[Graeme]

The propaganda campaign against peaking fossil fuel production

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he two major threats to the continued viability of the fossil fuel industries (in our current economy) are decreased public demand for their products and a decreased ability to supply them.

The main threat to demand for fossil fuels is public concern over climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions. As revealed by Suzanne Goldenberg in an article in The Guardian, “Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial think-tanks” (14 Feb 2013) over $100 million was channelled to anti-climate science groups between 2002 and 2010 from wealthy conservatives in the USA. This included funds from oil industry actors such as ExxonMobil and Charles and David Koch. As Giles Parkinson wrote after the release of the International Energy Agency’s (IEA’s) World Energy Outlook (WEO) report for 2012 (Reneweconomy, 13 November 2012),

“Basically, the WEO data suggests, there are a trillion reasons for the global coal lobby to resist change. That’s one trillion dollars each and every year – the loss in annual revenue for the coal industry if the world takes serious action to prevent global warming, rather than just continuing on in business-as-usual.”

An imminent decline in the ability to “produce” fossil fuels following peaks in production threatens not only the future income of fossil fuel companies but also their ability to find investment funds for future production. According to the IEA’s 2011 WEO report [16], almost $20 trillion must be invested in oil and gas energy supply infrastructure between 2011 and 2035 to ensure supply. That is approaching $1 trillion per year. Governments also fear the concept of peak oil since a belief in future scarcity might wipe out confidence in economic growth, disrupt stock markets and cause economic contraction before the inevitable contraction that reduced energy production itself would bring.

The main tactic used by the fossil fuel industry to avoid discussion of peaking production is to focus on the size of apparent resources. The idea it promotes is that remaining fossil fuel resources far exceed those that have already been consumed. While this is debatable it is also misleading since peak oil / gas / coal refers to peak rates of production, not the size of remaining resources or apparently economically producible reserves.

A rather tragic example of the propaganda campaign to suppress the idea of peaking oil production is a discussion paper published in June 2012 by Leonardo Maugeri of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs under the moniker of Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. The paper, “Oil: The Next Revolution: The Unprecedented Upsurge of Oil Production Capacity and What It Means for the World” dismissed peak oil concerns and predicted a possible future glut of oil production [17]. Unfortunately (for the author and Harvard University) the paper is riddled with simplistic and serious arithmetic errors and confusions of terms. These are well summarised in an article by the English energy journalist David Strahan, “Oil Glut Forecaster Maugeri Admits Duff Maths” [18]. Nevertheless, the publication online of this paper without peer-review led to widespread and rather triumphant dismissal of peak oil concerns. Most famously, the British environmental columnist George Monbiot responded to Maugeri’s paper with an opinion piece, “We were wrong on peak oil. There's enough to fry us all: A boom in oil production has made a mockery of our predictions. Good news for capitalists – but a disaster for humanity”. Maugeri’s deeply flawed report remains available at the Belfer Center website.

[ROCKMAN]

Graeme - Well, it took a while but we finally have a melding of the minds. LOL. And just to be sure everyone understands the BS described is just the putrid output of the oil patch PR machine directed by management. The other 99% of us know exactly what the score really is.

[Graeme]

I'm surprised that you agree that "management" is responsible for their disinformation campaign. Do you also agree that it will become increasingly difficult to justify the expenditure in developing the remainder of ff deposits given that there is increasing pressure (e.g from investors or disinvestment campaigns or climate regulations) not to do so?

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Graeme', '[')b]The propaganda campaign against peaking fossil fuel production

[Strummer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'C')an't mention that obvious little factoid in the article now can we?

[Quinny]

[Graeme]

The future of oil supply

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ere they crying “Wolf”?

Concerns about “peak oil” have recurred repeatedly since the resource was first developed, but they reached an unprecedented height in 2007 just prior to the global economic recession. Since then public concern has diminished, partly as a result of shale oil production in the United States. Yet, despite these developments and globally rising reserves, oil prices have almost doubled since 2010 and have tripled in a decade. The ‘peak oil’ debate has not gone away - oil remains critically important, adequate substitutes have yet to be found and concerns about depletion persist.

This volume presents the best scientific evidence on why a decline in oil supply may, or may not, be in sight. It considers the production and resources of conventional oil and the potential for developing alternative liquid fuels from tar sands, shales, biomass, coal and gas. It describes how economies might react and adapt to rising oil prices and how the transport sector could be transformed. It provides comprehensive and interdisciplinary perspective on the ‘peak oil’ debate and reflects a range of views. Ultimately, it reminds us that the wolf did eventually appear - and that it would be wise to prepare.

[JV153]

I wouldn't say that large automobile corporations deny that future oil production may be a concern. e.g,

Honda http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDSUpOAKNz0

[ROCKMAN]

“Since then public concern has diminished, partly as a result of shale oil production in the United States.” I must live in a parallel universe. In mine the public is very concerned about the price of oil since it has increased over 300% since before the shale boom started. And although gasoline prices have come down recently they are still about 50% higher than they were before the US oil boom.

