reasonable prosthesis AND physical therapy...
Leanan,
has a TOD (or for that matter a PO.com) WIKI ever been proposed/discussed? A place for the collection of facts and knowledge to be archived and maintained, rather than debate.
It might not work, but it possibly could, and might be an experiment well worth trying at least.
With something like a Wiki, my cornucopian side could contribute to the fusion page, my doomer side could contribute as I learn how to use any excess PV to pump up to my micro-hydro mini-lake, and my pedant side could contribute to the complete list of historical peak predictions... :-)
Reasonableness rules would prevent the naysayers from bagging each others contributions - hell, each tech-saviour wikipage could even have it's own why-it-won't-work (ie: challenges) chapter. Editing restricted to those who've been TOD members for a few weeks or something.
I'm under the impression that setting up Wiki sites isn't all that difficult with the software thats out there now.
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
Yes and yes. (I think they actually got as far as setting it up at PeakOil.com, but no one did anything with it.)
The problem seems to be no one has time for it. At least, the people we would most hope to contribute to it don't have time for it.
Also, it might be a better idea to edit the Wikipedia peak oil page, rather than doing our own. Someone posted a request yesterday, asking for help cleaning up the peak oil page at Wikipedia. He said they are considering featuring it on their front page.
Leanan:
I know it seems like that, but I think there is much more agreement than is apparent at first.
Number One: Develop a low-energy infrastructure through a combination of efficiency, conservation, relocalization and new technology.
Number Two: Serious debate and analysis of the various options. Filter out the special interest PR people and those who are searching for a silver bullet. Avoid "religious wars" about abstract topics and stick to specifics.
It's funny, once people start talking about personal experiences and empirical evidence, they tend to drop the ideological baggage.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
I don't think there's anything near universal agreement on those proposals. Many think relocalization is stupid Ludditism. Many think pinning our hopes on new technology is risky. Heck, some are even against conservation. ("Use it up as fast as possible, to force people to face the problem.")
Me, I think emphasizing efficiency is dangerous. We need resilience, not efficiency.
I agree with Leanan.
Peak Oil is the only common thread that ties us together as a group here at TOD.
Most agree that Global PO is here or soon to be here. After that, we splinter off in all directions as to possible consequences of PO and possible solutions.
Will there be an apocalyptic collapse, or a managed decline or even sustained growth? Who knows?
Should we pursue market-driven and/or technological solutions or should we downsize? Once again you see opinions in all directions on this.
As for me, I think human survival has always been dependent on tribal support. Loners don't do very well for very long. So I'm totally against the head-for-hills and survive on your own plan. However, some here believe that is the only way to go. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs.
Even among those who believe there will be a technological solution, the groups quickly splinter in all directions: nuclear, solar, wind, biofuels, conservation, hydrogen, cold fusion; you name it.
If you want to start a technological solutions blog, it's all too easy to go ahead and do so on your own. It doesn't have to be a TOD exclusive feature.
Go for it.
We're screwed. Stupidity rules the Earth with an iron fist. Even if you had the answer to permanent peace, prosperity, environmental purity, and all the rest it wouldn't be used.
No. It's called the Law of Evolution.
Our brains are smithed on the anvil of evolution.
You can throw up your hands in frustration and label it all as insolent human "stupidity" or you can study it & learn to work within its constraints.
The free will is yours.
(I kid you of course in that last line.)
___________________
We're not what we think we are.
Now figure this, rough waters ahead ...
Norwegian StatoilHydro boss Helge Lund spells it straight out – saying he believes the business (oil) will NOT be able to increase output more than 1 mbd .. That’s a sober statement from a sober man – kudos.
Increased demand for steel and qualified personnel will limit expansions, as he sees it. Probably below ground factors are part of the picture as well
Norwegian language alert -
http://www.na24.no/energi/article1451882.ece
The difference between the WSJ article "pessimistic" scenario of a peak of 100 mbd in five years and the view many hold that the peak occurred in 2005 at 84 mbd is huge. If the 2005 peak is correct, in five years the production could be 80 mbd, 20 mbd less than the WSJ scenario predicts.
