The first graphic shows a peak - as far as can be seen from the scale - at about 2011.  It's more or less the current ASPO graph.  The second graphic based on $75/bbl oil suggests that about 2.5 times as much oil per annum would be available.  Where is this going to come from!?  This would surely take $trillions of investment in tar sands, oil shales, etc., and cause massive environmental damage.  Even then, most projections don't suggest it would get anywhere near this level.  

It looks to me like more wonky cornucopian economics of the "nothing to worry about" type.

I do wonder why 'old Paxo' didn't pick up on it though - he is a bright guy...


And going by his questions in the December debate has a pretty good idea about peak oil.  I expect Paxman to be one of the most important media players in bring peak oil to fore in the UK.

"they seem to have miraculously 'created' about 3 times as much oil between the 1st chart and the 2nd chart."
It's as if the fact that oil will be $75 instead of $20 will allow 100% recovery from existing fields - the "technology will solve it" approach.  Presumably the rest is 100% recovery of all tar sand, oil shale, heavy oil deposits, etc.  The problems of producing useful hydrocarbon fuels from the tar sands have been well explored on the central TOD site - huge investment, huge energy input (gas at present), huge water use, huge pollution problems.  All the indications are that it's not going to be 1/10th as big a contribution as the graphic shows.

Maybe some of these people will only take notice when these outputs simply don't materialise after conventional oil peaks.

She also said that the economy is still trundling on pretty well in spite of rising oil prices.  How long can it continue to do so when the oil price increases at 30+% per year and people are spending a big chunk of their income just driving to/from work, shops, proces of flights and public transport rocket, etc?  There must come a point where things start to break down.

Given that ASPO definitely isn't proposing a peak at 2100 at $75/bbl,
the curve shown of a 2011 peak at $20/bbl is, logically, to be accredited as theirs.

Since when did ASPO propose any such curve as being $20-price-dependent ?

Methinks Campbell (and perhaps TOD UK ?) have some serious complaining to do.

Regards,

Backstop

I dont think the Economics advisor really quite gets it yet. She is applying the 'law' of supply and demand to a system constrained by geological reality here and everywhere else. True, if oil prices go up, then marginal fields become attractive and are developed. So true for tar sands and oil shales. It is possible that traders, dealers etc are pushing up the price a bit, and there is probably a fear premium. It is likely that oil will drop and gain and drop and gain over the coming months years. BUT:

1. Depletion is inexorable. The UKCS is a model example.
   
2. Price increase will not significantly increase available oil in a mature province unless startlingly large new finds are made. This is rare. The last 'big' find in the UKCS was Buzzard. There may be one or two more who knows, but at 8%-12% year on year depletion in the UKCS, such finds will not change the downward  slope.
   
3. Oil price will pass through in inflation and will also leave less money for discretionary spending with knock on effects in sales etc. Ultimately this will hurt the UK Economy.
   
4. People will conserve, oil price may drop back as people cut back so the oil price, supply and demand will 'wobble' when close to peak.
   
5. The UK Treasury is doing well out oil prices and the UK Economy is protected by our own oil production. (Imagine what the situation would be like if we had NO oil and had to import all requirements...) . But this protection will reduce with time as depletion continues

The Economists are not 'getting it' yet. But that is because they have not yet seen anything like this before. But this is just a matter of time. Could be soon could be later. But they will get it.

Just hope the great and good get it sooner rather than later while we have enough money for Nuclear Power, Tidal barriers etc.

The Elephant is still in the room.

hello TOD UK,

BBC Newsnight, Paul Mason, journalist has a link/blog assessing reaction to high petrol prices following the airing of the Tuesday night show's $75 oil discussion.
I Submitted TOD and ENERGYBULLETIN as further reading for interested parties, also listed Simmons, Campbell, Hirsch, Savinar and Kunstler as possible research directions.

This commment apppeared temporarily as no.9 - then disappeared.

Seeing as TOD US want us to spread the news - this is a setback.