I live in the undisputed oil capital of the world and our citizens don’t give a crap about PO…whether it exists or not. In fact the great majority doesn’t know what “PO” stands for. All they care about is how much they have to pay for energy and if it will be there if they can afford it. So no: there has been no diminished concern. If fact, just the opposite: they are a hell of a lot more concerned today than when oil was selling for about $30/bbl less than a decade ago.

“This volume presents the best scientific evidence on why a decline in oil supply may, or may not, be in sight.” Again a rather foolish misdirection IMHO. The global economy isn’t troubled by supply concerns…it’s troubled by the difficult of paying the current high prices for energy. The concern is the affordability of the supply that is readily available. No one on the planet has been unable to buy a single bbl of oil…as long as they had the money.

“…it reminds us that the wolf did eventually appear - and that it would be wise to prepare.” And again in the effort to sound cute it makes them only look more childish IMHO. The wolf isn’t coming in the future. The wolf has already huffed and puffed and blew our door down. And he’s currently devouring that stack of money we had in the corner we thought we would use for our retirement. LOL. The time to prepare for the wolf was several decades ago. But instead we kept build our stick and straw homes fully convinced these construction methods were sustainable.

Perhaps I should change my tag from Rockman to Aesop. LOL. For my next fable, children, I tell you about the never depleting shale reservoir.

[Subjectivist]

Went to see our financial advisor this afternoon. He just returned from a seminar and was convinced that the USA will soon produce so much oil as will Canada and Mexico that North America will be petroleum independent from the rest of the world. Everything is up up and away for the USA for the next to decades. My attempts to dissuade this view were politely listened to but not taken seriously because the economists at his firm are totally convinced fuel is not going to be an issue for the foreseeable future.

It was like being advised by a member of the Saudi America fan club, very disconcerting.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', 'W')ent to see our financial advisor this afternoon. He just returned from a seminar and was convinced that the USA will soon produce so much oil as will Canada and Mexico that North America will be petroleum independent from the rest of the world. Everything is up up and away for the USA for the next to decades. My attempts to dissuade this view were politely listened to but not taken seriously because the economists at his firm are totally convinced fuel is not going to be an issue for the foreseeable future.

It was like being advised by a member of the Saudi America fan club, very disconcerting.

[ROCKMAN]

"PO could make it profitable". And thus the possible explanation for their enthusiasm. If they were preaching to oil company execs and potential oil patch investors their story would sell well. OTOH how would they have responded if you had presented yourself as part of an industry that was heavily dependent upon oil and were currently suffering from the high price of oil? I suspect they would have strong recommendation for you: dump your current business as fast as possible and reinvest on the energy production side of the fence.

Obviously if they are pitching the idea of an overall future robust economy we all now they are full of sh*t. But if they are pitching a robust economy for the energy production industry it’s a different story.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '�')��Since then public concern has diminished, partly as a result of shale oil production in the United States.” I must live in a parallel universe. In mine the public is very concerned about the price of oil since it has increased over 300% since before the shale boom started. And although gasoline prices have come down recently they are still about 50% higher than they were before the US oil boom.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Subjectivist', '
')It was like being advised by a member of the Saudi America fan club, very disconcerting.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'Y')ou didn't think Simmons spent his entire career promoting the fear of scarcity because he was an altruist do you?

There is money to be made, convincing people to be afraid of a thing, and then betting on them reacting appropriately.

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Keith_McClary', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('John_A', 'Y')ou didn't think Simmons spent his entire career promoting the fear of scarcity because he was an altruist do you?

There is money to be made, convincing people to be afraid of a thing, and then betting on them reacting appropriately.

[JV153]

Accenture doesn't have any propaganda against peaking fossil fuel production.

http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollection ... o_2015.pdf

[John_A]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JV153', 'A')ccenture doesn't have any propaganda against peaking fossil fuel production.

http://www.accenture.com/SiteCollection ... o_2015.pdf

[ROCKMAN]

"There is money to be made, convincing people to be afraid of a thing, and then betting on them reacting appropriately." I suppose everyone's experiences are different: in 38 years not once have I felt the need to convince anyone to be afraid of depleting resources in order to make a living. I don't recall one company I've ever worked with that tried either. I've always sold my oil/NG for the price the buyers were willing to pay. And they were only concerned about what the refiners and utilities were willing to pay. Even today with high oil prices and more chatter about resource depletion I couldn't really care less if the public is afraid or not. And to be honest I don't lose much sleep worrying about what price the buyers pay. About 99% of my focus is how much oil/NG my wells find. That controls my profit margin more then prices or public fear. For instance the best rate of return I've every made from exploring for NG came in the mid 80's selling it for less than $1/mcf and when the world had zero fear about a lack of resources.

But maybe I'm just that freakin' unique. LOL.