[trespam]

So is there any reason to analyze and counter the libertarian faith-based arguments such as that which is proposed in the following article (as posted on the peakoil.com web site):

http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/magazi ... orial.html

On the one hand, if we are truly hitting peak (or hitting the final runnup to peak), then perhaps arguing with them is irrelevant. But I still have this thought that, similar to the organization Media Matters that is trying to address inaccuracies in the political domain, we should be immediately countering the arguments made by the optimists.

Is it possible. Or will the optimists simply saying that "everything will work out ok. Still, I'd like to take a stab of taking their arguments apart.

I'm sure there is significant information out there on peak oil site that would counter many of the arguments made in the referenced article. But it might still be useful for those who believe peak oil is a problem to start clearing the air.

What do others think?

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('trespam', 'S')o is there any reason to analyze and counter the libertarian faith-based arguments such as that which is proposed in the following article (as posted on the peakoil.com web site):

http://www.worldoil.com/magazine/magazi ... orial.html

On the one hand, if we are truly hitting peak (or hitting the final runnup to peak), then perhaps arguing with them is irrelevant. But I still have this thought that, similar to the organization Media Matters that is trying to address inaccuracies in the political domain, we should be immediately countering the arguments made by the optimists.

Is it possible. Or will the optimists simply saying that "everything will work out ok. Still, I'd like to take a stab of taking their arguments apart.

I'm sure there is significant information out there on peak oil site that would counter many of the arguments made in the referenced article. But it might still be useful for those who believe peak oil is a problem to start clearing the air.

What do others think?

[mainster]

All the optimist arguments is just plain bullshit. Based on "paper reporting" with no base in reality (think Shell). First massively undereporting and then upgrading reserves year by year as needed then heading into trouble... Also based on massive overreporting of all ME countries in the 80s. SA says they can keep producing +15b barrels for next 50 years, r u kidding!!! Politics and economics and media lies (all part of modern "religion"), to keep the business as usual going for a few more years (or months?) and to allow the "masters" to keep profiteering and turn the populace into debt slaves when the crash comes... Back to slavery and thralls, return to the "dark ages" (in every sense!).
Enjoy the good times while it lasts... Get out of debt!
Freedom for the masses has always been an illusion...

"the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was..."

[Leanan]

The thrust of the article seems to be, "We can't know for sure, so we shouldn't worry about it."

Amazing.

[trespam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Leanan', 'T')he thrust of the article seems to be, "We can't know for sure, so we shouldn't worry about it."

Amazing.

[nero]

They may be saying that but that isn't their meaning. The intent of the article is to bust the peak oil thesis. You are supposed to come away believing that they the peak oil doomers are full of hot air intent on making money by selling books.

[Guest]

I read it to be more "We've been in the soup before..."

[smiley]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')till, I'd like to take a stab of taking their arguments apart.

[Whitecrab]

Yes, it's important we be able to address their complaints seriously. Some of them are ridiculous (i.e. "people wrote oil production would peak at 2000 and prices are SO LOW!! What fools") but some criticisms on the fact that a bell curve is at best a weak guide are true.

I think some of the counters to peak oil are semi-valid, and there's enough room for a vigourous debate within a 20 year window of where the peak is. Which is fine, although obviously the problem is so long we should be working our a#% off even if we have 40 years. I would say there is room for optimism, but not complacency. And the next 10 years look really ugly even if you don't believe in peak oil.

I'm writing a presentation to give on peak oil, so I'm just going to quote myself. Just imagine I'm saying this in the context of a speech.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ow, right now there is a healthy debate on when the peak will be, how much oil there actually is, how good finds in Russia and Africa will really be, etc. etc. That’s all well and good; it’s very important we know if we have 3 years or 30 years. However, even though Hubbert’s work has had successes before, it’s also had a lot of too-early guesses. And some people take issue with the model entirely. Michael Lynch, a technologist from MIT, is one of the most vocal critics and actually seems to have some kind of personal rivalry with Campbell. So, how do the criticisms stack up?

