Jump to content
Science Forums

Is peak oil a fraud? from "Does it matter if global warming is a fraud?"


Eclipse Now

Recommended Posts

I guess the owners of this ship aren't worried about peak oil. Airlines are still ordering fossil fueled aircraft: KAL orders five Boeing 747-8 passenger aircraft

 

I'm betting we have more than fifty years of increasing oil production. I hope we reach peak climate change mitigation this winter.

 

It'd be nice if you presented some studies, facts, and figures to back up your opinions.

 

Peak Oil: The Coming Global Crisis and the Decline of Aviation | Airliners.net

 

An article written by Dr. Alex Kuhlman, an economist and airplane pilot, one of the first hits on Google. Peak Oil and its possible effects on the airlines and air travel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is finite so there must be a finite supply of oil. The claim of the peak has been rumored longer than the Y2K fiasco and the 2012 doomsday crap. I'd say most of the predictions have been frauds, since we passed those dates.

 

An important issue is cost. Demand in much of the world is offset by prices. When the price of energy becomes too steep the demand is reduced. Gas costs vary across the globe with some places being expensive and some much cheaper than here in the US. Although a peak will some day be reached the drop off in availability will be price driven. Those with money willing to pay the price will get it and those unwilling to pay the price will not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything is finite so there must be a finite supply of oil. The claim of the peak has been rumored longer than the Y2K fiasco and the 2012 doomsday crap. I'd say most of the predictions have been frauds, since we passed those dates.

 

Pfffffft! Wrong. Many of the regional & statewide predictions of peak oil were correct! Peakers predicted the American 1970 peak. (Correct!) Peakers predicted the North Sea, while big oil kept saying "No, nothing to worry about, enhanced drilling technologies blah blah blah!" Peakers were correct. Correct again for Australia, and many other districts.

 

Sure Y2k resonates within the culture as a 'failed doomsday' meme. But this is too simplistic.

1. I'm not arguing for doomsday, but concern that one of our finite resources is about to slow down in production and cause widespread economic pain. There's a difference between religiously inspired doomerism and genuine scientific concern.

 

2. Y2K was correct! There WAS a concern, but by the time the Y2K clocked around, the geeks in the industry were content. (My dad worked for IBM and assured us years before Y2K that we were pretty well ready). But the hippies and nutters went out and bought tinned food and ammo. So what?

 

The geologists and energy experts predicting peak oil are anything but burnt out anarchists looking for a survivalist party! And they are NOT happy! The Hirsch report (Google it) to the US DOE recommended a large move off oil 20 years ahead of peak oil occurring. If it is this year, we are too late.

 

An important issue is cost. Demand in much of the world is offset by prices. When the price of energy becomes too steep the demand is reduced. Gas costs vary across the globe with some places being expensive and some much cheaper than here in the US. Although a peak will some day be reached the drop off in availability will be price driven. Those with money willing to pay the price will get it and those unwilling to pay the price will not.

 

Again, as Hirsch points out, leaving this up to the marketplace is the PROBLEM, not the solution. When oil prices hit $150 a barrel or $200 a barrel, do you really want to see permanently increasing (for the foreseeable future):-

  • bankrupt airlines
  • bankrupt tourism industries
  • contracting economies
  • massive unemployment that makes the GFC look petty
  • ...all until we finally significantly reduce our oil dependence?

 

Governments are supposed to monitor threats to our way of life and economy. How is just ignoring peak oil fulfilling their duty of care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pfffffft! Wrong. The 1970s peak was wrong. Peakers have not been correct. They come up with reasons why their predictions have to be adjusted. How nice.

 

The problem with peak oil will be seen first in the poorer countries where people will not be able to afford increased transportation costs. Then emerging economies will be hit.

 

Y2k was baloney. Countries such as Italy did little and saw nothing. Lots of bugs turned up in the so-called fixed code. The claims at the time were irrational and wrong. Little needed to be done. I did know someone int he industry I was in the industry and I watched the irrational actions taken and money wasted.