Does anyone know what makes up this 20 mbd discrepancy, in terms of oil field output? Five years seems like a short period to have such a large discrepancy.
In other words, what errors have been made in the analysis that leads to a prediction 100 mbd in 2012?
Basically, the 100Mbpd guys believe every optimistic estimate coming out of every oil company in the world, about unproven reserves, enhanced recovery techniques, peace in Iraq, tar sands oil production, coal gasification, and so on.
The 84Mbpd guys believe none of the oil companies' estimates.
Logically, the truth lies somewhere between the two.
I would suggest that the discrepancy is the allowance for depletion. The optimists add forecast new production to current, neglecting or underestimating depletion. Realists look at the net production over the last couple of years and deduce that crude + condensate depletion is greater than the production increment from new fields over that time. The latter is exactly the situation one would expect just past the peak.
There's a very interesting comment under Khebab's article, by "rkshepherd":
For the past ten years, production from new wells has been less than predicted, with a lower peak, shorter plateau and steeper dropoff. And it's getting worse and worse, with newer wells falling further short of estimates than older ones.
But the "experts" are not adjusting their estimates. Including Skrebowski, who is peak oil aware and has surely read Simmons' comments on this.
I think this is "optimism bias" in action.
As more of this model is revealed, I would be curious to know about percent recovery of the original oil in place. It might be that current, advanced, offshore drilling technology extracts the same percentage of oil as previously, but does so in a shorter duration, thus avoiding the cost of manning the very expensive rig for a longer period.
He is one of the reasons I read every article, every once in a while a nugget is produced. I cannot produce them, but I know what they look like. Fractional Flow, Self Aggrandized Trader as well as the regulars - Stuart, Gail and my hero of dry wit, history and intelligence the MUDLOGGER.
I sent out WSJ article to all of my acquaintances and of course Lynch's statements get fired back to me, but it was still the WSJ. I also marked up two paper copies at two different locations pointing out shills and BS in the margins.
The IEA and others predict what has to be for BAU i.e. 2% a year increase.
Then, they ask is there enough known oil to meet this demand? - yes is their answer.
The trouble is, getting the oil out of the ground quick enough and, most importantly, at a profit is not predictable
in any way by anybody ... let alone people like Yergin, who demonstrates this basic problem again and again and again!
Xeroid.
They've been proved wrong so often that their theory has become debased......
And the Russian Roulette player says,"These idiots keep telling me this game is dangerous but but every time I spin the barrel, nothing happens".
Below is my correspondence with the authors of the WSJ article. I don't know these journalists, but I think that they are like the students I have in class, including both undergraduate students and graduate students in the Master of Public Administration program. Due to their university education, they lack knowledge of the energy crisis. As my wise mentor used to say in my Ph.D. program: "I'm surprised to see that some students learned something in spite of the university system." Teachers and professors have been telling their students not to worry, as solar energy will bail us out when the oil runs out in the distant future. After reading a comprehensive energy study by the National Academy of Science in 1981,
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11771&page=R1
I knew we were in trouble and that solar energy was not going to fix the disaster that was just a few years ahead. Since 1981, I have been trying to educate my faculty colleagues at the University of New Hampshire. I made little progress with them. My students do listen to reason after I get through their lack of knowledge by using with hard data. I used this approach with the WSJ journalists. It looks like they are listening, which is more that I can say for many people I have communicated with over the last few years. The letter and their response follows:
Dr. Wirth:
Thank you for bringing your articles to my attention. I will take a look at them.
Rgds,
Russell
Russell Gold
The Wall Street Journal
Eml: russell.gold@wsj.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Clifford Wirth [mailto:clifford.wirth@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 4:49 AM
To: Gold, Russell; Davis, Ann
Subject: Peak Oil Russell and Ann
Dear Russell and Ann,
Good article on Peak Oil. See mine at:
http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2757/81/
and
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/topstory/newsdetails.php?id=3723
and attached in MS Word so that you can link directly to the sources..
My research is based on U.S. government and scientific documents. It indicates that global Peak Oil is here now and will have devastating impacts on the economy. There are no real alternatives to oil and natural gas (which has peaked in North America).
