[The_Virginian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')We do not exist. We are the Secret Intelligence Service...".

[trespam]

I do not think (a) we have a moral right to seize the data of the "greedy Saudis" and (b) that we will gain anything by acquiring that information. The problem is an inability to accept that our society has been structured in a way that is at odds with limited global supplies of cheap energy and an inability to accept that our standard of living will decrease. We live in a nation in which the voters, e.g. in California, vote in an actor who reduces a car tax and then makes up the difference by borrowing money and sending the bill to our children and grandkids. That is what is wrong with America: Greed and inability to pay-as-you-go. Even our $135 billion in Iraq has bought us nothing--yet we send the bill to your children.

What does one do with the seismic data? It will show a certain level of future supplies. The cornucopians will then argue: when that runs out we will have yet more to find through technology that we can't even dream about yet. The pessimists will then say "look, we need to start conserving now." And the greedy, debt-ladden Americans will simply grab their credit card and continue to live the high life.

Rather than using the military solution, which will buy is nothing (or worse, like Iraq), why not real leadership that will work with the world community to start defining a path towards energy conservation rather than consuming a finite resource as quickly as possible.

So I guess my question is: What will we do with the data? How will it change anything?

[nigel]

Virginian - I like the 'Bin Liner is a CIA asset' theory - see my thread in back in June 'ARAB STREET'. It has enough of the conspiracists smell of truth about it to foster credible doubt in the Arab mind. ie, true or false it might be true! It reminds me of a joke about a man, on death, finding a long queue in purgatory who starts a rumour that hell has some good things going for it. This empties the room and places him at the front of the line for heaven. Instead of entering, he turns and heads for hell on the basis that the rumour might just be true.

This is a win win (as Americans are supposed to say!) piece of black propaganda. There again, it has that ring of truth...

It's a pity that this isn't the place to discuss Gorbachev... but I can't resist saying that I never fell for the Gorby doll image. As far as I was concerned the man was always an unreconstructed Marxist-Leninist. He thought he could pull-off the stunt the Chinese are trying - totalitarian state capitalism (the perfect contradiction?) and lost control.

Trespam - I cannot disagree with you more about the usefulness of the URR data. See arguments above. What is wrong with them?

[trespam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nigel', 'T')respam - I cannot disagree with you more about the usefulness of the URR data. See arguments above. What is wrong with them?

[trespam]

Just to clarify my last post: I absolutely think more accurate data is necessary to assist in the technical analysis associated with Peak Oil. And more accurate technical data will help to a degree on the political side, just as the political side finally seems to be facing up to global warming (well, Bush's government, just not Bush). But...I do not think the data is worth seizing through military means. It's not worth it. And we'd not succeed anyway. Iraq has proven that. It would be further proof that American's addiction to cheap energy has lead it to extreme measures. A colonial empire, in debt, grasping at a few last sources of cheap energy before decline sets in.

[nigel]

Trespam - you half-answer your own question. If we knew how much oil there was actually recoverable and discovered NOW, today, in existence on the planet then much more would become clear.

Consider: if there really is an untapped ocean of the stuff under Saudi control or no more than a waterlogged greasy soup then would either situation alter the world's energy investment, exploration and research policies? Would it alter world power balances? Would it effect our approach to the future? We would be awash with new questions, answers, possible solutions and implications. At the moment we are swimming in a sea of ignorance. And, critically, what would happen to the die-off depletionists - would they follow Leherrere into Peak Gas panic or smugly retire to their gilded caves?

To ask what we would do with the data bemuses me. Knowing how much longer oil will last is key to the world's economy and environment - and some say, survival. If we find out suddenly and without warning, in say, 5 years time, that the Saudi's peaked in 2000 and are down to the last SUV full don't you think that would prove a little awkward? Perhaps a little destabilising? It's not merely a technical matter.

I wouldn't worry about what the masses believe in, they'll be able to read the price on the pump just as easily as the Ivy League/ Oxbridge educated rationalist.

[trespam]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nigel', 'T')respam - you half-answer your own question. If we knew how much oil there was actually recoverable and discovered NOW, today, in existence on the planet then much more would become clear.

[Soft_Landing]

As a third party, it seems to me that the difference between your positions (Nigel & Trespam) is causing you to talk past each others arguments, rather than addressing them. I would like to offer this semblance of mediation.

It seems that Nigel is basically saying that the reason the market cannot solve the problems posed by peak oil is because it is receiving information that is terribly bad. If the market had better information, investment could be redirected in a timely manner and avert the worst problems presented by peak oil.