The scale on their charts is clearly wrong, I assume they took the same amount of care with the rest of the presentation. The charts are rendered gibberish. I wonder where they got the US Energy Dept figures, (EIA I assume), but I couldn't find any graphs like that. They look a bit like some charts I saw at trendlines.ca, but that site appears to be down.

Paxman's sarcasm doesn't come out in the transcript, he seemed as sceptical of the economist position as we are.

I would be great for someone one day to actually give the correct reason why prices are high, instead of saying "no one knows". By making it seem mysterious and out of our hands they deter any positive action.

PS: Aha, here we go (courtesy of Wikipedia):

Note Freddy has truncated the peaks because the originals are impossible based on URR, IIRC. Newsnight have used the "impossible" versions ;-)

There is an article at

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1724&Item id=2

by Andrew McKillop. Economists will be in denial even after the SHTF.

Below is an extract
Getting back to the narrow question of why oil demand (and world gas demand now growing at around 5%-per-year) are much less than unaffected by rising prices, but are directly increased by higher oil and gas prices, we finally call on facts. We can use theory first, but finally we call on facts, because scientific theory is based on and comes from facts. The other way round is called economics - that is, bending facts to fit broken back theories.

Price elasticity of anything has an underlying notion, hard to quantify, of `satisfaction', and another of `substitution'. Neither of these have much place for the vast majority of oil and gas users. Nobody uses oil and gas `for the fun of it', or at least very few persons. Equally, the famous `hi-tech emerging new energy' substitutes and alternatives simply don't exist. They may exist on the NASDAQ or in people's heads and PCs, and in cute business video presentations, but not in the real economy.

I saw this on the telly and got hopping mad.  It was the ludicrous graph No 2, where we go up to 80 bn barrels per year!  I tried to phone the BBC to complain, but before I got through I decided that I was too angry to make sense and put the phone down.

But it really is annoying that the BBC should put out BS like this, and implicate ASPO in this nonsense too.  Cause for complaint indeed.  Has anyone told Colin or Jake?

Backstop.
The Rimini Protocol is a solution. The beauty of it is: signing up to it means that you are actively taking steps to reduce your oil dependence and to lowering the oil price. Any nation which continues to increase their oil dependence will be more vulnerable to peak oil. The only countries that would be negatively affected in the short term would be the exporters. However, because the exporters own such a vast amount of capital the Rimini Protocol could could cause problems in the global economy.
As far as the reserves.. The oil companies have very little to do with it. The US wants to keep the fantasy of the reported reserves alive as it depresses oil prices. The exporting nations cannot come clean because of OPEC (quota) and internal politics (running out).

I hate to sound nasty and/or arrogant; I'm not sure I 'do' humble that well, sorry! But, Newsnight, irritates me more than it informs me. Paxman is part of the Establishment, and reflects their interests and attitudes. He reminds me of an important church leader in the Middle Ages. He's like a sort of journalist/Bishop. I regard most journalists as being part of something like a priesthood, with a similar role. They are there to support, present, and ligitimise; Power. The structures of power that exist in society.

The BBC has been cowed by Blair's New Labour. Hutton knocked the stuffing out of the BBC. The lost their nerve when they came face to face with the raw power of the State, and they backed off and drew in their horns. Since then the BBC has shyed away from breaking controversial news stories, prefering instead to react to stories broken by others.

The BBC is simply the best propaganda ministry in the world, nobody does it better, or has more experience of doing it. They know precisely how far to go with 'criticism' and when to stop. Especially now, in the more 'competative' media market, they are accutely aware of just how dependent they are on the govenment and its 'largesse.' Since the Iraq war the BBC has been effectively neutered. Do not expect a millionaire like Paxman to lead the charge to inform the public about Peak Oil and it's consequences; you will be sadly disappointed.