Thanks, Cliff Wirth
In one future history, poor Russell and Ann actually 'get it' quite quickly, start wanting to write more in the WSJ about PO, and up with their editors rolling their eyes at them the way some of our families do at us.
They get more and more passionate, their boss sees them as more and more PO whacko, and the WSJ never again puts PO on page one, having seen what it to the last lot of journalists when they let that happen.
:-/
There's something really unfortunate about a possibility that to get most MSM to take this seriously, and publish in a way that won't have the PUBLIC rolling their eyes, we need them to either be somewhat ignorant, be the students that Cliff alludes to above, or be so media savvy that they can feign ignorance in their published work, even while getting the reality of the situation (which I suspect is not a talent self-respecting reporters often rate)
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
Or maybe they will give their bosses at the WSJ my report, http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
which was attached to my correspondence, and then the bosses will be crying, like me.
More likely, most unfortunately, the bosses will get as far as ...
Within a few decades, the U.S. will lack car, truck, air, and rail transportation, as well as mechanized farming, adequate food and water supplies, electric power, sanitation, home heating, hospital care, and government services.
... in your summary, and wonder how they ever let such crazy people onto page one in the first place.
The media doesn't want awkward-yet-true facts, it wants dramatic stories that will sell media. 'the world will end soon' doesn't sell papers.
As the guy behind the 'what a way to go' film is finding out, for whatever weird reason, even once people have been informed and are expecting the end of the world, for the most part they just want to go back to their everyday life and reading (or writing) newspapers.
Providing the facts, hard and straight, seems to be of very limited effectiveness for most people.
--
Jaymax (cornucomer-doomopian)
rkshepherd's comment points squarly on the problems we are faced today.
"One might reasonably conclude that advancing technology achieves an objective set by the companies running the projects (in our system mainly private oil companies): get oil out fast, maximise cash and spend as little as possible after the big cash outlay at the front-end."
"Maximize cash flow" is the driver for the greater majority of the oil companies. For them high tech means how the increase the cash flow and not how to save it for the future.
As a industry insider, I am certain that the solution to the problem will NOT come from the oil industry and the government. The declining production that will manifest itself with the coming years WILL force us to react and stop building more highways which I sadly see every time I am in Houston or Dallas.
The first sentence of my report reads: "This paper examines scientific and government studies in order to provide reliable conclusions about Peak Oil and its future impacts." I think the editors would read further to the GAO report and then they would learn much. The editors of the WSJ are not looking for dramatic stories (that's for the New York Post), rather they are looking for facts, like all serious journalists. That is what the reputation of a newspaper is based on. Editors do not like to get it wrong. Even when the facts are contrary to their beliefs, facts are the best way to approach them. That is why my report was written -- to provide facts from credible sources like the U.S. General Accountability Office (the most credible for the WSJ), the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (also very credible for the WSJ), the U.S Department of Energy, the National Academy of Sciences (semi-governmental), and the Canadian National Energy Board (which my report indicates is the Canadian national department of energy), etc. Approaching editors with facts and congenial communications is the best way to go.
Absolutely true.
However, your report reads as being very unbalanced, and as being pure opinion in some areas. For example:
Not for any practical purposes. It's easy enough to calculate the area of coverage that would be required to supply the nation's energy needs (~100x100mi), and it's far smaller than the (high-sun) deserts of the southwest.
So does drilling and shipping oil, but that clearly doesn't stop us from doing it.
Anything like this is utterly useless without a quantitative examination of the effects. Worse than useless, actually - it makes it sounds like you're grasping at straws to find evidence for a pre-existing belief that solar/wind can't work.
No evidence for this assertion is given, so I don't see how you expect anyone to be persuaded by it.
You'd do well to link to some of the studies on wind turbines and birds or bats, but it would be important to put those numbers in context - for example, in context with the (far larger) number of birds killed yearly by pet cats.
As for degrading vegetation, it's not clear that it matters, given the small areas we're talking about. The amount of surface area which would be covered by solar farms and/or the masts of windmills is, literally, a few percent of the area already covered by roadways.
You need to phrase things like this more clearly and carefully - it sounds like you're claiming the steel eats the water, rather than making it run off to a spot on the ground a few metres away.