 

I see many similarities between the Y2K malarky and many peak oil predictions in which many experts have predictions about the economy.

 

leaving this up to the marketplace is the PROBLEM, not the solution.

I disagree. Governments are often the problem. Having government point out a problem is one issue, but to have government determine the solution is almost always a choice to do the wrong thing, i.e. pick an even costlier solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the 1970's peak FOR AMERICA was 100% correct. That was all I was claiming, nothing more, nothing less.

 

http://www.hubbertpeak.com/blanchard/

 

 

 

You are factually at fault stating American oil production did not peak in 1970. Please look up some data. America peaked, and is now only producing about a half what you produced back then. This is quite amazing as it is already 40 years since America peaked! Australia peaked in 2000 and is ALREADY producing only a half what we produced in 2000....

 

Anyway, look up some data on American oil and get back to us if you can prove America produces more oil now than it did 40 years ago!

 

America consumes more than she did back then, but maybe you haven't heard of the term imported oil? This is why $600 billion leaks from the American economy each year, just on oil... imagine all that money going into local jobs and being recycled through the domestic green energy market as you build a new fast-rail system across the states, and even some electric car systems from local wind energy.

 

But the government isn't allowed to legislate any of that... it might 'interfere' in the marketplace and cause chaos! Much better to leave America utterly exposed to global peak oil (which as far as I can tell could be tomorrow, next week, or in 5 to 10 years)! Now why don't you tell us why you really want America totally exposed to $300 a barrel oil? :eek_big::rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see we are arguing different position on the 1970s peak. You are talking about a country while I was talking about worldwide production. I'm not splitting it down to a particular place. Peak oilers have been claiming worldwide peak for 40 years and Pffft have been wrong time and time again.

 

So maybe your condescending comments are unnecessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the government isn't allowed to legislate any of that... it might 'interfere' in the marketplace and cause chaos! Much better to leave America utterly exposed to global peak oil (which as far as I can tell could be tomorrow, next week, or in 5 to 10 years)! Now why don't you tell us why you really want America totally exposed to $300 a barrel oil?

 

This comment verges on the silly. Get your head screwed on right and tell us all how the market place adjusts when oil hit $300 a barrel. What are the obvious changes? You can see that can't you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rail systems in the US are wastes on money. They have low ridership and require continuous government supports.
Rail systems use to be the nation's darlings, especially in the 1950's. On both coasts, business and personal travel boomed. Live in Philly and want to take a weekend vacation? Catch the 7:15 to New York or the 9:45 sleeper to Memphis.

 

What killed the romance of the rails was the automobile, cheap gas and a culture shift brought on by massive ad campaigns, such as, "See the USA, In your Chevrolet".

 

What made the railroads so easy to kill off was the railroad companies themselves. Union featherbedding ran rampant. Rail bed quality and maintenance was shoddy--requiring more rail workers, of course. The idea that trains were noisy and shakety was just accepted as something that would never change. Cargo safety was nonexistant. Cargo fares were held artificially high by covert price fixing. After all, the railroads had no competition, right? :lol: And they had government support due to the ancient frontier rail laws that the railroad barons had exacted in the late 1800's.

 

We simply do not know what the rail systems would look like in this country under minimum-regulation free market capitalism. BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER TRIED IT.

 

Europe has tried it. It works great over there. I've been on European trains. The ride is whisper quiet. There is no clickety-clack at all. The cars do not rock and sway. The whole process is efficient and inexpensive. Amsterdam to Cologne for US$50 -- traveled at 70 MPH. Cologne to Paris for US$100 -- traveled at 120 MPH. Minimum security checks. No hassles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other problem with rail in the US is the widely dispersed population.

 

The Champlin Flyer is an example of rail in the US gone bad. It was pushed by Howard "screaming" Dean. It had riders for a week or two and then became a nearly riderless train. It was a dismal failure and the next fiscally sound governor dropped the waste. The train became a scenic train and allows tourists to view the industrial mess south of Burlington, VT. How clever.