In contrast, it seems that Trespam is arguing that the free market will be unable to solve the problem regardless of the quality of the information. The politics and nature of the modern economy preclude any significant proactive action to defuse the threat posed by peak.

I may be wrong on either or both of these accounts, but I hope these comments can help connect the debate.

[nigel]

Trespam - Oil will run out by 2050 you say? How do you know? Odell and the USGS say it will probably PEAK by 2060 - PEAK is not RUN OUT. No one knows how much has been found let alone how much there is still to be found. That's the point of Aaron's thread. We ought to have at least some idea of how much URR is in hand now.

Also, if you read carefully, you will note that I say there are other variables playing on the figures even if we knew the URR eg: rates of consumption will vary with economic activity, price, new technologies, alternatives etc etc. will all alter the peak date. Furthermore, it is generally agreed that there will not be a peak but a bumpy plateaux.

It is important not to muddle PEAk with NO OIL LEFT. That was Matt Savinar's trap. He was over fond of confounding the two. Peak means half way through - albeit with a steeper decline curve or not depending on whether you believe the somewhat discredited Hubbert or accept the North Sea oil experience as the modern technological actuality.

It seems pretty clear to me that if the world discovered that oil would peak in say 2006, and that this was independently tested, then quite a few things would occur immediately: the oil price would rocket: Oil company shares would rocket: oil exploration would be rampant: the USA would remain in Iraq long term: The Saudis would start to sweat: nuclear would get an instant boost: cash would be thrown at all alternatives: car manufacturers shares would crash: American Joe would freak out: country house prices would fall: food prices would rise: jobs would be lost: investment in most things other than energy projects would decrease: a recession would hit: stocks in general would plummet: air travel would fall etc etc - pandemonium!

So, if we knew NOW that oil would peak at a particular time - ish (given the production and consumption variables) then we might - MIGHT - have at least some chance to manage the change. Most people think (ie. they don't think) oil is forever. Knowing how much is in Saudi hands would focus the mind.

I also think you misrepresent the economic argument. There is no magic in economics which will manufacture oil out of thin air. The reasoning there is that the price will drive investment in exploration and extend recovery as less is wasted and more recovered. In Hubberts day only 30% of a field was recovered. Now they can get 50%. Technology may increase this further. Lost pockets will be worth drilling out etc and reserves will 'increase' in this way. This partially explains why reserves keep being reassessed upwards. Also, currently unprofitable hydrocarbon reserves such as heavy hydrocarbons, shale etc will become a viable proposition as the price rises. There's mountain loads of oil shale in the USA so if the price rises sufficiently then one can easily imagine it will become viable to produce it to make, for example, plastics or fertilizers. Economic reality also affects consumption. At the right price everyone will be forced into smaller cars and use them less. Oil will last longer. If this is magic, so be it. But even this economic effect won't stop oil running out EVENTUALLY.

Politicians don't really want to confront the issue and without the facts are able to escape the realities. Can you imagine Bush saying "Oil will peak in 2006 so taxes will have to rise rapidly now to pay for nuclear power stations and we will reduce car use to a minimum by upping gas to $20 gallon. We will also screw Alsaka and sod the wildlife as well as invade Saudi....."? They will pass the buck into the future whereas we want to know now so we can plan ahead. The problem with democracies is that the politicians have short time horizons based on electoral cycles and this does not necessarily benefit the electorate's long term interests. Indeed, the reverse is often the case.

Are you really telling me that if you knew oil had peaked in 2000 and would, on current trends, run out in 2050 (as you say) that it wouldn't make any difference to your decision making? It would mine.

Ignorance is our enemy and the oil producers' friend. (Buy a few oil shares - it seems a win-win medium term investment to me!).

[nigel]

Soft landing - Spot on. What's your view? Can you see any benefit in knowing the facts?

[trespam]

I think you are completely misrepresenting and misunderstanding my argument or points. I will try to clarify. And just to note: I do not completely reject your points. But I want to make mine clear as well.

1. 2050. I said run out for practical purposes. I understand the concept of peak and I understand that there will always be some oil left in the ground (recovery is NEVER 100%). But look more carefully at the USGS and other reports. I don't think there are many reports that don't indicate that we have a problem by 2050. Look at how many Saudi Arabias we must discover between now and then in order to meet USGS consumption estimates. It's not possible. We will have a major problem by 2050. No two ways about it. We have enough data right now to tell us that.