This is, of course, somewhat unfair, because Newsnight, is the best they have to offer, but it is just not good enough. This 'Peak Oil' bit, is absurd. Anyone, with even a slight ammount of knowlegde of the subject can see through the whole piece, almost without trying. It is ludicrous and absurd. What are these journalists paid their huge salaries for? This is a rhetorical question. They are paid huge salaries, not to inform, but to disinform, or as I would contend, primarily to control. Information is far to important in our society to be presented without cencorship.

Why are we aware of how bad the Newsnight piece was? Because we know something about the subject ourselves, and we can, therefore, how much is lacking, or left out, or distorted. It's so bad it's absurd and we feel both cheated, insulted and angry. These reactions are correct and justified.

I'd just like to point out that other people, with specialist knowlegde, relating to other subjects presented in the media, react in precisely the same way, when they see their 'field' covered in the media. Newsnight's coverage of Peak Oil isn't an aboration, or an isolated case of lack of research or incompetence. On the contrary, it is a carefully presented and 'framed' model, which is used over and over again, not to inform, but to control.

I hate to sound nasty and/or arrogant; I'm not sure I 'do' humble that well, sorry! But, Newsnight, irritates me more than it informs me. Paxman is part of the Establishment, and reflects their interests and attitudes. He reminds me of an important church leader in the Middle Ages. He's like a sort of journalist/Bishop. I regard most journalists as being part of something like a priesthood, with a similar role. They are there to support, present, and ligitimise; Power. The structures of power that exist in society.

The BBC has been cowed by Blair's New Labour. Hutton knocked the stuffing out of the BBC. The lost their nerve when they came face to face with the raw power of the State, and they backed off and drew in their horns. Since then the BBC has shyed away from breaking controversial news stories, prefering instead to react to stories broken by others.

The BBC is simply the best propaganda ministry in the world, nobody does it better, or has more experience of doing it. They know precisely how far to go with 'criticism' and when to stop. Especially now, in the more 'competative' media market, they are accutely aware of just how dependent they are on the govenment and its 'largesse.' Since the Iraq war the BBC has been effectively neutered. Do not expect a millionaire like Paxman to lead the charge to inform the public about Peak Oil and it's consequences; you will be sadly disappointed.

This is, of course, somewhat unfair, because Newsnight, is the best they have to offer, but it is just not good enough. This 'Peak Oil' bit, is absurd. Anyone, with even a slight ammount of knowlegde of the subject can see through the whole piece, almost without trying. It is ludicrous and absurd. What are these journalists paid their huge salaries for? This is a rhetorical question. They are paid huge salaries, not to inform, but to disinform, or as I would contend, primarily to control. Information is far to important in our society to be presented without cencorship.

Why are we aware of how bad the Newsnight piece was? Because we know something about the subject ourselves, and we can, therefore, how much is lacking, or left out, or distorted. It's so bad it's absurd and we feel both cheated, insulted and angry. These reactions are correct and justified.

I'd just like to point out that other people, with specialist knowlegde, relating to other subjects presented in the media, react in precisely the same way, when they see their 'field' covered in the media. Newsnight's coverage of Peak Oil isn't an aboration, or an isolated case of lack of research or incompetence. On the contrary, it is a carefully presented and 'framed' model, which is used over and over again, not to inform, but to control.

I hate to sound nasty and/or arrogant; I'm not sure I 'do' humble that well, sorry! But, Newsnight, irritates me more than it informs me. Paxman is part of the Establishment, and reflects their interests and attitudes. He reminds me of an important church leader in the Middle Ages. He's like a sort of journalist/Bishop. I regard most journalists as being part of something like a priesthood, with a similar role. They are there to support, present, and ligitimise; Power. The structures of power that exist in society.

The BBC has been cowed by Blair's New Labour. Hutton knocked the stuffing out of the BBC. The lost their nerve when they came face to face with the raw power of the State, and they backed off and drew in their horns. Since then the BBC has shyed away from breaking controversial news stories, prefering instead to react to stories broken by others.