 

I have used rail in Denmark. It's not cheap, but everything there is expensive. I loved rail in India and Zimbabwe. I've used trains in many countries outside of the US. I've even used trains in the US.

 

Rails would be a must with only electric cars around. The long day I take to travel to visit relatives would take a month with the older 40 mile electric cars and 8 days at best with more modern 120 mile cars.

 

As long as this thread is about peaks let's not forget other peaks.

1953 - peak of US steel production

2012? - peak lithium production

 

Lead production is leveling off. When will peak lead happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see we are arguing different position on the 1970s peak.

Yes, because you couldn't be bothered reading what I actually wrote, and went off half-cocked and attacked something I didn't actually write.

 

You are talking about a country while I was talking about worldwide production.

Yes, funny that, considering that I actually wrote about individual nations and oil producing regions...here is what I actually wrote one more time.

 

Pfffffft! Wrong. Many of the regional & statewide predictions of peak oil were correct! Peakers predicted the American 1970 peak. (Correct!) Peakers predicted the North Sea, while big oil kept saying "No, nothing to worry about, enhanced drilling technologies blah blah blah!" Peakers were correct. Correct again for Australia, and many other districts.

If you're going to adopt a patronising attitude, please make sure you attack something a person actually wrote. :lol: You initiated this by asserting that there were multiple claims of world peak oil for the 70's, and I'm just pointing out that this is possibly a misunderstanding by the American public of what the geologists were actually saying at the time... America was going to start running out of oil. The public often carry myths around with them that "oh they said such and such back then..." like the ongoing myth that all climatologists predicted an ice-age back in the 70's! (What rubbish!) "Limits to growth" modelled various consumption and production trends, and while some were more severe based on some economic growth assumptions, we seem to be right on track for their medium predictions. With the Club of Rome and Limits to Growth coming out at the same time as Hubbert's work, people probably dumbed down the math and just thought, "They're saying the world is running out of oil!" ("Oh the humanity!") And then it didn't happen the way the public assumed it would (which was not the way the authors modelled it might) and now you're echoing that sentiment here, without any verifiable source material, I might add.

 

As for your accusations of failed peak predictions, I'm not talking about the lone nutters over the last century, as there have been some interesting and silly predictions without a lot of evidence. But there is now a growing consensus amongst conservative, respected geologists.

 

EG: Chris Skrebowski is the editor of the UK petroleum review, and was initially an 'early peak sceptic'. He started to debate Colin Campbell and tried to debunk an imminent peak... and was horrified to realise that Colin was arguing from the world's best oil data records and had a solid case. Chris is now a very concerned, very informed peak oil advocate!

 

The Australian Federal Senate held an enquiry into peak oil in 2006, and published their results in 2007. This is a summary of some of their arguments and the science they read.

 

There is more at this link.

 

2.9 ‘Peak oil’ proponents commonly predict a peak of conventional oil production somewhere between now and 2030. Their concerns are based on the following observations or propositions:

 

* World discovery of oil peaked in the 1960s.[10] Production may be expected to mirror discovery after a time lag (as happened in the USA, where production in the lower 48 states peaked in 1970). Production in many major oil-producing countries is in decline.[11] The world is presently using more oil than it discovers.[12]

* Official estimates of world reserves, future reserve growth and future discoveries are over-optimistic, as follows:

* Reported reserves in the Middle East are untrustworthy. State owned oil companies do not release field by field figures to allow independent auditing. In many countries reported reserves were increased enormously for political reasons, absent any significant discoveries, during the ‘quota wars’ of the 1980s. In some countries reported reserves have been unchanged for years, suggesting that new discoveries and reserve growth exactly match production, which is implausible.[13]

* The US Geological Survey’s 2000 report is ‘thoroughly flawed.’ Its estimate of future reserve growth (which it predicts will be almost as important as future discoveries) is unsound. The estimate was made by extrapolating US experience to the rest of the world. This is unsound because of the different conditions and because US reserve reporting is driven by US prudential standards which are not necessarily replicated elsewhere. As well, ‘it failed to understand that reserve growth is mainly confined to large fields with several phases of development, and will not be matched in the smaller fields of the future.’[14]

* The USGS 2000 estimate of potential new discoveries, to be realised, would require a drastic turnaround of the historic decline in the rate of discovery. Discoveries in the study period to date have been far short of the suggested rate. ‘This is doubly damning because the larger fields are found first.’[15]

 

They stated that while there is some uncertainty around the actual date, oil production is about to ‘peak’ and then move permanently into decline.

