Peak oil

by Terence Thu Sep 21, 2006 15:25

Folks reading this story might be interested in two relatively good interviews, one audio, one text on this subject. Both interviewees would be towards the less than optimistic end of the scale.

The first reported here actually took place in 2004 and is from the GlobalPublicMedia.com where Julian Darley interviews David Goodstein, physicist and vice-provost at the California Institute of Technology, about his book Out of Gas. He is one of the few physicists to talk and discuss this subject widely. I guess most are still engrossed in their own work. Anyhow, its a good interview because he comes across as deeply worried and being a physicist his concern and investigation of the Peak Oil issue is going to be via the numbers and the technical arguments. And he immediately got the issue and very much understands the tremendous implications.

Anyway you can listen for yourself by going here: http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/736

The second interview is with Dennis Meadows -co-author of the very famous "Limits to Growth" book which was published over 34 years ago. This book caused quite a stir at the time and was very widely discussed. The book was written as a outcome of the famous 'Club of Rome' group and basically what they did was put together numerous computer models of how the world would unfold in terms of population, pollution, energy resources and various other resources and what was in store. The outcome not surprisenly was that we just cannot grow for ever and that there are limits and we should definitely avoid overshooting our limits or capacity. The book presented various outcomes and scenarios and basically warned that we ought to do something and start preparing now (i.e in the early 1970s). Apparently D. Meadows was quite optimistic at the time something would be done. Alas nothing was done.

In this interview with Rob Hopkins, it seems D. Meadows has lost his optimism. The interview took place at the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) international conference earlier this year in Italy.

For the full text of the interview: An Interview with Dennis Meadows - co-author of ‘Limits to Growth’.
See http://www.energybulletin.net/20603.html

by fwih Sun Sep 17, 2006 14:15

iosaf, either you did not bother to read Robbie's comment properly, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what he said. He was not "pushing Ryanair". He sought an interview with them and then changed his mind when they indicated they would not give clear answers. Read it again:

"On Near FM, I've tried to interview Ryanair on this point - the future of the airline industry - but had to refuse given the perameters that were put on the line of questioning."

I have to acknowledge though, iosaf, that you are an expert at planting little gems of misinformation. Keep it up, I will continue to expose you for the fraud you are.

by iosaf Sun Sep 17, 2006 13:54

Yes we've passed peak uranium production, but most of it hasn't been used yet. It's tied up in the Western defence umbrella. It's curious how Blair turned on to nuclear power in the last year. It's not curious that he did as prime minister of the state with the most famous plutonium reprocessing plant (to turn a profit from peak uranium) but "how".
I've traced this to a man by the name of Peter Brabeck. I was paying attention to him for other reasons - his at first surprising support for left regimes in South America. Peter Brabeck is the CEO of Nestle (the famine corporation). You wouldn't expect him to start the "nuclear power" debate rolling just as the US/UK attempt to stop the last state acquiring such technology (Iran). But then you'd be missing his special qualities. Brabeck is a "global leader of capitalism", he's not just a CEO of one of the largest corporations, he's the stunning knight in armour who succeeded the most prominent "capitalist" victim of the Tsunami & managed to absorb another seat on the board at the same time. (as we all remember coz I told ye at the time - 3 swiss "corporate" citizens died in the Stephen's day Tsunami) & their passing left holes at the top of 2 very important corporations. In total 13 vip's were washed away that Christmas in Thailand & their replacement was perhaps more important than the the sucession to the Polish pope or whoever won the Iraqi or Lebanese elections. Mr (honorary doctors too!) Brabeck is the first head of Nestle whose job combines 2 seperate functions on a temporary basis which sort of turned out to be permenant & he got it past the shareholders. A very unusual man who doesn't just look good in a suit.
& the global "leadership class" really like him : he's as meritocratic as Blairism (Clintonism) gets (which tops off the avarice & sneekiness) so they asked him to chair the WEF this year. By which stage he had made up his mind that last year's agenda of ending poverty & feeding the world's poor through innovative & perhaps "open source" rendition of Nestle's technology and global reach ranked second to lobbying for nuclear power.
The global "leadership" don't get talked about much even on the left, we still go for telly & presidents & prime ministers. Occassionally we're forcefed Bono or Gates but the 500 top corporate players are faceless & nameless.

Which is why I hope Robbie continues to push Ryanair. i've been boycotting them for almost 4 years now. For many reasons all of which are good. Push michael o leary he's not a global leader but if he was innovative enough & creative enough & dynamic enough to be seen tackling carbon emissions (perhaps be accepting a travel tax) his round of golf might get more interesting.

by Mike Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:18

"Peak oil" is a good term -much better than talk of "when the oil runs out" (Oil will never "run out" there will still be Oil 1000 years from now its just that hardly anyone will be able to afford to use much of it)

Some people (Like Tony Blair) advocate increaced use of nuclear power as a solution to "peak oil" and climate change without appreciating a number of inconvenient truths

Among them that worldwide production of URANIUM peaked in 1982 and has been in decline ever since.

by RobbieS Sat Sep 16, 2006 05:03

The planet's richest currently use about 80 million barrels a day. By 2015 we're projected to be using 120 million barrels a day. Meantime, we've used up the cheapest, most accessible oilfields, and extra refining is necessary - more cost to everyone apart from the oil companies.