Again, though, this sounds like nothing but a die-hard anti-solar/wind person grasping at straws. Without a discussion of the quantitative effects, this kind of off-the-wall complaint is going to be dismissed, and going to get you dismissed with it.
Same problem, same need for evidence.
Has this proved to be a problem with the support towers of power lines - which already crisscross the continent - or with the existing tens of thousands of wind turbines? If not - and there has been no report of such - you're just shooting yourself in the foot here by raising bogus problems.
Same problem, same need for evidence, same shooting yourself in the foot.
You may well be right here, but you really, really need to back it up, or you'll be dismissed as a crank.
Thanks for the constructive comments. I will work on that section, and look at all sections carefully. Because massive solar implementations have not yet occurred, it will be hard to document ecological impacts, though I know the hardware, roads required, maintenance, land, aquifers, the Endangered Species Act, the critters, danger of dust storms etc. and know what will happen. Maybe it is better to stick with the Union of Concerned Scientists assessment on solar and leave it at that. And there are increasing obstacles with any massive infrastructure development, especially with projects that have slow pay back on investment, such as solar.
I'm afraid I have to agree with Jaymax. A problem we have, and I believe it's a Big One, is that we seem to be moving from one intellectual paradigm into another, or perhaps we're balancing on a historical knife-edge?
Anyway, to cut a long story short, I think there are lots of signs and indications that science itself, with all it implies, is being replaced or severely challanged by faith once more. The progress we've made since the enlightenment is under threat. Rationality is under threat.
What appears to be happening is this. Rationality and reason are increasingly perceived as a threat by Power, perhaps this was always true, but the great historical awakening of the power of reason, that characterised the post-enlightenment world, has run out of steam.
I'm concerned that it isn't even faith that's returning, I'm worried that what happening is the return of primative superstition, or Magic. I'm almost stepping off the edge of my argument here, but I think there are cultural signs that our society is ready for the return of Magic. The new cultural paradigm is Magic.
It's unfortunately a little more sinister than that.
The "science" of methodical mental manipulation has advanced significantly in the last decade.
The good folk of Madison Avenue and K Street now know how to manipulate the masses better than ever.
What you are seeing is science in action.
We humans are easily manipulated.
There are those in control who profit from such manipulation. This is why all the major TV broadcast stations in the USA have been taken over by corporate conglomerates. They are in control. They control the horizontal. They control the vertical. Welcome to the Outer Limits. Heh heh heh.
The only antidote is periodic readings of TOD.
______________________
There is no Peak Oil. It's just a Looming Limitless Limit that has been debased by undulations of the undulating plateaus.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6111922724894802811&q=genre%3Ad...
Did a google and yahoo news search "peak oil" expecting 24+ hours later the Wall Street article would have been picked up by main street. Basically no not yet. Will it?
Did make it in rigzone http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=53040
It does when I go to Google, click on news, then search "Peak Oil." Even my 2 articles (second is a continuation of the same article) on www.commodityonline.com pop up there.
I just did a regular Google search for peak oil and it popped up -- under News Results for Peak Oil.
Bloggers on the WSJ article...
Wired: More Evidence We've Entered the End of Oil
FuturePundit: Wall Street Journal Takes Peak Oil Seriously
Streetsblog: Wall Street Journal Declares Peak Oil No Longer a “Fringe” Idea
Does anyone really think that it matters whether the maximum production was reached in 2005 or if it somehow surpasses that in 2008, or whether we are talking about liquids or all liquids or including processing gains and other adjustments. Or even whether the Saudi production is restricted by above or below ground issues. Does anyone really think that our state of industrialization (and civilization) in 2100 is going to depend on these minutae? The changes are going to be so significant that a few years difference in current projections is absurdly insignificant. The real issue for Peak Oil people is to engender the discussion of what next? What will we use as an energy source for transportation, factories, lighting, heat, food production, etc etc. And how will we organize our society? And how will shortages or resource be allocated? etc etc! Some major question that need posing, discussion, analysis and perhaps even solutions. Not whether PO was 2005 or will be 2010 or whether KingH's calculations were accurate within a factor of .1 or the decline rate is 4% or 4.5%
Hello all. My first post here. I've been reading about peak oil for about eight years now and I seem to get more knots in my stomach as each year passes. What a disaster this will be. Anyway, Oscar asked a poignant question.