The BBC is simply the best propaganda ministry in the world, nobody does it better, or has more experience of doing it. They know precisely how far to go with 'criticism' and when to stop. Especially now, in the more 'competative' media market, they are accutely aware of just how dependent they are on the govenment and its 'largesse.' Since the Iraq war the BBC has been effectively neutered. Do not expect a millionaire like Paxman to lead the charge to inform the public about Peak Oil and it's consequences; you will be sadly disappointed.

This is, of course, somewhat unfair, because Newsnight, is the best they have to offer, but it is just not good enough. This 'Peak Oil' bit, is absurd. Anyone, with even a slight ammount of knowlegde of the subject can see through the whole piece, almost without trying. It is ludicrous and absurd. What are these journalists paid their huge salaries for? This is a rhetorical question. They are paid huge salaries, not to inform, but to disinform, or as I would contend, primarily to control. Information is far to important in our society to be presented without cencorship.

Why are we aware of how bad the Newsnight piece was? Because we know something about the subject ourselves, and we can, therefore, how much is lacking, or left out, or distorted. It's so bad it's absurd and we feel both cheated, insulted and angry. These reactions are correct and justified.

I'd just like to point out that other people, with specialist knowlegde, relating to other subjects presented in the media, react in precisely the same way, when they see their 'field' covered in the media. Newsnight's coverage of Peak Oil isn't an aboration, or an isolated case of lack of research or incompetence. On the contrary, it is a carefully presented and 'framed' model, which is used over and over again, not to inform, but to control.

I hate to sound nasty and/or arrogant; I'm not sure I 'do' humble that well, sorry! But, Newsnight, irritates me more than it informs me. Paxman is part of the Establishment, and reflects their interests and attitudes. He reminds me of an important church leader in the Middle Ages. He's like a sort of journalist/Bishop. I regard most journalists as being part of something like a priesthood, with a similar role. They are there to support, present, and ligitimise; Power. The structures of power that exist in society.

The BBC has been cowed by Blair's New Labour. Hutton knocked the stuffing out of the BBC. The lost their nerve when they came face to face with the raw power of the State, and they backed off and drew in their horns. Since then the BBC has shyed away from breaking controversial news stories, prefering instead to react to stories broken by others.

The BBC is simply the best propaganda ministry in the world, nobody does it better, or has more experience of doing it. They know precisely how far to go with 'criticism' and when to stop. Especially now, in the more 'competative' media market, they are accutely aware of just how dependent they are on the govenment and its 'largesse.' Since the Iraq war the BBC has been effectively neutered. Do not expect a millionaire like Paxman to lead the charge to inform the public about Peak Oil and it's consequences; you will be sadly disappointed.

This is, of course, somewhat unfair, because Newsnight, is the best they have to offer, but it is just not good enough. This 'Peak Oil' bit, is absurd. Anyone, with even a slight ammount of knowlegde of the subject can see through the whole piece, almost without trying. It is ludicrous and absurd. What are these journalists paid their huge salaries for? This is a rhetorical question. They are paid huge salaries, not to inform, but to disinform, or as I would contend, primarily to control. Information is far to important in our society to be presented without cencorship.

Why are we aware of how bad the Newsnight piece was? Because we know something about the subject ourselves, and we can, therefore, how much is lacking, or left out, or distorted. It's so bad it's absurd and we feel both cheated, insulted and angry. These reactions are correct and justified.

I'd just like to point out that other people, with specialist knowlegde, relating to other subjects presented in the media, react in precisely the same way, when they see their 'field' covered in the media. Newsnight's coverage of Peak Oil isn't an aboration, or an isolated case of lack of research or incompetence. On the contrary, it is a carefully presented and 'framed' model, which is used over and over again, not to inform, but to control.

I think the Beebs Posh Totty Economist googled up her limited understanding just before the program and copied her graphs from This page. Then she changed their meaning from a demonstration of the URR P5, P50, P95 statistical nonsense, which she might have recognised as nonsense - she is after all intelligent posh totty - to her, as an economist, more 'rational' $20 and $75 dollar nonsense.