2. I do not overstate the economic argument, nor misrepresent it. You are in fact making two different arguments: That (a) there is not a peak, but a plateu, because of economics and technology and that (b) oil will eventually run out irrespective of economic issues. I understand the economics of EROI issues associated with oil and alternatives. What I am saying is that even if we had the data that ESTIMATED that oil will "peak" in 2008, the Cornucopians will still make the case that they don't believe in a peak. Until we actually hit peak, I don't believe people are going to do anything. We live in a country that is borrowing from the future to maintain a standard of living. They don't care if there is no tomorrow. Telling them that analysis shows that oil will peak will not make a difference. And the politicians will pander to those beliefs.

3. Yes, my personal decisions might change depending on when the peak occurs. Perhaps. Because I already have a significant amount of money in commodities (PIMCO real return) and energy (Vanguard Energy fund). And I invest for the long term. I see energy as a good place to invest for now into the indefinite future. Whether we geologically peak in 2008 or 2012 or whenever, energy is a good investment because oil consumption is rapidly approaching production and a good deal of investment will be necessary just to make up for the decline in many of the world fields. Therefore energy service companies will be making money and energy production companies will make increase revenues off of increase energy prices with the caveat of increased Exploration and Production costs and recessionary demand destruction. But with energy companies having been burned in the past, they will cautiously expend funds on E&P and therefore I expect an upside on the price through the end of the decade (irrespective of peak).

I would love to have lots of information about many different companies. That would be a great way to invest. But to argue that we should invade every company and/or country of the world to seize proprietary data in order to maximize my invesment income is bogus.

And I still don't believe you've made a case that we would see much change in policy until we truly hit peak. People simply will second guess any analysis and estimates based upon refined exploration data. And continue to live today and let tomorrow take care of itself.

Again, if Saudia Arabia offers up this data through pressure of one sort or another. Great. But it's not worth invading the country. It will melt down and the production will drop significantly irrespective of how much oil they have in the ground.

[Canuck]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nigel', 'S')oft landing - Spot on. What's your view? Can you see any benefit in knowing the facts?

[nigel]

Please don't put me in the war for facts camp. I agreed, above, with Aaron about the commonsense requirement for factual data about the Saudi reserves but take Cannuck's line about how we might find the facts - by pressure and persuasion - not war. Given the Saudis marginal production power and increasing leverage as oil reserves elsewhere are drained, their indirect control over investment in alternatives, conservation and exploration by price manipulation will become intolerable. Personally, I think it already is madness that the world is totally reliant on an energy source which has only the vaguest known lifespan and that we are walking blindly into the hands of a total monopoly controlled by a single family of fanatical Wahhabis. Suely this is a joke?

I think, Trespam, that my position flows from Aaron's comment about running off cliffs. Under the influence of and semi-stupified by materialism we all seem to live solely to own, to consume. (I recall an old sci fi short story where the rich gained their status by not consuming and the poor had to wear out as much stuff as possible to keep the factory wheels turning to such an extent that they had to buy robots to help them wear stuff out!) No thought is given by the public at large to the inevitable shortages of scarce resources and the upheaval which this will bring.

Knowing that oil will plateaux in, say 20xx, will hit prices and this in turn will have an effect on how we use the stuff/ invest/ explore/ alternatives/ nuclear etc. This is the reason I think having the data will make a difference. It will focus our minds. It might help put some spine into the politicians.

Without the data we will simply continue towards the cliffs.

The cornucopians, along with the depletionists, base their arguments on the uncertainties of the data. Take away the uncertainites as much as possible and where are they then?

As to your view that we will runout in 2050 for all practical purposes - who knows? I fear you are too definite about this. But it is important to at least take on board that PEAK NOT 'RUN OUT' is predicted to be 2045 by BP 16/6/2004 'at current production rates'; and by 2060 if one includes heavy hydrocarbons - say Linden and Odell. The USGS/EIA figures are less specific as they allow for changes in economic activity and they vary from 2045-2075 based on an average 2% pa growth. Shove growth up to 3.5% and you pull peak forwards to 2030 or so. These are the optimistic people who either are in oil or are academics with no axe to grind (USGS apart?). This is why, when you say on the one hand you don't confound peak with zero and yet on the other that we will run out for all practical purposes by 2050 I find myself a little confused by your position.