“Australia should be planning for it now”

Parliament of Australia:Senate:Committees:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee:Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels - Interim report - Chapter Two - Future oil demand and supply

 

They also said:

“There is no universal panacea, no one perfect solution”.

Parliament of Australia:Senate:Committees:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee:Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels - Interim report - Chapter Four - Supply side responses

 

Oh, and this bit addresses why governments should get involved...

The Committee notes that there are credible concerns that markets will not respond in time to provide a smooth transition to a post peak oil world without government action. Given the uncertainty about much of the information on world oil supplies and the geopolitical instability of the oil bearing regions, there may be a risk that markets will underinvest in oil and energy technologies, resulting in economic and social hardship as supply falls below demand.“

Parliament of Australia:Senate:Committees:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee:Australia's future oil supply and alternative transport fuels - Interim report - Chapter Three - Economic and social impact of high fuel prices

 

 

Addressing concerns that rail won't work in America.

Stereologist correctly points out that rail works best in certain built environments and that not many Americans use much rail... because the car is king, and the most useful way to get around is by car when you live in a suburb.

 

However, he fails to understand some basic town planning relationships and principles. "If you build it, they will come". If you build good reliable rail or tram services, New Urbanism springs up around the stations. This then gives the local suburbs something to plug in to if they get stranded in the post-oil world, and if no new miracle technology can scale up fast enough.

 

I happen to be an optimist. I think there are both alternative city plans that can begin to be overlaid on top of the current suburban mess and have incremental, compounding economic benefits to those towns that get started earliest. For more, my favourite summary article on this phenomenon, analysing living in Manhattan and how New Urbanism doesn't even have to be as densely populated as that to achieve largely oil free living, is by Worldchanging.

 

This is simply a great read, and is well worth 15 minutes to read slowly, with a coffee, and bookmark for later reading.

Worldchanging: Bright Green: My Other Car is a Bright Green City

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other problem with rail in the US is the widely dispersed population....

Granted. Trains would not be all that popular in thinly populated areas of our country. But much of our country has sufficient densities to support train travel. For example, look at an AT&T cell phone coverage map.

Rails would be a must with only electric cars around. ...

This IS a thread about "peak oil", which implies that in the foreseeable future, our autos will not be running on petro. And for that matter, there won't be a lot of petro fueled airliners flying overhead either. It will be the trains or nothing in many parts of the country.

As long as this thread is about peaks let's not forget other peaks.

1953 - peak of US steel production

2012? - peak lithium production...

Feel free to start threads on other subjects. This thread is about peak oil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rails would be a must with only electric cars around. The long day I take to travel to visit relatives would take a month with the older 40 mile electric cars and 8 days at best with more modern 120 mile cars.

 

Let me state up front that for many, many reasons I think society is better of heading towards New Urbanism... both for sociological, psychological, resource efficiency and energy efficiency reasons. We could be happier, healthier, live in cleaner cities and maybe even work less hours and yet still have the same, if not better levels of comfort.

 

However, the problems Stereologist lists with electric cars have been solved.

 

Better Place | The global provider of electric vehicle services have developed a new international EV car standard and are inviting all car companies to join up or be left behind. Renault-Nissan have joined up, and will be producing the first cheap mass produced electric car ever.

 

The 2 main problems with EV's are:

1. No one wants to buy an expensive new battery every few years as the car battery runs down. (Although battery life technology increases all the time).