How will the resources be allocated?
It seems to me that when there's not enough oil to go around there are going to be some very heated arguments between countries. Friends will be pitted against friends. Foes will align with foes. Peak oil will be the epitome of 'politics makes strange bedfellows'. I can imagine that the U.S. might argue that each country should receive 97% of the oil it was using previously, if say, there was a 3% shortfall. China and India might argue that it should be based on population. Venezuela and Iran will argue against the U.S. no matter what the U.S. says and some of these arguements may never be peacefully resolved and could turn into a 'my military is bigger than yours' so stop argueing with me, insinuation, or worse. Have you folks hashed this out in previous threads?
Rich B
You've identified the crucial questions. Chris Shaw writes: "In the (alas, too few) years to come, we will see great argument over the proper allocation of dwindling oil reserves. It will be realised that other sources of energy cannot deliver sufficient surpluses to replace the potent portable energy we know as gasoline and diesel. It is not generally understood that poorer quality energy sources can be critically dependent on oil for their extraction, processing and distribution. In other words, oil is the precursor for other sources of energy; gas, coal, nuclear, solar, hydro, because these require oil fuel to create and maintain infrastructure. It also gives them the illusion of being profitable." and he says some other stuff of relevance in his 4 other articles that can also be found here: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3837
My research shows that Shaw is right, there are no significant alternatives to oil: http://www.peakoilassociates.com/POAnalysis.html
And thus the future looks grim. But most people, even some scientists, do not like to hear sad truths. Consequently, my research will be heard by few, even though it is based on scientific and government studies and concludes that "Regardless of the time available for mitigating Peak Oil impacts, alternative sources of energy will replace only a small fraction of the gap between declining production and increasing demand." This diverges from the Hirsch studies, but people don't listen to sad truth coming from unknowns like me.
My thoughts exactly, Oscar! Amazing how much hot air spent on such trivia.
Solutions-
Population- take your pick of many very bad ones. My vote for best bad one is rigid enforcement of 2 or less kids.
Energy- Easy- relatively speaking_ desert sun to solar thermal to high voltage DC transmission to running everything. Simple, we know how to do it right now, and will know better later.
The rest is just fun and games. example - long distance transport by train in vacuum tube- faster by far than airplane, almost no energy req'd., no sonic boom at any speed you want to pay for. Agriculture- biomass powered, natch!
USW
Perhaps it is useful to distinguish between geological peak, and political peak.
Geological peak is something that no one can do anything about. Nations will shrug their shoulders and get down to the business of conserving, finding alternatives, etc.
Political peak is something that nations will delude themselves into thinking they can do something about. Invading countries, exterminating peoples.
I think that a message of political peak oil is a dangerous message to promulgate. For even if political peak is solved in some way, eventually geological peak occurs, and we still have to solve the root cause.
As Promoters of the Peak Oil theory, we should council those around us that the way out of this mess is not in war, or "finding new sources of oil", but in ways that are sustainable over longer periods of time; hundreds or thousands of years.
Otherwise what's the point? Instead of my children or grandchildren suffering, it will be their children or grandchildren.
Mike
There is only one peak, mike! For this or that reason … and the way we spend the oil nowadays – I can even see that recyclable plastics et al are carbureted/combusted into thin air … just before our very eyes ...what a waste
You miss my point. It isn't that there isn't one peak. It is that people will feel they can do something about it.
"There's plenty of oil in the ground. We just can't get to it because of those uncooperative XXX"
The idea of a political peak (even if it ultimately transitions to a geological one) is that political power (read military power) can do something about it.
All the tanks in the world won't change geology.
When guys in bars start talking about forcibly taking oil from Iran/Iraq/Saudi Arabia, then we know they have bought into political peak.
When they start talking about driving less, getting smaller houses, walking to work, getting a hybrid, then they've bought into geological peak.
Mike
Two articles about Peak Oil and Denial
'http://www.whatawaytogomovie.com/2007/11/13/build-an-ark-build-it-now/
http://www.energybulletin.net/37091.html