For the sake of completeness I should add that the depletionists have said this: Hubbert's peak in 1982 was 2003/4; Campbell's in 1997 was 2001, in 1999 he said 2008/15, 1n 2002 he said 2003, in july 2003 he said 2010, on 6/6/2004 he said 2016+: Deffeeys in 2001 said pre 2004, in 2002 he said 2010: Laherrere in 2002 said 2010+ but has since moved towards the plateaux theory and is now on about peak gas: Douglas West in March 2004 said 2016; Mackenzie says 2007/19: IEM/Duncan in 7/2004 said 2007/10. But note how the URR changes with the Hubbert camp from 1,57trbl to 1,8trbl to 3trbl - a total impossiblity if Hubbert's original predictive theory meant anything!

The predictive clusters of both camps move forwards into the future. The depletionists seem to keep the end of the world suspiciously a handful of years ahead, just out of reach as we near each date. The optimists have pushed the peak (nb PEAK being half left) from 2037 to 2060 at 2% mean growth. The China/India boom at 3.6% mean world growth might pull this back to 2030 or before.

I hope that makes it clear that we do not have enough data, contrary to what you assert. As things currently stand, we will not know we have hit peak until long afterwards, this is where the die-offs gain sway and the doubts set in.

Perhaps we could start a peak oil investment tips thread? We seem to agree there! Although there is a difference to predicting a company's future from open accounts (agreed, not the Holy Grail) and predicting an empty tank with a dip-stick - peak oil. Oil is finite, ingenuity is not - that's one in the eye for the pessimists!

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nigel', '
')The cornucopians, along with the depletionists, base their arguments on the uncertainties of the data. Take away the uncertainites as much as possible and where are they then?

[backstop]

With regard to the US invading other states to occupy oilfields for long enough to survey them, I'm still unsure of the extent to which Aaron wrote this proposal tongue in cheek. It has some downsides:

a/. Democracy has no greater interest than the maintainance of International Law, which the proposal would shred.

b/. Any invasions would be seen as seizure for control, not for investigation, and would be bitterly resisted both by force and by various other means, probably including a total ME oil embargo and the withdrawal of ME deposits and investments from the the invader's economy.

c/. US military planners have long claimed to be able to fight two wars at once, but in practice holding enclaves in Afghanistan and patrolling portions of Iraq has meant sending out the training units, let alone the reservists, indicating US incapacity to to get near fulfilling the proposal.

However, if we're to assume a new justification for war as being "The Withholding of Information of Value" then I've a better proposal, one that is far cheaper, far more potent, and globally very popular.

The Bush regime has long known of the stark peril facing my nation and many others due to US inaction at home and abroad over the climate issue. It has also had swathes of detailed information on the science of the issue plus correspondence from other nations' leaders.

In the Whitehouse are tapes of the regime's internal conversations over the issue, which they refuse to release, knowing that if their genocidally callous hypocrisy were once exposed, the American people would see to it that the present inaction at home and abroad was ended.

This would of course massively reduce fossil fuel consumption in subsequent years, thus largely offsetting the problems of peak oil.

So, we have a strategic need of that information, and if they won't hand it over we should go and get it.

Needn't be a very large force, say 200 SAS infiltrating overland and perhaps a thousand parachutists, should be ample to hold the Whitehouse and grounds for a few hours, especially with the capture of officials to discourage a general assault by armoured units.

The Whitehouse would probably get shot to bits of course, might even get burned down, but then, what the hell, it wouldn't be the first time, and we NEED that info . . .

Fantasy maybe, but not without rationale.

Backstop

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('backstop', '
')The Bush regime has long known of the stark peril facing my nation and many others due to US inaction at home and abroad over the climate issue. It has also had swathes of detailed information on the science of the issue plus correspondence from other nations' leaders.

In the Whitehouse are tapes of the regime's internal conversations over the issue, which they refuse to release, knowing that if their genocidally callous hypocrisy were once exposed, the American people would see to it that the present inaction at home and abroad was ended.

This would of course massively reduce fossil fuel consumption in subsequent years, thus largely offsetting the problems of peak oil.

So, we have a strategic need of that information, and if they won't hand it over we should go and get it.

Needn't be a very large force, say 200 SAS infiltrating overland and perhaps a thousand parachutists, should be ample to hold the Whitehouse and grounds for a few hours, especially with the capture of officials to discourage a general assault by armoured units.

The Whitehouse would probably get shot to bits of course, might even get burned down, but then, what the hell, it wouldn't be the first time, and we NEED that info . . .
Backstop

[Aaron]

Well this thread certainly has blossomed.

I actually believe military action should be a tactic of last resort.

This is what I was trying to imply with this thread... is this a "last resort" issue?