2. No one wants to have to stop and charge for 8 hours on the occasions they need to drive more than 160km.

 

This is solved with the "Better Place" battery swap system! (The irony here is I actually think a "Better Place" is a car-free, or extremely "car-disciplined" town plan like New Urbanism is a much better place to live.)

 

They sell you the car, but they own the battery. Then for most suburban driving you'll just charge whenever the car is still. (Which works out on average about 22 to 23 hours a day!) You'll charge at home, at work, at the shops. (Better Place installs EV charge points everywhere when they "do" a city).

 

This is Shai's TED talk.

Shai Agassi's bold plan for electric cars | Video on TED.com

 

Better Place is coming to taxis in Tokyo, a trial in Canberra, San Francisco, massive deployment in Israel (which will probably be the first country off oil for domestic car use), Hawaii, Denmark, and other places.

 

Shai's Australian talk basically said that on a per km basis, electricity will charge your car at about $0.80 cents a litre oil equivalent distance. Fuel in Australia costs around $1.20 to $1.30 a litre. Imagine how fast people are going to want these cars when they realise how convenient and cheap they are now, let alone when peak oil hits.

 

However.... you raised peak lithium? There are a whole bunch of other peaks coming, which is why I prefer the lower embodied energy solutions of New Urbanism and walkable cities.

 

Even the Australian Senate found for "more walkable" cities... and yet realised this could be difficult.

 

“Increasing walking, cycling and public transport use in cities is a worthwhile goal for a number of reasons, regardless of predictions about the oil future. If there is a long term rise in the price of oil, it will be all the more necessary.

 

However we should not underestimate the difficulties involved. Vast areas of post World War 2 suburbia have been designed on the assumption that most travel would be by car, and with the aim of making this easier. The effect has been to make travel in any other way more difficult, as activity centres disperse to sites distant from the public transport network, and the environment for pedestrians and cyclists is degraded by traffic. In these areas existing public transport routes do not serve many travel needs, and existing services mostly function as welfare for people without cars, with a very low proportion of total trips (less than 5%).“

Chapter 5:21-22

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stereologist, my tone was due to your paragraph in post 36:

 

The claim of the peak has been rumored longer than the Y2K fiasco and the 2012 doomsday crap. I'd say most of the predictions have been frauds, since we passed those dates.

 

I'm just wondering what you make of the Australian Senate enquiry? Is global peak oil really doomsday crap and frauds if a national government enquiry is taking it seriously? In comparison, do you want to point to where a national government has held an enquiry into 2012 Mayan Prophecies and taken that seriously? :eek2:

 

Hi everyone else...

I'm just wondering if my following paragraph from post #37 is really that unclear? Tell me honestly, did you all understand what I was getting at? Sometimes I reply a little too quickly.

 

Pfffffft! Wrong. Many of the regional & statewide predictions of peak oil were correct! Peakers predicted the American 1970 peak. (Correct!) Peakers predicted the North Sea, while big oil kept saying "No, nothing to worry about, enhanced drilling technologies blah blah blah!" Peakers were correct. Correct again for Australia, and many other districts.

I'll apologise for my tone in this paragraph if others think my writing was unclear, but basically, I'd love it if Stereologist could address whether or not his initial paragraph in post #36 was called for.

 

As the kids say in the schoolyard, "He started it!" :lol: But really, was my post #37 that bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi everyone else...

I'm just wondering if my following paragraph from post #37 is really that unclear? Tell me honestly, did you all understand what I was getting at? Sometimes I reply a little too quickly.

 

I thought your statements were perfectly clear.

 

On the other hand, this response.....

 

I try to read between your caustic blatherings. You were unclear so suck it up.

 

.....is an egoistic defensive response that suggests he didn't get past the "pfffffft." It is a total refusal to give any acknowledgment or acceptance to the claim you were making and the effort and energy you put into explaining it in more detail and supporting it with references in your subsequent posts. And it also is an attempt to justify his own condescending tone by implying that the real problem here is that you are thin skinned.

 

Primarily, I see it as a way to avoid your challenging arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...