First off, I’m going to ignore the people who go “oh peak advocates just want to make money/sell books/whatever” because oil companies and governments have one helluva incentive to portray an “everything is fine” picture too. And just because someone has a stake in something doesn’t mean you get to ignore their opinion.

Point one: the peak isn’t always a bell curve. A lot of fields don’t follow a nice neat bell curve, or even just have one peak. For example, Russia had two peaks: when the Soviet Union collapsed, oil production dropped, so even though they had a real peak awhile back they’re now working up to a second peak. And sometimes peaks come early or late. So, the argument goes, using bellcurves is silly. Which is valid: firstly, obviously no oil depletion model can take account of things like unforeseen countries collapsing, and sometimes really good or bad oil practices push the peak forward or back. But when you look at the long-term situation, it’s obvious the oil markets are going to be tight or a supply shortfall for the next decade or so, and the longest reasonable peak dates are 30 years away, so if you want to quibble about peaks that’s ok but it’s on a scale of years, not decades. It’s important you don’t let discussions over the actual date distract you from the basic warning: “don’t use the empty tank model!” (Where you say you have X years and then nothing). If peak oil is even basically close to right, we have only a small amount of time to prepare.

There’s also the case where sometimes things are held back due to bans on drilling, but these are usually minor. And sometimes politics have messed ASPO up: like they counted the whole Middle East as one sector, but Iran and Iraq’s oil production had fallen because of economic sanctions and people pulling out investment. So, it’s important to look at individual situations and not do only curve-reading. However, since ASPO puts out monthly newsletters and every month they do a profile of the oil history of each country, I believe they’re working through this or have already.

Some people argue technology can push the peak back indefinitely. We’ve already seen that backdating shows that new technology can’t defeat the discovery trend*. However, high prices spur development, and tapping uneconomic wells. Wouldn’t that buy us more time? To some extent that’s true, but oil experts are saying at best we can get maybe 10% more oil recovery out of fields we put into play now. The uneconomic fields are likely uneconomic because they’re small, and have a minor effect. ASPO’s models assume maximum economic incentive to drill and still feature drilling. And in some cases, like really crappy fields or shale oil, you’d use more oil going in and drilling and processing then you’d get out of going, so some oil is irrelevant no matter how high prices get. So at best, technology can increase our reserves a bit into the future. In fact, a lot of technology just gets out oil faster (making a longer plateau and a steeper peak) or can even ruin fields: if you push too hard with some technologies you kill the field early.

Another is that the dates are constantly pushed back. For example, Hubbert eventually thought the world would peak in 1995 but the past oil shocks and deep water finds made him wrong. And Campbell himself has pushed the date back like 4 times, like 10 years or so. However, he’s now started revising his peak date forward over the past few years, as are many other oil experts. So just because people were wrong in the past, doesn’t mean they’re wrong now. Oh, one more thing to watch out for: if you read an article insulting peak oil they may go “back in the 1800s we thought oil would run out and blah blah…” Well it’s stupid to compare 21st century geology with magents and 4-D visualization and such to the 1800’s. In the same article, I bet you’ll read how much better our technology is, too. While poor Hubbert gets insulted for making 50 year predictions before computers were there to help, the ASPO is predicting peaks in 4 years. It’s a bit easier to manage.

The next point is very valid: to make a good peak date you need good numbers. And I just went over telling you how fuzzy oil numbers are. That’s why you get a decades spread. Now each peak predictor forecasts a bit of undiscovered oil existing, but it varies a lot. ASPO are pessimists and USGS are optimists, that’s why one says we’re half way through our oil and the other says no we’re only a third. But unless you believe OPEC or economists who think growth goes on forever, it’s clear we’re talking 2, 3 decades at the most. When I get to the alternatives section, you’ll realize just how little time that is. In fact, listen very carefully to what I am about to say. Even if oil amounts tripled, turned out to be 3x what ASPO thinks is there, if demand kept growing as it has, we would only push the peak back 25 years. That’s because demand grows exponentially, and so much of the world is coming online demanding it. That’s how serious the situation is. And like I said, the world is already about 90% explored – we’re not doing any tripling here. At best, there is a wiggle room of 10-20 years in the numbers, but not enough to push the peak out of baby boomer’s lifetimes.