The major oil producers are not withholding reserves data for some benevolent or moral purpose. They withhold this data for only one reason... profit.

So if we accept that hydrocarbon depletion may have very serious consequences for the entire world, including many broad regional conflicts, (war), that awful future is balanced against what?

Some countries profits in the oil commodities market?

It's my own abhorrence for war which drives this question for me. Sometimes it is necessary to cut off the finger, to save the hand. These are difficult choices to be sure, but in my mind it comes down to this simple idea; either we secure the information the world needs to understand our future, or we accelerate blindly through the darkness never knowing when it's too late... until it is too late.

Imagine you're on a bullet train going 200 MPH down the tracks. The conductor informs everyone, there is a possibility that somewhere along the track a bridge has collapsed, but too maintain his companies profits, they are unable to disclose this information. Company secret...

Is there really anyone who would say, "well ok... that's fine."?

Or would you gather as many passengers as you could, march up to the engine car, and get that information no matter what it took?

Are we really prepared to risk all the terrible consequences of post peak demand destruction, so that some billionaires portfolio goes up a quarter point?

On the point of it making any difference:

Perhaps it's true that knowing would do us no good at all. As pointed out in this thread, there are many factors involved, and knowing might be quite irrelevant.

I put forward that our collective ignorance has ZERO chance of making changes possible. So sure, it might make little difference if we knew... but it might also begin the process of facing our energy demons now, instead of foisting that problem on our children.

We do risk the good will of the world, (what's left of it anyway), by military intervention.

The real question is; What do we risk if we fail to act while it's still possible?

[backstop]

Aaron - try as I may I'm unable to see the logic of the idea of forcible data gathering.

The surest way to generate a total ME oil embargo against the US if for it to invade more countries there. That embargo would have serious support around the world, including in Europe.

By contrast, as you'd be the first to point out, peak oil doesn't pose a crash of supply but rather its decline.

SIS & CIA & the French DII have all been infiltrating producer organizations across the ME since the year dot: since the latter have even less of a security culture than local armed forces, I'd presume that western governments already have all of the information on reserves that is worth having. The question of getting that info to the markets is another matter, but as and when they see fit, no doubt it will be made available.

The following quote casts some light on the prospect of actually acquiring better oil supplies after a brute force seismology adventure.

"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability. "
- George Bush Snr 1998

Thus I can't see a rationale for the proposal. Am I missing something here ?

regards,

Backstop

[Aaron]

BackStop...

I agree, any "coalition of the willing" who joined in brute force seismology would arouse the angry responses you detailed.

However it's one thing to say "America is coming to rescue you, from yourselves. Because inside every foreign devil, is an American trying to get out."

And quite another to say, " America joins the coalition dedicated to determining our collective energy future."

It would help that the invasions would only last as long as the oil reserves survey took as well. Perhaps the first few countries invaded would produce a storm of opposition, but after the coalition left invaded countries several times, maybe the idea would catch on?

The consequences of this policy would be bad of course.

We are left to determine what's worse... Getting a bloody nose now for demanding the data, or finding out that many major producers have overestimated their reserves so much, that by the time this is discovered... it's too late.

Choose

[backstop]

Aaron - Given that oil has been a central strategic resource for more than 50 years, I'd again point out that our intelligence services predictably have all of the information worth having regarding reserves.

I think you're kicking at the wrong door here: our gov.ts are the ones who should be made to disclose their data.

The notion of a coalition of the willing for such an adventure (which would be roundly dismissed as illegal at the UN) implies at least three parties being involved. Presumably that's the US, and who ???

The only circs in which I can see such an adventure is Bush winning the election and mounting it unilaterally to further destabilize ME output in order to advance the date of peak oil. Personally, I think he'd find a more conventional justification for invasion that would be more easily sold to the public.

However, I'm all for an inventory of energy resources as a matter of profound urgency.

For instance, with coppice woodland yielding methanol-petrol-equivalent at around 6 barrels or 1 tonne per acre per year, we need to now just what is each nation's potential yield without diminishing the land area under food crops.

The offshore wave energy potential is another resource on which I've yet to find US government data, though the EU commissioned research in the late '80s indicating that it could supply over 80% of EU15 nations' power supply. Again, the US needs to publish its data on this resource.

My point here is that a focus on oil is directly counter to the necessary
focus on its sustainable replacement.

So with regard to Brute force Seismology, in response to the oft repeated question
"Does this help to resolve Peak Oil",
I'd have to say,
"No, it doesn't."

regards,

Backstop