Oil sands in Alberta have now become financially viable, but they'll only contribute 2 million barrels a day at about $50 per barrel.

As noted above, when we pay for everything, we pay for oil. For a long time, we have had replacements - biofuel, windmills, solar power... Those who deny oil is running, must surely know that it's days are numbered. A shift from oil would mean a shift from an unnecesary pollutant with an inflationary toll.

Two caveats:
Aviation fuel makes up 6% of all refined oil, yet no biofuel, even with mixed-in methanol can run an airplane.

On Near FM, I've tried to interview Ryanair on this point - the future of the airline industry - but had to refuse given the perameters that were put on the line of questioning.

Given the futility of the airline industry, what is the Irish State doing privatising Aer Lingus. In another five years, you'll need a lottery to get a heart-transplant flight, but money will get you to the Ryder cup in the US.

We're an island. The tax-payer has pumped in billions over the years through State subvention and extortionate air-fares. Now the whole thing is being sold for less than E500m. This is a swindle and it is patently stupid.

One might ask if there's corruption afoot.

Second Caveat
Global warming may cause prices of oil seed rape etc. to fluctuate.

by Terence Sat Sep 16, 2006 02:04

No Peak Oil ain't a myth, but I don't suppose anyone is going to be convinced by those few words. If you want to learn and understand what this is all about, then you are going to have to do a fair amount of reading, because there's a lot to learn to truly begin to understand this issue and to enable you to see and understand the constant stories put about to discredit the theory.

The basic principles are this. You will need to read up the figures on daily or annual global usage, historical trends, rates of discovery of oil fields -actually peaked back in the 1960s, oil field sizes, production profiles, easy oil, heavy oils, EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested), reserves, probable reserves and so on. And another thing to remember is that the people who know about oil, where it is found, how it is extracted and so on are geologists and engineers. You will find typically that economists, politicians and free-marketeers generally don't know any of this, but what they are good at doing is waving their hands and saying the market will provide and technology will come to the rescue. Energy and technology of course are not the same thing.

So happy reading and a good place to start is at the Energy Bulletin website (see URL below) and another place to go when you have come up to speed is to follow the debates and discussions at the http://www.theoildrum.com Some key names in the debate are Colin Campbell, Matt Simmons, Richard Heinberg and others. Oh yeah, there loads of audio interviews to be found at http://www.globalpublicmedia.com and the predictions range from everything will be alright to the end of industrial civilisation. Material which is extensive on the latter can be found at: http://www.dieoff.org

And lastly there are political dimensions to the consequences of Peak Oil. How could there not be?

by o as if Fri Sep 15, 2006 18:57

In the last week, an announcement which occured with the OPEC conference in Vienna. The idea floats around the current summit of the NAN (non-aligned nations) who are meeting in Havana Cuba.
One group wants to avoid giving shareholders the idea that they are holding prices high - hence the drop at the petrol station . OPEC is not exerting political power. The other group NAN which overlaps wants to maximise the political if not economic power of their asset - crude oil NAN is not ripping you off for its oil which is its political power.

Of the "non alligned nations" group which we all remember was formed in the UN in reaction to the bipolar superpower cold war - many hold the current largest oil or gas reserves : Venezuela, Bolivia, Iran, Nigeria. But the "untapped" reserves referred to by the Saudis are in fact mostly found in Russian territory and deep sea sites. A factor which is not often discussed from a political viewpoint when discussing (as this artlce above does) the myth or proababilty of "peak oil" & its implied "finite limit" of hydrocarbons is :- from whence the most expensive oil be taken.

Let me put it this way. If you're an entrepeneur and put away a French billion (10^ to the power of 12)barrels of oil in either American or British gallon receptacles now - & keep them till oil just about runs out - you'll make a killing when you sell them at their greatest worth/demand. There will be a lot of "unconverted" industry which will rely on black market carbon fuels when the decent fiolks are on solar power. Ireland of course with large untapped (but presently difficult to exploit) oil and gas reserves ought have such a debate now. Personally though i hope the good folks of Bolivia, Chile, Nigeria, Ghana and Vietnam get that debate going first. In the XXI century non-allignment will mean morally and ethically more than Ireland's or any EU state's neutrailty. The longterm co-operation between Iran, Venezuela, Vietnam, Bolivia & 7 other African states is honestly the most exciting development of "now". They are the XXI century.

by Panzraam Fri Sep 15, 2006 18:16

The case for Peak Oil isn't as watertight as is made out:

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/art...shtml