The last point, “markets will solve the problem,” I want to address in section 2 when I talk about the economy.

[buster]

I like this bit:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') asked Mr. Gerber if he thought that oil supply would be adequate for the foreseeable future. He answered, "I certainly do."

[Canuck]

From the article:

The truth is, there's a lot more recoverable oil at $50 than there is at $20.

To me this is the nub of the dispute between the economists and the geologists. I don't believe this statement is the truth.

There is exactly the same amount of recoverable oil regardless of price. There is a difference between the amount of recoverable oil and the amount of oil worth recovering. The first reflects geology and the second reflects the economics. The article - and the peak oil optimists - ignore the distinction.

The amount of recoverable oil is the total amount that can be pulled from the ground before the effort requires more energy going in than coming out. The amount of the oil worth recovering depends on the price but it cannot be more than the recoverable oil.

The geologists recognize the distinction implicitly in the bell shaped curve. The downside is the downside partly because we will be digging out oil that isn't worth recovering without high prices. The oil that is worth recovering at low prices is less every year. We dug that out first.

The economists do not recognize that the amount of recoverable oil is finite. We may not know precisely how much there is, but we do know it is finite. I've mentioned this point before, but I think the energy crisis in North America will be triggered by natural gas shortages, not oil. I think NG illustrates the difference between the economists and the geologists.

Change a few words and we get:

The truth is, there's a lot more recoverable natural gas in North America at $7 than there is at $3.

Again this is not true. What is true is that there is a lot more gas worth recovering at $7 than there is at $3. Previously uneconomic pockets of gas are tapped. Drilling and exploration investment zooms at $7.

The result? Natural gas production in the US dropped 3.8% in the second quarter despite more drilling. Why? The only reasonable explanation is that there isn't a lot more recoverable natural gas in North America and price is irrelevant to that fact. Tapping into previously uneconomic pockets doesn't stop the decline.

[Pops]

Great thread!

[Guest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Canuck', 'F')rom the article:

The result? Natural gas production in the US dropped 3.8% in the second quarter despite more drilling. Why? The only reasonable explanation is that there isn't a lot more recoverable natural gas in North America and price is irrelevant to that fact. Tapping into previously uneconomic pockets doesn't stop the decline.

[Leanan]

You know, if we had 100 years before peak, I might believe that we could come up with a substitute for oil that would save us. But even the Pollyannnas are predicting we don't have that long. More daunting is that basic thermodynamics are against us.

Your attitude is like investing for your kid's college education by buying a lottery ticket now and then. Is it possible that you'll pick a winner and come out on top? Yes, but it's not likely, and I sure wouldn't want to depend on it.

[Pops]

You can rest assured that if prices keep rising as they have we will certainly open every area we can.

Whether it does any good is a different question:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5111184/

Snip,
"Tom Brown is one of a half dozen large oil companies that in recent years have exceeded the federal limit on the number of leased acres they can control in any one state. BLM officials acknowledged that they have granted repeated extensions for the companies to comply with the law, instead of exercising their legal right to cancel leases of companies in violation of the law.

Those six companies — Tom Brown, Encana Oil and Gas, Anadarko, BP Amoco, Devon Energy and Marathon Oil — together controlled 3.9 million acres of federal oil and gas leases in March, according to BLM records. Just 1.2 million acres, or 30.8 percent of the total, is actually producing oil and gas."

[Canuck]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Anonymous', '
')The fact that exploration and production in large areas has been banned due to "environmental" concerns isn't a reasonable explanation or does that not fit with your doomsday dreams?